Did he butcher the ball? 59 SC points?
he did a little but still should have gotten 70+ i think, still did some pretty good things
He was quiet, but he was on 69 points, ineffective kick, and then his score just kept going down as the stupid large points where handed out like CD always does in close games
Ripped off to get 59, should have got 75ish at least
Aflfantasy Simpson got 96..wow
If CD doesn't scale him up their bunch of goons
I give up... SC is just flowered! No consistency, the hand out of points is clearly just randomised.
A couple of costly shanks at the end when the game was in the balance could be a reason he scored so low.
To think Daisy scored more then deletion and Cotchin...
Kicked a goal in the first quarter and had 6 tackles...20 kicks and most hit targets I thought, particularly early on.
Think some of his points went to Vickery and a couple of others. Ripped off for sure I think.
I'm removing my team from entry
It's still the one major flaw IMO that SC has - to give so much points in close games is retarded. A few extra points I understand, but shower like Vickery getting 35 points for a goal etc is just stupid
The entire games scores are not a reflection of the game, mostly just the reflection of the last 5 mins or so, and its the one thing I hate about SC
Did they give Warnock minus 50 for that ishhouse kick?
I am talking about the one straight to that dud Vickery, not the one that landed in the crowd on the wing from his shot on goal
Sc bs
Quote from: Mat0369 on March 27, 2014, 10:54:53 PM
Did they give Warnock minus 50 for that ishhouse kick?
Lol warnock on 100 or so lol.. Should of got minus 50 for that set shot 30 m out directly in front
Scored only 14 more points than jake king :o
Quote from: HotTiges on March 27, 2014, 10:56:15 PM
Quote from: Mat0369 on March 27, 2014, 10:54:53 PM
Did they give Warnock minus 50 for that ishhouse kick?
Lol warnock on 100 or so lol.. Should of got minus 50 for that set shot 30 m out directly in front
Not to mention his shank to Vickery who goaled
Quote from: Mat0369 on March 27, 2014, 10:54:53 PM
Did they give Warnock minus 50 for that ishhouse kick?
I am talking about the one straight to that dud Vickery, not the one that landed in the crowd on the wing from his shot on goal
Genuinely surprised they didnt...
...unless he was on 150
Quote from: HotTiges on March 27, 2014, 10:56:15 PM
Lol warnock on 100 or so lol.. Should of got minus 50 for that set shot 30 m out directly in front
So he should have finished on about 2, minus 50 for each.
Yeah bit of a joke that Warnock tonned up, two muppets at crucial moments
Finished on 61, while Daisy got 92 and Warnock 118
Cant believe how flowered up those idiots at CD are
also CD love lids,
I was watching the game and lids was getting 10 points for 2 handballs and things like that,
Also, kade simpson had 60% de and only 4 clangers, but scored a goal.
Should have gotten 75-85ish imo
Absolute crap he was one of the reasons we nearly got up. Should have got 80 minimum.
Lol Watnock scaled up 17 points despite gifting it to Vickery, Dusty loses 5 for kicking the sealer :o :o
Gona cost me a lot. Hes a champion player and reader of the pill.
Thats why he's in my team. Wish there was somewhere to actual complain to em or a way we could get reasoning for CD's bullshower. Things like this just want me to stop playin SC.
jobs@championdata.com.au (http://jobs@championdata.com.au) = gona cop it.
I'm another effed off Simpson owner. eff you and your mother effin mumma CD
Us simpson owners are livid no doub but I feel simpson will go 105ish come years end
I've just come back from watching the game and I'm absolutely staggered at his score. I thought he would be on 85 at a bare minimum, bizarre scoring from CD.
I think all the CD boys must have made the round 1 trade of Simpson -> Swallow the way they crucified his score tonight. Be funny if Swallow has an average game and gets a monster score
Nobody who watched that game would say that Gibbs or Menzel had more of a positive impact than Simpson, yet they outscored him in SC. Just a ridiculous score.
CD laughing their asses off.
Champion Data trolling all supercoach Simpson owners. ;D
The Duck had Warnock as 'Worst on' for the game, but apparently he was twice as good as Simpson :o :o >:( :-X
Guys he went at 60% efficiency
So only 14 of his 23 disposals were effective
Ineffective possies get 0 points
He also had 4 clangers = -16 points
Its not the scoring thats the problem, its that he couldn't hit a target.
Quote from: Ricochet on March 28, 2014, 01:41:34 AM
Guys he went at 60% efficiency
So only 14 of his 23 disposals were effective
Ineffective possies get 0 points
He also had 4 clangers = -16 points
Its not the scoring thats the problem, its that he couldn't hit a target.
It's the ineffective part which constantly baffles me, often influenced by the actions of the recipient.
Just got home from training and watched the game.
Staggered by his score? I didn't see 4 clangers?
I feel comfort in how many others are shocked by that score.
It is disheartening. There needs to b more checks on champion data
Clangers is BS. A Clanger is when you turn the ball over directly to an opponent. No way he did that 4 times. I guess if you kick long to open space and the opposition gets to it first, that must be a "clanger" lol ridiculous
There's no fighting it, he was clearly ripped off. At one stage he was on 69, and after 1 ineffective kick, his score just kept going down and down as the game went on without him touching it
He was the victim of CD's stupid "every positive touch in the last 5 minutes of a close game is worth 500% more than it normally is, and because we cant go above 3300 we have to take points off players who are not involved as much in the last 5 minutes" rule
are you lot kidding me?
I was sitting watching the game worried in the first quarter and a bit cos simpson looked like he was in for a 110 game
But then he made constant scrubbing "kicks in hope" that went straight to the opposition .. he scored what he deserced lads ... watch the game this is not fantasy
If you don't like the scoring system why play the game ::)
Champion Data's stats aren't just used for little fantasy games. The AFL and clubs also use them. They're the most accurate stats your going to get
In regards to Simpson , if you have him in your team you won't be trading due to last nights game . . Agreed it was a crappy score but he is in my team for the long haul , and not a cash cow .
Given the amount of discussion in this thread it's surprising that Simpson is only owned by 7.36% of coaches. I think every one of those 7.36% has posted in this thread ;)
Have him in AFL fantasy but a lot of people in the leagues I'm in seem to have him in SC , very suprised to see that figure
Quote from: Rusty00 on March 28, 2014, 11:44:12 AM
Given the amount of discussion in this thread it's surprising that Simpson is only owned by 7.36% of coaches. I think every one of those 7.36% has posted in this thread ;)
Not yet Rusty I have him as well.
Rico has summed why his score is shower based on the SC rules and SC data. Bear in mind Clangers are also Kick out on the full as well.
Also if you look at the stats he only had 3 contested possessions as opposed to 18 uncontested. So another big difference there as well. So coupled with his 60% disposal efficiency this explains the low SC score.
As has been said a lot of his kicks failed to find targets but if they had score would have been much higher but the stats from last night reveal that he had a shocking game disposal wise despite getting the ball and rebounding.
I will not be trading him after this performance.
Quote from: Ricochet on March 28, 2014, 01:41:34 AM
Guys he went at 60% efficiency
So only 14 of his 23 disposals were effective
Ineffective possies get 0 points
He also had 4 clangers = -16 points
Its not the scoring thats the problem, its that he couldn't hit a target.
so he had 4 clangers so minus 16
so he had 14 effective kicks so 56 and if we minus the 16 from before its 40
then theres the 3 handballs at 60% so + 3
he also got a goal so + 8
2 tackles + 8
6 marks which should be about + 15
there's also the hard ball and looseball gets which he got around 5 of which are 4.5 each -
That all adds up to 92, maybe I have been generous but simpson should have gotten about 80+
Not having a go at u rico, just CD
Breaking it down with the stats we have available.
12 effective kicks = 48
4 clangers = -16
2 effective handballs = 3
1 Goal = 8
6 Uncontested Marks = 12
2 Tackles = 8
1 Free Kick For = 4
1 Free Against = -4
Is 63. He only have 3 contested possessions so he probably only had 1 hardball get if that. Then scaled down. So kinda makes sense
Quote from: Ricochet on March 28, 2014, 01:15:23 PM
Breaking it down with the stats we have available.
12 effective kicks = 48
4 clangers = -16
2 effective handballs = 3
1 Goal = 8
6 Uncontested Marks = 12
2 Tackles = 8
1 Free Kick For = 4
1 Free Against = -4
Is 63. He only have 3 contested possessions so he probably only had 1 hardball get if that. Then scaled down. So kinda makes sense
hmmmmmm but the hardball and looseballs are 4.5 each
Which obviously means he hardly got any of them, IF any at all.
Like I'm pissed he scored so badly as well but its not like VS are out there to flower us. His points are his points, there's noone to blame but him.
Quote from: Ricochet on March 28, 2014, 01:29:53 PM
Which obviously means he hardly got any of them, IF any at all.
Like I'm pissed he scored so badly as well but its not like VS are out there to flower us. His points are his points, there's noone to blame but him.
Disagree, having watched the game I thought Simpson was one of Carlton's best and at least deserved to be scaled up by 10 points. Given Warnock received 17 freebie points and made some match losing howlers in the last quarter Simpson's paltry return is unjustifiable. There were others like Gibbs & Daisy who got a free ride from CD and scored more, the points simply didn't reflect the onfield contributions.
Quote from: Bully on March 28, 2014, 01:40:50 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on March 28, 2014, 01:29:53 PM
Which obviously means he hardly got any of them, IF any at all.
Like I'm pissed he scored so badly as well but its not like VS are out there to flower us. His points are his points, there's noone to blame but him.
Disagree, having watched the game I thought Simpson was one of Carlton's best and at least deserved to be scaled up by 10 points. Given Warnock received 17 freebie points and made some match losing howlers in the last quarter Simpson's paltry return is unjustifiable. There were others like Gibbs & Daisy who got a free ride from CD and scored more, the points simply didn't reflect the onfield contributions.
Bully his stats reflect his scoring. Whether or not he looked like he played well is a different story. They can only award points for what he has done
Quote from: Ricochet on March 28, 2014, 01:15:23 PM
Breaking it down with the stats we have available.
12 effective kicks = 48
4 clangers = -16
2 effective handballs = 3
1 Goal = 8
6 Uncontested Marks = 12
2 Tackles = 8
1 Free Kick For = 4
1 Free Against = -4
Is 63. He only have 3 contested possessions so he probably only had 1 hardball get if that. Then scaled down. So kinda makes sense
gibbs had 12 touches at 50% de also 2 clangers and he got 69
Quote from: Ricochet on March 28, 2014, 01:43:42 PM
Quote from: Bully on March 28, 2014, 01:40:50 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on March 28, 2014, 01:29:53 PM
Which obviously means he hardly got any of them, IF any at all.
Like I'm pissed he scored so badly as well but its not like VS are out there to flower us. His points are his points, there's noone to blame but him.
Disagree, having watched the game I thought Simpson was one of Carlton's best and at least deserved to be scaled up by 10 points. Given Warnock received 17 freebie points and made some match losing howlers in the last quarter Simpson's paltry return is unjustifiable. There were others like Gibbs & Daisy who got a free ride from CD and scored more, the points simply didn't reflect the onfield contributions.
Bully his stats reflect his scoring. Whether or not he looked like he played well is a different story. They can only award points for what he has done
Quote from: Ricochet on March 28, 2014, 01:15:23 PM
Breaking it down with the stats we have available.
12 effective kicks = 48
4 clangers = -16
2 effective handballs = 3
1 Goal = 8
6 Uncontested Marks = 12
2 Tackles = 8
1 Free Kick For = 4
1 Free Against = -4
Is 63. He only have 3 contested possessions so he probably only had 1 hardball get if that. Then scaled down. So kinda makes sense
I understand the scoring break down but I don't believe he deserved to be scaled down, quite the opposite. He had 4 clangers but I don't recall him butchering the ball, it was more a case of the opposition positioning themselves to cause unlikely turnovers. If he finished on 63 then he probably deserved to be scaled up to 70+, that's just my take on the situation. Like I mentioned earlier, I watched the game and had no idea he would wind up with such a miserable score.
Quote from: Bully on March 28, 2014, 01:52:10 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on March 28, 2014, 01:43:42 PM
Quote from: Bully on March 28, 2014, 01:40:50 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on March 28, 2014, 01:29:53 PM
Which obviously means he hardly got any of them, IF any at all.
Like I'm pissed he scored so badly as well but its not like VS are out there to flower us. His points are his points, there's noone to blame but him.
Disagree, having watched the game I thought Simpson was one of Carlton's best and at least deserved to be scaled up by 10 points. Given Warnock received 17 freebie points and made some match losing howlers in the last quarter Simpson's paltry return is unjustifiable. There were others like Gibbs & Daisy who got a free ride from CD and scored more, the points simply didn't reflect the onfield contributions.
Bully his stats reflect his scoring. Whether or not he looked like he played well is a different story. They can only award points for what he has done
Quote from: Ricochet on March 28, 2014, 01:15:23 PM
Breaking it down with the stats we have available.
12 effective kicks = 48
4 clangers = -16
2 effective handballs = 3
1 Goal = 8
6 Uncontested Marks = 12
2 Tackles = 8
1 Free Kick For = 4
1 Free Against = -4
Is 63. He only have 3 contested possessions so he probably only had 1 hardball get if that. Then scaled down. So kinda makes sense
I understand the scoring break down but I don't believe he deserved to be scaled down, quite the opposite. He had 4 clangers but I don't recall him butchering the ball, it was more a case of the opposition positioning themselves to cause unlikely turnovers. If he finished on 63 then he probably deserved to be scaled up to 70+, that's just my take on the situation. Like I mentioned earlier, I watched the game and had no idea he would wind up with such a miserable score.
Neither did I man, and its disappointing as hell. Just can't see the point of others on here whinging about VS and the scoring when its pretty justified (apart from maybe the scaling).
Quote from: WizzFizz on March 28, 2014, 01:49:06 PM
gibbs had 12 touches at 50% de also 2 clangers and he got 69
Yeh but a majority of Gibbs possessions were contested and he had 6 tackles. Like he got 39 points just from his Tackles, Goal, Hitout and Free For. Then he had 6 effective possies which could have been 3 kicks and 3 handballs. So up to 55.5. Then 7 of his disposals were contested and he had 3 clearances. He only needs these 3 of these Contested Disposals and Clearances to be considered Hardball Gets or Looseball Gets to make up the rest.
That's an absolute joke, I thought he played well watching the game live at the G, without seeing any stats.
Was expecting him to get 90 points + and was shocked to see he only got 60 points or so.
Funny how when you read the match report on AFL.com it has Simpson listed as one the best players for Carlton
Now it might all come down to efficiency etc, but that's where I call BS because Warnock was comical with his errors yet still got scaled up ridiculously
Simpson actually got scaled up at the end of the game. At the completion of the game he was on 59 points :o
Thanks rico for showing the scoring system. It makes sense how he scored crap. Im still annoyed about. Oh well happens to the best of them
Here's Fantasy Freako's response to why Simpson only score 61.
@FantasyFreako: @ImpromptuSC Simpson had 3 contested possessions, 3 clanger kicks and 6 ineffective
This happens every year people wanting to blame CD for the supercoach scoring ...
The bloke was inefficient and that is all there is to it get over it
next week when he kicks blindly they might land in the arms of his team mates and u will get lucky
just be happy he showed he has an appetite to wanna go get the ball at least and hope he can sharpen up his disposal next week
Quote from: eaglesman on March 28, 2014, 04:28:14 PM
This happens every year people wanting to blame CD for the supercoach scoring ...
The bloke was inefficient and that is all there is to it get over it
next week when he kicks blindly they might land in the arms of his team mates and u will get lucky
just be happy he showed he has an appetite to wanna go get the ball at least and hope he can sharpen up his disposal next week
he's normally an excellent user of the ball, only twice last year was his AF score larger than his SC score. I've got no doubt he'll bounce back strongly.
Quote from: eaglesman on March 28, 2014, 04:28:14 PM
This happens every year people wanting to blame CD for the supercoach scoring ...
The bloke was inefficient and that is all there is to it get over it
next week when he kicks blindly they might land in the arms of his team mates and u will get lucky
just be happy he showed he has an appetite to wanna go get the ball at least and hope he can sharpen up his disposal next week
This happens every year when the game is close. If the game was a blowout Simpson would have scored 80-90 because most of the points from the first half would have counted. I don't like that a player has earn't points yet loses them because the game is close and the players are not in the right place at the right time to score points. This was the case with Simpson yesterday and its why Warnock scored so many. If a player can score 30 points for a "supergoal" he should also lose 30 points for a "superclanger"
Coming from a Carlton supporter and someone who has no attachment to how fantasy scores pan out this season, Simpson made a few crucial mistakes at the end of the game by not hitting a target. His disposal was not it's best in the last, but he was certainly one of the better players and one of a few that I would say played well all night for the Blues. I can however see why they may have 'negated' points from him, since he did have maybe 2 or 3 touches when the game was in the balance go straight to the opposition or they were nothing kicks.
However having said that, the fact that Warnock hit the ton after making 2 very crucial mistakes himself, Gibbs scored higher then Simmo when he was in line to be dropped with the effort he put up in the first half and when Lucas came close to Simmos score in just over a quarter when he had a couple of clanger kicks himself I will not understand. This is not me saying that Simpson should have scored higher, these particular players should have scored lower then what they did
Saw on the news he might get called up by the MRP, anyone see that?
he always does this. he will dominate for a few weeks then he will produce the odd 40-50-60 point games. you should have known this going in with him and it's why i stayed away.
im a carlton supporter and i love the bloke hes my favourite player at the club but he is too up and down - like carlton lol.