Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

SuperCoach point scoring is rigged

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andy C
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Andy C

Team Captain
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Posts
342
Reaction score
0
Location
Seymour
AFL Club
Collingwood
Interesting analysis of Super Coach.

If you take Brisbane v West Coast, Carlton v Richmond, Western Bulldogs v Fremantle, Geelong v Hawthorn…

As we said, the total number of points per game is 3,300 give or take a point here or there.

Proving Super Coach is biased.

I mean if it is a sloppy game where one side kicks 3 goals to the other sides 2 goals and a billion clangers each, they have to give as many points as a game where both sides kick 25 goals and it is amazing floorless footy.

How is that fair??




[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]AFL Season 2009 fantasy ladder - round 1 [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Check out the performances of your club, based on Herald Sun TAC SuperCoach fantasy scoring, as well as your club's player selection popularity. Click on any of the clubs for complete player stats.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Team[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]# of players selected[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Value[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Last Rd[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]TOTAL POINTS[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Brisbane[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]471,263[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]$12,444,200[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,920[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,920[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]2.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Carlton[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]704,529[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]$14,190,300[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,880[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,880[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]3.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Western Bulldogs[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]421,537[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]$12,324,800[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,871[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,871[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]4.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Geelong[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]715,798[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]$13,917,600[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,842[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,842[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]5.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]St Kilda[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]394,734[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]$12,995,200[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,836[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,836[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]6.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Port Adelaide[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]369,750[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]$12,843,100[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,756[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,756[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]7.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]North Melbourne[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]398,058[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]$12,331,900[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,721[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,721[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]8.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Adelaide[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]391,518[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]$12,153,900[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,673[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,673[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]9.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Collingwood[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]588,314[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]$13,228,700[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,626[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,626[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]10.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Melbourne[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]291,846[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]$12,548,300[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,580[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,580[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]11.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Essendon[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]490,592[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]$13,273,800[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,544[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,544[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]12.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Sydney[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]240,153[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]$13,118,000[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,464[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,464[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]13.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hawthorn[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]689,774[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]$13,011,200[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,460[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,460[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]14.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fremantle[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]401,986[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]$12,256,800[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,428[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,428[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]15.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Richmond[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]658,522[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]$14,163,400[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,420[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,420[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]16.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]West Coast[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]440,618[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]$13,102,600[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,386[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1,386[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][/FONT]
 
clanger should be a clanger exactly the same in every game and it is not!!!!

It is totally open to the interpretation of the person giving the points.

You can see it when you watch the game on the internet and live on TV and make your own analysis.

Shaun Higgins got about 85 SC points in the first quarter on Sunday and in the second quarter, whoever was giving the points claimed a couple of his kicks that bounced a metre in front of the target were clangers, just to try and decrease his SC points because he is a "no name" player. Meanwhile Pavlich kicked the ball virtually straight to Gilbee's chest and it was given as an ineffective kick.

That is what I am talking about.

Then they use a Bell curve to rationalise the total points to 3,300 points anyway.

If they are only at 2,900 points with 5 minutes to go in the last quater, all of a sudden every goal is worth about 30 points. and a normal mark is a pack mark etc etc,,,,

Basically, this scoring system can not be accurately applied and still somehow come up with 3,300 points in every game. So something is not right somewhere!

Effective kick4
PointsIneffective kick0
PointsClanger kick-8
PointsHandball effective2
PointsIneffective handball0
PointsHandball clanger-6
PointsHandball receive1
PointHardball get4
PointsLoose-ball get4
PointsGoal8
PointsBehind1
PointMark uncontested (maintaining possession)1
PointMark contested (maintaining possession) 6
PointsMark uncontested (from opposition)4
PointsMark contested (from opposition)8
PointsTackles4
PointsFree kick for4
PointsFree kick against-6
PointsHit out to Advantage3 Points​


​
 
Andy C said:
Interesting analysis of Super Coach.

If you take Brisbane v West Coast, Carlton v Richmond, Western Bulldogs v Fremantle, Geelong v Hawthorn…

As we said, the total number of points per game is 3,300 give or take a point here or there.

Proving Super Coach is biased.

I mean if it is a sloppy game where one side kicks 3 goals to the other sides 2 goals and a billion clangers each, they have to give as many points as a game where both sides kick 25 goals and it is amazing floorless footy.

How is that fair??
Click to expand...


The brownlow gives 3 votes to the best on ground performance despite the quality of the game. How is that fair?

The game would not be as fun as all the gun midfielders would be from Geelong while none would be from Syndey (historically). Accountable teams get recognised which IMO is more accurate. Players that step up when the games on the line get more points which IMO is more accurate. If the game is not close you do not get 30 points for a goal.
 
Hang on!

What you are saying is that they say they have a scoring system and then they throw it out the window depending on the game and depending on the conditions and depending on how many points they have socred in the previous quarters.

All I am asking for is some consistancy.

Yes, they give 3 Brownlow votes for every game. But two wrongs don't make a right. We all know the Brownlow is a flawed, flawed, flawed system.

Woewodin, Cooney vrs Matthews, Bartlett, Knights et al.

So I go back to my original point. I think the SC scoring system actually favours players with a good reputation because they are not marked as harshly as "no name" brand players.

You can be a superstar in a 100 point win and because you are behind Ablett, Bartel, Corey, S Johnson, Ottens and Chapman - you are going to get less cut of the pie.

Whereas James McDonald and Adam Goodes don't have much competition.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

The only thing "Floored" here is me at your "Flawed" logic.

There is no rigging, what the point scoring actually does is rank a player and compare their personal performance with the rest of the 44 players on the day. So when Ablett scores 162 he was twice as important/effective in the game than Kepler Bradley who got 81. Hence it doesn't matter if it was a shit game and Ablett had 36 clangers, because Bradley had 72 clangers and was twice as shit.

So it doesn't matter if the total points is 3300 / 2200 / 4400, the result is the same.
 
It is simply a weighting system to rank players value in a particular game.

All games are played differently & under different conditions. A good example of this is if one game is playing in teaming rain, wind & mud at Geelong and another under the Dome in perfect conditions, if you do not weight the game - half the guys in the mud are going to be in the negative as the clangers will be huge, less possies, less marks etc. Yet the game still has to be played & for four points & is no less important than the game at the Dome.

By not weighting games you have no idea of who was actually more valueable across the competitions round of games.
 
All I am saying is:-

If this is the system they use to allocate points which is in the rules.

Effective kick4
PointsIneffective kick0
PointsClanger kick-8
PointsHandball effective2
PointsIneffective handball0
PointsHandball clanger-6
PointsHandball receive1
PointHardball get4
PointsLoose-ball get4
PointsGoal8
PointsBehind1
PointMark uncontested (maintaining possession)1
PointMark contested (maintaining possession) 6
PointsMark uncontested (from opposition)4
PointsMark contested (from opposition)8
PointsTackles4
PointsFree kick for4
PointsFree kick against-6
PointsHit out to Advantage3 Points

How can they then come to 3,300 points for a total game every game?


It doesn't mention in the rules that 3,300 points are allocated per game and therefore there is a bell curve to rationalise the point scoring.

I bet 90% of people in Super Coach don't even realise there is a maximum and a minimum number of points allocated per game and it is always 3,300.

I understand if Ablett has 162 points, he has had a "twice as effective" game as Kepler Bradley at 81 points in the same game. But what about across different games?

But how can a game b/w bottom vrs second bottom team be allocated the same amount of points as Geelong v Hawthorn?

One is a clanger filled festival. The other is champagne footy.

Yet they are both worth a total of 3,300 points.

Ablett might get 162 points with 40 effective kicks and James McDonald in the other game might get 162 points with 10 effective kicks, just because the opposition they played on the day were woeful and they still need to allocate 3,300 total points for the game.

So it isn't fair. Across games.
 
Ablett BOG/ Mcdonald BOG, same points, fair.
What if Geelong play Hawthorn at Skilled, it is -2 degrees and half the ground is underwater? Meanwhile Melbourne play Freo in Perth, 29 degrees and there is clean 'champagne' football. Why should a team of crappy Melbourne players be given more points than the 'superstars' of Geelong and Hawthorn. Both games are worth 4 points are they not?
 
So 2 teams playing in wet/windy conditions that aren't conducive to marks/goals etc. should just get less points than 2 teams that play the day before in perfect conditions?

I think the number of points weighted per game is fair.
 
No that is not right. Because Ablett is playing McDonald. Not Ablett relative to the opposition of his day v McDonald relative to the opposition of that day.


What if the Geelong v Hawthorn Game was played at Skilled Stadium in the wet and the Melbourne v West Coast Game was played at Telstra Dome in prestine conditions.

there was not one clanger in the wet by either Geelong or the Hawks

but at Telsta Dome ever second kick is a clanger.

How is that fair on the players who played great football but just happened to be in a match with all other players who played great football?

It should not be relative to the performace on the day of all other players on the same field and therefore this huge Bell Curve.

Sure, you might have some leniancy for clangers in wet conditions but capping each game at 3,300 does not accurately reflect the skills on show in any one game.

Remember in wet conditions, you will have a lot more tackles etc, so it will work both ways.

At no stage does the blurb on the scoring talk about a Bell Curve and a total of 3,300 points per game.

It just says due to the large number of factors we can't actually tell you how the scoring works!!!

"Your Herald Sun TAC SuperCoach team will score points according to the real-life performances of your selected players during the 22 round season.

Only your starting line-up of 22 will earn points for your side. If any of them are unable to play, one of your three emergencies will be brought into the line-up. An emergency will be added to your starting 22 in the same position as the player he is replacing. If two or more emergencies could fill the position, the lowest-scoring player will come into the 22. If a member of the starting 22 can't play and there are no emergencies to play in his position, you'll get zero points for that player.

Unlike other games, Herald Sun TAC SuperCoach uses Champion Data's exclusive stats system to assess each player's contribution to your team. At the end of each match, Champion Data will calculate players' final ranking and this score will be added to your team's total.

By using more than 50 different stats, Champion Data's final player rankings are the most accurate way to determine how effective a player has been. For example, while other games will award points for a kick no matter how far it goes or where it's directed, Champion Data will award zero points for a kick that travels less than 40 meters to a contest.

The main ways for your starting 22 to earn points for your SuperCoach team are listed on the right. Due to the large number of factors affecting scoring, we cannot publish the full system. "
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Andy C said:
How is that fair on the players who played great football but just happened to be in a match with all other players who played great football?
Click to expand...
Luckily it doesn't impact the players themselves in the slightest. The points reflect a player's impact on one particular game, and that is all.
 
It's just a ridiculous way to do it.

As players with great skills suffer and it actually rewards Mediocrity not based on the condition of the field but on the condition of the opposition performace on the same day.

You just have to be less poor than everyone else.

i.e it is rigged.
.
 
I just want them to follow their scoring as per their advertised arangement on their home page and not make it up as they go along.

This is the scoring they advertise:-

Effective kick4
PointsIneffective kick0
PointsClanger kick-8
PointsHandball effective2
PointsIneffective handball0
PointsHandball clanger-6
PointsHandball receive1
PointHardball get4
PointsLoose-ball get4
PointsGoal8
PointsBehind1
PointMark uncontested (maintaining possession)1
PointMark contested (maintaining possession) 6
PointsMark uncontested (from opposition)4
PointsMark contested (from opposition)8
PointsTackles4
PointsFree kick for4
PointsFree kick against-6
PointsHit out to Advantage3 Points

that is the scoring they should implement.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Andy C said:
It's just a ridiculous way to do it.

As players with great skills suffer and it actually rewards Mediocrity not based on the condition of the field but on the condition of the opposition performace on the same day.

You just have to be less poor than everyone else.

i.e it is rigged.
.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what Font you use, you are still typing garbage. :D
Can you explain why Ablett and Hodge are the highest scoring players from last year if:
"As players with great skills suffer"
 
I'd rather Teddy Hopkins and his people at Chamionship Data admit their system based on 3,300 points a game and factors that no one knows is BULLSHIT!

and he can give back the 1970 Premiership Cup while he is at it!
 
Parasite said:
Doesn't matter what Font you use, you are still typing garbage. :D
Can you explain why Ablett and Hodge are the highest scoring players from last year if:
"As players with great skills suffer"
Click to expand...

To be frank they probably deserve to be higher and bigger points scorers.

The BELL CURVE stops them from scoring 200 points every game which if you used this methodology.

Effective kick4
PointsIneffective kick0
PointsClanger kick-8
PointsHandball effective2
PointsIneffective handball0
PointsHandball clanger-6
PointsHandball receive1
PointHardball get4
PointsLoose-ball get4
PointsGoal8
PointsBehind1
PointMark uncontested (maintaining possession)1
PointMark contested (maintaining possession) 6
PointsMark uncontested (from opposition)4
PointsMark contested (from opposition)8
PointsTackles4
PointsFree kick for4
PointsFree kick against-6
PointsHit out to Advantage3 Points

they would do.
 
No they wouldn't. I would bet my significant cash reserves that champion data did not pick 3300 out of thin air...I would say that would be the average total game score over a long period of time. Hence the actual change in score due to the weighting of the scores is not as much as you are going on about.
 
Parasite said:
No they wouldn't. I would bet my significant cash reserves that champion data did not pick 3300 out of thin air...I would say that would be the average total game score over a long period of time. Hence the actual change in score due to the weighting of the scores is not as much as you are going on about.
Click to expand...

ie a BELL CURVE.

3,300 is just a figure plucked out of the sky.

The game has changed.

The rules have changed.

Hang on, we are told that:-

Every year the players skills are getting better.

So therefore the 3,300 ponits per game is just an arbitary number...

unless it is changed on a yearly basis based on the performace of the new breed of players coming into the system with super skills.
 
http://www.championdata.com.au/files/rankings.pdf

How the AFL Player Rankings are calculated

The Player Rankings formula is based on the Official AFL Statistics, and is calculated by computer.
The rankings formula is weighted in favour of effective use of the ball (loaded in favour of good kicking)
and various types of possession gainers (loaded in favour of winning disputed ball).
Evidence based on extensive research into winning and losing factors in AFL games (1,110 games in total
from 1999 to 2003) by Champion Data and the Swinburne Univerisity School of Mathematics is
unequivocal – effective kicking and winning disputed ball in critical situations is what counts most.
Accordingly, the AFL Players Rankings are geared to reward these winning factors. The formula is
scientifically derived and objective.

Rankings samples

An effective long kick has to travel more than 40 metres to a 50/50 contested or better for the team. The
computer adds four rankings points for each effective long kick.
If the long kick goes to a teammate for an uncontested possession, research shows this is very valuable
for the team and the computer adds five rankings points to the players tally.
Effective short kicks are less than 40 metres that result in uncontested possession to a teammate. The
computer also adds four rankings points for these.
Clanger kicks are when the kick goes down the throat of the opposition and the computer deducts eight
rankings points from the players tally because this hurts the team badly.
Ineffective kicks occur most often where players kick short to a contest and the computer ignores these by
giving a zero rankings value.
A goal receives eight ranking points in addition to the four ranking points for the effective kick, and the
points awarded for the possession type resulting in the kick and goal.
Another example of weighing in favour of game breaking statistic is contested marking. A contested mark
results in four rankings points to the player.
A contested mark from an opposition kick is very important and the computer adds eight rankings points
for these.

Publishing formula policy

The rankings value for each statistical category has been endorsed by the AFL and the Swinburne
University School of Mathematics.
There are a total of 57 individual statistics categories where the computer attributes either a positive or
negative value.
Several of these categories, such as ‘marks from opposition kicks’ ranking points, are derived from the
computer linking a series of composite statistics.
Given the unique intellectual property contained in the rankings formula and the degree of underlying
computer logic applied, Champion Data does not publish the full rankings formula.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom