Scoring Anomalies – Round 11

Written by The Salamander on June 6 2019

To start us off for the week, Dane wondered on Monday if Dom Sheed had been slightly hard done by with his 25 disposals (11 contested, 88 percent DE, 265 metres gained, 9 score involvements), 7 marks, 7 clearances, and a goal netting him 91 points. I’ll second Dane’s original opinion here: it was probably the zero tackles that held him back, continuing a theme this year of players racking up plenty of the ball but being held to a lower score as a result of not tackling anybody.

In a near reversal of the previous situation, Cameron Zurhaar was certainly eye-catching on Friday night, but one can’t help but wonder if his 108 points might have been a little excessive for 11 disposals (8 contested, 82 percent DE, 293 metres gained), 11 tackles, 2 clearances, and 7 inside-50s. The 11 tackles, as well as having 7 score involvements and 4 goal-assists, must have boosted his score significantly.

While some were reliving the nightmare of his round 1 and 2 scores, the rest of David Mundy’s owners were probably wondering why he ended up on just 40 from 19 touches (9 contested, 277 metres gained), 3 tackles, 3 marks, and 3 clearances. In this case, the answer is fairly straightforward: 37 (!) percent DE, 5 clangers, and only 1 score involvement.

A few people may be wondering about the difference between Stephen Coniglio (207) and Josh Kelly’s (138) scores on the weekend, given they both had 36 disposals, 15 score involvements, near-identical metres gained (mid-500s), and fairly similar numbers in most other stats. What probably set Coniglio apart is that he had slightly higher DE (83 percent to 78), a lot more kicks (29 to 21), and kicked 3 goals to Kelly’s 1. Having an extra 6 marks, 3 tackles, 3 goal assists, and 2 inside-50s may have also helped.

He’s had an unusually good year so far, and after getting 97 points for 19 disposals (7 contested, 79 percent DE, 275 metres gained, 2 score involvements), 3 tackles, 2 clearances, 5 marks (1 contested), and a goal on the weekend, I’m starting to wonder whether or not Ricky Henderson might be CD’s new golden boy. Surely, he can’t keep this up for the whole season?

There aren’t many players who can scrape together 89 points from 11 disposals (9 contested, 91 percent DE, 97 metres gained, 2 score involvements), 8 tackles, 3 marks (1 contested), and 2 clearances; fortunately for the 125,742 coaches with him in their teams, Patrick Cripps is one of them. No doubt the high DE helped, but it was probably the tackles that saved his score on Sunday. Well, either that, or he was Champion Data’s captain last week!

Speaking of that match, the young man who held Cripps to just 11 touches, Dylan Clarke, managed 99 points for his 23 disposals (9 contested, 78 percent DE, 217 metres gained, 2 score involvements), 10 tackles, 4 marks (1 inside 50), 6 clearances, and 6 inside-50s, which, overall, seems fair enough. But I can’t help but feel that anyone who can restrict arguably the best player in the competition (and certainly one of the most un-taggable) so successfully deserves to have that effort recognized in their score. I said much the same thing about De Boer a couple of weeks back; it’s really more of a system anomaly than a traditional scoring one, but it still bears mentioning once again. In any case, at 20 years and 8 months, and $147,700, he could be a great downgrade option if he can hold his spot post-bye.

Were there any statistical quirks you noticed on the weekend? Perhaps a score that seemed inexplicably high or low? Let us know in the comments below!


Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom

5 thoughts on “Scoring Anomalies – Round 11”

  1. Do meters gained actually give any points? I was under the impression the meters gained dont matter but can’t remember where I heard that


    1. Good question. Aside from a few stat values that are publicly available, most of the SC scoring system is a black-box, so it’s hard to know for sure. I’m not aware of anything that explicitly says that metres gained matter, but, from my experience pouring over different stats combos and scores, it does seem to be something that makes a difference.

      Score involvements is another one. Again, I’m not aware of CD saying anything about this publicly, but, from pouring over stats and scores, I’d be willing to bet both my kidneys that they weight it very highly.


      1. Sal

        Re: meters gained..

        My belief is that a long kick 40+ meters is always effective unless marked by the oppo. Even when marked by the oppo, A long kick is not considered a clanger, just an ineffective kick that scores nothing.

        A short kick is only considered effective if marked by a team mate. A short kick to the oppo is considered a clanger.

        What I’m trying to say is guys like Seagull Lloyd often kick long out of defence. This means he has many meters gained, alot of effective kicks, and very few clangers.

        This may explain why some players with high meters gained, also report higher than usual SC scores.


        1. That’s certainly the case regarding kicking efficiency, yes. I always throw metres gained into the mix, because although I don’t know if CD gives out points for it directly, I’m pretty confident, based on all the scores I’ve gone over trying to dig up anomalies, that they at least weight other stats by it. I could be wrong, but it’s just the impression I get. It could be that it’s just long kicks getting favourable treatment DE-wise, but I’ve also seen players have poor DE but high metres gained, and have a get scores from it.

          From memory they use over 50 different stats in their formula, but they only tell us about a minority of them, so there’s inevitably going to be a bit of speculation when trying to figure it out.


  2. Just comparing Cripps and Clarke I can’t for the life of me see how Clarke only scored 10 points more than Cripps.
    His DE was less but still a more than respectable 78%, He had more than double the disposals and beat Cripps in tackles, marks and clearances.



Leave a Reply

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