Dugout Discussion – Manchester City vs Leicester City

sounds like youre just trying to make yourself feel better.

BB can only be measured by who you would've benched that week and how much they've scored.

If anything making the bench full of players you're willing to play, it's actually making your starting 11 worse?

Yeah Bench Boost has other hard-to-quantify effects too. For example I took 20 pts in hits this week to build a BB team and got in Jesus, Sane, Alonso, Caballero, Davies. Already made the hit back on that with games to go

I agree, people always forget, its the WC (or doing progressive transfers if without WC) and nailing the entire selection is always way, way more important. However due to budget restrictions we naturally have to cut a few corners.

I agree mate. It's about your 15 players.

Well that been half the problem ... my team is build around 11 players ... no need for any subs this week

It's a funds limited game, I have 113M and it is still not enough ... I certainly cannot afford luxury items on my bench

But BB is about the 4 players that you would have benched. If anything, it prevents you from taking risks with expensive players because you have to have decent starting players on your bench as well.

Agree, I just posted about this some thought.

I have Pickford Siggy King and Mawson on my bench however I wouldnt have benched these guys had I not taken hits to gets in Sane Kompany and Holding so it's not as effective as it could be

Now that the matches have finished for the day I think a bit of perspective on this will help.

As eloquent as he was in his response, I think Sims' point is significant here -- my original post was indeed a reaction to the cries of Bench Boost failure that littered the pages in this article, not just because of the usual premature conclusions that drive comments on here too often, but more so because of the butterfly effect of the planning that many undertook in setting up their squads for this gameweek.

Using a BB for GW37 was as much about constructing a 15 man squad for the past few weeks as it was about confirming the actual use of the chip on Friday: using bench fodder as a makeweight for a more expensive player became even more significant if you set up your team a few weeks ago. Someone who stretched to bring in KDB in 35 or 36 by using Stephens as a makeweight could justify the uber by knowing that he would have a DGW 37 as one extra opportunity to squeeze points out of him. That manager would have been rewarded in gw36 quite well, but if you only look at today's results, in isolation, then that might look like a failed team selection or strategy.

People have tried to measure the optimal uses of chips from wild card to bench boosts to triple captains by pulling chip usage data from a number of teams, but I don't know that you can ever truly measure it because you only get one shot to gather the data if you just add up the chips totals, and even then the best planning will likely be rendered ineffective in a game where players fail more often than they deliver on any given gameweek.

Leagues have also been set up, probably a much better way to measure chip usage since it plays the long game and looks at all of the decisions surrounding the weeks the chips were used as well, but I think we need to make our peace with the fact that the only true measure of the effectiveness of these strategies will be OR at the end of the season, since that is the true, complete picture of how we used all of our chips and, ultimately, all of our transfers.

But if you just think I am trying to rationalize a failed bench, on the contrary: I have a somewhat unconventional one that costs closer to 20m than the 18m benches that caused so much disappointment today, and so far it has been met with some luck.

You're absolutely right.

The success of a bench boost chip is relative to the scores that others not playing the chip achieve.

So, for example, 20 points extra while using the bench boost equates to a different relative value depending on the gameweek.

Why? Because if Player A clears 20 points on Player B in GWx with a bench boost, and then Player A matches Player B's bench boost score in GWy without the chip, then Player A is 20 points up. Who was on said bench is irrelevant, and the key factor is that while both players may have earned 20 points from their bench boost, Player A got the value from those 20 points.

This gameweek currently looks to be case in point, as Player B is expecting a valuable 20 points from his bench boost, in a gameweek inevitably ridden with rotation, and relying on players we haven't owned all season (when will we learn?)

Didn't know this HT existed when I posted this comment:

http://www.fantasyfootballscout.co.uk/2017/05/13/the-knee-jerk-gameweek-37/?hc_page=4#hc_comment_15695209

I think you nailed it when you said you built a 15 for the gameweek. It's exactly that. Sorry to pick on Anichebe again, but he's a player you bench every week in a 352 and play him when he's at home to err, who's worse than Sunderland? The players on your bench should be those you'd be happy starting for the fixture(s) they have.

A lot of serious players saved the WC until GW36 specifically to prepare for BB, so there's few excuses.

Yeah I did the same. It is purely coincidence the bench was useless. Next week it will be useless by design

Yes BB is ofcourse measured by the whole squad. Some people could have put Sane and Jesus on the bench while fielding Holgate etc while others did vice versa.

Regardless, I played BB GW1 allowing me to TC Alexis this week which has been much better than the BB fail this week.

I think if we are honest with ourselves and pick the starting 11 as if we didn't have a bench boost, then the answer is quite easy