Scoring Anomalies – Round 2

Written by The Salamander on April 3 2019

2045 points to 1255. That was the overall SuperCoach scoreline between Collingwood and Richmond on the weekend. The Pies certainly won the game convincingly, but that convincingly? I’m not so sure. Either way, with ten 100+ scores to zero, it was a great week to have Collingwood players in your team.

Moving on to some individual scores from the round, I’m personally at a loss to explain the gap between Macrae and teammate Lachie Hunter’s scores: similar disposal counts (36 – 33), marks (7 – 8), tackles (3 – 4), inside 50s (4 – 5), clearances, and clangers (both 4 apiece). Macrae did have slightly better disposal efficiency, running at 75 percent compared to Hunter’s 70, although Hunter had nearly 50 percent more metres gained. The end result of these stats? 127 points to 95. Macrae did also kick a goal, but, last I checked, those weren’t worth 32 points.

Hunter wouldn’t be the only player feeling hard done by this weekend – traditionally, 38 disposals at 76 percent DE, 6 clearances, 7 score involvements, and nearly 400 metres gained would net you a pretty handy score. I can only assume, then, that Shaun Higgins has burned somebody at Champion Data one too many times on his way to 86 points. Only having 12 of those 38 disposals contested, whilst committing 6 clangers and laying 0 tackles, probably didn’t help his cause. Still, it’s not often that somebody nearly cracks the 40-disposal mark and fails to reach triple-digits.

Now, this might be my Carlton bias showing through, but with similar disposal counts (36 – 32), clearances (10 – 12), DE (67 percent to 63), and clanger counts (4 – 5), was JPK’s effort (136) really 20 points better than that of Cripps (116), when the latter had almost 50 percent more contested possessions (16 – 23), and 7 times as many tackles (1 – 7)? Some might argue that we shouldn’t be comparing scores from different matches, but, given the black-box nature of the SuperCoach scoring system, it is exactly this sort of inconsistency that frustrates coaches week in, week out.

The final scoring anomaly I’m going to talk about this week is St. Kilda’s Matt Parker. 89 points this week and 87 last week would certainly have been nice for those that picked him; it’s a pity, then, that his 61 (81 % TOG) and 36 (75 %) in his two JLT games didn’t give us much warning about what he was capable of. Experienced coaches are always quick to remind others not to read too much into the JLT form of premiums and midpricers; it might be a silly question to ask given the lack of any real alternative, but are we sometimes guilty of doing just that with rookies, too?

 

Did any scores seem off to you on the weekend? Let us know in the comments below.

12
1


Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom

20 thoughts on “Scoring Anomalies – Round 2”

  1. A big part of MaCrae’s points differential was for the goal that he kicked being one of the deciding acts in the game’s outcome with a couple of minutes to go.

    13

    0
    1. I think it would be overall importance in the last quarter that decided the game not just a goal but all disposals and tackles. Still very annoying for owners on the other side.

      1

      3
    2. To add to that, what was the ratio of contested possessions between the two? My bet is Macrae’s was much higher.

      3

      0
    3. I was kinda watching Macraes stats on Fan Footy when he kicked the equalizer. It jumped from about 83 to 105ish (can’t remember exactly). As a non-owner patiently waiting for his price to drop, I was disgusted with this jump. A jump of 20-30 points for a goal minutes from the siren was a bit ridiculous

      7

      1
  2. Would be curious to see an analysis of the ruck score from Round 1 to Round 2.

    Can’t help but suspect the CD may have tweaked their ruck scoring algorithms after a very disappointing showing across the board in the first round of the season, probably under the guise of “adapting to the new rules”.

    1

    6
      1. RD1 Grundy, Gawn and Lycett combined for 237 SC points and 20 Hitouts to Advantage.
        RD2 Grundy, Gawn and Lycett combined for 420 SC points and 38 Hitouts to Advantage.

        7

        0
        1. Obviously, HTAs aren’t the only thing that make up a ruck’s score, but in both cases, that’s between 11 and 12 points per HTA, so based on that, there’s no evidence of any tinkering.

          4

          0
      2. I dont think they change the algorithm, I think they just have new staff at Champion Data recording the stats each year. It takes them a while to sort out all the subjective stats like what counts as ‘to advantage’ which is why there’s always fluctuations in the first couple rounds.

        8

        0
  3. I’m suspicious of anything secret. That includes Transurban’s toll deal with the state government, KFC’s herbs and spices, and Supercoach’s scoring algorithms. Hence the name.

    14

    0
    1. I think it was last year or the previous one. Lachie Neale was on about98 points with ten seconds left at the centre bounce. He won the clearance and set up the match winning goal, he ended up on around 130 after that.

      3

      1
    2. Don’t forget the formula for keno numbers at pokies venues, or the “service” of pokies after they’ve paid out their 87%.
      Are the algorithms influenced by salaries and promotional activities? Hmmmmm……..

      3

      0
  4. This is why we try and make sense of it……otherwise it’ll soon be referred to as a “Deep State Conspiracy” 😉

    5

    0
  5. One thing I have noticed this year, is the total points differential at 3/4 Time. Some games have had as many as 1200pts still to allocate. Some as few as 700. That’s a huge discrepancy.
    I think this is why we can’t compare across games. Do you know if they then ‘scale’ at the end of each quarter?! I only ask, because I don’t then recheck at the start of the last?
    I might do it for a couple of games this weekend as I have the time. I didn’t last week.
    Will report back Sal. This is a great idea. Is it gonna be a regular feature?!

    3

    0
    1. Scoring Anomalies? Yes, that’s a weekly thing.

      As far as I know, the scaling only happens at the end of the game, but I could be wrong.

      1

      0
    2. Noticed the same thing – lots of low scores late in games. Makes it tough to judge things like captaincy loopholes if you’ve got some overlap between your VC and C choices.

      1

      0

Leave a Reply

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