**Need Help Picking Players For Gameweek 1 in FPL? Player Value Can Help **

**Player Value Explained**

Picking players at the beginning of each season is always difficult and at times, can be a little stressful if we’re honest with ourselves. A large majority of us will obsess over our teams, chopping and changing all the way up until the gameweek 1 deadline – ‘draft number 162 going in the bin’. One stat I feel that can help make those decisions easier, is ‘Player Value’.

Whilst it may make sense, I believe the ‘Player Value’ figure on the official website is limited in its calculations – it doesn’t take the varying prices paid by FPL managers over the course of a season, or average points per game (PPG) by players, into account. My ‘Player Value’ figure is calculated with these additional bits of information in mind, for example; the official website results for best value in the forward position is Fernando Llorente… Yes, whilst I understand he was well priced in comparison to the likes of Kane, Kane’s PPG is much better (7.99) than Llorente’s (5.38) and he scored nearly 80 more points – who would you rather have in your team?

By any stretch of the imagination, I’m not pretending like this is an exact science and that the ‘Player Value’ figure is absolute, but again, I just wanted to provide the fantasy football community with another indicator that may help make a difficult selection process a little easier. Points per million is a perfectly acceptable view of ‘Player Value’ but I feel my formula gives a more realistic and representative view of it.

**The Spreadsheet**

So, I’ve gathered the various stats from the official Fantasy Premier League website of the top 5 goalkeepers, the top 10 defenders, top 15 midfielders and top 10 forwards from last season and calculated a ‘Player Value’ figure using the data I collated. I’ve also added in the new player prices for the new season to see how the new prices will affect value, if they achieved the same points and stats as they did last year as a comparative tool.

Hit the link below to see what it looks like and to download yourself a copy.

copy-of-player-value-comparison-fpl

Interesting choice of formula. I think you may be biasing towards the higher point scorers, such as Kane. Usually these value formulae find the best value to be in mid range players rather than the very expensive ones.

LikeLike

I’ve chosen the sample as it is as these players are likely to be on most of our radars in terms of picking a team. Value doesn’t always have to reflect mid to low priced assets. You can achieve great value even by paying the highest price for a player, and I believe this is what my formula represents and what the official website’s formula doesn’t. There are examples on my spreadsheet where lower-mid priced assets have a better value rank than a higher priced player who has achieved more points for example; Son and Sanchez – Son has a similar PPG return as Sanchez but is priced way below him, that makes Son better value. I haven’t done it for all players as it would have taken me weeks to collate all the data, so I’ve chosen that sample as I believe thats who the majority will look to for their teams. I will add in new prices and new players too when the game launches. Hope that clarifies.

LikeLike

Thanks for the response. I simply meant that your output shows a high correlation with total points because you’ve effectively squared the points total in your formula. You wouldn’t typically want such a correlation. Wasn’t trying to imply that you should have included more players.

LikeLiked by 1 person

No worries man, I wasn’t taking offence either just to be clear.

And does it? How? I wouldn’t say it did to be honest but I’m open to you showing me… Squared points total would be; for example, Kane total points = 224×224 = 50,176. Unsure what you mean mate? The formula is: total points divided by median price multiplied by PPG. Official site do: total points divided by start price.

LikeLike

So if we take Kane for example, your formula is effectively squaring his points total (50,176) then dividing by his cost multiplied by number of games (11.5×28). Which gets you 156.

The fact that you’re squaring the points total ends up meaning that players who scored a lot of points end up with a higher value than they probably should.

I personally prefer the formula total points divided by price divided by games played. Then multiply by ten thousand or something to get a nicer looking number. That would produce a totally different ranking of players.

Anyway, just a suggestion. Cheers for the effort.

LikeLike

Where in my working are you getting me ‘effectively squaring points total’ though mate?

I’ve literally just given you the formula I’ve used which doesn’t square anything nor does it use ‘number of games’.

Struggling to see where you are coming from here I’ll be honest. Your argument isn’t routed in evidence that I can see.

LikeLike

Jason, I tried inputting your formula and comparing it to mine and it’s coming up with figures I honestly don’t agree with; for example, Sanchez has a really low value figure in comparison to the rest and that’s just plainly not right – Sanchez was the best player in the game last year and whilst we did have to pay a lot for him it was more than worth it for the returns he was getting us, to me that makes him good/great value because you are getting exactly and more than what you pay for. This is why PPG I believe makes more sense in the calculation.

Have you tried your formula yourself? Try it mate and have a look at the results.

LikeLike

However, if you mix mine and yours then we get a much more accurate reflection…

LikeLike

However, if you compare all 3 formula’s for player value, I still feel mine is the most accurate reflection

LikeLike

Your formula is points divided by price. Then you’re multiplying that by points divided by games. When you multiply two fractions together you multiply the numerator and denominator. Hence points squared divided by (price times games).

Hopefully that’s clearer. If you work through the Kane example you’ll see it.

LikeLike

Ahhhh I’m with you now mate, understood. I’ll try your formula if you don’t mind and see what happens. At the moment I still think the value figure makes sense as it is, but I will check it against your formula and take another look. Cheers for the suggestion man, appreciate it.

LikeLike

No worries bud. I didn’t invent the formula by any means, so go for it!

LikeLiked by 1 person

While interesting, I feel that the Points-per-Million (PPM) is still a better tool comparing alternatives.

If you have £17.5M invested in the pairs of [King + Sanchez] or [Alli + Eriksen] you would’ve gotten a total of 442/443 points. PPM favours the £0.3M cheaper [King + Sanchez] combo.

But what if you combined the two highest PPM (of these four players) instead. [King + Alli] would cost £14.65M, and give you 403 points. A loss of 40 points. But at a £2.55M lower cost.

The question is: Will it yield more than 40 points to upgrade another £6.5M player to a £9.0M player? Or two £5.0M players to two £6.2M players?

The restricting factor here is your budget. The only reason for trying to get as many points as possible out of every million invested is that you don’t have unlimited funds.

Your comparison between Kane and Llorente’s PPG numbers are valid. Of course we’d like to have Kane. But if having Kane means you cannot afford Sanchez, is it better taking Llorente instead? The only thing I feel is interesting here is PPM. How high can you get your expected PPM while not spending more than £100M in gameweek one?

I will also shortly mention that for an individual manager it is the current value of his player that is the right price to use. Current value is the price you get for selling the player, not for buying him. You can only replace a £7.5M player with a £7.0M player if the former has risen from £6.5M when you brought him in. This means that even a figure like PPM for any one player is a variable that is not the same between different managers, if they bought the player at different prices in the past.

In the end I must confess I am a bit confused as to why you chose to multiply PPM by PPG. PPG is already a part of total points. You are in fact squaring points-per-game (not total points) as your formula is:

[points-per-game x games] / median price x points-per-game.

You do get a nice-looking number. But I fail to see the relevance. In your example Son and King are shared first-place with 180 points among the midfielders. However, PPM is heavily in favour of King. The £1.5M you save on having him can be spent on upgrading another player. In theory, a more expensive player should give more points overall. Finding the exceptions early is what can transform a 200,000 OR into a 5,000 OR.

I hope this wasn’t too negatively written. I just happened to not understand the point of the nice-looking values that you have calculated here.

Happy FPL’ing. May we all be blessed with the ability to predict future PPM’s. And the wisdom to do the right transfers at the right time.

LikeLiked by 1 person

I just wanted to see how if I incorporated PPG into the calculation, what kind of figures that would yield, and upon doing them, felt that they provided a better representation of player value than PPM.

But yes I can understand all that and I do see the logic in it which I hadn’t previously. But on the face of it, to use your example of King and Son, Son IMO has the better value because, of the short period of games he did play, his PPG game was much higher than King’s – of course I understand and know it’s partly because of the fact King played more games the reason his PPG is lower but at the same time, for an extra 1.5m roughly, you’re getting clearly the better player with a higher ceiling in terms of what he can achieve per game.

LikeLike

If Son carried on at that PPG ratio, he would have ended up achieving around 227 points. Thats nearly 50 extra points for an extra 1.5m. So now we move to hypotheticals, what if I had King and ?? It’s impossible to nail down 100% these kind of hypotheticals, all we can work with is the facts, and those are the facts, but what this does is gives us a more a representative view of player value IMO

LikeLike

I agree that a higher ceiling is always better, all other things the same.

And if Son had actually played as much as King, he would’ve been superior. That is what PPG tells us. This is a stat best used for short-term decision-making, in my opinion. Which you can argue against, of course.

In the long run (from GW 1 and onwards) PPM is better, as it is a season-long indicator of what your investment will give you in return. If we can use previous year’s number of games and minutes played as an indicator of what will happen this year, that is.

There are many situations where I’d favour PPG, though. At the end of a season, when you know which players are likely to play. When doing transfers leading up to a Wildcard. The new “Free Hit” chip, in particular. Knowing a player is a guaranteed starter due to injuries of team-mates. Short one-two week punts. Blank and double gameweeks.

For transfers done with a Wildcard, though, I favour PPM. You can only do it twice a year, which means your players will be with you a long time. High PPG but low playtime is not good for medium- and long-term planning.

And for your initial GW 1 squad? If you do plan an early wildcard, PPG is your stat of choice. But then you’d want to look at PPM for the Wildcard itself.

Now I’m back to my GW 1 squad. I’ve changed it multiple times already. 😎

LikeLiked by 1 person

Agree mate, I’m not trying to replace the PPM formula or anything, just to provide FPL managers with another stat that I personally feel might just help and if nothing else, is interesting!

Hahaha yeah mate, I’m on number 3 at the moment but honestly feel happy with it… for now at least! I’ve just recently seen that Lacazette is playing on the wing in their friendly – implications for Sanchez?

LikeLike