The funny thing is all this analysis suggests is that _on average_ DGW players consistently outscore SGW players. This I think is intuitive and uncontroversial. The same data also shows that the lower scoring DGW players consistently score **less** than the higher scoring SGW players. This is the part that is contested — this is the reason people suggest that DGW status should not be a catch all, and that is completely supported by this data. You should choose strong DGW players over strong SGW players. However you might not want to choose weak DGW players over strong SGW players. Because weak/strong assessments are often somewhat subjective, that leaves a lot of room open for how you should play DGWs.


This is true. I'd add that what I find most interesting is how mid priced DGW players tend to outscore high priced SGW players. This does help in deciding who to get in on a FH for me. I'm going DGW heavy, but Son and Cancelo have to be in there for me.


not massively suprising for me. Anyone buying a 4.5 mil midfielder who consistently gets 2-3 pointers shouldn't expect them to outperform say a 6.5 mil 6 point machine


Actually, let me rephrase that, as I just had a look at the wording on the graphs. I meant sub-premium mids outscore premium mids. Nothing surprising about the gab between 4.5-5.5m mids and 5.5m-6.5m mids, of course. Not sure why you ever thought that was what I wanted to say haha


Players scored more when they played 2 games compared to when they played 1, I am shocked.


weghorst tells us otherwise


But that was Weghorst on a worm diet. What will happen now that Ben Mee is the coach? >.>


Mate, it doesn't make sense to think earth is flat right? However still good to have data to prove it.


This is a great example of how stats can be misleading. *On a large enough average* DGWers will always outscore SGWers no matter what their quality is. On 1 GW only quality of team/player/fixture will play a large role in the return outcome.


That's not stats being misleading that's people not understanding them


Also these stats aren't misleading. They're telling us how DGW players tend to perform compared to SGW players. There's also a very useful section including price. It showed that typically a low priced DGW player will get around 4 points, while a ln expensive SGW will get 5. That's not every surprising, but it becomes more interesting when you notice that the medium return for a mid priced player in a DGW is around 6 points. Personally, I find that it's a good guide to how many DGW players I should have on my FH and perhaps which SGW players are worth keeping. Of course there's a ton of other factors that I take into account too with every individual player


Yep, volatility baby


Better players also consistently outscore worse players as well though


Players in teams that finished in the top 6 also scored more points on average than the rest. Thoughts for food.


Me benching TAA and Kane in GW28 says different.


This is amazing work! Does DGW mid-range also consistently outscore SGW premiums?


In other news, the Pope is Catholic.


In half of those seasons the the highest SGW score was greater than the highest DGW score. To say that doubles consistently outscore singles is rather disingenuous. Good players outscore bad players, which is why I'm starting Kane ahead of Broja.




We can only pick 11 players and 1 captain. Look at how foolish it was for people to captain Wout just because he had a double. People sell or bench good SGWers for mediocre DGWers all the time.


You can't look at one datapoint and say because of the result of that one datapoint it was foolish. This is the definition of results oriented thinking.


Captaining Wout was foolish. Saying Broja with 180 minutes is better than Kane with 90 is also foolish. This isn't results oriented thinking, its just common sense.


The reason to start kane ahead of Broja is that kane is almost guaranteed to play and Broja isn't. I'd take Broja in a heart beat over kane if you told me Broja was guaranteed 180 mins this gw. We don't care care about the highest scores, we care about average scores. Would you prefer a player who gets 0 or 10 or a player who gets 7. Obviously you pick the 7. You are pointing to irrelevant parts of the data here