Thanks, BigChrisso.

As you say, pp90 can be a useful supporting stat in some cases, such as when a player like Jovetic has recovered from an injury and is likely to play more minutes per match in the future.

But extrapolating the pp90 figure to estimate exactly how many points the player is likely to score if he plays the full 90 minutes in a single match is not trivial, so in most cases I prefer ppg.

IMO it was Jovetic's great form in pre-season that really put him on our watch-lists. That was when he showed what he was capable of when given the chance to play more minutes per game.

Walcott probably had an excellent pp90m stat from his games as a sub in 2012-13 before he became a regular starter. His reason for not starting at first wasn't anything to do with fitness - it was just that Arsene Wenger was not yet convinced he was good enough to be in his starting XI. But even without looking at his pp90m, we already knew that he had potential. It was just a question of whether he was going to fulfil his promise when given the chance to play a full match. We could not be certain that he would become a big-hitter until he had actually played a few full games as a regular starter.

Mata's case last season was rather different. He scored 30 FPL points in 13 matches for Chelsea before his transfer to United in January. I don't know how many minutes he played in these 13 matches, so I don't know whether his pp90m for them was good or bad, but it would have given very little indication of his true form. It was his form for Chelsea the previous season, when he was their star player, that told us he was likely to do very well at United.

True. Neither ppg nor pp90m mean very much if they are taken over too few matches and if other factors are not also taken into account.

Trier has an outstanding ppg for his first two matches, but how well can he keep it up, and will he even keep his place in the team? If however after 5 or 10 matches he has established his place in the team and still has an impressive ppg then we ought to sit up and take notice.

Steven Taylor has played 1 minute for 1 point, giving him a pp90m of 90.0.
Drogba has scored 2 points in his two appearances totally 18 minutes, a pp90m of 10.0.
If these two keep up high pp90ms with a series of similar performances, that should not make either of them a serious contender for our FPL teams.

Chris Wood, however, has scored 6 points in two appearances totalling 20 minutes, a pp90m of 27.0, so perhaps he might be one to keep an eye on if he becomes a starter and continues to score goals, thus maintaining or improving his current ppg of 3.0. If he doesn't continue to score goals or become a regular starter though, his pp90m will be irrelevant.

After further thought, I still don't consider pp90m to be a very useful stat, but I'm coming round to the view that I ought to take more notice of two of its major components - minutes per goal and minutes per assist - together with such secondary stats as shots on target, chances created and goal conversion rate. Once you've seen Jovetic's major stats last season of 123 minutes per goal and 184 minutes per assist together with his secondary stats and his ppg, the unreliable pp90m stat does not really provide any additional useful information in my opinion.

Congratulations on your brilliant start to the season, by the way.

(Reply Fail to Kyle O'Shaughnessy)

All very interesting stuff here but, far too much for me to speak on each point.
Ultimately, I feel you're *correct* but, nonetheless overcomplicating the matter.

So let me focus on this aspect of my previous post; pp90m is *one* metric I use in assessing a player's overall worth however, in order for pp90m to be relevant it must be looked at in conjunction with many other underlying stastics. (SiB/p90m, kp/p90m, conversion rate, blah, blah, blah...)

Let's first take an extreme example to illustrate my point. Last year Fabianski played 90min total & managed 7pts. No reasonable person would project him to then wind up on 266pts if he played 38 games, right? This is an incredibly small sample & historically we know teams won't keep 38 CS on the year. So, let's toss that pp90m into the statical trash heap.

Conversely, Jovetić managed 8pp90m last year, which coupled with his ability get shots within the box (SiB), create chances for his teammates (kp) & his historically good conversion rate, tells me that if given a decent number of minutes on the pitch that I can expect a much better return than his paltry 2.6ppg.

As a result, now Jovetić's a starter & guaranteed a decent chuck on time on field I feel great about owning him over many others in his price range as they haven't shown the ability to score at such a high rate.

Overall, we're most likely in agreement here I wholy concede that pp90m, on it's own is a useless stastic however, if used in the correct context it can certainly assist us in determining a player's worth fantasy wise.

Post Script
The point I was making re: pp90m v. pp45m was just that the results of the ratio would be the same no matter how many *minutes* we choose to divide by. 90min has become the standard because it's intuitive, yeah? I mean pp37m would give us the same *number* but, in the end just wind up being overly confusing as we'd need to convert it back to a unit that made the most sense to us.
(i.e. *one game*)

Thanks for the compliment, Alberto, but I'm afraid it's a few years too late for that now (I hope your comment was not meant to be sarcastic). 🙂

This is the internet, so if you could just quit making sense, pick a side, dig your heels in & irrationality defend it, that'd be great.
Thanks. 😉

It would probably be an improvement.

You could also consider Naismith.

🙂