Comments on: The Supercoach Scoring System is a SCAM!

By: craig eyles

craig eyles — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:22:07 +0000

@Damian The question remains how much weighting & at what point?? Some have pointed to me instances where scores are multiplied five fold to make up the 3300 required going on quarter by quarter.
.-= craig eyles´s last blog ..Week 7 Super 14s Picks =-.

By: Damian

Damian — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:33:10 +0000

The scores in Nab cup are 25% (or there abouts) lower than regular season because the games are 25% shorter. The process is that they score each player as per the points described above, give a little extra weighting to those that occur at important points in the game (i.e first quarter if winning team blows away losers or last quarter if it is a nail biter) and then they multiply the scores by 3300/total score. this brings the total of each teams score to 3300… hope that clears up a few things

By: Nath

Nath — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 01:42:31 +0000

The other bit to add was that the supercoach stats is to judge what effect a player had on the game. Thus why the points should match up between each game. One thing I did noticed was some games are a few points higher than others. Would be interesting to see if they had longer quarters or something…

By: Nath

Nath — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 01:38:52 +0000

I have been reading from lots of sources as this year is my first year at Supercoach. From what I have been able to find.

The scores are indeed lower for NAB cup due to the amount of game time.
Ess vs Geel was 3327 if i’m correct.

Also I read that the weight doesn’t increase as the game gets longer more along the lines of if a team gets out to a 10 goal margin early and then cruises most of the points will be weighted to the start. And vice versa if a team wins in the last moments of the game massive points there!

So a juddy or in my case selwood last night that wasn’t dominating for the game, does some classy things in the tight sections of the game, an effective pass, goal etc.. it quickly adds up and he ends up with more points than ablett. Even though ablett had way more touches.

I think I actually like the idea behind supercoach even if the formula is a mystery. If a team is up by 40 points and plays a bit of pingpong in the back half, why should that be equal points to someone who gets the ball and hits their forward on the chest with 15 seconds to go when the scores are tied!

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:08:18 +0000

Score may be lower for nab cup because time of game may be taken into account

By: Jermayn

Jermayn — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 05:13:22 +0000

I only watched parts of the Hawthorn/ Dogs game but I would say they still looked and played better than Carlton. However from what I remember the Hawks where pressured a lot more than what Carlton where against Sydney. and in looking at the scores that Danny supplied you don’t score for ineffective handballs and kicks and from what I remember the Hawks where pressured a fair bit.

What gets me is the fact that all the score are around the same.

By: Danny

Danny — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:06:38 +0000

It’s an interesting Q Craig. I didn’t watch the Syd/Car match, so I can’t really comment. I guess the question for those that did watch is “were Carlton (1408 pts) better than Hawthorn were (1273 pts)”?

As I said, I can’t comment because I didn’t see both games.
.-= Danny´s last blog ..uncyherb: @Taezar I meant both, not just the SB. But the SB probably is better. =-.

By: craig eyles

craig eyles — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:02:44 +0000

Danny
Would you agree that the 2889 points for the Syd .v. Carl & WB.v.Haw game show there is something wrong with the Swans/Blues game played at a terrible standard??
.-= craig eyles´s last blog ..Week 4 Super 14s Picks =-.

By: Danny

Danny — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:58:05 +0000

@craig

Maybe it was different in 09 (I didn’t play supercoach until this year), but the point scoring “rules” suggest it IS set in concrete for 2010.

Essendon V WCE NAB Rd1 – 1396 to 1494 = 2890
Collingwood V StKilda NAB Rd1 – 1430 to 1472 – 2902
Sydney V Carlton NAB Rd1 – 1481 to 1408 = 2889
Bulldogs V Hawks NAB Rd2 – 1616 to 1273 = 2889

The question, with these being similar numbers, is “is this correct?”. Given that the game is fixed in time length, and that to change the overall score significantly would take many more effective stats it might be that what we’re seeing is a reflection of the fact that effective stats take a measurable amount of time, and that with time being the same between all game we’re seeing time as the limiting factor in scores.

By: craig eyles

craig eyles — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:21:03 +0000

If that’s the case, Danny, then why isn’t the points breakdown set in concrete like Dreamteam?? It isn’t possible using the points system alone that each games points total is equal to 3300 give or take 1 or 2 points. That’s the main point of my post.