To see less ads Register or Login ----- Daily Fantasy Sports games 18+

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

A Fantasy Football forum for news on fantasy football games run by the Premierleague (FPL).
User avatar
Stemania
FISO Jedi Knight
Posts: 20448
Joined: 27 Aug 2006, 11:54
Location: On the Iron Throne of xG, the seat of The Crown Prince of the Stat Perverts. Or if not, in the STC!
FS Record: Best: TFF 321st. FPL 129th. FFS Career HoF Peak 2nd (Live 1st). Ability since lost.

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

Post by Stemania »

Ruth_NZ wrote:
Stemania wrote: 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.
I really don't get what you mean at all. The aim is to win FPL so let's choose an arbitrary 'benchmark' point of 1k (which is likely unachievable most of the time, but forget that) to aim for - despite the fact that the manager in 1st is likely going to finish with approximately 150 points more than the manager at 1k, so we'd still lose by 150 odd points even if we hit our overambitious 'target'. Further, lets then assign a total points target of 2400 points to this arbitrary benchmark of 1k, even though points totals attatched to positions vary season on season and so 2400 points doesn't really have any association at all with our benchmark of 1k. :?

Why not choose top 100 as this arbitrary 'benchmark' in the aim to win FPL, or 1st? Surely it's far better for your 'target' to be the place you're actually realistically aiming to finish. And why have any kind of points total aim in the first place? It's meaningless.

(I don't actually agree that the aim of FPL is to win it, but that's another thing altogether.)

Finisher1
Dumbledore
Posts: 7159
Joined: 05 Mar 2013, 10:10

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

Post by Finisher1 »

The Toon Man wrote:The points total will also be affected by the added chips this season, too, don't forget.
That's true, I think DGW Triple Captain is valued about 10 points and DGW Bench Boost is valued about 30 points.

Those are just my expected points and they may vary a lot, for example depending on whether someone like Aguero blanks or scores six goals during his DGW :lol:

User avatar
Le Red
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 2452
Joined: 18 Jul 2008, 02:38
Location: The Eyrie
FS Record: Will improve

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

Post by Le Red »

Finisher1 wrote:
The Toon Man wrote:The points total will also be affected by the added chips this season, too, don't forget.
That's true, I think DGW Triple Captain is valued about 10 points and DGW Bench Boost is valued about 30 points.

Those are just my expected points and they may vary a lot, for example depending on whether someone like Aguero blanks or scores six goals during his DGW :lol:
I think those evaluations are disproportional. Most players would consider a failure to only get 10 points from the DGW chip, and on the other hand I find it very optimistic to expect 30 points from the bench boost.

Finisher1
Dumbledore
Posts: 7159
Joined: 05 Mar 2013, 10:10

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

Post by Finisher1 »

Le Red wrote:
Finisher1 wrote:
The Toon Man wrote:The points total will also be affected by the added chips this season, too, don't forget.
That's true, I think DGW Triple Captain is valued about 10 points and DGW Bench Boost is valued about 30 points.

Those are just my expected points and they may vary a lot, for example depending on whether someone like Aguero blanks or scores six goals during his DGW :lol:
I think those evaluations are disproportional. Most players would consider a failure to only get 10 points from the DGW chip, and on the other hand I find it very optimistic to expect 30 points from the bench boost.
They are my estimates of long-term averages, but of course they may vary a lot because they only happen once in a season.

I think 30 points is actually a conservative estimate, if you do it smart and play your wildcard just before the main DGW, you will have 15 strong DGW players.

So, your four DGW bench players have to score 30 points in eight games - that's just 3.75 points per game. It's a conservative estimate indeed, and I think it may well be much more if we have some good DGW results. Of course, in order to get a strong DGW bench you might be forced to make some downgrades to your starting XI though, but that shouldn't be such a big issue if you have a good team value so that you can easily afford a strong DGW bench!

User avatar
gallus
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 3921
Joined: 06 Sep 2014, 11:55

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

Post by gallus »

Finisher1 wrote:
The Toon Man wrote:The points total will also be affected by the added chips this season, too, don't forget.
That's true, I think DGW Triple Captain is valued about 10 points and DGW Bench Boost is valued about 30 points.

Those are just my expected points and they may vary a lot, for example depending on whether someone like Aguero blanks or scores six goals during his DGW :lol:
I'll be dissapointed with anything less than 45 points from my triple captain. 2 goals in 2 games from your best player is not too much to ask.

User avatar
Ruth_NZ
Grumpy Old Gorilla
Posts: 9156
Joined: 25 May 2015, 22:46

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

Post by Ruth_NZ »

Stemania wrote:I really don't get what you mean at all. The aim is to win FPL so let's choose an arbitrary 'benchmark' point of 1k (which is likely unachievable most of the time, but forget that) to aim for - despite the fact that the manager in 1st is likely going to finish with approximately 150 points more than the manager at 1k, so we'd still lose by 150 odd points even if we hit our overambitious 'target'. Further, lets then assign a total points target of 2400 points to this arbitrary benchmark of 1k, even though points totals attatched to positions vary season on season and so 2400 points doesn't really have any association at all with our benchmark of 1k. :?

Why not choose top 100 as this arbitrary 'benchmark' in the aim to win FPL, or 1st? Surely it's far better for your 'target' to be the place you're actually realistically aiming to finish. And why have any kind of points total aim in the first place? It's meaningless.

(I don't actually agree that the aim of FPL is to win it, but that's another thing altogether.)
Right, let's roll this back.

I happened to mention an article about budget/points value in another thread. Someone asked to see it. I posted the link. End of the matter as far as I was concerned.

Then people started commenting on the article and I responded. Then you moved it to a different thread.

Then you made some comments about my responses which make it evident that (a) you didn't read the article, or (b) didn't understand it. Evidently you still don't.

The aim of the article was to define a points value for 0.5m 'free' budget at the start of the season. The basis for calculation was the actual points achieved by last season's winner, Simon March (65 points per GW). Therefore the target audience was those interested in reaching the top 1k. Those with lesser aims don't need to be shooting for the 2470 points or so achieved by March.

There is nothing arbitrary at all about any of this. It is clear that in a Suarez/Toure season (when 2 premium players are crushing it every week and captaincy is almost automatic) the points number may be a bit higher. This season (when the premiums haven't been reliably performing) it may be lower. None of that matters because the aim of the article was only to define a ballpark figure for what a manager needs to be aiming to achieve from 0.5m if they want to finish with a very high OR.

Finally, you seem to be at pains to categorise my stated personal target of 2400+ points as "unrealistic" and "meaningless". Well, with respect, it's my target and I don't much care what you think about it. Neither do I understand why it seems so important to you to throw words like "unachievable", "arbitrary" and "overambitious" around in the way you have.

The article was sound in what it said. My personal targets are my own. End of story.

User avatar
Mav3rick
FISO Jedi Knight
Posts: 20858
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 20:35
FS Record: FPL: 1082, 1201, 1800, 10203

The stats are dark and full of errors.

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

Post by Mav3rick »

In terms of the number you arrived at for the 0.5, it's not far away from the 1ppg for every 1.5m that I've had in my head as a rough estimate since it was first published on a fantasy site (name escapes me for now but might have been InsideFPL) a few seasons back, so I think you're in the right area, but probably a bit high.

In general terms of the value of an extra 0.5 in value 1ppg/1.5m estimate seems to work better for cheaper players and defenders (clearly it breaks down for super premiums and high performers) and only when everyone is thinking in the same terms (100m budget) but I actually think that probably makes it a bit more relevant in the value of value discussion.

In a vaccum, if you've earned yourself a re-investible advantage of 1.0 on teams around you, then I don't think you'll end up utilising it on captains (because it's not the difference in affording Aguero or not) but it could be used in a couple of ways:

1) Improve the solid base of a defence, probably inline with the 1.0ppg/1.5m calculation. You could probably afford to get a Bertrand over a 4.5 defender, or upgrade a couple of defenders by 0.5 each. Assuming that all other conditions are null in effect, then I can see reason to assume less than a 0.66ppg improvement based on that investment alone. I don't think it would be more, no matter what rank you aim for, since a lot of those extra points are just luck which you really can't plan for.

2) You could add the whole extra 1.0 to a premium pick - so maybe you get Kane over Lukaku long term for instance. A favourable outcome is hard to predict here since the options are so few, however if one does come about it could be a big advantage and this is a way in which the cash could help propel you into the top 1k.

If we just work on numbers that seem more predictable, and look at the defensive case, then you also have to consider a few things that would/could erode that advantage:

1) Any points hits to add those extra defenders are expensive. If you take a hit to "realise" your advantage then it would take something like 6 or 12 GWs to pay it back depending on how you'd arranged it. Obviously this can be negated by planning, but it's something to consider, especially if you're having to harvest the value from other transfers.

2) Other managers with less team value don't just sit there doing nothing. They rotate, pick cheaper defenders based on fixtures and otherwise utilise optimisations that you end up ignoring. If Kane does out perform Lukaku by 2ppg or something, then those with less value don't just ignore him because he's unaffordable, they make sacrifices elsewhere to minimise the advantages.

The main argument against accruing value is the same it's always been - high ranked teams (top 10, top 1k, top 10k) don't generally have huge team values. You need a base to work from, but once you get to a certain point, the extra cash just doesn't generally seem particularly effective. It's ultimately a case of diminishing returns IMO - as you earn enough cash to allow you to use fewer and fewer optimisations, then the advantage of that cash necessarily reduces.

I move early on transfers generally, sell dropping players when I can, I look after but don't chase my team value and I let players drop when it's sensible, I wasn't on Mahrez (GW3) or Vardy (GW8) at until they'd risen a bit, I only owned Payet for a couple of weeks, I've taken 3 hits (not related to TV) and I'm currently at 106.2. Whilst I'm sure that other teams are at 107+ currently (and will expect to extract even more of an advantage up to Christmas) I don't think you have to focus on value, but this has been the best season I can remember for doing just that so if there's an advantage to be had, it will be this year.

Especially as it's also been true that some managers (poor SK for instance) have been punished massively in the TV stakes by the early drops and injuries, plus the fact that the early bandwagons just kept on going).

User avatar
Ruth_NZ
Grumpy Old Gorilla
Posts: 9156
Joined: 25 May 2015, 22:46

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

Post by Ruth_NZ »

Mav3rick wrote:In terms of the number you arrived at for the 0.5, it's not far away from the 1ppg for every 1.5m that I've had in my head as a rough estimate since it was first published on a fantasy site (name escapes me for now but might have been InsideFPL) a few seasons back, so I think you're in the right area, but probably a bit high.
Well, the 0.4/0.45 number I came to was for free budget. The VORP principle says that you have to pay 4.5m x 15 (or thereabouts) whatever happens, so 67.5m (or thereabouts) is money you have no choice about, it is tied budget because you must have 15 players. Therefore at the start of the season the question is how you will allocate your free 32.5m. The overall figure I came to for 0.5m was 0.3 points per GW which is very close to your figure. But for free budget (which is what we are concerned with when we make player decisions) the number is higher. That's why there is a difference I think.
Mav3rick wrote:The main argument against accruing value is the same it's always been - high ranked teams (top 10, top 1k, top 10k) don't generally have huge team values. You need a base to work from, but once you get to a certain point, the extra cash just doesn't generally seem particularly effective. It's ultimately a case of diminishing returns IMO - as you earn enough cash to allow you to use fewer and fewer optimisations, then the advantage of that cash necessarily reduces.
I agree with this. Please don't interpret my article as advocating building TV as a primary aim. It isn't, it's secondary. The primary element of FPL is what players you select and who you captain. Get that right and you will beat managers with higher TV but less good selections. That's why the top 1k or 10k include teams with lower TV. The common factor amongst the top teams is good player and captain selection over the season. Everything else - building TV, variations of squad structure, hits or no hits, reliance on stats or eye, form or fixtures - are strategic and tactical elements that feed into that one primary aim: to get the highest performing players (taking value into account) into your team.

I will repeat for the last time that my article was designed primarily to assist in choosing between players on the basis of value. Not to define how much in points terms a rise in TV was worth (though it gives some indication about that too).
Mav3rick wrote:I move early on transfers generally, sell dropping players when I can, I look after but don't chase my team value and I let players drop when it's sensible, I wasn't on Mahrez (GW3) or Vardy (GW8) at until they'd risen a bit, I only owned Payet for a couple of weeks, I've taken 3 hits (not related to TV) and I'm currently at 106.2. Whilst I'm sure that other teams are at 107+ currently (and will expect to extract even more of an advantage up to Christmas) I don't think you have to focus on value, but this has been the best season I can remember for doing just that so if there's an advantage to be had, it will be this year.
I am of a similar mindset and my TV is somewhere around 105.5 I think. I neither see that as a big advantage or disadvantage, it's about what I would have expected. If I was sitting with a TV of 102.00 or so I'd be more worried but at the kind of level we are at (which I think is fairly typical for active managers) the small variances are impermanent and insignificant.

For example, you probably have Vardy in your team; I don't. I think you will need to sell him soon; you may not. But if and when you do you will lose TV in doing so. Which is why player selection will always be the primary element, in the end it comes down to whether Vardy deserves a place in your/my squad and that is the decision which will be telling, not the adjunct of who has some accrued value in the player.

If Vardy continues to do well and you keep him then the embedded value you have in him is actual value. If he hits a barren run and you need to sell him then it is only worth half as much. In fact this is one of the hardest things to manage - having accrued value in a player can cause you to hold on to them for too long because you don't want the fall in TV. Which is one reason why obsessing about TV can be very counter productive. :|

User avatar
Le Red
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 2452
Joined: 18 Jul 2008, 02:38
Location: The Eyrie
FS Record: Will improve

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

Post by Le Red »

Now you've come across something that was lost amidst this discussion. There comes a time when you have to decide whether to sell that player you got for a lower price. Selling a player that rose 1.0 since you bought him means your team value automatically drops by 0.5 (a lot).
If you obsess too much about team value and makes too much of an association between team value and quality of squad you may carry some burdens around for a long time...

User avatar
Stemania
FISO Jedi Knight
Posts: 20448
Joined: 27 Aug 2006, 11:54
Location: On the Iron Throne of xG, the seat of The Crown Prince of the Stat Perverts. Or if not, in the STC!
FS Record: Best: TFF 321st. FPL 129th. FFS Career HoF Peak 2nd (Live 1st). Ability since lost.

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

Post by Stemania »

Ruth_NZ wrote: Then people started commenting on the article and I responded.
...
Then you made some comments about my responses which make it evident that (a) you didn't read the article, or (b) didn't understand it. Evidently you still don't.
....
Finally, you seem to be at pains to categorise my stated personal target of 2400+ points as "unrealistic" and "meaningless". Well, with respect, it's my target and I don't much care what you think about it.
...
My personal targets are my own. End of story.
Stay classy, Ruth_NZ. Image

The reason you should care what people think of your points target of 2400 or your 1k position target is that when questioned about the benchmark level/points totals numbers you base your article on your answers were:
Ruth_NZ wrote: As for the difficulty of achieving top 1k, I used that as my benchmark because that's my target.
Ruth_NZ wrote: Well, I have 2400+ points as a target and the article was based on that.
So you say yourself that you are basing your article on your personal points target of 2400 and your personal position target of 1k. I'm saying the premises you are basing it on are poor choices and thought you might like to defend them as a basis for the article. In fact, I believe that SK's complaint was essentially also that the numbers you pick here are too ambitious.

I didn't actually comment on the article specifically if you check - just these two premises. I can go away and give a detailed (possibly even complementary) critique of your article if you want, but I just wanted to comment on those two premises. In my opinion (and I'd imagine the opinion of most people on FISO):

1) 1k is a far too ambitious a finishing target, and,

2) Specific points total targets (like your 2400) aren't very useful since (as I mentioned and you yourself repeated) points totals change every season and don't really correspond to a finishing position.

So, in other words, the two answers you gave above describing the foundations on which your article is built are extremely unsatisfying to me, that's all. :D

Look, I have absolutely no issue with people going away and doing value calculations and producing articles for people to read. That's great - we're all interested in that kindof thing around here. :mrgreen:

The Dazzler
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 1248
Joined: 03 Dec 2008, 20:26
FS Record: 9th overall in FPL 2005/06, 50th 2010/11, 288th 2014/15

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

Post by The Dazzler »

My aim every year, and I'm sure quite a few other good managers, is top 1K.
I play some high standard cash leagues and usually not finishing somewhere around top 1k means you're not likely to be making money. That's in 'normal' years and this looks like it's going to be a strange one so maybe top 10k his year might be okay.
I'd agree with your point that a 2400 points total is fairly meaningless as we have no idea if that corresponds to a good rank or not untl the season is over.
In 2009/10 I scored 2428pts and finished 1519th. The following year I scored 2276pts (152pts less) and finished 50th.
In fact I hardly ever know how many points I have if people ask. I only ever know my rank as that's all that matters to me.

User avatar
Stemania
FISO Jedi Knight
Posts: 20448
Joined: 27 Aug 2006, 11:54
Location: On the Iron Throne of xG, the seat of The Crown Prince of the Stat Perverts. Or if not, in the STC!
FS Record: Best: TFF 321st. FPL 129th. FFS Career HoF Peak 2nd (Live 1st). Ability since lost.

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

Post by Stemania »

The Dazzler wrote:My aim every year, and I'm sure quite a few other good managers, is top 1K.
And a fine approx 22% success ratio you have too. Some network rail bosses would get a quite stern, but not too stern, telling off for target achievement rates that low. Image
The Dazzler wrote: In fact I hardly ever know how many points I have if people ask. I only ever know my rank as that's all that matters to me.
Neither do I, but as it happens for one time only I do this week - as Mav pointed it out to me this afternoon! Image

User avatar
Ruth_NZ
Grumpy Old Gorilla
Posts: 9156
Joined: 25 May 2015, 22:46

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

Post by Ruth_NZ »

Stemania wrote:The reason you should care what people think of your points target of 2400 or your 1k position target is that when questioned about the benchmark level/points totals numbers you base your article on your answers were:
Ruth_NZ wrote: As for the difficulty of achieving top 1k, I used that as my benchmark because that's my target.
Ruth_NZ wrote: Well, I have 2400+ points as a target and the article was based on that.
So you say yourself that you are basing your article on your personal points target of 2400 and your personal position target of 1k. I'm saying the premises you are basing it on are poor choices and thought you might like to defend them as a basis for the article. In fact, I believe that SK's complaint was essentially also that the numbers you pick here are too ambitious.
I have clarified this already. The article was based on Simon March's actual winning total last season. That seems to be a good number to use as a starting point for calculations of the type I was making if your aim is to try to win it (or get very close) yourself.
Stemania wrote:I didn't actually comment on the article specifically if you check - just these two premises.
Those 2 premises are pretty meaningless as a general reference without the context of the article under discussion. I'm sure you don't want to tell me what personal targets I should have, right?
Stemania wrote:I can go away and give a detailed (possibly even complementary) critique of your article if you want, but I just wanted to comment on those two premises. In my opinion (and I'd imagine the opinion of most people on FISO):

1) 1k a far too ambitious finishing target, and,

2) Specific points total targets (like your 2400) aren't very useful since (as I mentioned and you yourself repeated) points totals change every season and don't really correspond to a finishing position.
As I said before, my targets are my own. The only reason I mentioned them was to explain why the article under discussion used such a high benchmark for what needs to be achieved in terms of value. If I asked you for a 'typical' benchmark points score for a very high OR would it be that far away from the 2470 points I used as a basis of calculation?

Last season's winning score was the most obvious reference to use seeing that the FPL scoring system changes to a greater or lesser degree every season.
Stemania wrote:Stay classy, Ruth_NZ. :P
"Unrealistic". "Meaningless". "Unachievable". "Arbitrary". "Overambitious". All in relation to a discussion about an article you hadn't read. Is that what you call classy, Stemania? :|

The Dazzler
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 1248
Joined: 03 Dec 2008, 20:26
FS Record: 9th overall in FPL 2005/06, 50th 2010/11, 288th 2014/15

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

Post by The Dazzler »

Stemania wrote:
The Dazzler wrote:My aim every year, and I'm sure quite a few other good managers, is top 1K.
And a fine approx 22% success ratio you have too. Some network rail bosses would get a quite stern, but not too stern, telling off for target achievement rates that low. Image
Actually I finished 9th in 2005/06 and 492nd in 2004/05 and my 1519th more or less counts as it did the job that year, so it's a little higher than that :D

In any case, I think your confusing 'aim' with 'expectation'.
I'm aiming to finish top 1k. I know I am capable of it but I don't have an expectation of it. I probably have an expectation of top 10K. But perhaps even my expectation might be optimistic. This season it probably is :D

User avatar
Stemania
FISO Jedi Knight
Posts: 20448
Joined: 27 Aug 2006, 11:54
Location: On the Iron Throne of xG, the seat of The Crown Prince of the Stat Perverts. Or if not, in the STC!
FS Record: Best: TFF 321st. FPL 129th. FFS Career HoF Peak 2nd (Live 1st). Ability since lost.

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

Post by Stemania »

@TD that's fine.

@ RNZ He he - I did read the article. Nice emotive list of words picked out at the end, that, and not at all ''pretty meaningless without the context'' either. ;)

But, seriously, I'm not wanting to start an argument here - I'm genuinely interested. My initial response (containing the naughty words) was to your following reply, which i really didn't and don't understand.
Ruth_NZ wrote:
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.
Do i think i can tell you what your target should be? No, of course not. But, my point was that if you say you used that target as a basis for a calculation then you should be willing to defend why that target was a reasonable one to use as the basis.

I basically was wanting you to clarify the sentence ''If you want to win [fpl] 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.'' Why 1k? What has your personal target of 1k got to do with winning fpl?

The Dazzler
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 1248
Joined: 03 Dec 2008, 20:26
FS Record: 9th overall in FPL 2005/06, 50th 2010/11, 288th 2014/15

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

Post by The Dazzler »

Well yes, top 1K is nowhere near winning it.
I finished 288th last year and finished 139pts behind March so I'm guessing 1k was probably near 200 points off?

User avatar
Ruth_NZ
Grumpy Old Gorilla
Posts: 9156
Joined: 25 May 2015, 22:46

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

Post by Ruth_NZ »

Stemania wrote:@ RNZ But, seriously, I'm not wanting to start an argument here - I'm genuinely interested. My initial response (containing the naughty words) was to your following reply, which i really didn't and don't understand.
Ruth_NZ wrote:
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.
Do i think i can tell you what your target should be? No. But, my point was that if you say you used that target as a basis for a calculation then you should be willing to defend why that target was a reasonable one to use as the basis.

I basically was wanting you to clarify the sentence ''If you want to win [fpl] 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.'' Why 1k? What has your personal target of 1k got to do with winning fpl?
OK, you have pointed out an inconsistency in my words. If we are going to be pedantic then I should have said ''...if you want to win FPL then you need to take a benchmark of performance (in terms of points per £1m budget) that will put you in that ballpark when assessing what is required.''

The reason I talked about the "top 1k ballpark" is because you can't absolutely define what will be this season's winning score. What I really had in mind was a position that puts you in with a shout with 4 or 5 GWs to go (which probably means top 1k). That's where I would personally like to be. And the article in question, based on last season's winning score, was aimed to provide a clearer idea - as good a ballpark estimate as possible - of what would be required in terms of achieved value (points per £1m) in order to get there.

The application of this is to have a more concrete means to assess relative player performance on the basis of value rather than purely on the basis of FPL points. If you know - even if you only have a good working estimate - what you need to achieve from £0.5m of your "free" budget then it makes player comparisons easier to do. As an example - Ozil is currently 9.0, Sanchez is 11.5. That means Sanchez needs to score around 2.2 points per GW more than Ozil (or 55 points over the remainder of the season) to be equivalent value according to my estimate. Now you can ask yourself whether you think he will do so. Being able to quantify what you need from each £0.5m - even if it's only a good estimate and not an absolute figure - provides a neutral measurement to help you make decisions like that.

The Dazzler
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 1248
Joined: 03 Dec 2008, 20:26
FS Record: 9th overall in FPL 2005/06, 50th 2010/11, 288th 2014/15

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

Post by The Dazzler »

That's all fair enough but to be in with a chance of winning it with 4 or 5 GWs to go, you're probably going to already need to be in the top 50, at a bare minimum.

User avatar
Ruth_NZ
Grumpy Old Gorilla
Posts: 9156
Joined: 25 May 2015, 22:46

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

Post by Ruth_NZ »

The Dazzler wrote:That's all fair enough but to be in with a chance of winning it with 4 or 5 GWs to go, you're probably going to already need to be in the top 50, at a bare minimum.
I don't think so. Not if you have your key chips still to play and at least 1 DGW still to come.

The Dazzler
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 1248
Joined: 03 Dec 2008, 20:26
FS Record: 9th overall in FPL 2005/06, 50th 2010/11, 288th 2014/15

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

Post by The Dazzler »

Ruth_NZ wrote:
The Dazzler wrote:That's all fair enough but to be in with a chance of winning it with 4 or 5 GWs to go, you're probably going to already need to be in the top 50, at a bare minimum.
I don't think so. Not if you have your key chips still to play and at least 1 DGW still to come.
In theory yes but at 1k, you're going to be over 100ts behind and many ahead of you are still going to have their chips too. I wouldn't think the chips will make that much difference. There is normally a convergence of DGW players that most people buy and the triple captain will probably all be Aguero in whatever DGW he gets.
If you want to roll the dice and get completely different DGW players and go for a different triple captain, then okay you have a chance of catching a lot of players but the liklihood is you are probably falling away.
Even in the best case scenario, catching 1000 players with 5 GWs to go? Hugely, hugely unlikely.

User avatar
Ruth_NZ
Grumpy Old Gorilla
Posts: 9156
Joined: 25 May 2015, 22:46

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

Post by Ruth_NZ »

The Dazzler wrote:If you want to roll the dice and get completely different DGW players and go for a different triple captain, then okay you have a chance of catching a lot of players but the liklihood is you are probably falling away.
Jinswick on FFS made a massive charge in the last 5 weeks of last season. He was 32 points behind on the last day and by half-time (with Walcott c) he was actually in 1st place OR. A couple of 2nd half goals narrowly gave it back to Simon March.

But really this is an argument about nothing. The closer you are to the top the better your chance, evidently. However for someone willing to roll the dice - maybe on a differential DGW triple captain - the possibility of a big swing is still there. Sitting in first place with 5 GWs to go won't be so comfortable with the new chips because the chance of someone below you doing that and nailing it is quite high. They won't all nail it but one or two might. Therefore the margin of safety required will be bigger than in previous seasons.

User avatar
Stemania
FISO Jedi Knight
Posts: 20448
Joined: 27 Aug 2006, 11:54
Location: On the Iron Throne of xG, the seat of The Crown Prince of the Stat Perverts. Or if not, in the STC!
FS Record: Best: TFF 321st. FPL 129th. FFS Career HoF Peak 2nd (Live 1st). Ability since lost.

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

Post by Stemania »

I don't see a 150-odd point gain on the guy in first in 4/5 weeks as being vaguely possible under all but very very extreme circumstances tbh, but let's not argue that any further.
Ruth_NZ wrote: The application of this is to have a more concrete means to assess relative player performance on the basis of value rather than purely on the basis of FPL points. If you know - even if you only have a good working estimate - what you need to achieve from £0.5m of your "free" budget then it makes player comparisons easier to do. As an example - Ozil is currently 9.0, Sanchez is 11.5. That means Sanchez needs to score around 2.2 points per GW more than Ozil (or 55 points over the remainder of the season) to be equivalent value according to my estimate. Now you can ask yourself whether you think he will do so. Being able to quantify what you need from each £0.5m - even if it's only a good estimate and not an absolute figure - provides a neutral measurement to help you make decisions like that.
OK, so let me take a step back then and say why I think it's important that the estimates you base this value calculation on are realistic expectations rather than hopeful targets.

I think all of us here are very interested in any calculation that gives a tangible way of working out how much bang each of our 0.1m bucks should be getting us - I'm fully for articles of the type you kindly made for FFS. But, I would say this. I think almost all of us are interested in the value calculation during the season for two reasons:

(1) So we can compare players of two different prices more effectively - who is the 'value' pick?

(2) So we can work out if, say, at which points of the season a 4ph is worth it to save 0.1/0.2m (a common dilemma).

(Perhaps another far more complicated application might be that we want to assess more broadly how aggressive a hit policy we should be implementing in general - do we go the full Finisher1 and aim for TV as a huge priority, or do we play a bit more cautiously? That's kindof all part of (2) though.)

I don't think it's particularly useful to use the calculation to "define a ballpark figure for what a manager needs to be aiming to achieve from 0.5m if they want to finish with a very high OR.", which is what you describe the main motivation of your article as. I feel that would just be saying - to be a 1k-tiger we must simply put on a 1k-tiger suit. But wearing a tiger suit doesn't make you much better at being a tiger. Knowing that I might need something like 65 points a week to win fpl doesn't particularly help me get 65 points per week - I'm already trying my hardest to get the most points possible. I think your calculation is a very useful type of calculation, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it has good application as a yardsticks for final ranking - we have a good one for that already, current rank. As you yourself do in the quote above, we really imo want it for calculations like (1) (or (2)). :D

Anyway, ignoring the weird tiger metaphor, my point about what estimates you base this value calculation on is the following. If we want to do say calculation (1) effectively for our teams, we should use in our calculation the best possible estimate we have of where we will finish the season for an important reason. If we put in last year's winners numbers into the calculation (Simon achieved a much higher points per 0.1m of his budget that we can reasonably hope to this year) then this will skew the calculation and make it much harder than is really true for a more expensive player to be worth it over a cheaper one. The points difference given by your value calculation tells us what we need to be aiming for in a given upgrade to be worth pro rata the same amount of points as someone that is near winning the comp might achieve with similar money - but by basing the calculation on such lofty standards we might often conclude that the upgrade is not worth it (because it doesn't meet this high standard) when in reality for our teams it very well might be worth it (as we will almost certainly finish the season with a far lower PP0.5m per week than the winner).

The same thing with (2). If we are working by your method we want the calculation to be based on as close an approximation as possible to our final position because then it makes the calculation accurate for our teams. Maybe a points hit for our team to save 0.1m would be worth it until about week 15 when we do the calc. But by basing the numbers on last years winner this calculation might give us a false answer (with respect to our team) of about GW20, or 25 etc. The more accurate our estimate for our season's points total/finishing position is, the more accurate our value estimation is.

In reality, the difference in PP0.5m per week calculated using an accurate estimate of our finishing positions might not be too different to the one using a much higher than expected finishing position - the error might be small enough for it not to matter. But, without demonstrating that it indeed doesn't matter the choice of unrealistic high (imo) estimated finishing positions to investigate (1) and (2) seems unreasonable to me. I suspect it does only make a small but noticeable difference (as Mav and Sutter point out they expected a slightly lower number so this would agree with them).


On a side note (as this is a separate point to argue) I don't think to attack (1) it is particularly sensible to do the value calculation over all players - it would seem more sensible to do a separate calc for each position as I'm sure the rate at which points potential increases per 0.1m is slightly different for each position. In fact, my biggest gripe is that I don't think it would necessarily be the best route to use season points totals for these calcs anyway - as we've been through, it's hard to estimate and end of season points total because points total vs position changes every season - perhaps the expected points totals for individual picks in a given position of a certain price would be better. For (2) I guess this doesn't really matter as it's a global calculation about how much the cash (not an individual player of an individual position) is worth so estimating realistically how many points we'll finish with probably is worthwhile. :D

View Latest: 1 Day View Your posts
Post Reply

Return to “Fantasy PremierLeague.com (FPL)”