Are fairly regular hits being underrated as a strategy?

Seems as if you may need to clearly differentiate reactive hits and proactive hits (at least thats how I view them). I'll briefly explain them and lay some conventional arguments for and against them for you. [warning long reply]

1) Reactive hits

Reactive Hits are normally undisputed. Say for some wanky reason you don't have 11 starting players, then a hit to form an 11 would be justified. But BY & LARGE, experienced players who consistently end in the top 10k don't face this issue as a result of good wildcards and effective transfers. For instance, investing into safer players that are less rotatable, and limiting the amount of high risk high reward players that are affected by bald fraudulence. But most of the time, as I said, this type of hits are fine.

2) Proactive hits

What you're referring to however is taking hits proactively in the pursuit of higher points. This means that you already have a starting 11 that you voluntarily chose from your previous WC or transfers (this includes hits), and you're choosing to replace them for a hit in the pursuit of greater points. I think the simplest argument against this is a mathematical one.

Your two starting players would score a minimum of 4 points, assuming you made an active decision earlier on to bring in starting players (as per my earlier point on safe players). A transfer costs -4, which means that that the two players you bring in MUST return at least 4 to breakeven in that GW. Keep in mind that this assumes your current players blank. Technically, if you had planned good transfers, these players should statically perform over time.

Now of course, there are hits who pay off. But unless you can be so accurate as to ensure that every -4 u take brings in returns greater than what your initial player wouldve, over the season, generally for every -4 u dont take, and people do, your rank climbs. This is why most of the consistent top 10k players take perhaps less than 5 hits per season (averagely).

My point (i think)

So we have this joke of us transferring players out and then them hauling right after we do. Well with a large enough sample size of players who make informed decisions, this would make sense because their initial players were not bad players, thats why they were brought it. Its just in-form players that tempt them. So I would be very very careful in taking many proactive hits, chasing points. I'd rather invest my time into perhaps rolling my FTs, and making 2 effective transfers (maybe even ONE -4) for 3 transfers that will reduce my need to take hits in the future.

TLDR; Over the season, multiple hits chasing points rarely pays off over making effective transfers and trusting the process.

/r/FantasyPL Thread