Scoring Anomalies – Rd2

Written by Schwarzwalder on April 5 2017

One of SCTs new write-ups for the 2017 season……..Scoring Anomalies.  Or otherwise known as ‘that can’t be the right score’.  😉  We’ve all uttered those words at some stage already this season and not just because of the live scoring system playing up.  But in all fairness to Champion Data, it was steadier after the Rich/Coll game.

Champion Data has created one of the most complex scoring systems known to man.  Unfortunately it can be frustrating as hell and create a state of sheer disbelief when checking the SC scores after each game.  Hopefully these Reviews will help change that perception as we seek to find answers to the CD scoring system.  So who gained an advantage  from our pts system last weekend?  Who was negatively affected?  Judging by the Game Chats over the last week, we had a few offenders first-up on the Thursday night…………

 

NEGATIVE

Adam Treloar (COL) – He becomes the first player to make this list on multiple occasions  (and I only just started last week) 😉   Many passionate SCers were talking of early retirement from the Fantasy game, such was the dismay at Treloar’s final score.  In my opinion, I found Pendles & Grundy to be more influential in their work around the ground but Treloar kept racking up possessions.  Normally one might be optimistic about a 150 when your MID gathers 35 touches and kicks two goals.

Yet his score seems to have been dragged down by six clangers (65% Disposal Efficiency) & 25 of his disposals being classified as ‘uncontested’.  Of course that seems harsh, but it’s not uncommon for players with that amount of ‘uncontested ball’.  Many half-back flankers (Birchall, Houli, Malceski at the Swans in 2014) have a similar ratio of possessions (cont:uncont.) and battle to post big scores consistently.  I believe it was the pre-scale score of 89 that most enraged the owners of Treloar.  Thankfully the system worked smoothly after Thursday night.

For the record, a 125 would’ve been a fair score.  While 108 isn’t completely terrible, I’m sure many owners are still livid about the end result.  I have a bad feeling that we’ll be seeing a bit of Mr Treloar in the Anomalies post throughout the year……….

 

POSITIVE

Taylor Adams (COL) – While he did have a decent game, it’s still a bit of a mystery how he scored better than Treloar last Thursday night.  Adams had ten touches less than Treloar yet ran at the same DE rate of 65%.  On paper it seems like his seven tackles and six clearances (just two clangers) helped Adams in a big way to 111pts for the night.

Ben Lennon (RIC) – He’s not really SC-relevant but I’m perplexed at his end score of 72pts.  Nine disposals (66%DE) with three clangers, three tackles, two marks and a goal.  That’s worth 72 pts? Really?  Those five clearances must’ve been extremely influential 😉  Fair to say that ‘John’ was smiled upon by the SC-Gods!

 
Any ‘anomalies’ that annoyed you over the weekend?  Any ‘Ghosts’ in the system?  Something we should delve into a bit further?  Point us in the right direction in the comments below…..or just vent if you feel like it 😉

8
1


Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom

26 thoughts on “Scoring Anomalies – Rd2”

  1. On Treloar, whilst his overall disposal efficiency was 65%, his kicking efficiency was only ~55%. This would have penalized him significantly. So with 70% of his disposals being uncontested and with such a low kicking efficiency, his score of 108 isn’t that big of an anomaly. He will never score more than Pendlebury unless he learns to dispose of the ball better. David King showed at least 3 times were he just chucked it on the left foot and either kicked it straight to the opposition or out of bounds. He is a very good player but won’t be SC elite until he lifts his disposal.

    11

    0
    1. I am a Treloar owner and I think his score is fair. He will still be a top scorer for the year because he will always have such a high disposal count but churn out these 100-105 scores due to poor disposal. There will be times he hits target for the entire game and pumps out 150 to boost his average.

      A big score from him is imminent. I hope.

      22

      0
      1. Can only be patient for so long! If there is a value trade and he keeps scoring like this he will be upgraded.

        3

        14
        1. He had 673 disposals last year and 493 of them were effective. His season disposal efficiency was 73% with only 5 games 80%+

          The last two games, he’s gone at an average of 69% DE.

          Come season end, you throw in those handful of games and he is doing exactly what you paid for.

          8

          0
    2. Where are you getting the kicking efficiency stat from? I can only ever find the total disposal efficiency stat, which doesn’t differentiate between different types of disposal.

      1

      0
  2. The anomaly I want to know about is George Horlin-Smith. He only scored 78 after kicking the match winning goal. Whilst his stats suggest a score of 78 is probably correct, I thought kicking the match winner meant 30-40 points. I remember a few years ago having Bartel and he did a similar thing and his score went from 100 to 140 (approx). Horlin-Smith was on 61 at 3QT, so unless he had some big clangers earlier in the quarter, it would seem his score wasn’t scaled for having kicked the match winner. I would be interested to hear peoples thoughts about this.

    5

    0
      1. That may explain why Docherty’s score didn’t seem to get overly affected when Garlett ran him down to seal the game.

        And no, I’m not a Docherty owner so call it a bit of SuperCoach jealousy if you must

        3

        0
      2. This also begs the question of whether or not a match-winning goal at the end of a game is really more important than a goal at any other point in the game. Obviously, it intuitively *feels* more important, because it seals the result, but it contributes the exact same number of points to a team’s score as any other goal. The result of an AFL match is decided by which team scores the highest number of points, not *when* it kicks them. Looking at it from this perspective, a goal in the first minute of the first quarter is really no less important than a goal kicked in the last minute of the final quarter.

        10

        0
        1. I have to disagree, because of the emphasis that Champion Data puts on “pressure”. Contested possessions are scored much higher than uncontested because of this, and by the same logic a match-winning goal should be worth more than one kicked at any other time in the game. Junk time goals should be discounted for this reason also.
          I do agree though that the upscaling used to be excessive, I’m happy they’ve wound it back a bit.

          8

          2
          1. I agree with you about junk time goals, but I stand by my position. The contribution of any particular scoring shot to the team’s total score is the same regardless of when it occurs – this is just a mathematical fact. If, for example, a team kicks a goal in the last ten seconds to win the match by 3 points, then we would tend to think of that goal as being the match winner. But its contribution to the overall score is the same as any other goal. Therefore, if the team had failed to score any of its other goals, it would lose the match*, regardless of whether or not it still kicked that goal in the last ten seconds. It follows from this that in a tight match – which is the only kind of match where the concept of a ‘match winning goal’ applies – no one goal is any more important than any other. Therefore, they should not be weighted any differently.

            * Obviously, one different action at any stage of the match would alter the entire chain of events, thereby leading to a different outcome, such is the nature of complex systems. However, in the context of this discussion, we are looking at this as a matter of accounting, not chaos theory.

            5

            2
            1. You can argue either way, Jack.

              On one hand, 1 goal = 6 points at any time so all goals have the same value.

              On the other hand the pressure on a player to make that shot is higher at the end of the match: Just look at Isaac Smith who had not missed a single shot on goal in finals until the 2016 finals against the Cats.

              Personally I don’t like double points for the winning goal because it is random and involves no Supercoach skill but I won’t lose sleep over it.

              7

              0
            2. I agree with Thommo re: pressure – while you’re right about if those 2 goals in the 2nd quarter were just as crucial in a 1-goal win as the last goal to get the win, that last goal attempt would have wreaked havoc in the player’s head, making it far more valuable. But I’m all for not putting too much emphasis SC-wise.

              0

              0
              1. Whilst I do accept the psychological angle of it to some extent, it still poses problems:

                1) The players may or may not know how much time is left.
                2) We are expecting Champion Data’s statisticians to play amateur psychologists, which poses yet more problems:
                a) How can they know a player’s state of mind?
                b) Even if they can, how exactly should they go about quantifying it?

                1

                2
  3. I was surprised by Callan Ward who had 12 kicks, 20 handpasses, 16 CP, 12 clearances, 2 goal assists and 1 tackle, all at 90% DE but only scored about 108 SC points from memory.

    10

    0
      1. Yeah, not a Champion Data darling.

        My guess this week is that the Giants scored so many points that weighting actually reduced their scores. Tends to happen when there are 24 goals for one team!

        3

        0
  4. I thought his 108 was about right, his 96 the week before was unders by 15 i think. Ive got his 33 and 36d games with a few burst through the centre/past defender bursts and running goals were pretty special. I have him around 110 both games. His first halfs have been huge he was everywhere and well regarded by all panellist w/end footy shows when discussing the games.

    1

    0
  5. My mate did a write up in our SC Group on FB, about how Buddy only scored 12sc for both his long range goals/taking the game on yet Bont scored 21sc for his uncontested mark & goal in the goalsquare.

    The other one was Marchbank, his first 3disp were ineffective, other players that get off to such starts aka Rory Laird last year ended up with 30 at 82% eff but CD never gave him a sniff in after a mare 1st qtr. Same cant be said of March, was 6d at 50% 2marks and 30sc. After that he was good but shouldnt have been anywhere near 30 at that stage.

    3

    0
    1. Agree Buddy taking the game on when it was in the balance with his 2 long range missiles were huge given the context of the game. Wonder if the scoring would have changed much if Sydney ended up winning the game…

      I’m a Cats fan but I was still awestruck by that piece of Buddy magic.

      2

      0
  6. I agree with Jack….as a coach I drum into my boys the value of those easy early ‘unpressured’ goals which is a pressure in itself.

    1

    0
  7. I think Players like Treloar, Shiel & even Judd back in the day have their scoring affected by the way they play as they get a lot of ball at top speed in traffic that is deemed uncontested when it’s no easier to get an effective disposal away than it is when you’re firing a handball out at the bottom of the pack or the like.

    3

    0

Leave a Reply

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