@mattnz wrote:Trying to explain by example how positional difference is important. Lets assume that all these players perform well and score 10 points more than they are priced at, for simplicity (all numbers taken from MTBs site for consistency):
Team A (all players that I am deliberately avoiding):
Sua $412k priced at 28, scores 38
Stimson $390k priced at 27, scores 37
Brailey $400k priced at 28, scores 38
Lowe $430k priced at 30, scores 40
All 4 need to be in starting 17 to start the season, total cost $1,632k
Burns $500k priced at 34, scores 44
Kikau $642k priced at 44, scores 54
Luai $249k priced at 17, scores 27
Amone $246k priced at 17, scores 27
All 4 need to be in starting 17 to start the season, total cost $1,637
So the assumption is that both groups of 4 players that may be the only differences in our 17s score on average 40 points per week better than their cost.
The difference is that in a few weeks time Team A has all these 2RF and HOK players that haven't peaked yet, and need to be upgraded, as they aren't scoring enough to justify a starting spot in their positions, or even in 14-17. If you wait for them to max out at the full 10 point difference, they need to sit in NPRs, which wastes team value, that isn't converted into points in your scoring 17.
This is much less of an issue for team B, where you can easily drop the players averaging 27 to the NPRs until they max out in value, then trade them. The 2 players performing well in their positions at CTR averaging 44 and 2RF averaging 54 don't need any attention at all until at least the byes.
That is why position matters and the expected scores in each position equally matter as the season progresses.
What you are forgetting as well is it's much easier to go 10+ points over your average and sustain it in positions like 2RF. Tough sledding trying to find a centre who can go 10+ points over his priced average. minus rookies