The value of value (Is there too much focus on team value?)

[Finisher1]

It is fine.

All right.

[SuperGrover]

Agreed. Way overrated.

[jake]

I edited the thread title to reflect the merging with similar thread, sorry goobs - Stemania

There seems to be a rather unnecessary obsession with team value on here this year. I'm of the view that team value is of somewhat minimal importance to success.

I'm fairly sure that if there was to be any analysis of the team values of the managers who finished past seasons with a rank in the top 1k, the results would show that the team values of these teams would be average.

The simple fact is, this game is about having the right players which are not necessarily the most expensive ones. Every season there will always be value players that emerge who consistently return points which are way above what could be expected for their price.

There will normally be at least one or two of these players which free up so much money that you don't need to have a high team value to fit in the other high performing expensive players such as Aguero, Hazard etc. Last year we had the likes of Kane, Austin, Siggy etc and looking back at seasons before that, there have been players like Michu, Rodriguez, Tim Cahill and Charlie Adam when he was at Blackpool. There are also often cheap defenders who emerge from the big clubs due to injury's etc.

There will always be money enablers like this and this season we already have players of the likes of Mahrez, Kolarov, Wilson etc who are freeing up a lot of money. It remains to be seen wether those players will continue their good start but there will always be someone who will.

Don't forget when you work it out, having a team value that's 1m less than somebody else effectively only means you may have to have Sagna instead of Kompany, Toure instead of Silva, Azpiliqueta instead of Ivanovic etc which may not actually result in that much of a point difference over the season. So is it really worth worrying about player price values and taking point hits just to have one player in your team that's only a minor upgrade over another similar player?

Weak post full of "fairly sure" and "there will normally be" without listing a single fact.

My favorite was your guess that the average value of the top 1k managers would be average.

I wish I'd TL;DR

[reddevil 99]

Value is so 2012.

[tamagotchi massacre]

I edited the thread title to reflect the merging with similar thread, sorry goobs - Stemania

There seems to be a rather unnecessary obsession with team value on here this year. I'm of the view that team value is of somewhat minimal importance to success.

I'm fairly sure that if there was to be any analysis of the team values of the managers who finished past seasons with a rank in the top 1k, the results would show that the team values of these teams would be average.

The simple fact is, this game is about having the right players which are not necessarily the most expensive ones. Every season there will always be value players that emerge who consistently return points which are way above what could be expected for their price.

There will normally be at least one or two of these players which free up so much money that you don't need to have a high team value to fit in the other high performing expensive players such as Aguero, Hazard etc. Last year we had the likes of Kane, Austin, Siggy etc and looking back at seasons before that, there have been players like Michu, Rodriguez, Tim Cahill and Charlie Adam when he was at Blackpool. There are also often cheap defenders who emerge from the big clubs due to injury's etc.

There will always be money enablers like this and this season we already have players of the likes of Mahrez, Kolarov, Wilson etc who are freeing up a lot of money. It remains to be seen wether those players will continue their good start but there will always be someone who will.

Don't forget when you work it out, having a team value that's 1m less than somebody else effectively only means you may have to have Sagna instead of Kompany, Toure instead of Silva, Azpiliqueta instead of Ivanovic etc which may not actually result in that much of a point difference over the season. So is it really worth worrying about player price values and taking point hits just to have one player in your team that's only a minor upgrade over another similar player?

Weak post full of "fairly sure" and "there will normally be" without listing a single fact.

My favorite was your guess that the average value of the top 1k managers would be average.

I wish I'd TL;DR

Thing is, pretty much all your examples are of players offering better value anyway, and the smart managers possibly own them already and have invested the extra £££ elsewhere. Besides, in my experience having a poor team value is just as likely to affect all of the smaller decisions along the way, incrementally eroding the quality in the bulk of the squad and costing transfers/points hits to keep up with form players

[Sutter Kane]

Agreed. Way overrated.

+1

I find it difficult to justify chasing team value over points in any circumstances. The situation has to be extreme, like Walcott earlier in the season plummeting in price and even that has turned out a dubious decision. I dumped Mane even though I knew he was gold, dubious again - but his price was falling. In fact I would say I'm at least 20 points worse off because I chose to save 0.3mn. Not great decisions. Value is overrated and it accumulates enough anyway with good decisions. Virtually all my players will get sold at some point, could be an injury, dropped, tired and looking off the pace, etc so the profit will be halved at most, often losing an additional 0.1mn because of the sell rounding system.

[Bertie64]

Agreed. Way overrated.

+1

I find it difficult to justify chasing team value over points in any circumstances. The situation has to be extreme, like Walcott earlier in the season plummeting in price and even that has turned out a dubious decision. I dumped Mane even though I knew he was gold, dubious again - but his price was falling...

I agree with this, but there is a distinction between "Team Value" and "Chasing Team Value".

Consider why you made those decisions?

e.g. Did you decide to sell Mane because he was going to drop in price or because you thought there were better options available who would score more points for your team?

Sure, if you make your decisions based purely on price changes then they are probably going to be poor decisions... But I doubt this is often the case.
More likely you made your decisions based on who you thought would score the most points.
It is only with the benefit of hindsight that they look like bad decisions.

Team value is important and is not over-rated at all...
Chasing team value is very over-rated.

[tamagotchi massacre]

Agreed. Way overrated.

+1

I find it difficult to justify chasing team value over points in any circumstances. The situation has to be extreme, like Walcott earlier in the season plummeting in price and even that has turned out a dubious decision. I dumped Mane even though I knew he was gold, dubious again - but his price was falling. In fact I would say I'm at least 20 points worse off because I chose to save 0.3mn. Not great decisions. Value is overrated and it accumulates enough anyway with good decisions. Virtually all my players will get sold at some point, could be an injury, dropped, tired and looking off the pace, etc so the profit will be halved at most, often losing an additional 0.1mn because of the sell rounding system.

If you don't mind me saying, getting shot of players who are dropping and then, when/shortly-after their form turns, getting in there sharpish to take advantage of lower price and subsequent rise seems to me to be exactly the way a successful manager plays. Though I understand that value isn't everything.

Your description with full hindsight of getting rid of Walcott as dubious underlines exactly how upside-down I think your strategy is. He's a perfect example, with hindsight, of a black and white decision. Do the maths, because unless a managers makes an appalling transfer in (instead of payet/ayew/mata/yaya etc etc) then it's likely they'll score more points and have much more money by having got rid quickly, and then have to option to buy in at 8.5.

[SuperGrover]

Agree Bertie. Well stated.

[ctibbits]

Decided to have a look at my points if I made zero transfers from week one. I would be 12 points higher (not including any additional captain points), and would still have a WC to use. My team value would be far less as I chased almost all rises and drops early.

In hindsight I would rather have the points as the value would be catching up now.

[gooberman]

So if Aguero is going to be out for a spell, all the money his sale will free up will basically allow us to pretty much have whoever we want in our team which makes team value somewhat irrelevant.

This really proves my point about how team value is over - rated. Things tend to happen meaning that there is more than enough money even in low team value teams to have enough players who score well to be successful.

[snakzz]

So if Aguero is going to be out for a spell, all the money his sale will free up will basically allow us to pretty much have whoever we want in our team which makes team value somewhat irrelevant.

This really proves my point about how team value is over - rated. Things tend to happen meaning that there is more than enough money even in low team value teams to have enough players who score well to be successful.

Exactly my point to why it is so stupid for the game if Aguero is out..

Everyone can just get all the "best" players now.

[gooberman]

Im not saying that team value is of no importance whatsoever. Obviously its better to have that extra money than to not have it even if you cant really do anything with it as it may prevent you from being that 0.1m short of being able to transfer in a player you want.

My point with it is that for me, the trade off isnt worth it, i.e doing unneccesarily early transfers and point hits, particularly when things tend to transpire during the season such as an Aguero injury and high scoring low price players to render a higher team value of no advantage.

To illustrate my point, manager A is a team value chaser and regularly makes early transfers and takes points hits. The result is that firstly he has had a lot of points deducted from his score and secondly he has brought in players early who then get injured in either training or during an international break resulting in more points deductions because of further forced transfers.

Manager B does not do the above so has a lower team value but has not had points deducted. Aguero then gets injured with a longish term injury meaning that the money freed up allows manager B to still have the same players as manager A but without the points deductions.

In the 9 seasons Ive been playing, I can only recall 1 or 2 seasons were a higher team value was significant which was the season when we had Lampard, Ronaldo, Gerrard, Fabregas (Arsenal), Henry, Rooney etc. All heavy hitters who were expensive and difficult to squeeze into your team without the extra money.

[Mav3rick]

doing unneccesarily early transfers and point hits, particularly when things tend to transpire during the season such as an Aguero injury and high scoring low price players to render a higher team value of no advantage.

I'm generally in agreement that transfers for team value should not be made, however there is a caveat in that early transfers for players you want long term for more than just team value reasons are worth doing early. If you delay transfers to the end of the week, then you lose a lot of 0.1s over the course of a season for the risk of injuries occuring.

http://www.plfantasy.com/2014/02/the-co ... sfers.html

There's clearly a balance to be struck. In an internationali break, you really should try to accept a drop or two becuase the risk of injury is so high, but in normal weeks, where only some teams are playing European or cup games, or when there are no midweek fixtures at all, an early transfer pays dividends over the course of the season.

This only happens because so many other managers knee jerk of course but it is a good reason to take the risk of an early transfer in a normal gameweek and to increase team value for free without affecting your team.

[Ruth_NZ]

It has always been like this. To maximize team value, you have to do some early transfers and accept the risk of an injury. Alternatively, you can sacrifice some of your TV build and endure some rises/drops for the sake of safety. To determine whether you should go for value or safety is a very important strategic factor in the game. And I'm one of those who believe the more strategic variables there are in the game, the better for serious players who'll give it more thought over a season. I don't see why so much pain over this.
Anyway, I adopted the safe approach this season and I think it has done more harm to my team value than it's done good. Maybe it's just a case of my team being abnormally injury free(ish). But I'd like to try the value approach in the beginning next season.

This is all true.

One of my weaknesses as a FPL manager is that I hate my players losing value (meaning SV). The desire to remove players who are going to lose value is something I have to moderate in myself. And the tendency to prefer a player rising in price over one that isn't is another thing I have to watch out for.

Because of mistakes I made in this area last season I have kind of mapped out this season strategically. GW1-12 building TV fast and taking a few hits to jump on "good" bandwagons (in my judgement). GW13-26 preserving/slightly improving TV, reducing hits considerably, buying players with a longer-term perspective, smooth and steady. GW27-38 TV becomes an increasingly minor consideration, playing tactically for short-term points gains and taking more hits again (especially to maximise the DGWs and 'chips').

I wrote an article on FFS a while back where I made a ballpark calculation of the value of 0.5 'free' budget as 0.45 points per GW. That's why it means less and less towards the end of the season.

[PitchBookMaker]

One of my weaknesses as a FPL manager is that I hate my players losing value (meaning SV). The desire to remove players who are going to lose value is something I have to moderate in myself. And the tendency to prefer a player rising in price over one that isn't is another thing I have to watch out for.

Because of mistakes I made in this area last season I have kind of mapped out this season strategically. GW1-12 building TV fast and taking a few hits to jump on "good" bandwagons (in my judgement). GW13-26 preserving/slightly improving TV, reducing hits considerably, buying players with a longer-term perspective, smooth and steady. GW27-38 TV becomes an increasingly minor consideration, playing tactically for short-term points gains and taking more hits again (especially to maximise the DGWs and 'chips').

I wrote an article on FFS a while back where I made a ballpark calculation of the value of 0.5 'free' budget as 0.45 points per GW. That's why it means less and less towards the end of the season.

Same here, at times I've considered (and even executed) transfers just to preserve team value, though you can mitigate this by jumping on other players who are about to rise...

I'd be interested in reading your FFS article. Do you have a link handy?

[Ruth_NZ]

I'd be interested in reading your FFS article. Do you have a link handy?

http://www.fantasyfootballscout.co.uk/2 ... revisited/

[PitchBookMaker]

I'd be interested in reading your FFS article. Do you have a link handy?

http://www.fantasyfootballscout.co.uk/2 ... revisited/

Cool article, consistent with my findings that the top players should deliver at least 20 points per million spent over the course of the season. That multiple is a bit higher for keepers though, and slightly lower for forwards...

[Sutter Kane]

It's an interesting article I agree with mostly and I'm glad you mention VFM. I get confused easily so: surely the value you are getting for spending most to all of that 32.5mn is reducing as you spend more and reduces further when you make money and spend that on more expensive players. Secondly, when you concentrate on making cash GW1-12 (via some points hits maybe) you are not 100% concentrating on points, which means you should be (not this season as it happens) behind by some amount, all things being equal. Finally I found that when I tried the making money approach one season, I actually didn't want to sell certain players because I had so much tied up so I was left with difficult decisions to make when they got injured/suspended/bad-form or when I really wanted another player. Being in those situations leads to some 'poor' (or poorly timed) decisions unfortunately. Vardy would be the ideal example this season of someone taking one of only 3 striker spots. (or Michu a few years back - had an amazing first half season, then dreadful after that)

I am not saying there isn't an advantage for remaining GWs because having more money is always good, just that for me, it's not that great an advantage. I definitely don't agree with 0.4pts/gw long term.

Back to thread; I got Stanislas in for Payet and this allowed me to get in Lukaku for Jerome, back to the tried and trusted 3-4-3.

[Ruth_NZ]

I am not saying there isn't an advantage for remaining GWs because having more money is always good, just that for me, it's not that great an advantage. I definitely don't agree with 0.4pts/gw long term.

You have a better calculation?

0.4/0.45 points per GW per 0.5m free budget is what should be achieved by a top 1k manager. Otherwise they won't end up in the top 1k.

[Sutter Kane]

I am not saying there isn't an advantage for remaining GWs because having more money is always good, just that for me, it's not that great an advantage. I definitely don't agree with 0.4pts/gw long term.

You have a better calculation?

0.4/0.45 points per GW per 0.5m free budget is what should be achieved by a top 1k manager. Otherwise they won't end up in the top 1k.

No but it's diminishing returns for each extra £ spent over a certain point, perhaps 85-90mn. I think top 1k is also extremely difficult nowadays, pretty much regardless of who you are.

[Ruth_NZ]

I am not saying there isn't an advantage for remaining GWs because having more money is always good, just that for me, it's not that great an advantage. I definitely don't agree with 0.4pts/gw long term.

You have a better calculation?

0.4/0.45 points per GW per 0.5m free budget is what should be achieved by a top 1k manager. Otherwise they won't end up in the top 1k.

No but it's diminishing returns for each extra £ spent over a certain point, perhaps 85-90mn. I think top 1k is also extremely difficult nowadays, pretty much regardless of who you are.

The diminishing returns part I agree with because many of the best managers will have increased TV by now, perhaps by 5% or so. My calculation was a points-per-GW value for 0.5 of starting budget so maybe it should be 5% lower by now (0.38 to 0.43 perhaps) and 10% lower after Xmas (0.36 to 0.4). But in any case, 0.4 seems a reasonable ballpark figure to use for assessing player value. 0.4 points-per-GW is not much, we are talking about achieving 2 points extra over 5 weeks for an additional 0.5 budget, that's all.

In addition, returns from added budget naturally decrease as the season wears on because there are less games left.

As for the difficulty of achieving top 1k, I used that as my benchmark because that's my target.

[Sutter Kane]

The diminishing returns part I agree with because many of the best managers will have increased TV by now, perhaps by 5% or so. My calculation was a points-per-GW value for 0.5 of starting budget so maybe it should be 5% lower by now (0.38 to 0.43 perhaps) and 10% lower after Xmas (0.36 to 0.4). But in any case, 0.4 seems a reasonable ballpark figure to use for assessing player value. 0.4 points-per-GW is not much, we are talking about achieving 2 points extra over 5 weeks for an additional 0.5 budget, that's all.

Fair enough. The reason I was so bullishly disagreeing with 0.4pts as a ballpark figure was the following. That would mean that between now and the end the managers (of which there are a few) who have 4-5mn spare cash on me (I have 102.1mn, others have a very similar setup but with 4-5mn banked) would accrue nearly 100pts than me just with their team value. We are only playing for approx 2100points over a season, maybe only 1400pts from this point. I can't believe this fact is therefore true but (bar the vague but relevant statements I made earlier) I'm not clever enough to prove it! What I'm saying is I don't believe there is a manager out there who can convert the extra cash to that many additional points.

[Ruth_NZ]

The diminishing returns part I agree with because many of the best managers will have increased TV by now, perhaps by 5% or so. My calculation was a points-per-GW value for 0.5 of starting budget so maybe it should be 5% lower by now (0.38 to 0.43 perhaps) and 10% lower after Xmas (0.36 to 0.4). But in any case, 0.4 seems a reasonable ballpark figure to use for assessing player value. 0.4 points-per-GW is not much, we are talking about achieving 2 points extra over 5 weeks for an additional 0.5 budget, that's all.

Fair enough. The reason I was so bullishly disagreeing with 0.4pts as a ballpark figure was the following. That would mean that between now and the end the managers (of which there are a few) who have 4-5mn spare cash on me (I have 102.1mn, others have a very similar setup but with 4-5mn banked) would accrue nearly 100pts than me just with their team value. We are only playing for approx 2100points over a season, maybe only 1400pts from this point. I can't believe this fact is therefore true but (bar the vague but relevant statements I made earlier) I'm not clever enough to prove it! What I'm saying is I don't believe there is a manager out there who can convert the extra cash to that many additional points.

Well, I have 2400+ points as a target and the article was based on that.

Changing TV makes the calculation less precise because some of it will be embedded value in players you'd maybe be better not keeping. For instance many managers will see the TV they would lose by selling Vardy and keep him longer than they perhaps should. For that reason SV is probably a better measure. You have a TV of 102.1, mine is currently 105.3. But my SV is 102.9, yours is probably 101.0? So the difference isn't that great. If I use my budget differential well (and you don't catch up) it might be worth 40 points to me over the rest of the season, something that could be neutralised by one good or bad DGW.

The reason I developed the calculation was more for comparing player price/value than for defining the worth of added TV (although it can be used, with caveats, for that purpose also).

[Stemania]

Conversation moved from Payet replacement thread - split at the most appropriate point I could find. Hopefully no context was lost.

(Sorry to SK that his comment about Stanislas being his Payet replacement has proved to be the collatoral damage. )

[liquidfootball2]

2400+ is an admirably stiff target, last season Silky came 7th overall with around 2425.

Fully agree with aiming high though as there's little point otherwise.

[Stemania]

2400+ is an admirably stiff target, last season Silky came 7th overall with around 2425.

More than that, the number of points certain positions get varies quite dramatically from year to year:

In 2013/14, a points total of 2400 would have got you a position of almost exactly 10k!

Having a 'target' of 1k is also a pretty unrealistic aim too - there's only a handful of managers in the world who have achieved that ranking even 50% of the time over the last 5-6 years.

[liquidfootball2]

Agreed Stem, get a Suarez on fire who everyone owns and the points totals don't mean much, OR is much better as a target and the top 1k only achievable if things go your way on top of making all the correct decisions.

Even the number one ranked ffs hof Ville has three of the last seven seasons outside of the top 1k and points wise has achieved 2400+ in only two of those seven.

[Ruth_NZ]

2400+ is an admirably stiff target, last season Silky came 7th overall with around 2425.

More than that, the number of points certain positions get varies quite dramatically from year to year:

In 2013/14, a points total of 2400 would have got you a position of almost exactly 10k!

Having a 'target' of 1k is also a pretty unrealistic aim too - there's only a handful of managers in the world who have achieved that ranking even 50% of the time over the last 5-6 years.

Sorry, but this misses the point.

The aim of FPL is to win it. If you want to win it then you need to take a benchmark of performance (in terms of points per £1m budget) that will put you in the top 1k ballpark when assessing what is required. Then at least you know the target you are aiming at.

Whether it is realistic to expect to achieve that level every season is another matter entirely. Even very good FPL managers will be undone by 50/50 decisions going the wrong way, by bad luck or by making mistakes. But that doesn't change what the performance target is.

It is true that some play to win their ML or just for fun. My article wasn't written for them. Mediocrity is easier to achieve.

[First Sub Podcast]

The points total will also be affected by the added chips this season, too, don't forget.