Finisher1 wrote: ↑14 May 2019, 18:41
Stemania wrote: ↑14 May 2019, 16:51
I suppose the point is that the example is meant to be illustrative, but even with that in mind it does seem a very rare situation to me. Defenders (in addition to CSs) obviously have different attacking profiles and different prices - so there's so much more to consider if two teams CS prospects are relatively similar than just CSs.
...
So, whilst I agree in principle with the idea of picking three defs from the same team in the example above (and wholeheartedly with the whole maximising point expectation philosophy), in practice I think this situation would never actually come up.
Yes, it was an illustrative example and CS likelihood was just an easy way to describe the law of numbers in this case. Of course it's only in isolation, ignoring all other potential aspects of this game. It was simply meant as a response to raoul's idea about picking a defender with an inferior CS likelihood just for the sake of 'cover'. I'm sure you understood this and agree with me
It wasn't my suggestion to get someone inferior just as cover!!
I did not propose this idea. I was looking at the 3 defenders from one team proposal and putting forward my opinion.
If you put 3 defenders from one team into your squad, and they are from a team that is predicted clean sheets, then of course you can score a lot of points. That is obvious and it would be madness to argue against it.
However it assumes many things:
- such a team can be predicted
- it is the only team with a clear CS advantage
- the opportunity cost of not being able to own anyone else from that team does not outweigh the advantage of the 3 defenders
- the opportunity cost of the likely money tied up (I presume this will be a top 6 side) in those 3 premium defenders does not hurt elsewhere
Also, with the % you suggested, I would have thought the better proposal is to have 3 defenders each from both the 60% and 55% teams rather than just focussing on the 60% team and play a back 5.
The problem with he expected value argument is that you cannot look at a single proposal in isolation. All possibilities need to be looked at, with all their EV knock on effects, in order to find the best solution.
To be clear, I am absolutely NOT against the idea of 3 defenders from a single team as a principle. What I am against is the proposal that it is a cut and dried proven best solution, when there are so many variables being completely ignored from the argument.
(and as far as I can see, Stemania (an elite player by anyone's criteria) did not even double up defenders much, let alone triple them - other strategies are available that work!!)