average vs total score

[The Sultan]

One thing i have noticed whilst researching and putting my initial squad together is the emphasis that people put on the average a player scored last year rather than their total score. With my initial squad, especially when looking at my keepers I tend to look at their total scores rather than their average, especially if they are prone to an injury or two. With the initial price of a player effected by their previous years average by looking at a consistent performer could prove a better bet than a injury prone gun.

For example
Hurn (WCE) vs Drummond (BL)

though Drummond is priced $42K more than Hurn (537,900 vs 495,900) and has a average of nearly 8 ppg more, Hurn scored 231 more points for the year than Drummond. With Hurn playing 4 more games than Drummond one would have to find a rookie that one be able to fill in, and two average at least 58 game to bridge the difference in overall points. Whilst Drummond has a history of injury Hurn has pretty much played every games possible, bar a broken arm (i believe).

So in conclusion when looking at you keepers for the year be very weary of their past history with injuries, especially soft tissue. Although some players make look good with 100 plus averages, but only play 16-19 games (looking at you Chappy) it may prove a better strategy to go the player that will play 21-22 games and only average 90-95, not only will it be better overall you will also save some cash to spend elsewhere

 

[KMRock]

Very interesting point here, kinda like the gary ablett situation