I understand that the SC scores take into account game situations and pressure, etc. while the DT scores are stats based. My question for the tooserious.net members is this: If a player's SC average is higher than their DT average, is this an indication that the player is better under pressure than one whose DT average is higher than their SC average? E.g. Ablett's SC is 121 and DT is 109, while Sam Mitchell's SC is 111 and DT 113. Am I to take this as an indication that ablett is better in pressure-cooker situations, and tends to play the ball riskier with a higher effective rating?
Hi LSL, any action recently? Realistically with the scoring system most players should have a higher SC average than DT. Both are stat based but as far as I know DT does not factor in efficiency either, so it could mean a variety of things unfortunately. In Ablett v Mitchell I would suggest Ablett makes a huge difference to the GCS team and therefore unless he has shocking efficiency should consistently score better in SC, whereas Mitchell gets a lot of his possesions either out the back of packs or chipping around in defence making each possesion slightly less valuable and meaning he will score highly in DT. Unfortunately I do not know the specifics for tscoring but hope this helps. @ Hornsy, care to shed some expert light on the subject?
In short, not necessarily. As opposed to DT, which is a flat numbers game, SC only rewards effective disposal, with a weighting towards possessions won in a contest, territory gained with the possession, where you are on the field and at what state the game was in when it happened. Regarding your example, I honestly think that Gaz scores higher in SC, and has a better SC/DT ratio, because he wins more contested ball and kicks more goals than Mitchell. I also think he tends to kick longer (>40m) than Mitchell and is a more effective kick (but I don't want to get into a Mitchell kicking shitfight). You also have to remember that Gaz is still arguably the best player, playing in arguably the worst team. He's going to stand out amongst the dross.
*Keep in mind though, I've never played DT, so have little idea what stats are measured and what they're worth. Do they just measure disposals, or possessions as well?
Thanks fellas, its a bit clearer now - i was just thinking of whether to factor in the size of the SC-DT average differences as a trading tool for SC, lol. Right now, it looks to me that if both players have an SC of 120 but one has a DT of 115, and the other 105, I'd go with the higher DT as is likely to have more chances with the ball. The smaller the difference, the better. You reckon? Ta for the answers!
Spot on mate, it's always subjective but the higher the DT the more chance they have of a big SC score depending on effieciency etc
The easiest way I've found to describe the difference is that DT is a stats only game as stated above, and SC is based on the impact someone has on a game, and are "ranked" accordingly based on giving the skills that influence the game a relative value... To use the effective disposal idea from above, obviously the more effective you are the greater your impact will be. In close games, the stereotypical game winning goal gets boosted as that act has a huge impact on the outcome of a game. The 3300 rule is just a way of normalising that out across every game so that a wet, shitty game can be measured cleanly against the dry, high scoring games. Just to finish off, its a fantastic way to score the game because what it does is it shows us that the A. Swallow, Ablett and Judd games are the greatest individually influential games of the year. And you can do that based on the above. Also if someone scores a 0, it tells us they had absolutely no impact on the game at all (ie. Boomer and Pendlebury's injuries, within the last few years). I think it's also why the Herald Sun always calls them "Ranking Points" or "the highest RANKED player" for the game etc. Hope that's not too boring!