Community

The Value of Team Value

The “Value” of Team Value

A few years ago, I noticed one of my mini-league competitors was taking an unusually large number of hits at the beginning of the season.  When I asked him about it, his response was, “I’m building team value.  Just wait, I’ll make it up and then some by the end of the season.”

When the season ended, I was ahead… by 60 points, or roughly the amount of the hits he had taken over the course of the season.

This really begs the question, what is the “value” of team value.  What follows is an attempt to quantify the expected point uplift from higher team value.  The punchline:  it’s probably less than you think.

Methodology

One way to approach this problem is to construct theoretically optimal teams at a variety of team values and evaluate the expected full-season score at each.  Fortunately, the Rate My Team tool in the members’ area gives us just the data we need to tackle the problem.

For this work, I’ve combined the forward looking RMT data along with some optimization tools to arrive at the optimal expected full-season points at various team values.

The optimization was run using most valid starting formations, with bench fodder used for the non-starting players. For those that care, the bench fodder is: John Lundstram, Martin Kelly, Todd Cantwell, Isaac Hayden, Mason Greenwood and David McGoldrick.  Each player’s use depends on the formation.  For example, in a 4-4-2, the bench fodder is Lundstram, Cantwell (unless the algorithm picks him as a starter, which it did in a few cases) and Greenwood.

Results

The chart below highlights the results of these simulations.  Generally, this fits my expectations.  I expected the benefit of increasing team value to be greatest at lower team values and then experience diminishing returns as team value rises.  This makes sense.  At ultra-high team values, you can afford all of the best players.  At that point, more money doesn’t help.

One particularly interesting phenomenon was the change in favoured formation.  At lower team values, the model prefers 4-4-2 and 4-3-3, while at higher team values it prefers 3-4-3.  Again, this makes some sense.  As your team is worth more, you can afford the higher scoring but lower PPM forwards versus the lower scoring but higher PPM defenders.   I should note that in the 102-105 range, 4-4-2 is almost identical to 4-3-3, with 4-3-3 a modest point or two ahead.   At unrealistically extreme team values, 3-4-3 is the champion by some distance.

The tables below are more granular looks at the expected points increase per £1.0 increase in team value.  I evaluated the numbers using value ranges of £99 – £101 million and £100 – £102 since that’s where most of our team values likely are at this stage of the season.   In addition, all numbers are adjusted as if there were still 38 games to play, instead of 34.  The table shows the results for each formation as well as optimal formation (the grey column).

The answer, it seems, is that each additional £1.0 million of team value is worth about 20 points.

Implications

Save your hits

The first and most obvious implication is don’t take hits for team value.  Assume you have perfect predictive power and can accurately forecast when players will rise twice in a week.   You would still need to make ten transfers to make £1.0 million.  That’s 40 points of hits to make 20 point in the game.  Not good.

Value matters, but it isn’t huge

20 points is definitely helpful, but it’s not going to make your season.  If you can time an otherwise planned transfer so you make it before a price change, that will help you over the long run, but don’t let it drive your transfer decision.

Value is not a primary concern

The experts say that rising team value is the result of having a good team, not the cause.  Focus on maximizing points and the team value will take care of itself.

As an Aside

Just thinking through one potential objection to all of this; I realize we all have TWO team values.  The first is the value we see when we log into FPL (let’s call this imbedded value).  It’s the value someone else would need to spend to recreate our team. The second is the realizable value we would have if we sold everyone and started from scratch.  This analysis is really all about the latter.

However, to the extent you own a player with high imbedded value (say Teemu Pukki) and where that player shows up in many of the optimal teams (he does) then congratulations.  Your team value is a hybrid of imbedded and realizable, which is a good thing.

38 Comments Post a Comment
  1. Rotation's Alter Ego
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • Has Moderation Rights
    • 12 Years
    4 years, 6 months ago

    Great research AFSW, reassuring considering how far behind my TV is in comparison to where I'd want it to be.

    The point about formation is really interesting. Puts some numerical context to the fact that we often start with 4 at the back but then navigate away from the security of good value defence to a 352/ 343 formation as the season progresses.

    Great stuff!

  2. Murder On Zidanesfloor
    • 5 Years
    4 years, 6 months ago

    Current TV check - 101.9

    1. *sigh*
      • 12 Years
      4 years, 6 months ago

      102.5 and loving it!

  3. LangerznMash
    • 7 Years
    4 years, 6 months ago

    Taking points hits with the aim of increasing team value is a terrible strategy.

  4. Jebiga
    • 11 Years
    4 years, 6 months ago

    TV - 101.9

    Should i play lundstram over zinchenko if i have pukki in my team ?

    1. The Train Driver
      • 8 Years
      4 years, 6 months ago

      What does TV have anything to do with that Q?

      1. The Train Driver
        • 8 Years
        4 years, 6 months ago

        Oh, I see the article now..

    2. Offs!de
      • 11 Years
      4 years, 6 months ago

      Count your TV again

  5. Andy_Social
    • 11 Years
    4 years, 6 months ago

    If I'm reading this right, doesn't it vindicate the strategy of starting the season with a decent 5 at the back and gradually evolving to 4 then 3 at the back? In theory, I mean - in practice the early weeks of this season and its dearth of clean sheets undermine the approach somewhat.

    1. A Fat Spanish Waiter
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      4 years, 6 months ago

      Andy, it does sort of validate the strategy yes, and there is some logic there. At the beginning of the season, we have to ration our money, and so we pick premium defenders. However, given unlimited funds, I think we would all go 3-4-3 and start all of the high priced forwards.

      That part of the analysis was almost an afterthought to be fair. If you look at the graph of just the 4-4-2, for example, its a flat horizontal line after about 110 or so, so I needed to build-in formations.

      1. Markus
        • 14 Years
        4 years, 6 months ago

        Interesting. I think the other thing I realised at the start of this season is striker prices are more volatile, so it would be a valid tactic to play 1 up to start with but with some unspent capacity and upgrade to the first serious striker bandwagon option to avoid early losses.

  6. FPL Virgin
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 7 Years
    4 years, 6 months ago

    Nice article! I've lost £0.7m on Perez, Jota, Laporte and Robertson while I wait for the IB games to be played and for press conferences. This makes me feel a little better!

    1. Eze Really?
      • 9 Years
      4 years, 6 months ago

      I am an early TFR taker and last year it cost me 8 points and a good 2.5 mil in profit.

  7. Eze Really?
    • 9 Years
    4 years, 6 months ago

    Looking at the article and it being one of the more emotive subjects in FPL. Thank you for the article.
    Taking hits for team value alone is not just illogical it is stupid.
    But:
    I am a hit taker. I pride myself on being reasonably good playing this game and certain things worked for me.

    If value is going up/down and my transfer choice is something I need to do; I go for it getting a double whammy.
    I often have a TV of 108 mil by Jan compared to an average of top players around 104. The key is more SV though where I have 105 and opponents have 102. I can play with the 3 mil in 2 ways. Get a Salah instead of a Pepe. I can protect a lead if I have one by mirroring the opposition which often costs points at the end of the season.

    My conclusion is no, 20 points is not a big gain but the whole context of a hit must be considered. I often laugh when someone says I took a hit and made a 4 point profit after the gameweek. Anyone bothered to look over 5 weeks which is a lot more reasonable. I have a spreadsheet that records the 5 GW's that follow and I have not only profited in TV but points too!
    I hope I am not ranting and If I new how to post my spreadsheet I would do it to be ridiculed. (Smile)

    1. Ze_Austin
      • 5 Years
      4 years, 6 months ago

      Ah yes. I could list the moves I've made for -20 since GW1 here but I think it could be found in my comments history and could count as spamming if I typed it out yet again

      This article talks about taking hits for team value in the "bandwagon-chasing" context. It's the definition of the casual player, who removes players who didn't score well in GW4 to get players who scored well and are about to rise

      This is different from the "drawn-out wildcard" approach, where you change fringe players in your squad (but keep most premiums) to maximize both your potential points and bench strength. The idea of this is accepting that you will make mistakes every preseason and at this time next year, you could have another contingent of the Wood/Perez/Jota/Wan-B/DDG/KWP/King/Fraser types of traps in your team. Players who would definitely come good at some point in the season because they aren't terrible, but start off terrible. Prices change rapidly this early due to those chasing bandwagons. Moving with trends that fit your team - and are backed up by stats, eye test and fixtures - then enables you to jump off the derailed wagons later and switch to the more stable options when they finally come good and have good fixtures... Which could happen with a GW9/14 wildcard or 5 FTs over an extended period. It's easy to overlook how different your GW1 team can be from your GW9 team with FTs and 1 or 2 hits because the emphasis is usually placed on just the changes in premiums, which is usually minimal

      This is how I've been this season - drawn out wildcard from GW2. Takes luck and accurate timing, yes. But there's a lot more at play than total points at the end of the season for different team values

      1. Eze Really?
        • 9 Years
        4 years, 6 months ago

        Appreciate the reply Austin.
        I said it was an emotive subject!

    2. A Fat Spanish Waiter
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      4 years, 6 months ago

      People play the game differently and that’s great. If we all did it the same, we would all have the same score and what fun is that.

      I was just trying to add a quantitative tool to the community to help to think through TV and its implications. Plus, it was a bit of therapy for me, reminding me not to spend too much time looking at FPL stats looking for the price rise (or fall).

      1. Eze Really?
        • 9 Years
        4 years, 6 months ago

        It was great article that clearly asks questions. i love the banter and the logic on all sides

  8. Now I'm Panicking
    • 9 Years
    4 years, 6 months ago

    Nice research - cheers 🙂

  9. pingissimus
    • 5 Years
    4 years, 6 months ago

    Great article thank you

    On a tangentially related point I’m building a watchlist that has a lot of players who’ve fallen in value - mostly due to people jumping in bandwagons from established FPL assets who’ve ticked over rather than exploded. I’m looking at these ones in particular.

    Vardy
    Tielemans
    Siggy
    Wilson

    Most seem to be looking at the Mount James types who I guess will build value more quickly.

    My thinking is that to get ahead the idea is to find undervalued players who aren’t already bandwagons. In the context of this article that means sacrificing some immediate TV.

  10. The FPL Units
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 14 Years
    4 years, 6 months ago

    So what you are saying is when you look to make a transfer because you need to you would choose the asset that will rise in value?

    1. The FPL Units
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 14 Years
      4 years, 6 months ago

      Reply fail 🙂

    2. A Fat Spanish Waiter
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      4 years, 6 months ago

      Not at all. I’d chose the asset that you want in your team, regardless of pending price moves. However, if you know that asset is going to rise during the gameweek, I do think there is some sense in getting them in before the price rise.

  11. Amateur Pundit Zan
    • 11 Years
    4 years, 6 months ago

    Really good article.

    Agree with core finding which is don’t take a hit just for value.

    However, I think it also validates an early transfer early in the season, making a move early in the week to gain 0.1m+ in sell value is worth 2 pts.

    Worst case that play gets injured and you need to take a hit = 4pt.

    Chances of player getting injured

    1. Amateur Pundit Zan
      • 11 Years
      4 years, 6 months ago

      Must have used a symbol that shortened the message. Such a bad forum tech. Sort it out FFS

      Anyway chance of player you brought in getting injured less than 25% so expected hit cost is less than 1pt.

      2 pts gained over the season is better than expected hit cost of 1 pt

  12. Ludo
    • 10 Years
    4 years, 6 months ago

    If £1.0m is worth 20 points, then 0.1m is worth 2 points. That would mean if you have a situation where one player is dropping, and the other is rising, you should break even long-term with a -4 point hit.

    On the other hand, given that you've taken these numbers from the course of a season, £1.0m would only be worth 20 points over the full 38 gameweeks. With 4 gameweeks already gone, the same £1.0m boost from now would give you an advantage of 17.4 points.

    I suppose another way of looking at it is that an extra 0.1m is worth just over 0.05 points per gameweek. That isn't very much. For example, say you have the option of making an early transfer ahead of GW19, or waiting for the press-conferences and missing out on 0.1m. That 0.1m on paper would gain you just 1 point over the rest of the season.

    Assuming that the numbers are accurate, of course...

    1. Farke in hell
      • 7 Years
      4 years, 6 months ago

      That's a random assumption out of nowhere with no basis whatsoever.

      1. Ludo
        • 10 Years
        4 years, 6 months ago

        Well, it's based on RMT data, which has proven to be a reasonably accurate projection tool over a number of years. Not gospel, but hardly out of nowhere.

    2. A Fat Spanish Waiter
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      4 years, 6 months ago

      I’d definitely think of the 20 points as a guidepost as opposed to the gospel truth, but your logic is sound. I’m going to look at this again in January to see if things change as prices have moved even more.

      1. Markus
        • 14 Years
        4 years, 6 months ago

        Yeah I think the 20 per million figure is about right. The lady article on team value placed it at 17.5m, and in different years the last 'upgrades' if changing from best value to most points teams were worth between 6 and 12 pp0.5m so between 18 and 20 is a good working figure, and that I use.

        Ludo's point of diminishing returns is really important too, and makes me a more aggressive points hit taker at the start and relaxed manager post press conference changes once into the season. Most of my changes to date have been a falling player for a rising player which means the hit is nearly cost neutral - that is a very valid tactic if I think the other player is better now to take hits which include value building in the equation but after a few months you can't justify this to the same degree.

        1. Markus
          • 14 Years
          4 years, 6 months ago

          Great piece BTW, thanks for the contribution. How you doing so far this season?

          1. A Fat Spanish Waiter
            • Fantasy Football Scout Member
            • 9 Years
            4 years, 6 months ago

            Just getting back from into ffs after my trip over the pond to watch some matches. Actually saw your team at Liverpool!

            Doing ok. 130k but feeling good about my team so far.

  13. doy
    • 6 Years
    4 years, 6 months ago

    Nice piece mate.

  14. SADIO SANÉ
    • 8 Years
    4 years, 6 months ago

    think you covered this at the end but, if I buy KDB and Pukki (theoretical season keepers/performers) at 6.5 and 9.5 but my main ML rival buys them at 6.8 & 9.9 or whatever then aren't I getting a decent advantage over that rival? this is usually my basis for acting early on players I think could be season-long performers (I include Cantwell and Lundstram in this, but I was late on KDB 🙁 )

    1. A Fat Spanish Waiter
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      4 years, 6 months ago

      This is the sort of question that makes ones head hurt, but the short answer is yes you are getting an advantage. It’s because, in theory, they will have less money to spend elsewhere.

  15. Tricky01
    • 4 Years
    4 years, 6 months ago

    Interesting analysis. I think the caveat at the end is spot on though, that the analysis is based on being able to buy that team with funds 'x', rather than having built up that team. I've come 1st or 2nd in my mini leagues in 4 of the last 5 seasons by using this strategy. That 1 in 5 that I didn't was because I got too excited after winning the league before and made too many transfers, but in general the strategy works well. First half of the season look to increase team + cash value to circa 110 million by January wildcard, then have a dream team to make up the gap in second half of the season. The caveat in the article is important though because it's not like in January I've got a load of duds in that team. Plus, if you're tracking where prices are rising, you're effectively crowd sourcing of promising players. I try not to take too many point hits, but the thing to watch out for is when a players price is going to drop and/or there is an equivalent player (price + position) who is about to go up. That double whammy in the first half of the season I'm happy to take 4pts hit for. It's not just about chasing value, I could have more money if I wanted, but it's one of the more important factors in my transfer strategy. Currently I'm on 3.9 in the bank and team value of 99 million. The heavy bank account thanks to those budget forwards of Pukki, Barnes and Abraham and budget mids of James, Mount and Ceballos.

  16. Chemical76
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 5 Years
    4 years, 6 months ago

    Maybe I'm missing something but does a large team value not give you an advantage when using your WC.
    If we see a WC as analogous to preseason but this time you have more money to spend.
    However, I do get the point that focussing on TV is wrong and that successful playing will, by very definition, result in increased TV which then gives the "skilled" player added advantage when deploying the WC.
    Another thought is that the "sheep" who follow template boost the buying power of the best players and so the "sheep" will never rise to the top.