Watched the Pies v Hawks game yesterday and enjoyed seeing a game of AFL without any real tags of the quality players. However I am a little bemused by the fact that Heath Shaw scored 100+ in supercoach. Lewis kicked 5 goals on him and then he switched to breust who kicked a few more. Dont think Heater gets too many contested ball, is Ray Shaw working for champion data now?
champion data just make shower up! have a look at zorkos score............71 dream team and 115 supercoach wtf???? by no means did zork had a that good of a game! sc is just a lottery! whoever has a half decent side and gets the rub of the green with sc spastic scoring will get a good ranking.
Theres no way Shaw shouldve gotten a ton. ::)
I am glad he did though! :P
Quote from: afl_freak2 on July 22, 2012, 11:08:18 AM
champion data just make shower up! have a look at zorkos score............71 dream team and 115 supercoach wtf???? by no means did zork had a that good of a game! sc is just a lottery! whoever has a half decent side and gets the rub of the green with sc spastic scoring will get a good ranking.
Zorko got quite a few possessions, hard ball gets etc with effective disposals in the last 10 minutes of the 4th qtr. SC points are just thrown at players at that stage in the game...
Shaw didn't deserve 100+ but glad he did
no zorkos score was through the roof in the first and 2nd qtr......... if anything his 4th qtr is where he didnt score as well.
115 for zorko............... swan and gaj should have scored 200! SIMPLE!
Quote from: afl_freak2 on July 22, 2012, 12:16:18 PM
no zorkos score was through the roof in the first and 2nd qtr......... if anything his 4th qtr is where he didnt score as well.
It was odd, he was keeping up with GAJ until 1/2 way through the third quarter. I was curious as to why, during the second quarter and all I can out it down to was the three GA's he had up until then. It was a close, low scoring game at that point and I assume 80% the reason Zorko was scoring highly!
3 GA's from 5 goals at that point has to be considered significant doesn't it - Reading it from a stats perspective he kept the lions in it?
(NB - Didn't see the game)
Quote from: afl_freak2 on July 22, 2012, 12:17:44 PM
115 for zorko............... swan and gaj should have scored 200! SIMPLE!
Lot of his disposals were inside 50 effective kicks with heaps of score involvement.. Just check out the goal updates from Monty.. I'd say most of his points came from high efficiency and a lot of score involvements in a tight close game
Quote from: felsty on July 22, 2012, 02:02:08 PM
Quote from: afl_freak2 on July 22, 2012, 12:17:44 PM
115 for zorko............... swan and gaj should have scored 200! SIMPLE!
Lot of his disposals were inside 50 effective kicks with heaps of score involvement.. Just check out the goal updates from Monty.. I'd say most of his points came from high efficiency and a lot of score involvements in a tight close game
Watched the game being in Qld and Zorko was as influential to Lions as Ablett was to Suns. Zorko saved gaols at one end and was kicking to targets inside 50. From memory Zorko had a kicking efficiency of 78% so that would have helped as well. 3 goal assists and
Quote from: felsty on July 22, 2012, 02:02:08 PM
Quote from: afl_freak2 on July 22, 2012, 12:17:44 PM
115 for zorko............... swan and gaj should have scored 200! SIMPLE!
Lot of his disposals were inside 50 effective kicks with heaps of score involvement.. Just check out the goal updates from Monty.. I'd say most of his points came from high efficiency and a lot of score involvements in a tight close game
Lot of his disposals were inside 50 effective kicks with heaps of score involvement.. Just check out the goal updates from Monty.. I'd say most of his points came from high efficiency and a lot of score involvements in a tight close game
[/quote] Watched the game being in Qld and Zorko was as influential to Lions as Ablett was to Suns. Zorko saved gaols at one end and was kicking to targets inside 50. From memory Zorko had a kicking efficiency of 78% so that would have helped as well. 3 goal assists and 12 contested possessions would also have boosted his scoring. Ablett only had 18 contested possessions as a comparison and 1 goal assist. Swan 20 contested possessions and no Goal assists so the extra 30/40 points for Swan and Ablett would be reasonable.
Shaw is listed as having 22 disposals so that would equate to around 70/80 (depending whether kicks or handballs) of his points so 100 may be reasonable on SC scoring system
How many of shaws 22 disposals were kicking to himself when kicking out from fullback?
Quote from: NFI Police on July 22, 2012, 03:26:04 PM
How many of shaws 22 disposals were kicking to himself when kicking out from fullback?
Didn't think that counted as a stat? :/
i've just lost my round based based on Ellis vs Gibson
D K H M T
24 16 8 6 2 Gibson - 71
21 12 9 5 0 Ellis - 95
North won! HOW? How does that make sense?
Edit: Been normalized to 72 v 90 - but still, ridiculous.
So did that help you win?
Quote from: coolfugitiv0 on July 22, 2012, 05:25:19 PM
Didn't think that counted as a stat? :/
They do if you kick it to yourself. This is why I his disposal numbers are so inflated. I think SC also counts points for bouncing the ball. Shaw kicks it to himself, takes a bounce, kicks long to the forward flank and repeat.
Quote from: Obese Arachnid on July 22, 2012, 07:12:48 PM
So did that help you win?
still lost, not going to blame that tho - i had Cox, NDS, Boyd and Chapman to blame for the loss, but it's just yet another question about the SC scoring. I never really paid much attention to it until the Everitt mark and goal for the Swans, and it's the most inconsistent thing i've seen
92 for swallow?? He had enormous impact on the game as well as 29 disposals, 5 tackles, 10 clearances and doesn't reach a tonne??
Quote from: dickitch on July 22, 2012, 07:08:05 PM
i've just lost my round based based on Ellis vs Gibson
D K H M T
24 16 8 6 2 Gibson - 71
21 12 9 5 0 Ellis - 95
North won! HOW? How does that make sense?
Edit: Been normalized to 72 v 90 - but still, ridiculous.
Didn't watch the whole match but I saw 3 contested 1on1 marks by Ellis which counts good in SC. Couple of inside 50's and a point during the crunch time 4th qtr...
Saw Gibson a bit but wasn't contested. As for the rest of the game IDK...
Fair enough on the contested stuff, agree with that scoring - I just wish they'd keep all the genuine stat scoring and get rid of the 'influence' stuff - it seems really inconsistent and it's totally subjective to the people doing the scoring
swallow should have scored 120 easy! put it down to sc bullshower again
Quote from: dickitch on July 22, 2012, 07:22:00 PM
Quote from: Obese Arachnid on July 22, 2012, 07:12:48 PM
So did that help you win?
still lost, not going to blame that tho - i had Cox, NDS, Boyd and Chapman to blame for the loss, but it's just yet another question about the SC scoring. I never really paid much attention to it until the Everitt mark and goal for the Swans, and it's the most inconsistent thing i've seen
Oops, i spoke to soon, I actually won - Treloar put a performance in in the final quarter to help me win by 10. :)
Still, don't like the whole scoring system
Yes but it's easier to not like it with a win though. :D
How Mitchell didnt score higher yesterday is utter crap. he was the most influential player on the ground.
SC scoring is influenced by DT scores. I looked at FanFooty yesterday to see the DT scores and saw Swan, Beams, Pendlebury right up there in the scoring, then I looked at the SC scores on the Herald Sun site and was mazed how only 2 hawk players were over the ton.
Looking at the SC scores at 3/4 time you would have thought Collingwood were 10 goals in front.
If the result doesnt effect the players score, why do GWS and GC players score so low? What is the excuse for their low scores? For example Toby Greene, he has had a few ripper games, Ablettesque, and he has just cracked the ton.
Quote from: FonFatty on July 22, 2012, 11:16:19 PM
How Mitchell didnt score higher yesterday is utter crap. he was the most influential player on the ground.
SC scoring is influenced by DT scores. I looked at FanFooty yesterday to see the DT scores and saw Swan, Beams, Pendlebury right up there in the scoring, then I looked at the SC scores on the Herald Sun site and was mazed how only 2 hawk players were over the ton.
Looking at the SC scores at 3/4 time you would have thought Collingwood were 10 goals in front.
If the result doesnt effect the players score, why do GWS and GC players score so low? What is the excuse for their low scores? For example Toby Greene, he has had a few ripper games, Ablettesque, and he has just cracked the ton.
I think mitchell was unlucky because there was so many players that played well and would have stole points from him.
Swan, Pendles, Beams, Lewis, Breaust , Rioli
SC scoring does include kick ins even if the player doesn't play on first.
They reward long kicks significantly more than short kicks. They reward rebound 50's. They reward contested possessions. Heath Shaw does all of these things regularly so that explains his score.
SC includes metres gained, not how many bounces a player takes.
You get a player like Delidio who goes for a run, then kicks long and it equals big points.
Toby Greene rarely ever kicks it 40+ metres which is what is required to be a long kick. He tends to give away a lot of free kicks too.
Ellis won some contested marks at an important part of the game and more often than not he hits a target with a LONG kick.
Quote from: meow meow on July 23, 2012, 12:09:25 AM
SC scoring does include kick ins even if the player doesn't play on first.
They reward long kicks significantly more than short kicks. They reward rebound 50's. They reward contested possessions. Heath Shaw does all of these things regularly so that explains his score.
SC includes metres gained, not how many bounces a player takes.
You get a player like Delidio who goes for a run, then kicks long and it equals big points.
Toby Greene rarely ever kicks it 40+ metres which is what is required to be a long kick. He tends to give away a lot of free kicks too.
Ellis won some contested marks at an important part of the game and more often than not he hits a target with a LONG kick.
I think all of this is fair enough.. appart from the kick ins part?
Its not a stat so not sure why they would give points for it
It directly influences the game so score is applied to it.
There are so many things that aren't stats that players can score from. A tap in general play that leads to someone getting a shot at goal isn't a stat but players will score from it.
Can someone explain to me how Hayes scored 50+ points in that last qtr?
I watched the first 3 qtrs and he was hardly cited! Then listening on SEN I heard his name
5 or 6 times and pumped out a ton
Quote from: meow meow on July 23, 2012, 12:09:25 AM
SC scoring does include kick ins even if the player doesn't play on first.
I thought this was only the case if it was a turnover. They have to play on for the points to be awarded. The best example I can think of was Mark McVeigh when he played on Milne. Spike took a couple of kick ins which resulted in direct turnovers and had negative points. On the other hand (I can't think of one specific example) I have seen players kick the ball in and not be rewarded any points even if it was long and effective. They had to play on to be rewarded the points. I am most likely wrong on the second bit but that is what I can remember.
These stat based scores are all well and good and that is where SC scoring is better - i like how ineffective disposals aren't worth anything for instance - what I don't like is the subjective influence on a game, the everitt 80 points, Hunt did the same a few weeks later and got nowhere near the same amount - and who is it to say that is the biggest influence, what about the 3 goals before that put that in the position to win - I don't like the 'normalising' to the 3300 as it feels like that when they go in to the last quarter they just try give points away based on how many are left.
I'm probably going to get my boo count thru the roof here, but get rid of the 3300 and keep all the other stat scoring, if it goes above 3300 or below so be it, what difference does that bit make?
but who judges what is and is not an inaffective disposal? this is a gray area imo and surely a 50m kick forward or out in front of a team mate is effective? who are the champion data people to judge what is effective anyway?
Yeh i guess so - i think a lot are easy to pick based on possession but you can of course question some - But I agree with your sentiment, and it comes back to the subjectiveness of the guys scoring that I don't agree with.
Any kick over 40m is classed as affective! sc if a load of bullshower and rigged.................. petrie should have scored 150 points for his last qtr then???? sc is a load of flowerin shower end of story!
supercoach is rigged and anyone with a brain knows it!
Kepp the boos coming kiddies
Quote from: Hazza09 on July 23, 2012, 01:25:03 AM
Can someone explain to me how Hayes scored 50+ points in that last qtr?
I watched the first 3 qtrs and he was hardly cited! Then listening on SEN I heard his name
5 or 6 times and pumped out a ton
was surprised with his score until I saw in the hearld sun on the CD stat sheet that he has 33 pressure acts....
More concerning for me was Stevie J's 120 odd, how when at like 5 or 6 times you make an absolute shocker of a blunder, get modest stats, and still churn out 120 ::)
Any kick over 40m to a better than 50/50 contest is classed as effective afl_freak, not all kicks over 40m
Quote from: FonFatty on July 22, 2012, 11:16:19 PM
How Mitchell didnt score higher yesterday is utter crap. he was the most influential player on the ground.
SC scoring is influenced by DT scores. I looked at FanFooty yesterday to see the DT scores and saw Swan, Beams, Pendlebury right up there in the scoring, then I looked at the SC scores on the Herald Sun site and was mazed how only 2 hawk players were over the ton.
Looking at the SC scores at 3/4 time you would have thought Collingwood were 10 goals in front.
If the result doesnt effect the players score, why do GWS and GC players score so low? What is the excuse for their low scores? For example Toby Greene, he has had a few ripper games, Ablettesque, and he has just cracked the ton.
I was at the game on saturday and watched my team get absolutely SMASHED. The Hawks dominated the clearances, one-on-one contests, and were flawless in every aspect of the game.
When i got home and checked the SC scores i couldn't believe that Beams, Pendles and Swan had these massive scores. If supercoach is based on a players "influence" on the game then next year they have to change (re weight) the way the scores are calculated based on the result of the match. I mean if SuperCoach is attempting to replicate a footy match then it has to take into account the final result of the game .... as the whole point of playing is to win??
good to see people whith an open mind seeing sc is a load of shower when it comes to point scoring........... they have so many dif points for this this and that............ it covers their ass for cheating! champion data all play sc too and know when to buy and trade players because they are the ones who will give extra points to players or take points off of players.SUPERCOACH IS RIGGED!
Quote from: afl_freak2 on July 24, 2012, 10:11:40 AM
good to see people whith an open mind seeing sc is a load of shower when it comes to point scoring........... they have so many dif points for this this and that............ it covers their ass for cheating! champion data all play sc too and know when to buy and trade players because they are the ones who will give extra points to players or take points off of players.SUPERCOACH IS RIGGED!
I'm definitely not part of the SC is rigged conspiracy brigade - but i think it would be hard for anyone to stick up for the consistency of the scoring. I've only really looked at it closely this season and it's hard to comprehend sometimes - as for Champion Data playing Supercoach and manipulating data to their own advantage, that's just ridiculous.
I think people are forgetting that only the scaling after the match and maybe the last 5-10 minutes of the game (depending if the game is there to be won or not...) are affected by the players INFLUENCE on the game. Before that the scoring is dependent on the type of possession (hard ball gets, long kicks to adv etc) and the effectiveness of their disposals and tackles. You can't complain that a person who has 49 POSSESSIONS, 6 marks, 2 goals gets 143 (less than 150) (SWAN) or Beams who had 34 possies, 3 marks, 6 tackles and 4 Goals! that their score is too high! Seriously...
Pendles got scaled down due to his influence being minimal on the game almost 10-15 points (off the top of my head) aand Shaw's SC is soo high because his DE was 95%. 22 disposals and 95% DE is going to get you good SC points. Maybe should have got scaled down because of his influence, but the minimum he would have score is 95...
Also remember the scaling also is done to finish allocating the 3300 points per game.
Quote from: The Bomber on July 24, 2012, 01:35:10 PM
I think people are forgetting that only the scaling after the match and maybe the last 5-10 minutes of the game (depending if the game is there to be won or not...) are affected by the players INFLUENCE on the game. Before that the scoring is dependent on the type of possession (hard ball gets, long kicks to adv etc) and the effectiveness of their disposals and tackles. You can't complain that a person who has 49 POSSESSIONS, 6 marks, 2 goals gets 143 (less than 150) (SWAN) or Beams who had 34 possies, 3 marks, 6 tackles and 4 Goals! that their score is too high! Seriously...
Pendles got scaled down due to his influence being minimal on the game almost 10-15 points (off the top of my head) aand Shaw's SC is soo high because his DE was 95%. 22 disposals and 95% DE is going to get you good SC points. Maybe should have got scaled down because of his influence, but the minimum he would have score is 95...
Nah sorry - just don't agree with the way Champion Data allocate the scores this year. I agree with you this is why Beams, Swanny and Pendles got their high scores â€" I just disagree with the current methodology.
They need to have another look at the way they allocate SC scores - i mean the game was won by the Hawks in the first three quarters then Collingwood outscored them in the final term because the Hawks took their foot off the pedal. It was an annihilation - and the SC points should reflect that. I can understand like maybe one player getting a huge score â€" but three of four from the loosing team is a bit odd in my opinion …..
Maybe they should just forget the "Influence" side of the equation all together and just give points for contested marks and take them away for clangers (and the rest of the point categories….). Would make the scoring system more transparent and open i think.
Interesting topic though!
Yup, is very interesting topic - I think get rid of the 3300 total, I think this is where it all goes wrong and is totally subjective.
would be nice if they explain the point scoring at the start of the season, if a game winning goal is worth 50 or an assist 25 and so on
thats my whole point there is no way known exactly how much a player has really scored......... you coudnt add up the stats vs what the player scored. sc is a lottery.
Interesting topic. The main one that I dont understand is how Everitt vs Geelong heavily outscored Hunt vs Richmond. Both kicked winning goals. Also Hunt's was more influential as it was after the siren. See no reason hoe Everitt for 1 quarter outscored Hunt's whole game when they did the same thing.
Dont think its rigged...just inconsistent
I admit that the supercoach scoring can leave me wondering sometimes.
But fair dinkum some of you, if you hate it so much then maybe Dreamteam is more your cup of tea
when i fisrt started fantasy footy 5 years ago supercoach was my fav......... as of this year i take dteam any day of the week.
mitchells sc = shower rigged!
suckiling rigged!
bruest out scores mitchell.................. yeah right!
lol suckling??? he kicked 4 goals and there was only a 2 point difference between his SC and DT score. how is that "rigged"?
because sc is a higher scoring game than dteam lol
Very interesting chat....
My personal opinion and I haven't read this point being brought up is that in SC each quarter works out to roughly 825 points (always very close), this is a good idea in theory as each quarter should be equal however when you try to factor in the actual influence of the game. For example, tonight's first quarter should have been worth a lot more as the game was over by quarter time, so maybe guys then sound be scaled up at quarter time??? This would mean that late in the games people would find it alot harder to score 'junk time' points... I'd be interested to hear others thoughts on this
Mitch does get ripped off by the Champion Data experts. If Sam Mitchell's name was Gary Ablett he would probably average 20 points more this season. But yeah, not sure what he has to do to get the score he deserves.
some players are champion datas favs and others get no love! the whole thing is a crock of shower!
Whitecross was highest scoring last night and he truly deserved it, abc radio didn't give him any votes but gave jack gunston 1 point :(ftp://
How about delicious Rioli scores - such a high points per disposal - have him in Pro not SC but loving it regardless.
Quote from: brownmans muffins on July 28, 2012, 01:41:23 PM
How about delicious Rioli scores - such a high points per disposal - have him in Pro not SC but loving it regardless.
Tackles aren't disposals which affects his score. He has heaps of tackles per game...
scott thompsons sc rigged!!........................ didnt get what he should have
marc murphy sc was so rigged it was not funny! ............................ way to high
treloar sc rigged ................................ great game for a piss poor score of a 100
tucks sc rigged his kicking % was crap
swans sc rigged
well what about Andrew swallow 17 tackles which times by 4 as the scoring is is 68 points so for his 32 disposals and a goal your telling me he only got 90 points and don't even get me started on contested posse ions
swallow should have scored 180+
swallow had a freak of a game
that's what i reckon he should of easy got 180