Originally Posted by Pengwin7
I always play the numbers (schedule) in weekly leagues.
A 40pt player playing 4 games (4x40=160) should produce more than
A 60pt player playing 2 games (2x60=120).
Occasionally (small "sample size" - statistically speaking) it will burn you... but you can't let that dissuade your from understanding that the math is correct.
In the long run (large "sample size" - statistically speaking), going with the numbers will be the right choice.
In week 1, I went with a 4-game Mikael Samuelsson over a 2-game David Clarkson. That bombed. Clarkson was excellent and Samuelsson sputtered and then got injured.
In week 2, I went with a 4-game Jared Boll over a 2-game Alex Semin. Semin put up 1G,2A,+4 in those two games. So perhaps I missed that one. But Boll did put up a massive 25 PIM in four nights with 15 PIM last night on the 4th.
I'd play a 4-game 40pt player over a 1-game week 110pt Malkin too.
I always play the numbers.
I generally agree with the logic but I think it also depends on what categories you are looking for. And as we discussed in a PM, depending on the game difference and involving a stud, it may be worth just playing the stud for less games (e.g. E.Staal). Not sure what was the result but my other C was Palmieri and I think he hardly did anything last week. But looking at 4 vs 2 games, more often than not yeah we should play the player who has 4 games. Unless that player is crap and the starter is quite good.
Also, deciding between players who play 4 games and 3 games might not make as much a difference and be more difficult so the better player might be a better start. Of course that depends on the players involved and the categories.
But in my case, I think it was worth a shot since my starters aren't studs and my replacements are capable enough to match/surpass the starters' production in two more games. We'll see.