Community

Neglecting your bench is perilous

Neglecting Your Bench is Perilous

We may not have an Aaron Wan-Bissaka this year, but can Martin Kelly be this season’s Ryan Bennett?  Will Leander Dendoncker see regular minutes?   Is Mason Greenwood this season’s Raul Jimenez or this season’s Isaac Success?

Time will tell.  However, the fact is, it’s far less important to find the next bargain basement superstar than to make sure our fantasy bench warmers are seeing regular minutes on the pitch for their real teams.  They don’t need to play well.  They just need to play.

Most of us already intuitively understand this idea.  This article will quantify its importance using some examples and probability math.  Don’t worry.  I’ll spare everyone the cringe-inducing statistics and formulas.

The Math

The odds are actually quite high that at least one bench player will count toward our score in any given week.  If you take a hypothetical team where each outfield player has a 90% chance of starting, there is a 65.1% chance you will need at least one bench player that week.  There is a 26.4% chance you will need at least two bench players, and there is a 7.0% chance you will need all three.

The table below illustrates these probabilities.

I have also included two example teams, both in 4-4-2 formation.  One example team is actually my current starting roster: TAA, Van Dijk, Laporte, Coleman, Salah, Sterling, Sigurdsson, Perez, Jimenez and Deloufeu.  It’s safe, boring, and very template.

The other team I’m calling “Pep Roulette.”  It consists of TAA, Zinchenko, Laporte, Digne, Salah, KDB, Willian, Perez, Vardy and Wilson.  It’s a decent team, but has more rotation risk than the first.

Team Pep Roulette will use the bench frequently – nearly 58% percent of the time.  In nearly one week in five, two bench players will be required.   Even my relatively safe team still needs to access the bench regularly.

This allows us to quantify the value of having bench players who actually see the pitch versus non-playing fodder.

Expected Value of the Bench Players

As the table below shows, a 2.25 points per game bench player in the “Bench 1” position is expected to score nearly 50 points for Team Pep Roulette over the season.  The second bench player is worth 16 points, and so on.  I’ve also included a table for a 3.0 points per game bench player

Clearly those who ignore the bench do so at their own peril.

Implications

This leads to some pretty basic rules of thumb for our teams:

  • At least one regular starting bench player is a requirement.
  • Two regular starting bench players is advisable.
  • Three regular starting bench players is probably unnecessary.
  • If you find yourself without any starting bench players, make it an immediate transfer priority.
  • There is some benefit to finding a higher quality bench player (e.g. a 3.0 ppg vs a 2.25 ppg), but these usually cost more.  In reality, any starter will do.

Technical note: the bench usage probabilities are calculated based on each player’s Expected Minutes as presented on the Rate My Team page.

46 Comments Post a Comment
  1. Brazooka
    • 11 Years
    4 years, 9 months ago

    There are two options for me:

    A) TEAM 1 (1.0 ITB)
    Heaton (Pope)
    TAA, Walker-Peters, Zinchenko (A Smith, Dunk)
    Fraser, Salah, Pérez, Lucas Moura (Moutinho)
    King, Aubameyang, Deulofeu

    B) TEAM 2 (1.0 ITB)
    Alisson (Button)
    TAA, Walker-Peters, Zinchenko, A Smith (Dunk)
    Fraser, Salah, Sterling, Lucas Moura (Moutinho)
    King, Deulofeu (Greenwood)

    Opinions?

  2. Rotation's Alter Ego
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • Has Moderation Rights
    • 12 Years
    4 years, 9 months ago

    Excellent, thank you AFSW.

    I'm usually the first to advocate a decent bench to at least start the season with, but I've found myself getting drawn towards the template of Dendoncker, a 4m defender and a 4.5m forward. Interesting to have some numbers there to weigh up the potential upside of spending .5 on upgrading to a 4.5m defender like Guilbert

    1. Pep Pig
      • 7 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      I agree. That said, if Maguire leaving leads to Tarkowski going to Leicester,... then Gibson could be a great 4m shout. I also read Cahill would move to Burnley if that happens but I'd imagine Gibson would be first choice. Think they paid £15m for him last year as they expected a better run in Europe

    2. POLSKA GOLA
      • 10 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      That’s reason why I’m on 4-3-3 with Donkey, Hayden and a 4.0 defender fodder

    3. A Fat Spanish Waiter
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      I think it boils down to this: if you can find 4.0 that gets regular minutes, that will do, but if that’s your only starting bench player, and they are suddenly out of favor, you probably should grab that 4.5 player.

      I’m my tables I used 2.25 ppg and 3.0 ppg because that’s roughly the RMT difference between at 4.0 defender (kelly what specifically who I liked at) vs upgrading to a 4.5 defender or a 5.0 midfielder (I looked Kante for that one)

    4. FPL Daniel
      • 14 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      See my large feedback below .

    5. SteJ
      • 4 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      I like the analysis. I do try to have some depth in the bench.
      The only piece of interest for me is whether spending money on a playing bench outweighs the benefit of getting a more expensive player who only plays 90% of the time

  3. Your Man With The Hair
    • 13 Years
    4 years, 9 months ago

    I'm off on my jollies for a week now, so need to get a team locked down by tomorrow.
    Any glaring holes in this?

    Ederson
    AWB, VVD, Robertson, Lundstrom (Kelly)
    Salah, KDB, Perez, Siggy (Dendonker)
    Kane, King (Greenwood)

    1. Pep Pig
      • 7 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      I don't want to pick holes mate but the first thing I see is a 4m starting defender. Whilst he may start, I'd be much happier with the balance if you made Ederson a 4.5 GK such as Heaton/Pope/Ryan to name a few. Then Kelly could become Coleman (for example)

      1. SADIO SANÉ
        • 8 Years
        4 years, 9 months ago

        I'm not against starting a 4m defender here and there but agree with this

      2. GreennRed
        • 12 Years
        4 years, 9 months ago

        Good advice or downgrade a mid to get a 4th defender who will play.

      3. Your Man With The Hair
        • 13 Years
        4 years, 9 months ago

        Pick away pal, it's why I put it up.
        It was a fairly thought through decision to go with the 4m defender.
        Ederson 160points
        4.0m def: ??

        Ryan: 100
        Coleman 125pts

        I know using previous year points isn't perfect logic, but I only need the 4m defender to score 65 points to cover the more expense GK pick.

        1. TOKAMAK
          • 9 Years
          4 years, 9 months ago

          when are you wildcarding?

          80 + ?? vs. 50 + 60

          That ?? has a reasonable chance of being below 10

    2. Brazooka
      • 11 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      Nice mid-front line.

    3. Wrong Captain Choice - Ag i…
      • 14 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      I like it f I was going with that type of structure it is what I would pick. But I would get KWP instead of AWB and upgrade Ludstrum to Cathcart/a bournmouth 4,5.
      Maybe chance Rico if you have your heart set on AWB

  4. United10
    • 7 Years
    4 years, 9 months ago

    If Leicester now go for Dunk, he will be a bargain at 4.5m

    1. GreennRed
      • 12 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      They won't get him for that 😉

    2. Baps hunter
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 6 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      Yes, about 1 million underrated steal.

    3. Conor1
      • 6 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      Agree. Bargain at that price in a decent team.

  5. Piggs Boson
    • 12 Years
    4 years, 9 months ago

    Is the 90% bench rate taken over the whole season?

    Because surely there is more rotation around christmas and double gameweeks?

    1. A Fat Spanish Waiter
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      The 90% is meant to be illustrative. If you assume that in any given week each player has a 90%, the math says 65% of the time (on average) you need your bench.

      I agree with you that around the festive period it’s even more likely you need your bench.

      1. FPL Daniel
        • 14 Years
        4 years, 9 months ago

        FPL regulars have such a lower rotation compared to your numbers . for casuals it might be true. They don't pay attention to the team for 5 gws or so, however it's no near imo for regulars and ffs community

      2. Dino
        • Fantasy Football Scout Member
        • 14 Years
        4 years, 9 months ago

        Why would you assume 90%?

  6. Baps hunter
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 6 Years
    4 years, 9 months ago

    Chance for sudden illness, food poisoning, training injury etc is also something we should perhaps consider. If we believe that a nailed player has 10% risk not to start, it would mean that Ederson is likely to miss "3.8" games this year.

    Field players may have there minutes managed, so using predicted minutes for Aguero doesn't forecast how often he is likely to get one or both appearance points.

    Has anyone checked/found these stats?

    Thx for the article 🙂

    1. A Fat Spanish Waiter
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      Baps sniffer,

      Hi. I should clarify a few things. When I say 10% chance “not to start” I should really have said “not to play.” Obviously, those are different things and I should have been more clear.

      However, the two actual teams presented in the analysis (“Pep Roulette” and my team) both use the implied probability of not playing at all. This is derived from the RMT tool where they have two number: 1) adjP - which is adjusted points and shows the expected points for all scenarios where the player actually plays, and 2) the “normal points” which I believe is adjusted for the scenarios where the player does not play. Dividing one over the other give the probability the player sees the pitch, which are the numbers I used in the analysis.

    2. FPL Daniel
      • 14 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      Yeah I know mine. Always pts on the bench. They never come in place due to lucky rotation

  7. POLSKA GOLA
    • 10 Years
    4 years, 9 months ago

    That’s reason why I’m on 4-3-3 with Donkey, Hayden and a 4.0 defender fodder

    1. FPL Daniel
      • 14 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      Well done

  8. Yip Jaap Stam
    • 5 Years
    4 years, 9 months ago

    Good article. I had never considered the chance of requiring a benched player to be as high as 65%.

  9. conners88
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 10 Years
    4 years, 9 months ago

    Do people think Mason Greenwood is serious consideration for GW1?

    a) Douglas Luis & King
    or
    b) Greenwood & Perez

  10. sentz05
    • 7 Years
    4 years, 9 months ago

    Laporte Sterling Dendocker

    or

    AWB Pepe B Silva

    1. conners88
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 10 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      first option for me

    2. Conor1
      • 6 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      Has to be A/1

  11. FPL Daniel
    • 14 Years
    4 years, 9 months ago

    Please let me so disagree with this article.

    I mean great effort, splendid writing however it's so not like that.

    In my 10 years playing the most painful for the lads is pts on bench. Investing in the bench just does that. If this advice is followed it will bring so much pain...

    Also no way on the earth you will see you bench players playing in that many occasions...

    Also you miss the main trick.

    The opportunity cost.

    If you invest in your bench your starting 11 is weaker. The money spent on first 11 are way more effective instead of having 4.5 defender who might bring negative pts or 5m striker. Also I don't see 5m mid worth owning for now...

    Good luck to all going this strategy.

    Bring the beers close to you since you are going to need them after all those bench pts watching at you.

    Thanks

    1. Wrong Captain Choice - Ag i…
      • 14 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      I disagree that is looking at the negative side of it as I said I am storing two Chelsea players for gw3 on my bench.
      Plus just because you have not used all your money in your first eleven does not mean you have a weaker starting team.
      It just means you have not used all your budget in your first eleven.
      There are always value players to be had every year - I think Leicester Perez and the Chelsea lads are prime examples of this.

      I find you should at least have one have dent sub it will pay dividends in the long run.
      You may lose points the odd time but it happens that the game.
      But if you play form and fixtures it should negate this and you should not let a few bench points make you switch into 'loss adverse' mode- when in reality it should be thought of as a safety net.

    2. A Fat Spanish Waiter
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      Daniel,

      Hi mate. I think you may have missed my point somewhat. The article isn’t suggesting having fancy, high scoring players on your bench. Rather, I’m suggesting that at least one and probably two of your bench fodder should at least see the field. Appearance points will do.

      My current bench fodder is Kelly (4.0), Dendoncker (4.5) and Greenway (4.5)

  12. George Sillett
    • 8 Years
    4 years, 9 months ago

    Great game Luton v Sunderland. Over 3.5 goals bet landed. Plenty of goals in Luton games this season.

    1. PDM TOP 1,000 any Season Le…
      • 14 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      Boro’ 😉

  13. PDM TOP 1,000 any Season Le…
    • 14 Years
    4 years, 9 months ago

    4 playing defenders is a must , if you only have 3 decent playing defenders and one of them have a random illness/injury your then relying on that £4.0m ??? Which probably means = a playing X and not XI.

    1. Wrong Captain Choice - Ag i…
      • 14 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      Yeah those lost 2 points here and there add up very quickly, not to mention the fact that you would invariably end up taking a hit because dropped/injured 4.0m player is now worth 3.8 or 3.9

  14. Whiffy McBiffy
    • 7 Years
    4 years, 9 months ago

    Ryan, Lloris and Lowton or
    Foster, Pope and Walker-Peters

  15. Four Hit Wonder
    • 6 Years
    4 years, 9 months ago

    To get a decent bench player who can produce 100 pts, you have to spend 0.5m above base value (4.5m def, 5.0m mid) or 1.0-1.5m above base value for fws as only the 6.0m ones ever reach 100 pts.

    1.0m is worth 32 pts according to my calculations. And if that money is unused on your bench, those points are lost.

    So having a playing fw sub isn't worth it, unless you could have a 5.0m fw that produces 100 pts.

    Sub gk is irrelevant if you got a premium gk.

    Two playing subs is just wasting money.

    So, 1 playing sub. But which one? Def or mid?

    Mid preferred as you can get 60+ pts from a 4.5m mid, and there are plenty of 5.0m options that hit 100 or near that number.

    Plenty of playing 4.5m defs too.

    For both the 5.0m mid and the 4.5 def you're paying 0.5m above base value, so it goes without saying it's better to get a 5.0m player than a 4.5m player for the same price.

    One bench player, a 5.0m mid is my choice.

    Since that player needs to be able to replace a def, mid or a fw, in order for him to be able to jump in regardless of which player is missing (that's the key), the formation must be 4-4-2, 5-3-2 or 4-3-3.

    Total cost for a playing bench that delivers 50 points: 0.5m.

    1. Four Hit Wonder
      • 6 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      Or, if you go with a 4.5m mid that produces 60 pts, and he also has to jump in every other match, that's 30 pts for free.

    2. A Fat Spanish Waiter
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      4 years, 9 months ago

      I’d love to see that 32 point math. I think it’s worth considerably less, but I think I generally agree with you. One playing sub is a must. Two is probably good, but if funds are better spent elsewhere, that’s fine. Three is a waste for sure.

  16. Ci Siamo
    • 8 Years
    4 years, 9 months ago

    Are those Duffy goals in pre-season just a classic case of trolling us or is he becoming even more central
    To set piece goals?

  17. pepper10
    • 9 Years
    4 years, 9 months ago

    Pickford (Button)
    TAA- VVD- Digne- Luis (Wan-Bissaka)
    Richarlison- Mane- Pulisic- DeBruyne (Stephens)
    Jimenez- King (Greenwood)

    Heavy into Defense and scoring midfielders. I had Doucoure instead of Wan-Bissaka but changed it up. The 6.0 mids and forwards just don't seem like good money for points. I realize Mane is up in the air for the start, but i am ok with that. Thoughts?