634x258 Features
25 July 2015 75 comments
Patch Patch
Share:

Every season I consider trying to characterise the selection of my Ppremier League (FPL) starting line up mathematically as a constrained-optimisation problem.

However, it’s a very difficult problem to model. Even if I pin down expected payoffs, for example using the Rate My Team (RMT) tool in the Members Area, it is difficult to account for rotation from the bench, captaincy rotation, injury risk and the ability to make transfers as the season unfolds. A comprehensive model remains a work in progress. Today I modelled an extremely simplified version of the optimisation problem to get a feel for where 100 million will give me the best return. It was a quite enlightening exercise and the results challenge the conventional wisdom about how much of our budget we should invest in defenders.

The Approach

I set about identifying the 15 players with the highest expected points over the first six Gameweeks, subject to the budget and positional constraints imposed by FPL.

For simplicity, I included the expected points for all 15 players each Gameweek and I ignored captaincy. I fully accept that this squad will not be optimal as a result, but the exercise was nevertheless informative and the potential effects of accounting for these complexities are discussed later in this article.

I approached the problem by taking a squad of the highest-scoring, low-budget players over Gameweeks one to six based on the RMT tool as at July 22. This initial squad cost a total of 69.0. I then calculated the increase in Gamweek 1-6 points per 1.0 spend (points/£m) that would be achieved by upgrading each of those 15 players to any of the other players in the game. I then made the player upgrade that offered the maximum points/£m across all possible player upgrades. I repeated this process until the budget constraint was binding.

The Results

The squad arrived at through this process was:

Myhill, Lloris
Clyne, Smalling, Ivanovic, Terry, Fonte.
Mane, Ritchie, Henderson, Hazard, Johnson.
Sakho, Kane, Wilson.

One thing in particular stood out about this squad.

First, there is quite a lot of investment in defence relative to the teams I have seen people putting on the boards. While the squad includes lower-cost midfielders and forwards, namely Matt Ritchie, Bradley Johnson, Diafra Sakho and Callum Wilson, it does not include any defenders from the budget category. The process of optimising the squad revealed that there is a greater return on upgrading budget defenders than there is on upgrading the aforementioned midfielders and forwards.

Given this result is somewhat contrary to the conventional wisdom I have seen on the boards so far in pre-season, I checked the optimisation by looking for combinations of upgrades and downgrades that might increase the overall score. The top 10 marginal benefits from upgrading players in the squad are (in points/£m):

2.04        Ritchie – Silva

1.91        Johnson – Silva

1.82        Clyne – Koscielny

1.76        Wilson – Benteke

1.74        Mane – Silva

1.74        Fonte – Koscielny

1.70        Henderson – Silva

1.67        Wilson – Rooney

1.65        Ritchie – Chadli

1.58        Sakho – Benteke

 

The bottom 10 marginal costs from downgrading players in this team are (in points/£m):

1.76        Terry – Koscielny

1.79        Hazard – Silva

1.79        Terry – Yoshida

1.80        Clyne – Yoshida

1.84        Fonte – Yoshida

1.87        Terry – Rose

2.01        Ivanovic – Yoshida

2.05        Hazard – Chadli

2.12        Terry – Skrtel

2.14        Hazard – Mahrez

 

Notice that the highest marginal benefits from upgrades are similar to the lowest marginal costs from downgrades. This is what we want to see in our teams, since it means there are no gains to be made by changing things around. I couldn’t find a way to improve it. In relation to the option of shifting investment from defence to forwards, we can see that the best value forward upgrade is Wilson to Benteke at 1.76 points/£1m. There is no downgrade or set of downgrades that is less costly than 1.76 points/£1m. Ivanovic to Yoshida costs 2.01 points/£1m. Hazard to Chadli costs 2.05 points/£1m

The Conclusion

Can we conclude that we need to resist the temptation to pile our funds into expensive attacking options and instead invest in less sexy options in defence?

Is the popular approach of buying Ivanovic/Azpilicueta plus four 4.5m defenders suboptimal?

Perhaps. But there are obviously some qualifications needed.

First, you may not agree with the RMT predictions. Second, I haven’t accounted for captaincy. I don’t expect that incorporating captaincy would change much about the squad, since the highest scoring player (Eden Hazard) is already included in the team. However, the ability to rotate captaincy may justify trading two mid-price options for a budget option and another heavy hitter.

Third, I have not accounted for the fact that one goalkeeper and three outfield players will be on the bench each Gameweek.

Presumably, the players likely to be on the bench, such as Wilson, Boaz Myhill (four Gameweeks), Sakho, Ritchie, and Nathaniel Clyne (three Gameweeks), would be downgraded to fund upgrades elsewhere. Players that rotate well with each other may be elevated to the squad. It’s hard to say whether these players would be more likely to be defenders, though I do tend to agree that fixtures are a more important consideration for defenders than for midfielders or forwards.

These are more complex sets of trade-offs to analyse and something I am trying to work into my model.

In the meantime, this is food for thought. I’d be interested in hearing your views.

Patch Aussie, Liverpool fan, economist.

75 Comments Login to Post a Comment
  1. Big4FPL
    • 11 Years
    10 years, 4 months ago

    I agree about investing in defence, I went budget last year and ended up wildcarding early on! If I post a RMT the common piece of advice for me is "invest more in your forwards", this is my current team:

    Ruddy Rudd
    Azpilicueta Bellerin Shaw 4.0 4.0
    Hazard Walcott Depay Mane 4.5
    Aguero Sakho Wilson

    Although at least one of my bench defenders may need upgrading tbh..

    Great Article though, it's reassured me aha!

    1. dribbler
      • 16 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      "I agree about investing in defence"

      Patch said his work was incomplete...so far he's playing a different game from FPL where you're allowed 15 players on the pitch and no captain

      I'm not a member but this idea that (according to the RMT) when you spend your last 2-4 million you'll gain more by adding it in defence than by adding it to attack is not new...I've seen it in previous seasons as well

      but I'm guessing it's because the attackers are more heavily discounted for rotation than defenders so the RMT gives them a significantly lower points-per-game than you'd expect compared to their points-per-game in games that they start

      now ignore substitutes for a minute to help you get your head round this...in any week Aguero (say) will either play or he won't...but the RMT will usually spread out the risk of Aguero not playing evenly across all the games...perhaps he's discounted by as much as 15-20% for rotation and injury?...in any case John Terry will be discounted less than Aguero and I'm guessing that defenders will be discounted less than attackers...maybe somebody more informed than me can comment on this?

      now if Aguero doesn't play he'll be replaced by a cheap reserve and you'll theoretically lose points in his slot...but if your other 6 attackers do play they'll theoretically do better that week than their ratings according to the RMT...so in the long-term the RMT will theoretically get your score right if you have average luck AND if you don't do any transfers...but I think you can get better than "average luck" consistently by making canny transfers

      unfortunately I can't prove this next bit but in my experience when I've had the RMT I've consistently outscored the RMT predictions...often I've had spells where I beat it by maybe 10 points per week

      I think this is due to some combination of 2 factors (a) maybe Mark and Jonty are too conservative in their estimates of both points-per-game and rotation risk (b) I'm looking to transfer in attackers when, so far as I can tell, they look as secure as possible to start matches and I'm selling players who look insecure in their starts...so if I'm successful in this I'll outscore the RMT which has discounted their points evenly through the season

      so it's my contention that if you give great emphasis towards secure starters when you make your transfers your attacking players can significantly outscore the RMT predictions

      I think that the standard advice of "get your money up front" allows you to latch onto this seasons' key players more easily...the more you spend in defence the trickier it gets to transfer in a key player when you want or need him...so get your money up front because, if you're smart, the RMT will underestimate the points your attackers will score

      1. dribbler
        • 16 Years
        10 years, 4 months ago

        p.s. thanks for posting this Patch...an interesting article

      2. Patch
        • 14 Years
        10 years, 4 months ago

        Thanks. Yes, there's a bit of a theme of people saying that attackers outperform RMT (or past seasons' average ppg) when they are in a purple patch. But it's not always that easy to stay loaded with form attackers without spending a gazillion points on transfers. Also, sometimes we jump on what looks like the beginning of a purple patch but it fizzles out and you're left haemorrhaging team value. I think this is a valid point, but I also think love is blind and some people will load up on attackers regardless of what the data tells us, because it's more fun when your player scores a goal than when they keep a clean sheet!

        1. dribbler
          • 16 Years
          10 years, 4 months ago

          "...you may not agree with the RMT predictions"

          yup, I pretty much agree with everything you say except for your conclusion...I'm somebody who doesn't believe in the RMT's predictions for the reason I explained

  2. FPL Daniel
    • 16 Years
    10 years, 4 months ago

    4 3 3 this year definitely

  3. Eden Hazardous
    • 10 Years
    10 years, 4 months ago

    RMT out of 10

    Ruddy / Butland
    Azpi / Kos / Kompany / Huth / Saylor
    Hazard / Walcott / Mane / Chadli / Anya
    Rooney / Benteke / Wilson

    1. Woy of the Wovers
      • 15 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      Needs more in defence 😉

      1. Eden Hazardous
        • 10 Years
        10 years, 4 months ago

        Api Kos and Kompany the best 2 defences in Azpi and Kompany and Kos idk why

        1. Eden Hazardous
          • 10 Years
          10 years, 4 months ago

          Last year Manc 14 clean sheets
          Arsenal 12 clean sheets

  4. Woy of the Wovers
    • 15 Years
    10 years, 4 months ago

    I like these articles that challenged the perceived wisdom on the Boards. Looking forward to the article that proposes 4-4-2 as the best formation.

    1. Ruth_NZ
      • 10 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      4-4-2 is probably the best optimisation in theory but can't be done in practise because there are no starting 4.5 forwards. I have done my own study of what Patch writes about and my long-term team (after wildcard) will be 4-3-3.

      @ Patch - I'd be interested to discuss all this with you. Have an email address I could send something to?

      1. Woy of the Wovers
        • 15 Years
        10 years, 4 months ago

        Why is the lack of 4.5m forwards important to the formation.

        1. Ruth_NZ
          • 10 Years
          10 years, 4 months ago

          Because it is key to have no more than £18m on the bench. Otherwise you make whatever setup you have less efficient.

          3-4-3 has 2 x 4.5 defenders and 1 x 4.5 midfielder benched. 4-3-3 has 1 x 4.5 defender and 2 x 4.5 midfielders benched. 4-4-2 requires a 5.0 forward to be benched as there are no reliable starters at a lower price. Although as per the post below, Grabban could turn out to be - some Norwich fans I know think he may actually become Neil's preferred striker.

          With an 8.5 GK pair you can achieve £17.5m on the bench of course. But that means 2 GKs from the same club (Ruddy/Rudd for example) and takes away rotation benefits. If your 4.0 is from a different club you are one injury away from having no GK at all and a forced transfer. I think that's inefficient too but I can see the 5.5/4.0 argument as well.

          1. Woy of the Wovers
            • 15 Years
            10 years, 4 months ago

            I disagree with your first statement. As we know, 5m defenders outscore 5m forwards. They also tend to outscore 6m forwards. If your goal is FPL points, then you play those players you score more points, rather than those who cost more.

            1. Ruth_NZ
              • 10 Years
              10 years, 4 months ago

              Then how do you disagree?

              If you are going to bench a player why pay more than 4.5 for them? It's inefficient.

          2. Dino
            • Fantasy Football Scout Member
            • 16 Years
            10 years, 4 months ago

            I think you might be looking at this slightly wrong. It doesn't matter how much money you have on the bench, it is more important how many ppg per player you have on the pitch each gw.

            As an extreme example imagine you had to pay 10m for a fwd to get 3ppg or you could have a forward of 6m who gets 1ppg. Under current ppg per position it would make more sense to go the 6m forward and bench him rather than bench a 4.0 def, 4.5 def and 4.5m mid. The upgrade from 4.0 and 4.5 players with 4m would easily get you more ppg on the pitch than benching less money and going with the exp forward.

      2. invertebrate
        • Fantasy Football Scout Member
        • 10 Years
        10 years, 4 months ago

        I agree except that I think a couple of 4.5 forwards will emerge quite quickly. Danny Graham got a lot of minutes at the end of last season and Lewis Grabban got minutes (albeit a lot of sub apps) in most of Norwich's games. I've also got a sneaking suspicion Adam Armstrong will get a chance under
        under McLaren.

        I'll be keeping an eye out because I'd love to 442 this year at some stage.

      3. Patch
        • 14 Years
        10 years, 4 months ago

        ben (dot) mcnair (at) gmail.com

        1. Ruth_NZ
          • 10 Years
          10 years, 4 months ago

          Thanks, will send you something next week. It's a subject that interests me a lot and I have spend quite some time looking at it. 🙂

          1. andy85wsm
            • Has Moderation Rights
            • 15 Years
            10 years, 4 months ago

            (hi-jacking slightly)

            What do you think of my first 4-3-3 effort? http://imgur.com/pu6RgIk

            1. Ruth_NZ
              • 10 Years
              10 years, 4 months ago

              Am I to assume no planned date for a wildcard?

              1. andy85wsm
                • Has Moderation Rights
                • 15 Years
                10 years, 4 months ago

                Nope, will use it as and when I need it

  5. teddy.
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 16 Years
    10 years, 4 months ago

    I think you've touched on a couple of the key issues with the analysis.

    One is the fact that fixtures play a bigger part in defensive returns. This means they can be managed based on the calendar. Defensive returns are also less reliable. Strikers and attacking midfielders score goals and get assists, or if out of form and favour can be dropped from the team. Defenders on the other hand need the collective performance of their teammates which on the one hand can be elusive, but on the other can mean that Leicester or Sunderland or West Bromwich could hit a run of defensive form (on conjunction with some good fixtures) and start producing regular clean sheets.

    The other point is that defenders generally score lower than attackers, therefore most fantasy managers play 343 or 352 and there's less point in investing heavily in defence.

    1. Woy of the Wovers
      • 15 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      Ah, but defenders score more than midfielders/attackers for the money spent. It's quite possible that most fantasy managers are doing things wrong.

    2. Patch
      • 14 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      I would say team form is possibly more reliable than player form.

    3. Bobbydhino - âš’ Saint Slav…
      • 16 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      Great write up.

      I have played light in the back since 07-08 season with no consistency. I decided after looking at numbers this was the year I would stick to my guns and spend big in the back also.

      Fabi/Kasper
      Ivan,Terry, Fonte, Huth,Williams
      Caz, Sterling, Milner, Depay, Wanya
      Kane, Benteke, Ighalo

      I am excited to see what the season brings in sticking to this strategy.

  6. darko
    • 14 Years
    10 years, 4 months ago

    There would be a fair bit of money left on the bench each week, unless you always played 5 at the back. Nice idea and I rather like the mids and two of the attack, but this isn't really that practical.

    1. Patch
      • 14 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      Yes, there is too much money on the bench with this squad, but I reckon only a couple of tweaks and it would be RMT optimal. It scores 310 points over the first 6 gameweeks, which isn't too shabby.

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

        Do you base most of the team on the RMT numbers? My team rates 328 for the first 6 game weeks.
        My first year with these statistics, historically how do they match with what really happened?

  7. Revival
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 13 Years
    10 years, 4 months ago

    Investing more in defence can be wise. Terry and Ivanovic may be a 1m more than Azpil but I feel there 'nailed on status' makes them worth that extra outlay. Aso jumping on 4m defenders in the first few weeks is risky and don't be surprised to find them not playing a week or 2 later as happened to me with Wisdom on the Jan Wildcard last season.

    1. Bobbydhino - âš’ Saint Slav…
      • 16 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      Ivan and Terry also scored 47 and 45 more points respectively for the 1m over Azpi. Hazard outscored Ivan by 56 and 58 for Terry, for 4.5m of extra salary cap. They were the two leading defenders and 6th and 7th leading scorers in the game last season. IF Kun, Haz and Sanchez are essential then this pair has to fall in line. With the BPS system Terry could and some might say should be top defender this season, barring any injuries. Just my thoughts thanks for reading. Cheers

  8. @theTinkermen
    • 14 Years
    10 years, 4 months ago

    Investing more in defence with less in attack would render the all out attack chip less effective.

    1. Woy of the Wovers
      • 15 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      The all out attack chip is worthless. I'd be happy to give mine away.

      1. Pasqualinho
        • 16 Years
        10 years, 4 months ago

        I'm pretty sure we'll hear a few stories about all-out attack chip fails. I think I'm only going to play it when I know I have 3 defenders out - it's the only way to do it safely.

        1. Patch
          • 14 Years
          10 years, 4 months ago

          Yes. Insurance for defensive injury and suspension is a good way to look at it.

        2. the cromulent one
          • 12 Years
          10 years, 4 months ago

          Exactly this.
          I can already see my first defender on the bench with a clean sheet the week I play the all-out-attack chip.

      2. Patch
        • 14 Years
        10 years, 4 months ago

        Yeah, I agree, there's not a lot of value that chip. I reckon the time to play it is straight after the first wildcard. Then use the other chips in the weeks following the second wildcard on a double gameweek.

        1. Bobbydhino - âš’ Saint Slav…
          • 16 Years
          10 years, 4 months ago

          I would use it right before a wildcard. This would allow me the balance my team back out the following week.

      3. OShaughnessy
        • Fantasy Football Scout Member
        • 13 Years
        10 years, 4 months ago

        1. DGW
        2. Avoid using FT on injured or rested defenders (Xmas?)
        3. Avoid very poor defender rotation
        4. More valuable in back-end of the season when our 5th mids are guys like: Bolasie, Sterling Januzaj, etc.

        1. Woy of the Wovers
          • 15 Years
          10 years, 4 months ago

          1. Would be odd having 8 DGW attackers and only 2 defenders.
          2/3. Might work but more likely you'll have the same problems in midfield.
          4. We also have better defenders

    2. John t penguin
      • 11 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      The chip is only swapping a defender for your cheap mid really
      And by the time you play it the chances are your defender will be a better option than your midfielder

      1. Willdo
        • 11 Years
        10 years, 4 months ago

        Great article very informative, also enjoying the discussion in the comments, it's led me to do this with my team (around about the 100th reiteration of the team haha):

        Steklenberg (Schwarzer)

        Shaw - Koz - Azpi (Francis/ Mariappa)

        Cazorla - Fab - Depay - Mane (Ritchie)

        Rooney - Giroud (Deeney)

        My initial thoughts are I've got a lot of funds (relatively speaking) in Deeney and Ritchie on the bench so not sure if this needs addressing?

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

    Interesting article and the larger model sounds interesting if almost impossible to achieve.

    The main problem with your analysis are the limitations you identified, primarily RMT as a method of future expected scores. If you at RMT regularly you will see it is heavily biased by betting numbers.

    Therefore:
    1) At a minimum it is worth repeating this one or two days before GW1 as the betting numbers will change a lot and thus be reflected in RMT
    2) As the betting sites take a low risk view they will price common punter views like Chelsea clean sheet or Aguero scoring at very low odds. This may or may not be correct for the specific gameweek and the stats. Following the stats very closely (weekly calculation for captain candidate last year) and including the betting odds and RMT. This makes me lump RMT basically with the betting odds and as not very reliable for a specific gameweek. It still may provide reasonable average results over the entire season but that is not where fantasy football scout is won and lost

    Anyway not really criticism of your work, RMT is probably the best numbers available of future performance. You could always use past season data and go back 4-5 seasons to provide greater sample size but of course that won't adjust for this season. It could provide a reasonable empirical conclusion though on whether we would score more points on average if we had more money in defenders.

    1. Patch
      • 14 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      Thanks. I agree with all of that, but I'm not going to attempt to develop an algorithm that outdoes RMT. I'm making progress on the larger model. It's a tough nut to crack.

  10. OShaughnessy
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 13 Years
    10 years, 4 months ago

    > captaincy rotation... and the ability to make transfers as the season unfolds.

    Defenders grind out points over the course of a season but, attackers tend to spike in value.

    So, we use our FT & captaincy to hop on to get max value while they peak & then exit when they hit the valley.

    This results in a far better return from our attackers.

    (eg. Avoid Sanchez last year before Ars go to play City & Che but, then use FT & the armband for games vs. Hul, Sun, Bur & Swa.)

    tl;dr
    Attackers have a much higher ceiling & as a result, *should* return more PPM if selected properly.

    1. Patch
      • 14 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      Agree. But if we mess up the 'hop on hop off' AND have a crap defence, we're screwed.

      1. OShaughnessy
        • Fantasy Football Scout Member
        • 13 Years
        10 years, 4 months ago

        Yes, you're 100% correct.
        If we play poor attackers & have a crap defense, we'll lose.
        😉

    2. tm245
      • 14 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      Very good point about captaincy rotation.

  11. Exdeo
    • 10 Years
    10 years, 4 months ago

    I don't understand people investing big in defence, specially in the beginning of the season. Look at Terry - when did he start to score?
    Made a small analisys according points for last season - top 10 defenders averaged 145 point, top ten midfielders averaged 176 points. 11-20 defenders averaged 119 points(and between them there are 4.5 options), 11-20 midfielders averaged 131 points. Clearly midfielders give more points. Talking about forwards, there are always 2-3 "hot" hitters, no more, and anyone jumps on them. Last term Aguero, Kane, Austin, basically, it's a question of choosing the right one at a right time + right captaincy. Chelsea first fixtures are tough, Arsenal's are not much better, still everyone is jumping on their defence. New BAP system - does it not favour goalies and defenders who actually make save/clearances? so logically thinking cheap ones will benefit even if fail a CS. I am going for 3-5-2, rotating with 3-4-3, with one heavy forward, solid midfield and reasonable defence.
    People say early wildcarding because of defence? why the hell I would wildcard because of defence? I know fixtures, I've chosen the right ones, ok, things got worse then expected, but I will never wildcard because of defence. Rooney is not scoring, but Costa is, my midfield made 1 assist altogether - these are the reasons which can make me WC, and not after first GW anyway.

    1. Patch
      • 14 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      Yes, defenders score less than mids and forwards, but you still need to play defenders in your team, so the important question is whether the points you lose by having crap defenders rather than good ones are outweighed by the points you gain by investing that (modest) cost saving in mids or forwards. It doesn't stop you having the "hot" hitters.

      On BAPs, look at the article from a few weeks back. It really doesn't make that much difference for defenders. They will only be getting bonus points if they keep a clean sheet in most cases.

      1. Exdeo
        • 10 Years
        10 years, 4 months ago

        You are right, that's only my opinion:) There are many tactical schemes, whatever works for you is fine. And yes, I think midfielders' points outweigh defenders by far. It's much easier to score reasonable points with cheap defenders then with cheap midfielders, that's my point. Saints are an example. And again I was lucky to captain Baines when he scored 15 points last season:) But still I think that if you manage to choose the right 5 in midfield you will outscore defensive teams!!! It's logical - midfield is the gold of this game, the gold of football if you like, the biggest transfer in BPL - Di Maria - midfield, biggest signing this season so far- Sterling - midfield. Look at Arsenal - there are at least 4 decent options in midfield and possibly they all will give you points. Will see when the season kicks off of course, but I feel this year midfield dominance will be even heavier. Depay, Payet, Firmino, the most intrigiuing transfers so far- all in midfield.

        1. Patch
          • 14 Years
          10 years, 4 months ago

          Yes, I think there could be some top, top value in that 7.5 - 9.0 price range for midfielders, depending on how new players settle. I also agree that cheap midfielders don't seem to offer great value. Maybe RMT rates Johnson too highly and guys like Bolasie not highly enough.

    2. bootneck
      • 11 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      Totally agree with you Exdeo on formation, 3-5-2 primary and 3-4-3 secondary, what do you make of following for game week1

      Rudd
      Clyne Bellerin Shawcross
      Mane Cazorla Fabregas Payet Sterling
      Sakho Rooney

      Schmeical Berahino Naughton Lescott

  12. tm245
    • 14 Years
    10 years, 4 months ago

    Really like this line of thinking and I was trying to explore something similar in the VORP articles, though those relied on last performance which was the big risk in the calculations.

    Was the baseline for optimization be something like

    4.5/4.5
    4.5/4.5/4.5/4.5/4.5
    4.5/4.5/4.5/4.5/4.5
    5.0/5.0/5.0

    Because perhaps it might need to be closer to players one would be likely to transfer in or out, which would weed out the players that wouldn't be considered?

    Maybe something more like?

    4.5/4.5
    4.5/4.5/4.5/4.5/4.5
    5.5/5.5/5.5/5.5/4.5
    6.0/6.0/6.0

    Regardless, great read. Thanks for organizing it around the methodology.

    1. tm245
      • 14 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      Forgot to add that the reason for this is we have to bench at least 18m every week: 4 players at a reasonably assumed minimum of 4.5m each (varies slightly with a non playing 4.0 gk or def, or a 5.0 fwd).

      Points on the bench aren't nearly as bad as too much money on the bench, IMO

      1. Woy of the Wovers
        • 15 Years
        10 years, 4 months ago

        By this logic, if every defender price was 3.0m more than their current prices, you'd always play 5-2-3. Surely it's best to leave your weakest (lowest scoring) players on the bench, regardless of price.

    2. Patch
      • 14 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      Thanks. I thought the VORP articles were great too. Certainly the right way to be thinking about things.

      The 'seed' squad was
      Myhill Schmeichel
      Yoshida Morgan Huth Richards Martina
      King Anya Bentaleb Wanyama Fletcher
      Jerome Ighalo Agbonlahor

      1. Patch
        • 14 Years
        10 years, 4 months ago

        So, all of the seed players were weeded out other than Myhill.

    3. Patch
      • 14 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      maybe tl;dr, but the sequence of upgrades and their points/1m were:
      9.52 Agbonlahor Wilson
      7.20 Ighalo Deeney
      6.86 Fletcher Howson
      6.28 Howson Johnson
      5.70 Wanyama Howson
      4.63 Martina Fonte
      4.57 Richards Clyne
      4.18 Bentaleb Albrighton
      4.18 Albrighton Mahrez
      4.16 Huth Rose
      4.09 Anya Ritchie
      3.77 Morgan Smalling
      3.39 Mahrez Henderson
      3.14 Howson Mahrez
      2.84 King Howson
      2.76 Howson Mane
      2.62 Schmeichel Lloris
      2.43 Mahrez Chadli
      2.34 Deeney Kane
      2.23 Rose Ivanovic
      2.17 Jerome Sakho
      2.17 Chadli Silva
      1.82 Clyne Koscielny
      1.80 Yoshida Clyne
      1.79 Silva Hazard
      1.76 Koscielny Terry

    4. tm245
      • 14 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      Thanks for the further explanation. I re-read this paragraph from your article

      "Presumably, the players likely to be on the bench, such as Wilson, Boaz Myhill (four Gameweeks), Sakho, Ritchie, and Nathaniel Clyne (three Gameweeks), would be downgraded to fund upgrades elsewhere. Players that rotate well with each other may be elevated to the squad. It’s hard to say whether these players would be more likely to be defenders, though I do tend to agree that fixtures are a more important consideration for defenders than for midfielders or forwards."

      and think that this presumption is where much of the action is in figuring out optimization. It would also require a very rational, almost bloodless approach to one's squad in that a commitment to this approach would require several weeks if not a significant portion of the season to pay off fully. Reactions to subpar weeks would have to be greatly tempered.

  13. Mash Potato
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 12 Years
    10 years, 4 months ago

    Thank you posting and the time spent on the analysis. Can you run the analysis on historical data? What would impact be on having a larger budget I.e later on in the season?

    1. Patch
      • 14 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      I thought about running it on historical ppg, but I figure this is already accounted for in RMT along with several other important factors. I'll run it again closer to the deadline.

  14. Daaf
    • 10 Years
    10 years, 4 months ago

    Great article! I was considering something similar, going without a 10+ forward, at least until Aguero returns and the fixtures ease up in GW4. This article seems to back that thought up, so thanks!

    I do have a question. Your article suggests that upgrading defenders instead of midfielders and attackers is more rewarding (relatively speaking). Hazard doesn't appear in the top 10 marginal benefits list but does appear in the second list which is concerned with gaining money but losing points. I get that he is a great option, and he does appear in your team, but the data don't explain how he got there. At least not to me. Can you explain how he got in your team? Or did you select the best player to account for the captain issue?

    And are you keeping him in your real team?

    1. Patch
      • 14 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      Re how Hazard got in the team, see the list of upgrades in the earlier response to TM245's comment.

      I didn't account for captaincy, but Hazard made the team regardless, based on the value he offers. It was line ball between Hazard and Silva, as you can see from the low marginal cost of switching between the two. But if captaincy were taken into account, Hazard would definitely be there. I wonder whether this would have been the case, though, if Aguero had been expected to be fit are raring to go from GW1.

      I haven't decided yet whether I'll have Hazard. I think I'll have to, but it's a bitter pill to swallow.

      1. Daaf
        • 10 Years
        10 years, 4 months ago

        Thanks for responding!

        I wonder the same thing about Aguero too. Do your think your model would assign as much big guns to a team as possible while filling it up with relatively cheap value players to make that possible or simply choose between Hazard or Aguero or go with a more balanced approach? I guess it would go for the option with gains the most points, whether that is approach 1 or 2. In essence, that what's fantasy football is about, so i'm curious what you think your model would have predicted.
        A similar question concerns Silva and Hazard. Do you think there is a case to be made to include Silva over Hazard, or is that ludicrous?

        Your team selection als seems to have been impacted a lot by form players of last year,
        I would say Myhill, Clyne, Fonte, Iva, Terry, Hendo, Mane, Haz, Sakho and Kane are there because of last year's heroics. That doesn't neccesarily mean they will there this year, how do you deal with this in your own squad?

        1. Patch
          • 14 Years
          10 years, 4 months ago

          I'm looking at having only two players priced over 10m and giving them the armband. Recent seasons I have tried to have the best striker in the game and then two budget strikers.

          Yes, at the moment last season is all RMT has to go on, but as this season unfolds a bunch of new value options will emerge. I might try a couple of calculated risks in my starting line-up (eg Depay), but mostly I will go with proven players.

  15. RPK
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 10 Years
    10 years, 4 months ago

    Hi,

    What do you mean by ' I couldn’t find a way to improve it.' ?

    If you've arrived at your squad simply by looking at the predicted score of the first six weeks through RMT , then you can make several improvements to your squad -

    for instance,

    Ivanovic (7m) >>> O'shea (4.5m)
    Johnson (6m) >>> Cazorla (8.5m)

    Ivanovic + Johnson = 23.45 + 9.72 =33.17
    O'shea + Cazorla = 23.53 + 13.41 =36.94

    I am sure there are more combinations.

    1. Patch
      • 14 Years
      10 years, 4 months ago

      As Scarlet says below, the Johnson in my team is Bradley.

      RMT may have been updated since, but in the data I was using, the marginal cost of Ivan to O'Shea is 4.02 GW1-6 points per 1m, while the marginal benefit of Johnson to Cazorla is only 0.98 GW1-6 points per 1m.

  16. scarlet
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 16 Years
    10 years, 4 months ago

    I think you have the wrong Johnson (pardon the pun).

    Patch is talking about Bradley not Adam!

    His forecast return for the first six game weeks is 20.6 so your switch is a reduction in predicted points of ~8.

  17. xbirchy
    • 10 Years
    10 years, 4 months ago

    Does anyone know which formation would have obtained the most points from last seasons totals?

  18. SYLVIAN
    • 10 Years
    10 years, 4 months ago

    RMT telling me that Richards (AVL) a much better pick than Coates (SUN) - really?

  19. scarlet
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 16 Years
    10 years, 4 months ago

    Richards will play every minute of every game whilst Sunderland have the option of kaboul or brown to partner o'shea.

  20. bootneck
    • 11 Years
    10 years, 4 months ago

    Interesting article with one major flaw. I don't know what leads you to think Sakho will be on bench, as a West Ham fan I can assure you if fit he will be one of first on team sheet every week.