gday ppls been reading through a few ppls comments on players scores in particular goddards recently and this weekend selwood in a 50k competition are the guys at champion data or who ever scores the games held accountable ? is there anywhere where we can find just exactly how selwood scored x amount , how goddard scored x amount during a game ? or is it all held in secret ? players like goddard n krak are in 99% of teams ... do they get an extra 10 % loading for all the weight on their shoulders ?
Short answer to all your questions, no. To my knowledge, most of the guys at CD don't know what the exact mathematical formula that weights the individual scoring categories eg. CP, Long kick to advantage, CM. Partly because it's a trade secret, partly because it's quite a complex equation. The accountability question is a moot one IMO, as the weighting system is not subjective, it's based on an objective calculation. One could argue that CD callers could, in The Wire parlance, be "duking the stats", but they are ineligible from winning any prizes. They are also subjected to weekly internal reviews, not to mention scrutiny and general bitching from clubs and the media. Goddard tends to generally score high because he kicks long and accurately, wins contested possessions, has great DE% etc. In short, he gives himself every chance to score well, even if he plays "poorly", because what he does do is what the SC scoring system values. Selwood is a similar case, although the categories he scores in are slightly different (More CP, FF). Krak generally has a high DE% (had some clangers this week), and scored well last week because he was pivotal in the 2nd qtr when Collingwood established their lead on Carlton that was never reigned in. Hope this answers your questions.
Vander I would not suggest that the scores are fluffed as such, however I would suggest that you get Selwood in your team ASAP. On Goddard, I call a spade a spade, Goddard 2011 is a LONG way away from the Goddard of 2010, as are the saints, and their results. These players game styles may reward their SC owners, I just wonder if their clangers impact as much. I posted a comment on Selwood earlier, initial final score of 85 was then increased by almost 12% to 94 or whatever, that's a huge adjustment and way outside the standard 0 - 4 point change in final allocated scores. TBH, I thought Selwood on balance was pretty ordinary, shocking second quarter in particular kicking out of bounds twice and a clanger handball to the opposition. BTW, a game can be won or loss at any time, is a particular tackle more important than others, only in context and timing may it appear to be, is a particular goal or point more important than others, again, the answer is no, somebody kicks a goal in the last minute to win again by 4 points, is this more important than the goal kicked say in the 2nd quarter at the 10 minute mark, no. Good theatre though. Things that make you go mmmmmm.
If anyone can explain how Goddard was on 133 SC ranking points at half time in the GF Replay I'd love to hear it, watched the game so many times and has me confused big time
In short make sure you pick the popular players that CD themselves will have and your sure to score well. Maybe a conspiracy theory but when you look at the Goddards, Abletts, Swans, Krakouer, Selwoods and they ALWAYS seem to score ridiculously well even when they have a complete shocker and not in the top 10-15 on the field then questions have to be asked IMO.
Even Walesy mentioned it last week in his Rd3 review, when he mentioned Swans 12(?) possessions in the last qtr and scored low because they were "junk time" possessions yet Dawes got most of his points in that same "junk time". Doesn't make sense. I like the 3300 rule to make it fairer across the round with different playing conditions etc, but all these other adjustments seem a bit over the top sometimes.
Certain players definitely do things that tend to rate higher in CD's formula than others- That said though, the formula is the formula- CD staff enter in exactly what happens as the game unfolds, and the formula works out what score that means for the player.
I Have long believed a low supercoach score doesn't necessarily mean a bad game. I watched Sydney V Geelong the other night and Goodes didn't do much but he still ended up with 100 yet he had a crap game
Yes he did, very good 3rd quarter in terms of clearances an contested ball, Selwood was not within a bulls roar of him.
I can't help but think something is subjective. Let's say two players - Judd and Simpson - are going for the same ball and the same stat (if that's how it works), Judd's more likely to get credit. Just like the Brownlow.
Judd is a special case though, he has the ability to score Brownlow votes in games that he isn't even playing in.
lol brownlow night 2011 round 8 geelong vs collingwood chapman 1 vote d swan 2 votes j bartel 3 votes hawthorn vs stkilds rewalt 1 vote mitchel 2 votes franklin 3 votes carlton vs bye judd 3 votes back to the supercoach scoring did anyone watch freo vs geel ? fyfe from freo 21 possies 11 kicks 3 marks 49sc points vs bris 29 possies 13 kicks 4 marks 1 goal 117 sc points so if a player was on the ground and had 2 kicks 6 handballs 1 tackle 1 mark 1 goal could you see them scoring 68 points ? cause thats the difference im not sure on how all the bonuses work ,scoring link , effective kick , clanger kick , surname of judd and ps @ banz got selwood second player put in my team ;-) just dont want any more knockouts lol
<blockquote>Quote from VanderHaar on April 19, 2011, 16:24 back to the supercoach scoring did anyone watch freo vs geel ? fyfe from freo 21 possies 11 kicks 3 marks 49sc points vs bris 29 possies 13 kicks 4 marks 1 goal 117 sc points so if a player was on the ground and had 2 kicks 6 handballs 1 tackle 1 mark 1 goal could you see them scoring 68 points ? cause thats the difference </blockquote> 7 Effective Disposals, 9 Contested Possessions, 1 Tackle, 1 Uncontested Mark, 1 Goal, 2 less Clangers and his team won. And that's just what I pulled off the HS website, and their stats page is pretty limited. That doesn't take into account where on the field, or when during the game, he won his possessions. Whether he won the ball from a neutral situation or directly from the opposition. Whether his tackles resulted in his team winning possession back or forcing a stoppage. Whether his kicks were long or short or backwards. How many Score Assists? Shepards? Bounces? Spoils? ETC.? I, and I imagine many others, prefer SC over say DT because of its complexity. There is something worth researching and analysing; that challenge is reward in itself. You can't pick junktimer's and Carrazzo's because SC records and assigns value to the actions that win a game of football. And it I think it's quite an accurate measure of this, at the very least more accurate than any other objective scoring system around. Apologies for the long winded and at times, perhaps condescending post. I just don't see the point in whinging about the scoring system, when instead you could be using it as an opportunity to better understand how the game works and thus become a better player. In short, buy a Prospectus.
Don't worry, I'm not knocking Judd. Quite the opposite in fact. I love seeing him play; it's mesmerising. I reckon some players, like him and Hird, have an aura about them, so people are naturally biased towards them. Which means if you're judging players' influence on a game, they'll score better than others. If it was up to me (for Supercoach), I'd prefer complete objectivity. I'd really just love to know how it works!
I couldn't care less what you think of Judd. He plays good footy for my team and can use the word "cognisant" in a sentence. That's more than enough for me. The point I was trying to make is that the scoring system for SuperCoach is objective. It was/is formulated by using an obscene amount of statistical data to try to figure out what factors contribute to winning a game of football. These factors are then assigned weights and BAM! you have a way to score and rank individual player actions. As a crude example, contested possessions are worth a relatively high amount in SC. Why? Because in almost every game of football if you win more contested possessions than your opponent, you win the game. It's not a case of this is who some guys at CD think the played best on the day. It's as walesy said more eloquently earlier, its guys at CD entering in an enormous amount of statistical data into a model of best fit to determine which players impacted the outcome of the match and by how much. As I suggested earlier. Buy a Prospectus and get some learn into ya.
<blockquote>Quote from walesy on April 18, 2011, 14:11 Certain players definitely do things that tend to rate higher in CD's formula than others- That said though, the formula is the formula- CD staff enter in exactly what happens as the game unfolds, and the formula works out what score that means for the player.</blockquote> True that. However it could well be a multi-regression equation with some dummy variables included, ie SELWOOD, GODDARD, ABLETT If Ablett plays, ABLETT(1) where ABLETT=~30 Would explain a bit hehe.
@ hornsy i love supercoach otherwise i wouldnt be here , i just said it was puzzling at times thats why i asked had anyone watched both those freo games concerning fyfe rather than looking at basic stats this is for 50 grand and the scoring system is hidden away , its not open for review after every game . it would be nice to see after a game Judd + 5 tackle and hand ball judd + 15 running to bench caused a goal link oh and i have a gold prospectus , keeps finding too many tin cans tho .