Scoring Anomalies – Rd1

Written by Schwarzwalder on March 28 2017

They can be frustrating at various occasions each weekend, or heaven-sent when you just get over the line in a big league win.  Here is a new segment I like to call ‘Scoring Anomalies’………or as it could be coined, ‘How did he not get more pts for that game??!?’ 😉

Champion Data have come up with a pts system that has spawned the greatest Fantasy Football competition in the Universe…….but, gee….it can be confusing as hell sometimes.  Hopefully through these reviews we’ll be able to get a better grasp of the entire pts system.  I wasn’t alone in noticing a few anomalies in the Collingwood/Bulldogs game last Friday night.

 

NEGATIVE

Adam Treloar – On face value, 33 disposals, six clearances and a goal would normally net you about 120pts.  Unfortunately for Treloar-owners, 96 pts came up well short of expectations.  72% Disposal Efficiency isn’t necessarily awful but coupled with five clangers, a Free Kick against plus 22 uncontested possessions……….It seems the people at Champion Data were quite happy to scale Mr. Treloar right down to a bare minimum.

Steele Sidebottom –   35 touches and two goals yet Sidey still couldn’t get past 117 pts on Friday night despite an 82% DE rate and just the single clanger.  The only explanation I can offer is that 24 of those disposals were uncontested.  One could argue that his influence on the game wasn’t so significant.  Which brings us to………….

 

POSITIVE

Marcus Bontempelli – We already saw last year that the good folk at Champion Data have a very high opinion of the Bont.  22 touches (12 contested) and two goals brought him an impressive 120 pts from 81%DE.  Hard to see any stats that really jump out apart from the ‘contested possessions’.  He’s really been helped along with the perception of ‘influence’ during each game, hence the enormous amount of up-scaling!  Imagine his future scores when he really begins dominating matches………

 

Which scoring anomalies did you find in the Supercoach system over the weekend?  Any ‘Gremlins’ in the system.  Something you need to vent?  Anything you’d like us to delve into further?  Let us know in the comments below………

11
0


Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom

46 thoughts on “Scoring Anomalies – Rd1”

  1. A Sandilands
    107 points

    20 Hitouts to Advantage= 100 points
    3 clangers= -12 points
    =88 points
    8/15 contested= 8X 4.5= 36 points
    =124 points
    1 mark= 2-8 points
    = 126-132 points
    66.7 disposal efficiency- 10 effective disposals,
    Estimate- 2 kicks, 8 handballs, 8+12= 20 points
    =146-152 points
    Frees for- 1 = 4 points
    = 150-146 points
    minus Sharked hitouts (?) worth -1 point

    24

    1
    1. You can do this to every player and get a similar result. The scoring system shown in the FAQs is bs. My guess is that those scores shown are the max, e.g. a H2A when the game is on the line is worth 5 pts, but at other times in the game it’s worth less, only a guess though…

      0

      2
    2. Just to backup my point above, Bontempelli 120 pts

      eff kicks 6 x 4 =24
      eff handball 12 x 1.5 = 18
      clangers 1 x -4 = -4
      contested possessions (hard/loose ball gets) 12 x 4.5 = 54
      marks (assuming all uncontested) 3 x 2 = 6
      tackles 4 x 4 = 16
      goals 2 x 8 = 16

      total = 130 points

      See even the Bont was robbed… and it’s not just this round, look through last years stats and you’ll see the same thing.

      1

      2
    3. Great point Adam. It’s one the reasons no one will ever perfect Supercoach…and I do mean, EVER. The scoring system seems made-up sometimes, hence the reason why ChampionData will never reveal ALL scoring options (I honestly still believe Gazza operated on a specific multiplier in his brownlow winning year and the years he had similar form!)

      What I do know is you also score well for the following:

      Metres gained – Just look at Dusty! Supercoach doesn’t reward junk positions, or very many points for sideways kicking, or taking the ball backwards and conceding ground.

      Attacking disposals – If a player takes possession and moves the ball forward into the attacking area of the ground (through the corridor – either end and midfield), and the disposal is effective, the score will be the standard (or as expected) displayed points for effective handball/kick etc. Even better if contested/effective!

      Weighting / Scaling- I’ve typically found through my limited research that a game is weighted more towards the winning side in a clear-cut ‘medium-large winning margin’ game and is based on the quarter they do the MOST DAMAGE on the scoreboard. Say for example Crows v Giants – In the 3rd term the Crows kicked 8.5 to 5.0 further extending the margin at half time from 8pts to 31pts. You’ll find contested possessions, score assists, effective possessions resulting in goals (etc etc) of players probably scored better than others did who had similar numbers for game on a losing side:
      B Smith – 19 disp (4 contested), 79% DE, 1 clanger, 4 marks, 4 rebound 50s, Score 1.2 = 85 pts (weighted up)
      C Ward – 21 disp (8 contested), 71% DE, 1 clanger, 3 marks, 3 clearances, 3 tackles, 1 goal assist, Score 0.1 = 76 pts (weighted down)

      You can’t go wrong if your players chosen in your Supercoach team are (a) those who dispose effectively (b) are more attacking in nature than sideways/backwards, (c) can win 1 on 1s or contested footy [such as their own clearances] and (d) are involved in the turnover [or ball movement] that results in a goal for their side – then they will always be smiled upon favourably by the ChampionData gods-that-be.

      2

      1
  2. Beams.

    Won the Ashcroft Medal for man of the match, was awarded maximum points by both coaches as part of AFLCA votes, as well as a heap of media BOGs.

    However, was the 11th ranked player on the field according to SC/Champion Data.

    Not happy.

    24

    0
      1. Well then the scaling up for last quarter acts is significantly disproportionate. Lions won that game due to a seven goal first quarter. But I guess that’s what this article is about. Perceived anomalies.

        16

        0
      2. I have Beams and also, was naturally disappointed. The game was decided in the 4th when the margin was back to 2 points. Heavier weighting to Suns players for Supercoach scores occurred in the 4th while the “weighted up” scores would have slowly evaporated for Lions players who put the hurting on the Suns in the 1st. As Beams wasn’t as prominant late in the 3rd and 4th terms, I’d suggest a good 20 points was cut off his score in the end.

        0

        0
  3. You can look at it both ways and make a case, I always thought CD weighted scores higher when the game score is closer. Does anyone know this as fact?

    1

    0
    1. Scores are weighted more evenly when the games winning margin finishes MUCH closer than what the scores were at the breaks.

      BL scored 1691 Supercoach points for the game and were weighted UP in the 4th term when they didn’t the most scoreboard damage to almost win the game.

      GCS scores 1609 points for the game and were originally weighted in the 1st term (or even 1st half) before this changed and the BL came back. Keep in mind, the margin went from BL by 31 – BL by 46 to BL by 17 to BL by 2!

      This explains why Beams would have been ranked down overall as he wasn’t sighted as much late in 3rd/4th terms – while GCS defenders saving inside 50s with marks from opp. kicks and effective disposals coming out + the score involvements by others and goals kicked by Suns forwards would have, basically a higher score attached to them than the regular award points based on this weight/scaling.

      RoOSTA

      2

      0
  4. I’ve got one I’m a bit confused about in the positive category from the crows game.

    David Mackay: 110

    20 possessions – 5 contested, 11 kicks 9 handballs @ 90%, 4 marks, 5 tackles, 1 goal, 2 clearances and 1 clanger.

    How is that a 110 point game?

    7

    0
    1. Easy. Look at metres gained (Ask CD nicely they might give), 90% DE is elite and Supercoach always rewards effectiveness on field. He was also involved in 2 other goals – and, by my guess, was probably doing most of this ‘damage’ for the Crows in the 3rd term when the margin shot out to a game-winning lead. Watch his 3rd term again?

      1

      0
  5. I thought the other anomoly in the Crows was Sloane. 24 possies, contested, tackles and clearances for 66 scaled up to 77 seemed a bit harsh.

    6

    0
    1. I was at the game and I love the way Rory goes about it. However, I thought he was quiet first half, when the game was on the line and like other Crows had a big second half when it opened up. Maybe there is something in it about points awarded when the game is in the balance and a player scores heavily in these instances.

      2

      0
  6. I just think that CD have their favorites, much like the umpires used to in the olden days. If I had to give votes for favoritism
    3 votes M.Bontempelli
    2 votes S.Pendlebury
    1 votes J Kennedy

    11

    2
    1. Really need to make sure to fill my last 2 spots with JPK and Bont. We know every year they have their favuorites but still opt to go without themmm

      3

      0
    2. There have been times in the past when I was convinced that the scoring system was rigged to make Gary Ablett look good.

      5

      0
  7. Goldy robbed to..

    3 goals
    100% efficiency
    11 disposals
    6 score involvements
    32 Hitouts
    4 clearances
    3 marks
    2 frees for
    105 points lel.

    6

    0
    1. T Goldstein
      3 goals= 24 points
      3 marks= 1 contested mark= 6-8 points 2 uncontested= 4-8 points
      = 10-16 points
      2 frees for= 8 points
      1 tackle= 4 points
      3 effective kicks= 12 points
      8 effective handballs= 12 points
      6 contested possessions= 6X 4.5= 27 points
      = 97-103 points
      So by Champion Data’s calculations 2 of Goldy’s 38 hitouts were to advantage or at 5.26% to advantage which is 6 times below his 2016 average which is absolutely ludicrous.
      Round 1 live and post scaled scoring an absolute joke and lets hope the inconsistencies are rectified.

      7

      1
  8. Do champion data employees have their own super coach sides?
    If so there could/would be bias with the scoring IMO
    The same as we see umpires favouring one side over another

    6

    0
    1. They claim that it is all automated, but their refusal to release the formula can make people suspicious.

      For all its faults, the great thing about DT scoring is that it is completely transparent, and open-source (that is, the formula is publicly available, as are all the stats that it uses).

      5

      0
  9. R Laird
    40 disposals at 85% d.e (34 effective disposals)
    23 kicks= Estimate- 19 effective kicks= 76 points
    17 handballs= Estimate- 15 effective handballs= 22.5 points
    6 Marks= 1 contested=6-8 5 Uncontested= 10-20 points, = 16-28 points
    13 contested possessions= 52 points
    5 Free Kicks= 20 points
    4 Tackles= 16 points
    3 clangers= -12 points
    = 190.5- 202.5 points (only scored 147)

    13

    0
    1. Got Laird, love Laird, but there’s a fair number of short kicks and backwards handpasses in that lot.
      Stats are one thing, but there’s no substitute for watching the game

      4

      0
      1. I watched every bit of footy possible on the weekend and i agree with Adam that something was wrong with the scoring, think it happened last year round 1 . If your putting your team mate in a better position what’s wrong with kicking short or hand balling backwards, it’ a part of footy and as far as i’m concerned and should be rewarded. I had Danger as Capt on the weekend and i thought he was lucky to get 138 pts. 7 clangers. On to round 2 and hope they get it right.

        5

        0
        1. Take this with a grain of salt but I have a mate who works with a betting agency and is a super stat nerd. He lives and breathes stuff like advanced metrics for American sports and is keen on fantasy sports. Apparently there are some metrics used for AFL that aren’t made public for kicks that go backwards or sideways as apposed to kicks that get the team forward/inside 50 and these possessions are somehow weighted to produce a score or final number. If CD have included these type of metrics for SC scores then that might go a long way to help explain some of these scoring inconsistencies.

          4

          0
    2. There’s typically a magic number of “total awarded points” for an entire game of footy based on the conditions. Just imagine those few scores Gazza got over 170 in the last few years – by your calculation and taking out weighting up/down based on CD’s scoring mechanisms – Gazza would’ve cracked the double-century even MORE often than he did! It sucks, I know. But its the only reason I don’t play DT…

      0

      0
  10. Sounds like Bont, Pendles, and JPK are on my watchlist! If you can’t beat ’em….

    But, I think (just my opinion) the situation of the match is a factor too – Bont scored his two goals when the Pies were dominating, and ultimately could be seen as the one who carried them then turned the match, and was scaled thus.

    I remember an article (forgive me for not referring it, but some here may remember it) where they compared marks in the 2005 grand final: an uncontested goalsquare mark by Cox, which got the minimum score, and THAT Barry mark. I think it was worth over 50pts just for that one mark, considering it was a ‘pack’ mark to save the game.

    Don’t know how you can quantify the gravity in a game tho!

    4

    0
    1. Trying to find the article (“not here any more” thanks Herald Sun), i came across a couple of forums and finding the score for the Barry mark was actually somewhere between 25-37, for that one mark. Maybe Bont’s goals were given ‘courage under fire’ markups?

      Whatever the reason, it certainly spiced the weekend up in SC!

      4

      0
      1. I know the NBA keeps stats on “clutch performance”, ie how a player performs when the game is close (say <5 pts margin) in the last 5 minutes. Does CD do something similar for the AFL? I would love to compare those numbers with overall figures!

        4

        0
        1. CD got rid of that last year i remember nic nat scoring a goal on the siren to win only got 10-20 points apposed to 50 or so when the rule was in place

          4

          0
        2. Kicking the winning goal a few years back in the dying seconds was worth something like 30 points at the time. Think they’ve scaled that back a bit.

          3

          0
  11. Is there a full listing of CD scoring available? Looking on the SC website they list the top 20 and everything else is speculative around pressure, time of game with one example that a kick to a contest under 40m will score zero. Makes it hard for us to discuss it too much detail.

    3

    0
  12. Hope it’s OK to post links on here but below is a 2 minute clip on youtube from a few years back of how CD collected their data…..doesn’t seem to be as complicated as it sounds unless it was just a straight-forward passage of play….

    Makes me wonder though if it was just the one chick clicking away at the mouse as it was called…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZURJqa2WNdM

    1

    0
  13. I think it has become clear to all the people who have made comments on here, that it’s time we create our own scoring formula!

    This time next year, CD will be dead and we will rule!!

    6

    0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *