89
Community

Value: 2018-2019

Value 2018-2019

This article aims to revisit some of the key points discussed in previous articles last season (Season review, Mid-season review), but with fresh eyes and new starting prices making the foundation for analysis. This study contains numbers from 223 currently active players from the game, where all of them have taken part in at least 1 previous season. As this study builds on numbers from previous seasons, I’ve not included promoted sides and players signed from different leagues. The aim is to evaluate player prices to see “where the value is” amongst positions and “price brackets”.

Adding a second formula

In the comments-section on FFS there was some good discussions and Hot Topics regarding value. I tried to soak up some of the knowledge from the regulars on the site participating in the discussions. With those discussions in mind I’ve decided to include an alternate way of looking at value. Although Points Per Match Per Million (PPM) is a good metric and one I’ve personally championed several times, it can be viewed as discriminating against the pricier players of the game. To avoid sounding like a broken record, whilst also broadening my own horizons and hopefully adding some further insight, I’ve included VAPM (Value added per million) in this study.

This Reddit-article offer some good insight on VAPM.
To swiftly summarize what this article and its comments suggest, basically, because the game is constructed in such a way that all players are afforded 2pts due to merely playing at least 60mins, those points can largely be ignored when assessing value. Therefore, there’s reasons to argue that VAPM’s formula (total points–appearance points)/matches/price is a more accurate measure of value rather than points/matches/price.  This was well pointed out by Roosta when he compared Sergio Aguero and Ayoze Perez, both in terms of VAPM and PPM.

In 17/18 Ayoze Perez (124pts) had a PPM of 0,63 and a VAPM of 0,26.
In 17/18 Aguero (169pts) had a PPM of 0,59 and a VAPM of 0,41.

Because appearance points alone counts for such a high percentage of the total points accumulated by the cheaper players, an unproductive period won’t make the same kind of “dent” in their value compared to expensive players. Excluding appearance points might therefore give a more nuanced evaluation of player value than PPM.

Reviewing the results

The table below shows the players from my sample that top the respective categories. Based on new player prices, VAPM 17/18 and PPM 17/18 shows the players who are the most valuable based on their points last season (players with less than 19 matches have not been included). VAPM history and PPM History shows the same, but uses data collected from all of their seasons in the league (players with less than 2 seasons have been excluded).

The fact that 9/20 players in PPM/VAPM history are the same, and 16 in PPM/VAPM 17/18, probably show that the two formulas to some extent appreciates the same players. But at the same time it clearly shows that PPM gives a higher rating to the lesser-priced players. Earlier, especially in comments to my articles, I’ve discussed why there’s still a place for those pricey players who have next to zero chance of defending their price with regards to PPM. I’ve usually pointed to captaincy and “spending your budget” as the main motivations for selecting them. However, for some of them, maybe VAPM alone, can more than justify it. The table below might suggest just this.

 


Applying the knowledge

The columns have been colour-coded to highlight how last season (17/18) or previous seasons (history) suggests where value is with regards to PPM and VAPM this season.
Takeaways:
– Both PPM and VAPM suggest that goalies will offer great value at all price points this season

– While PPM suggests that cheap defenders are a good value bracket, VAPM does not agree. Expensive defenders do however offer good value using both formulas.
– It’s when looking at mids and attackers that the formulas differ the most. While both seem to agree that cheap mids and attackers will be a mediocre source of points, both midpriced mids, premium mids and premium attackers look far better when using VAPM rather than PPM. VAPM history actually goes as far as suggesting that premium mids are the most valuable players within the game.

  • As those opposed to using PPM have suggested, my studies do suggest that PPM does discriminate towards the pricier players of the game. But as of yet I’m not quite willing to let go of this metric. I’ll get to why, but first lets look at the example in the mentioned Reddit-article.

Reddit-user HappyGrinch suggested:

  • 2,300 would be a superb final score, probably landing you around the top 10k.
  • If we make a reasonable assumption of 300 captaincy points, that means you need to achieve 2,000 points without captaincy.
  • There are 38 game weeks, but to approximate for double game weeks and the extra points from chip use, let’s round the denominator to 40.
  • 2,000 divided by 40 equals 50 points per week. 22 points are scored by all of your players playing 60 minutes. Therefore, your team needs to score 28 additional points.
  • The average squad has about £18M on the bench, so your starting XI needs to return around 0.35 points per £1M invested.

His thoughts on this matter certainly intrigues me. His point on 2300pts being some sort of a hallmark has been the case for most of the recent seasons. The 300 captain points sounds about right. And the 40 gameweeks and the average bench thinking sounds fairly accurate.

However, his thinking can also be used with regards to PPM. For this scenario let’s remove captaincy points and go with the 40 gameweeks. 50 points per week divided by 82 = 0,61, meaning your squad would need to average 0,61PPM to achieve 2300 points.

The thing is: I ran both PPM and VAPM through the crop of players in my studies after last season and decided to use the 0,35VAPM and 0,61PPM-criterias to see how many players who fit the mould. As this comment shows, after trimming the pool of players, by removing goalies and the players who played less than 25 games, the pool finally consisted of:
VAPM: 12def, 14mids, 1striker.
PPM: 21defs, 19mids, 2strikers.


What I suggested then, and as I will suggest again, is that I believe this shows that both ways of evaluating players are good. Where PPM might be discriminative towards pricier players, VAPM looks to be a bit discriminative towards cheaper players. While VAPM might be more accurate, PPM gives you a larger pool to make the selections needed to hit your target. As no season is similar, one needs to be flexible and able to adapt. Valuable players might become available in all positions and all brackets, and what happened last season doesn’t necessarily reflect what will happen this season. Regardless if you prefer PPM, VAPM, or a different way of looking at things, that highlighted part is the most important one.

Players that stand out

After stating that what’s happened in the past doesn’t accurately reflect what’s going to happen next, what’s better than using past statistics to highlight some players that might stand out? Here’s a list of some of the players who’s PPM and VAPM, 17/18 or history, suggest might be valuable picks this season.

Strikers:
Aubameyang and Aguero: Both players had a VAPM of 0,43 and PPM of 0,61 based on their new prices. This suggests Auba should be terrific pick if he maintains the form from last season. Both last seasons numbers and VAPM history (0,36) suggests Aguero looks like a really solid pick as long as rotations and injury don’t hamper to much of his minutes.
Wood: The 24 games he played last season is a small sample size. But his points production last season suggests that Wood, at 6,5, has a VAPM of 0,36 and a PPM of 0,67.
Austin: Been a peripheral figure in FPL after his massive debut season with QPR. Priced at 6.0, Austin’s historical figures suggests a VAPM of 0,34 and a PPM of 0,67.


MIDFIELDERS:
– Salah: If he is to replicate his numbers, he actually holds a very healthy VAPM of 0,49 and PPM of 0,65 based on last seasons numbers. He probably won*t, but should offer some value, even beyond captaincy, as long as he reaches about 240pts.
Alli and Sanchez: Although both had somewhat unimpressive seasons last year, their price drop has given them a very positive value this season. Their VAPM history suggest a value of 0,37 for both.
KDB and Eriksen: As two of the most consistent players within the game, Eriksen has sported a points per match averages of 5-6pts in 4/5 seasons with Spurs. Similarly De Bruyne has done the same his 3 seasons with City. The two players looks good value as set and forget options in midfield due to thei consistency. Some might stay clear of them due to not being considered good captaincy options, but their historical VAPM of 0,34 suggests that they might not have to be.
– Pogba: With the addition of Fred, there’s speculations that Pogba might finally be less restrained in the attacking parts of the pitch. If this is the case, Pogba might become one of the most valuable players within the game this season. At 8.0m, he’s priced the same as last season, and although some might not be impressed with Pogba’s numbers last season, he actually sported a VAPM of 0,39 and a PPM of 0,64.


DEFENDERS:
-Moses, Alonso and Kolasinac: I’ve grouped these 3 together due to their attacking nature. None of them are currently safe picks, but if they should become such, it seems reasonable to expect a VAPM greater than 0,4 and a PPM greater than 0,75 at their current prices.
Hector Bellerin: Most of the 5.5 arsenal assets looks good value with this seasons prices. I’ve decided to highlight Bellerin’s numbers, as they are the most impressive ones. If Arsenal performs along the lines of how they’ve done the last couple of seasons, Belerin should offer good value with his VAPM history suggesting 0,37 and PPM history 0,73. If they should better their results under Emery, Bellerin might become the standout option he was in 15/16.
All Liverpool assets priced 5.0: As it stands, LFC looks likely to be starting each GW with at least one CB and one RB priced 5.0. Barring new prices, it will be Lovren, Matip, Gomez, TAA and Clyne battling for the two slots. If any of these players become “nailed”, they should offer great value, somewhere in the range of 0,35-0,4 VAPM/0,75-0,85PPM.
Azpilicueta: To get consistency, one should look to one of the priciest players of the game. Although a change of manager brings some questions, Azpi looks like he’s worth the outlay to get into one of the best defensive sides of the last couple of seasons. 17/18 suggests a VAPM of 0,42 and a PPM of 0,73, and history suggests a VAPM of 0,33 and a PPM of 0,63. Having missed only 2 games in the last 3 seasons, Azpi currently looks like the best option amongst the priciest defenders.


GOALKEEPERS:
Honorable mentions to Karius, Heaton and Pope. With the likely addition of Allison, and uncertainty regarding Burnley number 1, I’ve not included them, even though their stats look brilliant.
Ederson and DDG: The two goalies compete with each other based on last seasons numbers depending on whether you use VAPM or PPM. The fact that Ederson’s season looks more repeatable than DDG’s probably suggests that he could offer more value than his Spanish counterpart as a set and forget option.
Ryan and Fabianski: Two of the standout budget options last season have been handed a budget price this season as well. If they should replicate some of that form, a total of 140pts should give them a VAPM of about 0,4 and a PPM greater than 0,8. Rotating two 4,5’s could arguably produce even greater value, but as Fabianski’s last 4 seasons have proven, the 4,5 goalies come with greater volatility with regards to steady returns.

 

89 Comments Post a Comment
  1. Geoff
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • Has Moderation Rights
    • 7 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Great article, thanks for this. Really interesting stuff.

    Definitely confirms some of my picks. Who are you looking to bring in? Wood looks to be my cheapest forward right now. I think I'm considering Austin again now too

    1. WesMantooth
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      Thanks for putting it up and editing.

      I wanna Get KDB and Pogba for the longterm, but world cup severely limits the crop of players im looking at gwk1. Still alot of tinkering to do, but fairly certain i'll start with Salah, Eriksen, Aguero, Robertson and Bellerin

      1. ENEMY
        • Fantasy Football Scout Member
        • 1 Year
        1 year, 10 months ago

        Why not Bailly/Shaw over Bellerin?

        1. WesMantooth
          • Fantasy Football Scout Member
          • 9 Years
          1 year, 10 months ago

          Because my gut says that they come with greater uncertainty than Bellerin when considering the longterm

    2. circusmonkey
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      What happened to the idea of looking at excess cost above the base cost of a player of 4.0 or 4.5 mill?

      1. Geoff
        • Fantasy Football Scout Member
        • Has Moderation Rights
        • 7 Years
        1 year, 10 months ago

        'VAPM’s formula (total points–appearance points)/matches/price is a more accurate measure of value rather than points/matches/price'

        That's what the whole article is about!

  2. Daaf
    • 4 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Great stuff! Nice.

    Could you post the whole list of players instead of just the ones who stood out? Might be usefull!

    1. WesMantooth
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      Full spreadsheet can be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vNO65dM3T2INKwcuvZ2qxDQp0O2hf7B29TxzsBQSE6U/edit#gid=751670102

      Use the column to sort as you like.

  3. b91jh
    • 2 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Advices?

    DDG (4.0)
    Coleman Lowton Cedric (Daniels Schelotto)
    Salah Sane Jota Willian (Cairney)
    Aguero Zaha Tosun

  4. Richard Richard (AKA: Anzhi…
    • 4 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Just caught up with some preseason highlights and liking the Pedro punt at 6.5.

    What are you thinking?
    A. Worth the risk
    B. Only if Hazard or Willian leave
    C. Avoid altogether

    1. Ask Yourself
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 3 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      B

      1. KLOPPS AND ROBBERS... the s…
        • 5 Years
        1 year, 10 months ago

        agree

  5. KLOPPS AND ROBBERS... the s…
    • 5 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    What do we think folks?
    Not 100% sure on balance I have

    Ederson
    Robertson, Bellerin, Mendy, Shaw
    Salah, Sane, Mikhi
    Auba, Arnie, Zaha

    4.0, Wan-Bis, Cairney, Stephens

    1. Pieterke30
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 3 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      Really like it.
      Have same front 3, same GK, Mahrez instead of Sané, Cédric and Coleman for Shaw and Bellerin (the latter will defo be in my team from GW3 but I dont expect Arsenal cleanies before that)

      1. KLOPPS AND ROBBERS... the s…
        • 5 Years
        1 year, 10 months ago

        thanks, I might tinker a little looking at opening games e.g. Bellerin
        I am going to try hold my nerve and stay heavy at the back though

    2. Teror
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 5 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      I like it. Mine's quite a similar mind you.

    3. TheNovocastrian
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 3 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      Have you considered Tosun instead of Arnie? Everton have a much easier start to the season.

  6. RashFraud
    • 3 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Bellerin nailed?

    1. Boris Bodega: Holly's …
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 4 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      Can't tell yet.

      1. RashFraud
        • 3 Years
        1 year, 10 months ago

        Who’s the competition tho?

        1. Ask Yourself
          • Fantasy Football Scout Member
          • 3 Years
          1 year, 10 months ago

          Lichsteiner old juve right back

          1. Boris Bodega: Holly's …
            • Fantasy Football Scout Member
            • 4 Years
            1 year, 10 months ago

            They could rotate depending on the opposition - really no idea what Emery's plans are atm.

  7. Stats Døn't Lie
    • 5 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Great Article, just goes to prive my theory that investing in a premium defence yields the most extra VAPM, people really need to be less opposed to a defence heavy formation!

    1. ⚽️ Letcombe Basset FC …
      • 4 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      Disagree totally.

      Last seasons top 50 spent £25-26M on defenders, which equates to playing budget of say 3 x £6m

      A "defense heavy formation" would be 4 or 5 at the back.

      So 3 at the back is still the way to go.

      1. Hotdogs for Tea
        • Fantasy Football Scout Member
        • 4 Years
        1 year, 10 months ago

        £26 mill gets you quite a heavy defence
        Aaron Wan-Bissaka - £4.0
        James Tarkowski - £5.0
        Eric Bailly - £5.5
        Seamus Coleman - £5.5
        Benjamin Mendy - £6.0

        1. NickoWAFC
          • 1 Year
          1 year, 10 months ago

          in comparison, how did the top 50 structure the remainder of their budget?

          for example mid:
          9.5+
          9.5+
          7.0+
          6.0+
          5.0+

          interesting to know, as I'm seeing a lot of value through midfield and defence this season, and less up top. per million, most expensive forwards just aren't worth their value.

          1. Hotdogs for Tea
            • Fantasy Football Scout Member
            • 4 Years
            1 year, 10 months ago

            Yip agreed

    2. ⚽️ Letcombe Basset FC …
      • 4 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      furthermore the top 50 had the following structure:

      £6.0M+
      £5.5 - £6.0M
      £5.0M
      £4.5
      £4.0 - £4.5M

    3. WesMantooth
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      Investing in the right players will yeild the best results. But yeah, a lot of prem defenders looks to be priced very nice. A four man backline might prove to be the good option it was last season.

  8. Teror
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 5 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    This is the year of the 4-3-3

  9. Hotdogs for Tea
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 4 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Interesting article re VAPM, but shouldn’t we also deduct the base price of £4.0 or £4.5 on a similar basis, in that we have to spend that amount of ££££ for each and every player, and just consider the ‘extra over’ £££ in analysing ‘value’?

    Or maybe not 🙂

    1. RedLightning - The Last Ten…
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • Has Moderation Rights
      • 9 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      I agree. Our 100m budget includes fixed costs of 7*4 + 8*4.5 = 74m (the cost of 15 base cost players), so we only have an additional 26m to spend as we wish.
      If every player's price was increased by 10m, and the budget was increased by 150m, we would still only have an additional 26m to spend as we wish.

      So PPM and VAPM are both skewed by not allowing for the base cost. The amount by which a player's cost exceeds the base cost is more significant than the player's total cost.

      1. Deulofail
        • 4 Years
        1 year, 10 months ago

        You didn't seem to agree in the thread I linked to above, 😉 prefering instead to compare players to others who you might realistically want. Base price players could be worth appoximately 0.0 or 6.0. You wouldn't want a 4.0 defender who will never player (unless he's also nedder going to play in your team), so if there are no 4.0 defenders you would want in your XI, might as well consider the base price to be 4.5.

        The base price, although defined as the minumum possible spend, is still fairly artitrary since it doesn't guaranteed you anything. There is not base expected points to match it, because it's 80%+ full of players who don't play, 10% players who are terrible value, and 10% gems.

        1. RedLightning - The Last Ten…
          • Fantasy Football Scout Member
          • Has Moderation Rights
          • 9 Years
          1 year, 10 months ago

          Indeed. What I actually do is compare players that I might realistically want. If I have a spare 0.5m, then I look at which upgrade of a player or group of players will increase the expected points for my squad as a whole by the greatest amount. Similarly, if I need to reduce my squad cost by 0.5m then I look at which downgrade of a player or group of players will reduce the expected points for my squad as a whole by the least amount.

          I don't attempt to calculate absolute values of players - all methods of calculating them are flawed - I just look at the differences between those I am interested in. When looking at differences, the base costs cancel out.

          1. Deulofail
            • 4 Years
            1 year, 10 months ago

            If there were a couple of 4.0 midfielders in the game, the value of Salah suddenly chances. Also, the value of Salah relative to another midfielder changes. I think it's more useful to consider the value of Salah relative to, say, Sanchez, to be consistent, regardless of the base price.

            If both the 4.0 midfielders were never to play, they are not competing with Salah in your teams. If one of them plays every week, then he is competing with Salah, but also every other midfielder (assuming you won't perma-bench him). In this case, you could say he affects the perceieved value of Salah, but there is only one of him, so he can't be competition for all midfielders simultaneously because you can't play 5 of him in your team at once.

            You need a consistent base or (a bare minumum) of two nailed and good value 4.0 midfielders for base 4.0 to be included in your following value calculation, because they could realistically replace your whole midfield in a 5-2-3 formation. But this is problematic because they could get injured and then the valuations for your whole team shifts. So really you need a good amount of viable options at the base price for it to be leginitmately used in your caluculations, so that you have the flexibility to choose mulitple formations, and so that your calculations don't void themselves. Also, I think these baseline players need to be legitimate contenders for your starting XI; otherwise, you are including 4.0s who will get 0 points in your value calculation, which is pointless.

            Otherwise, you need to only consider the best (pre calculated value) players in each bracket, which again won't include the baseline players unless there are plenty of nailed options, since, as HK TractorBoy points out in theabove links, "The problem with that is it makes a mockery of calulating value - the points per million. eg a 4.0m defender less their base has infinite value if they score just 1 point...."

            So I think I agree with your reply, here, which I think is suggesting that you calculate the value first (by whatever means besides the inclusion of base prices), and then performe an analysis of Value Over Rplacement Player, which iteslf looks at the base price players, and takes into account the context - how often you will play the players, whether you could find replacements at that price if necessary a few weeks down the line, etc.

            Sorry for the essay. I wrote most of it before I saw your reply 🙂

            1. RedLightning - The Last Ten…
              • Fantasy Football Scout Member
              • Has Moderation Rights
              • 9 Years
              1 year, 10 months ago

              There was a 4.0m midfielder in the game one season. Those who included him in their squads were widely criticised on FFS because he hardly ever played, but using him as a perma-third bencher and spending the 0.5m elsewhere was actually a perfectly reasonable tactic. The disadvantages were that the team might be a man short if more than two of the other 12 outfield players were missing, and that he could not be used for rotation, so these factors would have a minor effect on the expected points for the squad as a whole.

              His presence has no effect on the comparison between two other midfielders. The difference in cost between the other two midfielders is unchanged. If there were a 4.0m midfielder who played every match in real life, then he would probably be straight into my squad, but I would be unlikely to be comparing him with Salah - I would be more likely to compare him with a 4.5m midfielder, and consider whether choosing him instead of the 4.5m midfielder would be worth the 0.5m saved elsewhere.

              As I stated, I don't do absolute value calculations - I look at differences, and the base values cancel out (as also do the appearance points, unless the players do not both get 2 appearance points every game, so I don't adjust for appearance points). And the differences to the expected points from the squad would depend on many factors.

              I just mentioned the base points to illustrate the basic fallacy in using the total cost including base points when calculating value. But I don't look at absolute value myself.

              1. Deulofail
                • 4 Years
                1 year, 10 months ago

                If you minus the base price from your value calculations, then the 4.0 would have an affect on the comparison between the two other midfielders.

                Perhaps I wasn't clear that my rant was about the flaws of deduction base price before calcuating value...?

                1. RedLightning - The Last Ten…
                  • Fantasy Football Scout Member
                  • Has Moderation Rights
                  • 9 Years
                  1 year, 10 months ago

                  I don't calculate value, I do comparisons. The comparisons I decide to do might include a player at base price, but if they don't then that player is irrelevant to the comparison.

                  All members of the squad have an effect on the points expected from the squad as a whole, but the 4.0m midfielder is no different in this respect from the other members of the squad unless one of the sets of players being compared includes this 4.0m midfielder.

                  If you are comparing Salah with Sanchez, then you should consider whether it is possible to spend the money saved more efficiently elsewhere. Unless spending this money elsewhere includes upgrading your 4.0m midfielder, then his presence in or absence from the squad has no direct relevance to the comparison of Salah against Sanchez plus upgrades.

                  1. Deulofail
                    • 4 Years
                    1 year, 10 months ago

                    I agree, and I understand.

                    The only thing I'm not sure about is how you compare combinations of players based on value, if you don't have an "absolute value" for that player. Or are saying that you simply compare the projected points vs the projected points of 2 players vs 2 players, then 3 vs 3, ..., 11 vs 11, 15, vs 15?

                    1. RedLightning - The Last Ten…
                      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
                      • Has Moderation Rights
                      • 9 Years
                      1 year, 10 months ago

                      Ignore values of individual players, except perhaps as an indication of which changes might be worth investigating. The object is to get the best combination of 15 players that you can afford. What you should be aiming for is the maximum number of expected points from an affordable 15 man squad.

                      You can use points per game, total points, projected points, underlying stats, fixture difficulty, gut feeling, the eye test, ownership, past history, the watchlist etc or a combination of these, and also take account of other factors such as changes of playing system or whether players are likely to be rotated, injured or late back from the World Cup.

                      If you trust the RMT tool then you can feed in your existing squad, make a few changes to it, and see how the results compare. Then repeat the process with additional or different changes.
                      RMT should take account of fixture difficulties and venues, and recommend which players to leave on the bench and which to captain and vice-captain for each of the next few game-weeks.

                      You make a few changes, then leave the RMT tool to do the 15 v 15 comparison.
                      When you change a couple of players, the new players might need to be benched in different game-weeks than the old players would have been benched. And perhaps one of the old or new players might be a potential captain or vice-captain for one or more of the next few game-weeks. So the effect of making a few changes is not quite as simple as you might expect.

                      Of course, you may feel that you know better than the RMT tool for its assessment of some players, so you are perfectly at liberty to ignore some of its recommendations rather than taking them all as definitive.

          2. Swanremainsthesame
            • 4 Years
            1 year, 10 months ago

            Not when comparing defenders to midfielders tho, a 6.5m def is +2.5m, a 6.5m mid is +2m from base.
            Changes the VAPM quite a bit.

            Also I reckon (C) does need to be considered, players who get 175+ or cost over 10m would surely be your (C) at least 33% of the time and have that added to their base score.

            (You aren't likely to be (C) defenders much - of the top 10 points last season none were defenders.)

            This also I think, more realistically shows premium players worth and you start to get figures for top 15 like -:

            points 4x FWD, 9x MID, 1x DEF, 1x GKP
            ppm 1x FWD 7x MID 7x DEF (GKP all above this)
            VAPM 4x FWD 9x MID 2x DEF

            The first & last more correctly explains why 3/4/3 3/5/2 has been proved to be the go to formation for previous seasons than ppm.

            1. Deulofail
              • 4 Years
              1 year, 10 months ago

              Comparing midfielder to defender needn't be a problem. I don't see why base cost needs to come into the equation. You are still spending 6.5, and you're spending it either on a defender or a midfielder. The question which combinations will get you most points is a matter of distribution. The defender might be better value in an independent comparison between the two, for instance, but you could still pick the midfielder and a 4.5 defender based on the value of the potetial replacement(s).

              A 5.0 midfielder will cost you 5.0m of your 100.0+ budget. In order to claim that this player "effectively" costs you 0.5m, you have to make assumptions about what a 4.5 midfielder would be worth to your team. These assumptions may not be generalisable to all contexts (e.g. every position in your team), and aren't founded in any meaningful theory imo.

              If you are shopping for apples, you might consider comparing the price of one apple to another, but the apples themselves have inherent worth based on their nutritional benefits, taste, etc. If you want to compare the value of the apples, you need to measure the attributes of the apple: for the sake of simplicity, let's say you rate one apple 8/10 and the other one 5/10. Then you need to enter the price of the apples into the equation. Then compare the values.

              If I have £100 to spend, which apple would give me the highest level of satisfaction (assuming satisfaction could accumulate like FPL points)? If you can afford 200 x 5/10 apples, you could get 1000 satisfaction points. If you can afford only 100 x 8/10 apples, you can only afford 800 satisfaction points, so you have compared the value of the apples in relation to your budget after calculating their value, not as part of the calculation (a matter of distribution of funds).

              If you take into account the base price, then the value of both these apples depend on the shop you are in (analogous to another FPL year - or moment in time). Another shop might have a variety that is 0/10, which you could afford 500 of. That's 0 points for all your money. Another shop might have a different variety with 4/10 rating, which you could afford 500 of. If could include the baseline in your calulation, suddenly the 5/10 and 8/10 apples are terrible value. However,if you compare the values based on their inherent rating and price, while taking into account your budget, you can see how much you will get for your money, and compare it to how much you will get in different, hypothetical or real shops.

              There's no point avoiding the 5/10 apples because, hypothetically, there could be a 4/10 apple that could score me more satifaction points, when that 4/10 apple doesn't exist or if I will never eat it. There are also hypothetical apples that cost less, but I can't seem to find any anywhere in the world. The baseline is arbitrary because it's not based on the inherent value of the apple, it's just a fixed price by the shop (or by the game).

              There was nothing wrong with comparing the value of a 5.0 player to a 4.5 or a 6.0 player, and then figuring out the combination (distribution) of 11 players (or 15 including rotation etc) that will score the most once you've filled the 100m budget. You could even include the percentage of the budget instead of the price (e.g. a 5.0 player is 0.05 the total budget). But I can't see any legitimate reason to minus the baseline price. You can simply compare the value of the apples.

              I'm willing to hear rationale for the base price theory, though, because I could be misguided 🙂

            2. RedLightning - The Last Ten…
              • Fantasy Football Scout Member
              • Has Moderation Rights
              • 9 Years
              1 year, 10 months ago

              VAPM and PPM are both basically flawed, so I don't use either. Instead I compare players or groups of players in the same position or positions. I don't compare a defender against a midfielder, but I might compare a 6.0m defender and a 4.5m midfielder against a 4.0m defender and a 6.5m midfielder. When comparing players or sets of players against each other, the base value costs cancel out.

              The points expected from the squad as a whole will depend on many factors, and the captaincy is one of the most important.

              3-4-3 (or occasionally 3-5-2) used to be the most effective formation in the past, but times change. FPL pricing changes, bonus points rules change, wing backs have become more prevalent and many team only field one forward. The result is that last season the ideal formation was probably 4-4-2. Many experienced players were slow to adjust the methods that had worked well for them in the past and suffered accordingly.

              1. Deulofail
                • 4 Years
                1 year, 10 months ago

                Thanks. My reply wasn't really about formation at all. I was merely pointing out the conditions under which including base price in calculations of value could become a valid as not including them 😆

                Interesting that you don't compare midfielders to defenders, but combinations to combinations. I suppose that's exactly what I do (and what I preach about!), but I've never used the words, "base value costs cancel out", which is basically the reason I'm doing it, without thinking about the reason.

                1. Deulofail
                  • 4 Years
                  1 year, 10 months ago

                  Sorry, I thought this was the reply to me above, not the reply to Swan 🙂

        2. Hotdogs for Tea
          • Fantasy Football Scout Member
          • 4 Years
          1 year, 10 months ago

          Did I reply ? I can't see my reply?

          I recalled the argument of deducting the base price, so put it out there as a question for debate,

          However I am undecided because it is getting a bit too much sophisticated with the stats ... it is football after all - hence the 'or maybe not' 🙂

          1. Deulofail
            • 4 Years
            1 year, 10 months ago

            You talkin' t' me? My reply was to RedLighting 🙂

            1. Hotdogs for Tea
              • Fantasy Football Scout Member
              • 4 Years
              1 year, 10 months ago

              Oh ok, apologies, I received an email notification from the comment.

    2. tm245
      • 8 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      I think so. The issue with a baseline or base price in this game is that the replacement for any of our starters isn't a minimally priced bench fodder but rather the next best alternative, so value comparisons need to look at the several players you didn't pick but did consider. Next in line for an attacker in the first 11 isn't Chalobah, it's someone like Sessegnon.

      If you track down the old VORP articles, the comments sections have some interesting discussions on how to define replacements.

      1. Deulofail
        • 4 Years
        1 year, 10 months ago

        Agreed. I might do that at some point

    3. circusmonkey
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      agree with you, my comment like that got lost in here/

  10. Hotdogs for Tea
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 4 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    What about a VPL value analysis 😉

    1. Eden Wizard
      • 2 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      Visible Panty Line 🙄 ?

  11. SharkyT
    • 6 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    No mention of Kane in any of these template RMTs.
    What’s people’s plan to bring him in when he eventually fires?

    1. KLOPPS AND ROBBERS... the s…
      • 5 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      Cry.
      Rip my team apart.

    2. Mulder
      • 9 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      Kane is finished, been living of penalties and fluke tap-ins for so long. 2/3 season wonder.

    3. Hotdogs for Tea
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 4 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      You can’t have them all 🙂

  12. Deulofail
    • 4 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Great article, thanks Wesmantooth. Niasse looks essential with last year's PPM 😉

    1. WesMantooth
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      Thanks!
      I'm actually worried Niasse will make this a 14 man game this year 😉

  13. SharkyT
    • 6 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Incidentally here’s my team that I’m
    Pretty set on. Plan to swap aguero for Kane if needed by downgrading gk and a def.

    Ederson
    Bellerin Bailly Ced
    Sig Sane Chalo Salah
    Aguero Zaha Firm
    Subs: Boruc Romeu Zanka Wan-B

    Thoughts?

  14. Jordan.
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 10 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    I love tinkering
    rmt
    begovic
    coleman / robbo / cedric
    mahrez / (s)alah / siggy / fraser
    aubameyang / firmino / zaha

    boruc / kenedy / awb / peltier..

    1. SharkyT
      • 6 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      B With present info, solid

  15. daitheboot
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 8 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Interesting article. Thanks for posting. Interesting seeing Austin up there and think he will be a great asset and value if he can string games together.

    4.5 keepers are the way to go as a differential. Only problem is picking the right ones in the right weeks and being insane enough.

  16. tm245
    • 8 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Nice work, thanks for the thorough write-up as well. As I replied to Hot Dogs, the value added is a bit tricky not just because of base price but also because of the pool from which you are drawing for your starting 11. The 6.0m mid who is new to the PL that we didn't choose at the last minute is the replacement for our pick and the direct comparison for the player we did choose, not a base price bench fodder, since we would not slot Masuaku into our lineup.

    One year in a VORP discussion we looked at 0.5m increments as units of value in chunks, since in preseason we have to spend on these rounded increments. I wonder if the numbers for preseason could work like that.

    Regardless, thanks again for the thoughtful article.

    1. WesMantooth
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      Cheers!
      Did you happen to bokmark any of those discussions?

      And for the record, if it's not clear in the article, i'm not saying these are formulas without flaws. I do however believe they can be good guidelines. Can this player perform better than 0.35 VAPM or 0.63 PPM over this period of time? If yes, he's likely a good pick, if no, probably not. After that assesment one can bring VORP in to play.

        1. WesMantooth
          • Fantasy Football Scout Member
          • 9 Years
          1 year, 10 months ago

          Thanks! 😀

  17. Oven Glover
    • 4 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Great read! Much appreciated 🙂

  18. headfried
    • 6 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    RMT....or advice on 5mil defender, going 3,5,2 to start this season.

    Pickford(Fabianski)
    Cedric,Daniels, Shaw/TAA(Boly,Malone )
    MickyT, Salah,Jota,Sane,Cairney
    Kun,Auby(Bonatini)

    1. Corgzzzz
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 4 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      Burnleys Tark......good fixtures and a very good defender in a team set up to defend

  19. ENEMY
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 1 Year
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Great Article. I'm onto value team and I could get this bunch. Btw I'm going NoSalah for until 9 GW min.

    Ryan
    Robertson - Bailly - PVA
    Mahrez - Eriksen - Mane(C) - Keita - Richarlison
    Aubameyang(VC) - Arnie

    Bench: Steele, Mendy - Wan-Bissaka - Quaner

    If Wood is fit, I might go with Wood, Maddison and Sanchez(C) in place of Mahrez-Keita-Arnie

    1. ENEMY
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 1 Year
      1 year, 10 months ago

      Can some one RMT plz. What is the best NoSalah team you got here?

      1. WesMantooth
        • Fantasy Football Scout Member
        • 9 Years
        1 year, 10 months ago

        Though his fixture are a bit off, I believe Arnie will prove a decent pick longterm. Not really sure how to rate the bailly, Richarlison and mahrez picks. Might be a better 8.5 goalkeepercombo considering ryans fixtures. Elsewise looks good. Would rather have Salah though.

        1. ENEMY
          • Fantasy Football Scout Member
          • 1 Year
          1 year, 10 months ago

          Thanks for the reply. Bailly can be easy swap with any other decent defense after couple of weeks. I might start with Ederson - Button and then jump onto Ryan! But then Ederson might not play GW1. Hence, I went with Ryan option. I am planning to go without Salah for the first 9 GW!

  20. Whits
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 3 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    RMT please people...

    Fabianski

    Robertson - Mendy- Shaw

    Salah - Mahrez - Keita - Cairney

    Arnie - Tosun - Aubameyang

    Subs: - Gudmundsson - Patricio - Daniels - Wan Bissaka

  21. Warby84
    • 4 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Ederson/Speroni
    Robertson/Azpilicueta/Coleman/Wan Bissaka/Suttner
    Salah/Sanchez/Richarlison/Willian/Ward
    Aguero/Arnautovic/Kamara

    Originally I had Mendy but upgraded to azpilicueta, I downgraded to Danny Ward so that I only have man city players at the start of the season.
    Therefore if by big Gamble Sanchez fails at least I can bring in a De Bruyne or a Sané using just 1 sub

  22. jester112358
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 5 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Great post! Was a joy to read since I've done same kind of calculations / models. Have you taken into account of players new positions? For example Arnie and Zaha would have scored significantly less points as strikers and on the other Moses would have been even better value had he been labeled as a defender.

    1. WesMantooth
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      For some players I've exluded stats from when they were classified different than what they are now.

  23. on_business
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 5 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Lads can you give me a view on my team please?

    GK: FOSTER (WAT)
    GK: GUAITA (PAL)

    DEF: AZPILICUETA (CHE)
    DEF: COLEMAN (EVE)
    DEF: MENDY (CHE)
    DEF: SCHLUPP (PAL) *OOP*
    DEF: CEDRIC (SOT)

    MID: RICHARLISON (EVE)
    MID: KEITA (LIV)
    MID: MKHITARYAN (ARS)
    MID: MAHREZ (CITY)
    MID: LENNON (BUR)

    ATT: AUGERO (CITY)
    ATT: AUBAMEYANG (ARS)
    ATT: TOSUN (EVE) *ARNAUTOVUC FROM GW3*

    I have been heavily influenced with pre season positioning and form, World Cup progression and the Scout article on PMP vs VAMP.

    Much appreciated

    1. barton fc
      • 2 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      no salah seams too risky for me with 50% of the game capturing him game week one, also i would want more liverpool coverage than kaita.

  24. barton fc
    • 2 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    views on this team please?
    Forster (fabianski)
    mendy robertson shaw tark (tompkins)
    salah silva miki Richarlison (Stephens)
    aguero firms (Quaner)

  25. KickIt
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 8 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Thanks. Love the article, definitely makes me think more about my team structure this season.

  26. haghanim
    • 6 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Great article

  27. F_Ivanovic
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 4 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Great article. What I seemed to gather most is that it seems bad to get an expensive GK because you can gain almost the same VPM from a cheaper GK, whereas the same can't be true for all outfield players where VPM goes up with price?

    1. WesMantooth
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      1 year, 10 months ago

      Well, im not sure thats the way to look at it. The goalies come with more stability at all prices. Owning an expensive goalie should give more points than owning a cheap one, but they will give approximately the same value of points compared to their prices, so it's really about wether you can use that extra 0.5-1.5 in a way were you''d make more points elsewhere, than what you "loose" by selecting a cheap goalie.

      VAPM looks to be better in the higher pricebrackets for the attacking players, but that doesnt mean that there wont be some great cheap picks. When they emerge, we get the conundrum of deciding what to do with the millions they free up once theyre in our squads. Should hey be used on another premium offensive player? Or should they be used to upgrade several positions, etca.

  28. AFC
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 2 Years
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Really interesting analysis. Thanks for taking the time to share.

  29. Mastermind78
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 1 Year
    1 year, 10 months ago

    Really nice article. Love it. Will bring in Alli and Pogba after the first few gws, then auba for kun after gw8