2017 Supercoach Scoring

[Seppo]

So, I've seen a few comments on the scoring seeming to be different from last year and I agree. I think we might want to analyze it a bit more to determine the differences, if there are any at all. If we figure something out we should be ahead of the curve on our trades. I've looked up what we've been given about scoring in 2016 and 2017 and I found a lot of differences.

Here is the link for 2016 scoring: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...a/news-story/7385b9a5cdd20375bf2ed606a02fe1d0

Here is a copy-and-pasted table of the 2017 scoring:
Stat Description Points Awarded/Deducted
Effective kick 4 Points
Ineffective kick 0 Points
Clanger kick -4 Points
Effective Handball 1.5 Points
Ineffective handball 0 Points
Handball clanger -4 Points
Handball receive 1.5 Point
Hardball get 4.5 Points
Loose-ball get 4.5 Points
Goal 8 Points
Behind 1 Point
Mark uncontested (maintaining possession) 2 Points
Mark contested (maintaining possession) 6 Points
Mark uncontested (from opposition) 4 Points
Mark contested (from opposition) 8 Points
Tackles 4 Points
Free kick for 4 Points
Free kick against -4 Points
Hitout to Advantage 5 Points
Gather from Hitout 2 Points

Firstly, I see that there are no mentions of shepherds (1.5 points in 2016) or spoils (2 points in 2016). To me, that means that key backs are devalued. Josh Gibson will certainly never score 170 again lol. The most relevant pick to suffer is probably Alex Rance...and then guys who weren't selected as much such as Gibson and Tom McDonald. Backs, in general, should suffer a bit from this. Up until yesterday I was thinking Rance was an early upgrade target for me after he drops in price but now I don't think I'll be going that route.

Next, I see that goal assists have been taken out of it, so that probably means even less scoring for the forwards. It probably hurts small forwards the most, but I'd need to do a bit more research.

Surprisingly, the ruck scoring seems to have changed in favor of more points to the ruckmen. Hitouts to advantage are still the same, but I see no mention of a negative point for a sharked hitout. This makes the premium rucks (I'm looking at you, Gawn) look way more valuable to me since they're probably priced unders...whoops I didn't take any of them.

I also think that key forwards are devalued a bit since uncontested marks on a lead (5 points in 2016) are now nowhere to be seen. My interpretation is that they are now just the normal 2 points for an uncontested mark. This leads to some regret for me: I picked Riewoldt, not realizing that he'd been devalued (it is possible I could restructure him to Gawn because of the injury, but I'm not too keen to go that crazy in week 2 trades). I also think the medium forwards like Gunston may not hold value since they do a lot of leading up the ground to take uncontested marks.

Uncontested gathers (1.5 points in 2016) seem to have been removed in favor of gathers from hitouts (2 points in 2017). I am unsure if this "gather from hitouts" stacks on top of the 4.5 points a player already gets from a contested possession, but I am making the assumption that it does. This puts even more of an emphasis on the contested nature of the game, and probably affirms the strategy to go really deep in the mids this year. Also, it seems even more important than ever that we pick the midfielders who are available in the FWDs and BACs. (I think Touk Miller is going to come under heavy consideration as a replacement for Riewoldt for mine).

Sorry for the long post, but I think this is worth unpacking. I really wish I would've done this 2 weeks ago and I am kicking myself for missing it before I selected my team. Let me know if you think I am interpreting any of the stats incorrectly.

 

[Fbdonkey]

They normally notify us of any changes with an article in the HS.
There is definitely something different going on. A lot of players getting big stats early but barely registering in the scoring.

The final end of game scoring seems to be a much better representation than the in game scoring we are seeing.

 

[Tevez17]

No way Bont scores 120 without score assists/score involvements on Friday night.

 

[Ice Cold Beverage]

No way Bont scores 120 without score assists/score involvements on Friday night.

Yeah I agree, he assisted at least 3-4 goals with either kicks or smart tap ons.. that's big points..

 

[Seppo]

They normally notify us of any changes with an article in the HS.
There is definitely something different going on. A lot of players getting big stats early but barely registering in the scoring.

The final end of game scoring seems to be a much better representation than the in game scoring we are seeing.

I am wondering if the weighting of when players scored their points or the scaling due to one team winning hasn't changed a bit either. TBH, I think the player most hard-done-by is Pendles. 24 Contested Possessions at 82.9% efficiency with 10 clearances, 2 goals at fairly crucial times, and only 2 clangers....I was for sure thinking he had gone 180+. He also had 4 one-percent'ers, but I guess they don't count anymore. I was surprised to see Treloar go so low, but he really didn't have a damaging game at all (I was surprised to see his efficiency so high at 72%) and only had 11 out of 34 possessions contested with 5 clangers...so really only 6 of those contested possessions got him points. This game was fairly high possession I would wager a pretty confident guess, so I think it didn't have all that much room to scale up. I think another pretty weird example was Rockliff vs Beams. Rockliff got 23 contested possessions (close to Pendles), but went at 48.6% efficiency and didn't kick the goals and had 4 clangers...but still got to 137. Beams by no means should have gone as high as Rockliff (he only got 10 contested), but he went at a much better efficiency (67.9% with 2 less clangers) and then scaled down. He did have a goal assist, but I don't think those count anymore. I think they may have changed their scaling. It seems to be way more important as to when these players got their points.

I can't really comment on the in-game scoring as I don't subscribe and sleep through most of the games being 15 hours behind right now. But, from what people are saying, it does seem pretty useless.

 

[Seppo]

No way Bont scores 120 without score assists/score involvements on Friday night.

I disagree: he only had 1 goal assist...so I don't think that would've done much to his score. He lead his team in contested possessions (only 12 though) and went at 81.8% efficiency with only 1 clanger. He kicked his two goals at super important times and seemed to be getting his possessions when the game was on the line. I do think they've changed the way they scale, but he definitely deserved to be higher up than a player like Treloar from that game (see my comments above). The way The Bont/Pendles/Treloar scored does make me question whether a clearance is worth the total 6.5 points (4.5 for a contested possession plus 2 from a "gather from hitout") or just the 2 points for the "gather from hitout". Pendles had 10 clearances, Treloar had 6, and The Bont had 1. Maybe clearances have been devalued...which I would really like an answer to because that would be very important...like massively important.

 

[hawker]

It's worth noting that pies vs doggies game had about 100 more possies then most games with stats up in almost every area...

So to be relative with alot of other games the typical stat line is going to score 10-20% less SC to fit everyone under the 3300

 

[Tevez17]

I disagree: he only had 1 goal assist...

Score assists was & I think still is a worth points, Goal assists I don't think was ever a thing.

Wasn't knocking Bont's score thought it was fair.

 

[Seppo]

Score assists was & I think still is a worth points, Goal assists I don't think was ever a thing.

Wasn't knocking Bont's score thought it was fair.

I believe goal assists and score assists are the same thing: the player who disposes of it to the goal kicker gets one. There is a herald sun article from last year entitled "Score Assists Explained" or something of the sort that I can't get into if you want to make sure. Either way, I don't see score assists listed on this year's SC scoring stats so I'm assuming they don't mean anything anymore.

 

[Tevez17]

Higgins has 5 effective disposals 1K 4H, 3 clearances, no clangers & a FK.... for 4 SC points...

Sam Mitchell 7 Effective disposals, 2 contested, 1 clearance, 2 rebound 50s... for 37 SC points

 

[Seppo]

Higgins has 5 effective disposals 1K 4H, 3 clearances, no clangers & a FK.... for 4 SC points...

Sam Mitchell 7 Effective disposals, 2 contested, 1 clearance, 2 rebound 50s... for 37 SC points

Yeah, I think they're just having a problem with live scoring.

But, this brings up another point: I don't see rebound 50s or inside 50s listed as giving any points. Inside 50s are something that Treloar had an absolute boatload of, but didn't get rewarded for so I don't think they matter.

 

[Tevez17]

Yeah, I think they're just having a problem with live scoring.

But, this brings up another point: I don't see rebound 50s or inside 50s listed as giving any points. Inside 50s are something that Treloar had an absolute boatload of, but didn't get rewarded for so I don't think they matter.

I don't think that's all the scoring criteria though.

 

[Seppo]

I don't think that's all the scoring criteria though.

I reckon it is...they gave us a list last year of everything and explained it. They gave us a list this year they just didn't write articles about it. I guess the purpose of this thread is to discover, for sure, whether or not these things on their list are all they use to determine scores. It's entirely within the realm of possibilities for those stats to be everything they use and the complicated algorithm (or whatever) is just a scaling thing based on what team wins and at what point of the game players accumulated their statistics.

 

[Tevez17]

I reckon it is...they gave us a list last year of everything and explained it. They gave us a list this year they just didn't write articles about it. I guess the purpose of this thread is to discover, for sure, whether or not these things on their list are all they use to determine scores. It's entirely within the realm of possibilities for those stats to be everything they use and the complicated algorithm (or whatever) is just a scaling thing based on what team wins and at what point of the game players accumulated their statistics.

Surley if they made such a massive change that would have told us? They could be in legal trouble seeing though it's classified as a lottery under current gaming laws.

 

[Seppo]

Surley if they made such a massive change that would have told us? They could be in legal trouble seeing though it's classified as a lottery under current gaming laws.

SC is a lottery for legal purposes? That's interesting, because over here that's a big legal problem and a lot of the big gambling fantasy sports are in court battles to be classified as games of skill. It's not much of a lottery for me, I'm not eligible for prizes, I just play for fun.

Regardless, if they did make the changes, I think they'd be covered legally because they listed everything in the rules. They just didn't make a big deal out of it. I think having some sort of "secret algorithm" would be much more of a legal trouble as far as disclosure is concerned, but that's always been a thing and they haven't had problems.

 

[M4TT B8S]

Higgo's first 10 touches scored him 30 points, his last 3 scored him 17+, longer kicks, were touches that influenced scores and good passages of play

 

[keffa]

I reckon it is...they gave us a list last year of everything and explained it. They gave us a list this year they just didn't write articles about it. I guess the purpose of this thread is to discover, for sure, whether or not these things on their list are all they use to determine scores. It's entirely within the realm of possibilities for those stats to be everything they use and the complicated algorithm (or whatever) is just a scaling thing based on what team wins and at what point of the game players accumulated their statistics.

Nah there's absolutely no way that CD release all their 'values' for acts/events. From memory there are about 60+ acts that earn or lose points, but only what, a quarter or a third of these are published. Why would they release all their IP? I can tell you for certain that metres gained is worth points, but none of us knows exactly how many.

Personally I think the live scores aren't working properly right now. If they don't sort out in the next few weeks there's no way in hell I'll be renewing HS subscription.

 

[Prospector]

Nah there's absolutely no way that CD release all their 'values' for acts/events. From memory there are about 60+ acts that earn or lose points, but only what, a quarter or a third of these are published. Why would they release all their IP? I can tell you for certain that metres gained is worth points, but no one knows exactly how many.

Personally I think the live scores aren't working properly right now. If they don't sort out in the next few weeks there's no way in hell I'll be renewing HS subscription.

I support keffa's post here.

 

[just kev]

As I am new to forum discussion, I am unsure where to post this.
Since this thread is about SC scoring, I figure I would post here.
This is my 4th year (not consecutive) of SC. In past years my 1st round score was a measly 1700 - 1860. This year, I have managed a 1st round score of 2154.
I see comments regarding changes in the scoring compared to previous years. I have never looked into (or understood) how the final score for a player is calculated. I have only gone by possession, goals, behinds that a player gets in a game. And I make my choices based on those 3 things.

So if there have been any major changes in the calculations of the SC scoring for this year, which is different to previous years, I would not notice it.
Therefore I have no idea if my higher 1st round score this year is a result of the changes.

 

[Seppo]

Nah there's absolutely no way that CD release all their 'values' for acts/events. From memory there are about 60+ acts that earn or lose points, but only what, a quarter or a third of these are published. Why would they release all their IP? I can tell you for certain that metres gained is worth points, but none of us knows exactly how many.

Personally I think the live scores aren't working properly right now. If they don't sort out in the next few weeks there's no way in hell I'll be renewing HS subscription.

Yup, you're right, I needed to scroll down and read the fine print (it was under a section called "The Champion Data Difference" and not under "How You'll Score Points"); so maybe this whole thread was my bad...apologies. It was a fun thought experiment I guess. What I really wonder is why the stats they published last year don't fully match the stats they published last year?

They say there are 50+ acts that score. Their quote for not publishing the whole list is kind of funny: "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." I wonder if metres gained and other stats like it are only involved in the scaling at the end? It would make a bit more sense as to why they can't really put all their stats in a chart and put defined values on them.