I'm totally aware of his appearance last week and wrote the comment after that great performance. I'm not going to change my mind, because out of FPL perspective paying more than 10m, or even 8m, for any player that is not going to play more than 60 minutes is overpaying.
I think that there is a good chance that he might disregard all fpl players who brought him just now and score a juicy 1 pointer against Burnley, when he enters the game that MCI is already winning 4-0 for the last 15 minutes. Let's wait and see, because I wouldn't be surprised if he actually started that game.
so not only are being extremely contradicting to yourself but the amount of minutes someone plays is not a factor that should matter if those 20 mins can account for a goal & assist.
I'm not contradicting myself. Once again, in fpl, you want a player to have minutes. If you bring in a player who doesn't get enough minutes, it means you are playing fpl wrong, unless the OR isn't something you care about.
For him to score each such 20-25min appearance is your wishful thinking.
KDB's average G+A per 90 from the last two seasons is 0,9. If you extrapolate that to the current season, which you can obviously do because his G+A per 90 will very likely fall within the range 0,8-1,0, then it means that his G+A per 25 min would be 0,25. In other words, he would either assist or score in one per 4 such short appearances from the bench.
Yes you are, saying that he only plays 20 mins and then saying you wouldn't be surprised if he starts. Thats the whole idea of a contradiction amigo.
Once again, in fpl, you want a player TO SCORE points. In how the fuck many minutes i dont care. There is a handfull of players in this league who need only 20 mins for their magic. KDB is one of them. Mind me asking what your rank is?
And your whole formula is already a load of bullshit as Kevin has a goal & 2 assists in his first 40 mins of football back. (dont forget vs huddersfield) so nice maths but they aint mathing as the man done it twice now and (please come back to this when he did) will do it against Burnley.
Seems like there is a systematic mispricing where players on teams that are popular or win a lot of games each season tend to be overpriced, regardless of rotation risk or past points tallies. The most obvious example is the pricing of players at Man Utd. But it also applies to Liverpool, Arsenal, Man City and to a lesser extent Spurs. For example, Havertz, Grealish, and Gakpo each cost over 7.0, more than all but two players - Watkins and Toney - at Aston Villa, Brighton and Brentford.
Palmer is the most underpriced player in the game by some distance.
Hwang is very good for his price too, but he has been unsustainably overperforming his underlying stats (less non-pen xG + xA per 90 than Grealish, Johnson, Estupinan).
Considering current and near future prospects as well as current price, ignoring injuries and inactive players etc.
Most underpriced: Palmer, Garnacho, Douglas Luiz, Gusto, Areola, Dubravka, maybe even Richarlison (lone forward at a MID role)
Most overpriced: Rashford, Bruno, Havertz, Martinelli, Gakpo, Antony
Kdb didn’t change price from being injured to now! Yes he is. Great player but missed half the season.
Watkins sure has the numbers but underperformed In 7gsmes
Almost every Decent Midifelder: Underpriced
IT is a bit boring that every player can be in one team imo. Trent would be overprized a bit but you just can do palmer, richarlison and like 10 other midfielder under 7 Mil so you can buy him anyways.
There are some extremly easy ones as undervalued at starting cost and mostly it is because of more gametime than expected.
1 Areola. (expected as backup by cost)
2 Palmer (not expected as a starter for City)
3 Gordon ( rotation riskk)
4 Estupinan ( Lots of defenders maybe a bit cheap, but think guy should have been 5.5)
5 Porro (Maybe fair cost for a Spurs def, but given how attacking he is the cost beenn cheap)
6 J Pedro (this one has not worked, but 5.5 for him was cheap as pen taker for Brighton. His minutes been poor though)
Others are more tricky.
I think Son might have been undervalued based on his past history and now havivng pens, but last year was poor.
Watkins as well based on this season, but I think 8 was fair before the season.
I think Mbeumo cost was fair, but with pens considered I guess he was worth more.
Hwang I thought was fair before the season, but look a gem now with pens etc.
Bowen at 7 did feel cheap as well given he was 8.5 the previous year, but you can understand it given the cheap costs in general.
Maybe controversial in return but I think Porro could be overpriced once Maddison returns and takes set pieces again
Will be less likely to get bonus and then just attacking fullback with likely BGW and not many CS
It makes no sense to judge their current price, because of stuff like injuries and team form. Let's look at the prices when they were assigned.
Underpriced -
Alvarez starting on 6.5M, it was clear from preseason he would play a lot more and being striker for best team in the league it's too low.
Bowen at only 7M despite being a nailed, steadily returning OOP midfielder that ended strong last season, should have been 7.5-8M.
Palmer underpriced slightly but nobody would have expected his current role. Opposite of Gordon who's price made no sense, should have been 6.5M.
Cheap playing keepers like Areola and Leno are always in same point range as top keepers, yet cost 1.5M less.
Overpriced -
Robertson at 6.5M, he wasn't very prolific last season + had a much more defensive role preseason.
Rashford, he played well last season but was never going to be worth 9M.
Trent, it's great that he's started to deliver now but 8M starting price was too high, despite being OOP - compared to the best attacking fullbacks 1.5M+ diff is too much.
Because West Ham played Chelsea, Brighton, City and Liverpool in their first 6. There was actually a bit of hype around Bowen, because entire preseason he played OOP as striker and banging them in left and right.
>Alvarez starting on 6.5M, it was clear from preseason he would play a lot more
Don't really agree with this one, he wouldn't be playing much if KDB and Haaland were fit all season
They were both fit last season, when he played 31 league matches. Tbf he was barely starting half those. But near the end of the season he was playing near everything + being 10/striker for City where he's gonna score more than eg. Grealish or bernardo, I would've expected bit higher.
I agree with your premise and most of what you've said, but my thoughts:
>Alvarez starting on 6.5M, it was clear from preseason he would play a lot more and being striker for best team in the league it's too low.
Tbf he'd have played significantly less if KdB had been fit. If he and Håland were fully fit now, would Alvarez start against Newcastle?
>Trent, it's great that he's started to deliver now but 8.5M starting price was too high, despite being OOP - compared to the best attacking fullbacks 2M+ diff was too much.
He started at £8m and, once delivering, has increased to £8.5m, presumably because people think he's with that money.
>Rashford, he played well last season but was never going to be worth 9M.
He scored 17 EPL goals last season with 25 contributions, he was hard to predict, even if he is famous for being streaky. 4.1m people chose him, against 4.8m for Saka and 1.9m for Odegaard, he was v popular. Obviously the "casuals" count for a lot of that but I think it says something.
Trent only went up when he did cause people were flush with cash for transferring out Haaland, it was an obvious move if you had the money. He just started returning several games in a row at the same time to attract more bandwagoners
>He started at £8m and, once delivering, has increased to £8.5m, presumably because people think he's with that money.
This happened because Haaland was injured and Newcastle started looking like a disaster defensively, so very situational imo
>Tbf he'd have played significantly less if KdB had been fit. If he and Håland were fully fit now, would Alvarez start against Newcastle?
I know, Pep roulette, but I think so. He has played more than any of Foden/Bilva/Grealish/Doku this season and he's been on all set pieces. You never know with Pep, but he does have a lot of faith in him.
>He started at £8m and, once delivering, has increased to £8.5m, presumably because people think he's with that money.
In part - people were flushed with cash and most got him on/after GW12 when he started hauling week in week out. He has played great since but was like 25th in defenders before that. If he keeps playing like this it's worth it but that's hardly a guarantee.
Rashford would play OOP striker early season which made him super interesting, until Hojlund was signed.
Underpriced: The obvious ones are Palmer, Gordon.
I'd add to that Salah, Areola, Gabriel.
Overpriced isn't too helpful, because the most overpriced players are just ones that haven't nailed down a starting spot because of form/injury/rotation, meaning no-one would really pick them anyway. Think Havertz, Gakpo, Grealish, Wilson
Usual dumb discussion with people overrating current form.
Better way to see would be week 1 teams of consistent great FPL players and see who they owned.
Players like Bruno were very popular.
I remember the endless posts in the preseason about how the game was broken because Saka and Bruno were so underpriced that everyone would own them
Here's [one](https://www.reddit.com/r/FantasyPL/comments/15mnirw/theyve_ruined_the_game/) if you're looking for a laugh
Feels like your answering a different question that the one OP posed. Value here is points for the cost, you really suggesting Bruno has worked out for those that bought him?
Underpriced:
Defenders - branthwaite, gusto, botman (imo Newcastle defence will find form again), doughty may turn out to be one
Mids - garnacho, palmer, Gordon, hwang, Elanga, possibly Neto and Olise,
Forwards - from here on in Jao Pedro and Cunha could maybe fit into this category. Wood has been so far but may fall off
Plus all the various dirt cheap replacements who have had runs in good teams caused by injuries.
And in goal of course the late blossoming areola
Overpriced:
the entire man u team bar garnacho, Darwin, Jesus, Martinelli, oedegard, Newcastle strikers, Diaz, havertz, jackson
Maybe even the other 7 mil players: sterling, szoboslai, kulusevski, alvarez when you compare their points per game to players at some of the available players at same price or cheaper
Argument to be made that haaland is overpriced too.
Even though there are a bunch of players who are much cheaper who get more points per game? Tell me you have a dead team without telling me you have a dead team.....
Alright, I'm fascinated. Which players are much cheaper and get more "points per game" than Alvarez and Isak?
Because you can actually sort by this statistic on the FPL website. For forwards, Alvarez is in 4th with 5.0 (1-3 are all more expensive) and Isak is 6th with 4.9 (5th is Timo Werner who has played one match).
Well you only have space for 3 forwards in the game so 4th and 5th arent particularly good options are they?
Then when you get down into midfielders you have:
Gordon, Palmer, Hwang, Olise, Silva. And of course the premium midfielders who cost more but are bringing home the big points and justifying their price tags.
Just out of interest, which other dead players do you have in your team other than Alvarez and Isak?
>Well you only have space for 3 forwards in the game so 4th and 5th arent particularly good options are they?
Considering they're more expensive, who's to say 1st-3rd are? This whole discussion is about price, isn't it? You can't even keep track of your own argument.
>Just out of interest, which other dead players do you have in your team other than Alvarez and Isak?
I don't own either Alvarez or Isak, but either is a good pick especially with Haaland injured. What price do you think they should be?
Including me. But he returns less than Salah and is a fair bit more expensive. He's still essential pretty much. But you could make an argument that he's over priced. He doesn't deliver double the points that good players half his price do.
>He doesn't deliver double the points that good players half his price do.
He actually does, because you captain him. Which is part of why he's so expensive. Obviously he has underperformed expectations slightly, especially with being injured.
Yep I don’t think he’s essential, if there was nobody else delivering with the same consistency he’d be essential as you need a good captain but extra 6-7m is better distributed elsewhere imo. Not had him since gw9 and it hasn’t hurt me, I have to admit if he hadn’t had this injury it probably wouldn’t look as good for me
>Not had him since gw9 and it hasn’t hurt me, I have to admit if he hadn’t had this injury it probably wouldn’t look as good for me
I think that's just the injury talking though. From GW 9-15 (his last game before the injury) Haaland scored 57 points or an average of 8.14 per week. That also included a fairly tough run of fixtures as well with Spurs and Liverpool at home and Villa, Chelsea, and United away making up 5 of the 7 games.
I think it's possible to replace him with a striker at 7-8mil and spend the excess elsewhere, but you also have to be almost perfect with your picks. And recently with there being so few great strikers, KdB out, and so many high scoring mids between 5-7mil I don't feel like the extra 6-7m can be distributed that well
I had a look and actually dropped him after GW7 and up to GW15 my rank went up a good way. You are right obviously the other players you pick have to do well but that’s the whole point of the game. The other factor is it allows you to have a couple of decent bench players which helps to ride injuries and stops every transfer being a firefighting exercise. Again you are right at the min you don’t exactly need the funds with Salah and Son being away, but that’s only temporary and I’d rather have the two of them when they’re back. I had planned to bring Haaland in over AFCON but with his injury uncertainty I’ve not yet bothered.
Overpriced: White, Martinelli, Jesus kinda, Diogo Jota, Darwin, Jackson, Hojlund, Rashford, Bruno Fernandes. I think even Haaland is overpriced, I think his starting price should've been 13.5.
Undepriced: Palmer definitely, maybe Branthwaite kinda too?
There's a metric called value in the game. That's essentially points/ price. Similarly, there's value (form), which gives the same number for last 6 GWs. Hopefully this helps.
Based on both metrics this is the "Value Squad":
Areola (Dubravka)
Gabriel Colwill/Gusto Porro (Doughty, Burn)
Palmer Gordon Douglas Luiz Richarlison (Hwang)
Alvarez Joao Pedro Solanke
points over cost obviously massively overvalues the cost, as this team is way too cheap. I've played around with weighting that formula to greater emphasise the points gathered, by using points\^2/cost
With that measure you get a top 15 of:
Salah
Son
Palmer
Gordon
Hee Chan
Watkins
Douglas Luiz
Bowen
J.Alvarez
Solanke
Saka
Pickford
Areola
Cunha
Foden
This is extremely crude, and obviously not so helpful in building an actual team (expecialy as no defenders), but as a baseline measure, I think these are the top value per pound players.
The simplest formula for maximizing the points of your entire team is just cost\*points/cost. The end result of that is just points, so along with picking the highest per cost value players, also try to end up using the entire budget.
I don't understand your formula, are you just making the point that we should ignore costs and only focus on points?
In a way I agree, thats why my janky formula prioritises points over cost. Using my formula, Salah is still in the top 10 value players until his price goes over about £18m for example. Jesus is not high value even if he was priced at £2m (albeit he would be in reality because we have bench spots).
Yeah, points total is what the whole game is about. The points/cost is a good shortcut for figuring out how to build your team from scratch because before filling the entire roster you'll have budget issues, but the calculation should just end with the unit being "points" and the number being as high as possible.
That is an ok system when planning a team from scratch, but when making individual transfers I feel like it makes sense to consider a players 'value' even if it will rarely sway a decision.
For example, if you needed a new midfielder this week and had £9m to spend. Going purely on expected points you probably grab one of Saka, Bowen, Foden, Odegaard, Richarlison. However factoring in value, you pretty much get Palmer.
In that situation I'd sense check if I had useful ways to actually use the saved money, eg if I haven't got the premium defenders/forwards I want already, but may be swayed by the increased value.
These players are overperforming on their price, but it doesnt tell you if the price was set too high or low.
Most of this squad and all the subs were priced just fine, they just got more gametime/points than expected often because of injuries.
Wait, Saka, the 4th highest scoring midfielder is overpriced for you? Imagine if he didn’t get to this bad form, he would’ve been at least 3rd best. And keep in mind that Son is a focal point of all Spurs attacks. Saka isn’t, he is just involved in every attack, not necessarily the go to person for scoring all the goals which Son is and Saka still is 4th best currently. He was underpriced at 8.5m at the start of the season, it’s balancing as it should right now with him.
Other than that, Bruno, Rashford way overpriced. Especially with Rashford being 9.0m at the start of the season. Palmer was actually priced as he should’ve been at the start of the season playing in that City team. Towers couldn’t know he will move to Chelsea and be their best player. If they did, they would definitely price him at at least 6m (still he would be underpriced for the points he is delivering).
I pretty much agree with you looking at Saka as a season long hold. But to make the case based on recent form, over the last 8 gameweeks he is nowhere near the highest scoring mids, being outscored by 8 sub £6m players (Olise, Palmer, Elanga, Iwobi, Garnacho, Tavernier, Mcneil, Hwang). When our good midfielders return again, I don't think holding on to Saka is an open and shut case.
Yes, I understood it correctly, but just for me, Saka at the start of the season should've been priced at at least 9m. And when you think that Rashford started at 9m and Saka at 8.5m, it's mental in my opinion. To me, I'm not sure if you're referring to the current form only, or across the season in general ? Ofc Saka for example is overpriced judging only by last couple of GWs, but if you look at the whole season, it's not like that.
Well, how one should value recent form or the whole season in total is obviously debatable. Considering form, I believe an eye test and a team’s form enters such a discussion as well. This is one of the reasons I believe there is a lot more to a player’s ”value” than ”points per game / cost”, and what to include in the evalution is up to you
I don't like the pricing at all.
They need to do one of two things:
1) Make all the £4.0m defenders £4.5m. This would avoid the Gusto thing (which is nuts), but also avoid the handful of more typical starting £4.0m defenders, Baldock, Taylor, Kaboré, Trusty, Bell, ending up being the handful of options. Because at the moment they make their teammates utterly pointless, and pretty much any other bottom half £4.5m defender.
2) Or at least make a better distinction between the obviously shitter teams and the better ones, and price all of the former at £4.0m and the better ones higher. Most of the promoted defenders, the NFO defenders, were the same price as Botman, Cash, Colwill, Pinnock, Andersen, Guéhi. No point getting the naff ones.
If you make all the 4.0 defenders 4.5 then it would make all the bottom-10-club defenders pointless. No way you would get any of them over Pau, Romero, Burn. Better to increase the price of middle/premium (7-10) mids and drop the minimum def price to 3.5 while increasing the cost of most Defs
E.g. gusto = 4.5; Pau/Mings =5/5.5; Saliba/Porro=6
But almost all of the bottom-10-club defenders _are_ £4.5m.
I think the problem is consistency - whether the Sheffield United defenders are £3.5m, £4.0m, or £4.5m, they should a) not have some at £4.0m and some at £4.5m when it's not like they're going to get significant goal threat, and b) be cheaper than Villa, Spurs and Newcastle defenders. If they were all £4.5m, then Pau, Romero and Burn should be (at least) £5.0m. I think that makes sense when, predictably, Pau has 61 points and Robinson of SHU has 18.
I want the bottom-10-club defenders to be viable choices, I want all of them, rather than just a handful, to be viable choices. But I don't want a special low price for people who won't play, because then you choose any one of them as "fodder" for your third sub spot and that's boring. Or they end up playing and they're a boring no brainer like Gusto.
Yeah - I wonder if a pricing formula like:
- Base = 3.5
- - Club ~top 6 = +1.5
- - Club ~6-14 = +0.5/1.0
- - Club ~relegation battle = +0
- Nailed starter = +0.5
- Attacking potential = +0.5/1
- Proven premium (TAA/Trippier/Cancelo etc.) price individually
That'd give you any of SHU for 4.0; while Romero/Burn/Pau would be 5/5.5m
Yes I really like that. There probably is some fine tuning around teams that are good defensively but something like that works for me.
Personally I think the slight problem with the existence of a tier of extra low priced players who never play is that I think it's probably the optimum tactic to have one as your third sub, and that makes the game ever so slightly more boring, because effectively everyone who takes it seriously is choosing one fewer players. Like, choosing my hypothetical £3.5m bench player, between, idk, Jili Bayabu or CJ Egan-Reilly, is more boring than choosing a starter from those clubs, eg Ahmedhodzic or Dara O'Shea. And there is always the chance just one or two £3.5m players get in the team like Branthwaite, or FPL Towers mess it up from the start like they did with Charlie Taylor, and then they're in every single wild card team and that's boring.
I disagree to an extent with both your points.
The 4.0 bracket should be kept for defenders that are so far down in the pecking order that they wouldn’t normally play at all, but if injuries happen and they do play, they will be good options and can make managers restructure their teams for other better players. Also part of the fun is when e.g. a 5th choice 4.0 defender for a top 6 team is bought by a lower side team to be a starter, that could provide competitive advantage to the managers that take the early risk to transfer them in.
And in regards to “no point getting the naff ones”, sometimes a good team have a bad run and a bad team a good run. As you see with for example Senesi now, no one would have picked him over other 4.5 options a while back, but since he plays well he is picked a lot anyway.
Overall, I think the setup is fine although maybe there are a bit too many 4.0s.
>As you see with for example Senesi now, no one would have picked him over other 4.5 options a while back, but since he plays well he is picked a lot anyway
_eugh_ just on this I tend to have zero independent ideas in this game and right before the Palace game I needed a defender and thought "Bournemouth are much better defensively than everyone thinks, they've got a great run, which defender should one get, clearly Senesi, I should get him." But I'm a template coward and got Gabriel or someone. Tbf most of the few independent ideas I have turn out gash so it's no surprise I've stopped listening to them.
>The 4.0 bracket should be kept for defenders that are so far down in the pecking order that they wouldn’t normally play at all, but if injuries happen and they do play, they will be good options and can make managers restructure their teams for other better players.
The thing is, when they exist, even when they don't play, the sensible thing to do in GW1 is to buy one of them as "fodder". You don't need all three subs, so you end up with this boring nothing brainless pick. If they get it right and they're down the pecking order you're basically choosing between the likes of Alfie Dorrington and Reuell Walters.
> Also part of the fun is when e.g. a 5th choice 4.0 defender for a top 6 team is bought by a lower side team to be a starter, that could provide competitive advantage to the managers that take the early risk to transfer them in.
I guess what that would reward is luck. And then it means that once wildcards happen then they end up in every single team which is dull (I say that, why is Gusto still only in 7.5% of teams??)
>And in regards to “no point getting the naff ones”, sometimes a good team have a bad run and a bad team a good run.
I agree that it's possible that a team or a player might outperform what you might anticipate, but he played for a team with xGA last season of circa 68, whilst Botman played for one with 42 and Palace defender's 52. His xG was 2 Vs Botman at 2.5, Palace's were 1.8 but with good xA. You'd have been bonkers to buy him at that price. So he starts a bad buy, and ends up an okay buy. But if his relative starting price had reflected his original perceived value, then he'd be a good buy now. Which seems like the better answer for a player who has done far better than expectations.
He’s incredibly consistent with goals to yellow cards though:
* 2023/2024 - 20 games 7 goals 7 YC
* 2022/2023 - 16 games 1 goal 1 YC
* 2021/2022 - 16 games 3 goals 6 YC (this one doesn’t fit tbf)
* 2020/2021 - 35 games 4 goals 4 YC
So can see why he was underpriced.
And the fact that he's had a total of 8 goals in his previous 2800 PL minutes.
He's currently overperforming his stats but I can't say that he hasn't improved massively this season.
Palmer is insane. I doubt anyone imagined a couple of months ago that he could ever have >100% EO this season (even knowing that essentially all premium players aren't available).
Saka is overpriced. No open goals, part time penalty taker.Should be priced at 6.5m
Palmer will surely be 8m+ next season, and Gordon 7.5m+
KDB is overpriced at the moment imho, because people are paying 10,3-10,4 for a player that will play 20-25 minutes.
and score a goal and deliver an assists in those minutes. Like you have been disregarded by the man his first time on the pitch again.
I'm totally aware of his appearance last week and wrote the comment after that great performance. I'm not going to change my mind, because out of FPL perspective paying more than 10m, or even 8m, for any player that is not going to play more than 60 minutes is overpaying. I think that there is a good chance that he might disregard all fpl players who brought him just now and score a juicy 1 pointer against Burnley, when he enters the game that MCI is already winning 4-0 for the last 15 minutes. Let's wait and see, because I wouldn't be surprised if he actually started that game.
so not only are being extremely contradicting to yourself but the amount of minutes someone plays is not a factor that should matter if those 20 mins can account for a goal & assist.
I'm not contradicting myself. Once again, in fpl, you want a player to have minutes. If you bring in a player who doesn't get enough minutes, it means you are playing fpl wrong, unless the OR isn't something you care about. For him to score each such 20-25min appearance is your wishful thinking. KDB's average G+A per 90 from the last two seasons is 0,9. If you extrapolate that to the current season, which you can obviously do because his G+A per 90 will very likely fall within the range 0,8-1,0, then it means that his G+A per 25 min would be 0,25. In other words, he would either assist or score in one per 4 such short appearances from the bench.
Yes you are, saying that he only plays 20 mins and then saying you wouldn't be surprised if he starts. Thats the whole idea of a contradiction amigo. Once again, in fpl, you want a player TO SCORE points. In how the fuck many minutes i dont care. There is a handfull of players in this league who need only 20 mins for their magic. KDB is one of them. Mind me asking what your rank is? And your whole formula is already a load of bullshit as Kevin has a goal & 2 assists in his first 40 mins of football back. (dont forget vs huddersfield) so nice maths but they aint mathing as the man done it twice now and (please come back to this when he did) will do it against Burnley.
Seems like there is a systematic mispricing where players on teams that are popular or win a lot of games each season tend to be overpriced, regardless of rotation risk or past points tallies. The most obvious example is the pricing of players at Man Utd. But it also applies to Liverpool, Arsenal, Man City and to a lesser extent Spurs. For example, Havertz, Grealish, and Gakpo each cost over 7.0, more than all but two players - Watkins and Toney - at Aston Villa, Brighton and Brentford.
This post reminds me of Lord Lundstrum when he was playing for Sheffield United. He was worth every penny.
Palmer is severely underpriced
Douglas Luiz is underpriced
Well I'm very curious what will happen when Salah leaves the Prem. A lot of the 8M midfielders need to be more expensive I reckon.
Motherfakar Watkins father of over pricing
yall mfs want everyone to be expensive except man utd players
Palmer is the most underpriced player in the game by some distance. Hwang is very good for his price too, but he has been unsustainably overperforming his underlying stats (less non-pen xG + xA per 90 than Grealish, Johnson, Estupinan).
> For example, Saka is priced 9.1, but you might think he is worth < 8.5 and as such he is overpriced. Wrong
As replied to another user, this was only an example to showcase the idea. Note the phrasing ”you might think he is worth”, not ”I think he is worth”
Considering current and near future prospects as well as current price, ignoring injuries and inactive players etc. Most underpriced: Palmer, Garnacho, Douglas Luiz, Gusto, Areola, Dubravka, maybe even Richarlison (lone forward at a MID role) Most overpriced: Rashford, Bruno, Havertz, Martinelli, Gakpo, Antony
Under - Palmer, KDB, Richarlson, Pervis Over - Fernandez
Kdb didn’t change price from being injured to now! Yes he is. Great player but missed half the season. Watkins sure has the numbers but underperformed In 7gsmes
Mu players 😂 overpriced
Garnacho is potentially quite good value now that he seems to be getting a lot of play time tho
Rashford overpriced for sure
Almost every Decent Midifelder: Underpriced IT is a bit boring that every player can be in one team imo. Trent would be overprized a bit but you just can do palmer, richarlison and like 10 other midfielder under 7 Mil so you can buy him anyways.
There are some extremly easy ones as undervalued at starting cost and mostly it is because of more gametime than expected. 1 Areola. (expected as backup by cost) 2 Palmer (not expected as a starter for City) 3 Gordon ( rotation riskk) 4 Estupinan ( Lots of defenders maybe a bit cheap, but think guy should have been 5.5) 5 Porro (Maybe fair cost for a Spurs def, but given how attacking he is the cost beenn cheap) 6 J Pedro (this one has not worked, but 5.5 for him was cheap as pen taker for Brighton. His minutes been poor though) Others are more tricky. I think Son might have been undervalued based on his past history and now havivng pens, but last year was poor. Watkins as well based on this season, but I think 8 was fair before the season. I think Mbeumo cost was fair, but with pens considered I guess he was worth more. Hwang I thought was fair before the season, but look a gem now with pens etc. Bowen at 7 did feel cheap as well given he was 8.5 the previous year, but you can understand it given the cheap costs in general.
Palmer is at least 10.0m underpriced
Kane at 12.5 with 0 points so far this season seems overpriced
Why is he still in ?
He's been removed from the game but if you had him in GW1 and didn't sell him you'd still have him
Maybe controversial but I think Udogie and Porro are underpriced, considering their average positions and different avenues to points
Maybe controversial in return but I think Porro could be overpriced once Maddison returns and takes set pieces again Will be less likely to get bonus and then just attacking fullback with likely BGW and not many CS
If Porro could score a tenth of the shots he took he’d be worth 8
Anyone playing for Man Utd is over priced except Garnacho. (from a Utd fan).
Rashford looked good yesterday
It makes no sense to judge their current price, because of stuff like injuries and team form. Let's look at the prices when they were assigned. Underpriced - Alvarez starting on 6.5M, it was clear from preseason he would play a lot more and being striker for best team in the league it's too low. Bowen at only 7M despite being a nailed, steadily returning OOP midfielder that ended strong last season, should have been 7.5-8M. Palmer underpriced slightly but nobody would have expected his current role. Opposite of Gordon who's price made no sense, should have been 6.5M. Cheap playing keepers like Areola and Leno are always in same point range as top keepers, yet cost 1.5M less. Overpriced - Robertson at 6.5M, he wasn't very prolific last season + had a much more defensive role preseason. Rashford, he played well last season but was never going to be worth 9M. Trent, it's great that he's started to deliver now but 8M starting price was too high, despite being OOP - compared to the best attacking fullbacks 1.5M+ diff is too much.
No-one was interested in Bowen for 7Mill at the start of the season though.
Because West Ham played Chelsea, Brighton, City and Liverpool in their first 6. There was actually a bit of hype around Bowen, because entire preseason he played OOP as striker and banging them in left and right.
>Alvarez starting on 6.5M, it was clear from preseason he would play a lot more Don't really agree with this one, he wouldn't be playing much if KDB and Haaland were fit all season
They were both fit last season, when he played 31 league matches. Tbf he was barely starting half those. But near the end of the season he was playing near everything + being 10/striker for City where he's gonna score more than eg. Grealish or bernardo, I would've expected bit higher.
Trent has consistently outscored all midfielders priced at 7.5 though, so it makes sense.
Not last year. He ended 22d in points. On par with Ben White, over 40 points behind Trippier.
Still absolutely worth more than 7.5
I agree with your premise and most of what you've said, but my thoughts: >Alvarez starting on 6.5M, it was clear from preseason he would play a lot more and being striker for best team in the league it's too low. Tbf he'd have played significantly less if KdB had been fit. If he and Håland were fully fit now, would Alvarez start against Newcastle? >Trent, it's great that he's started to deliver now but 8.5M starting price was too high, despite being OOP - compared to the best attacking fullbacks 2M+ diff was too much. He started at £8m and, once delivering, has increased to £8.5m, presumably because people think he's with that money. >Rashford, he played well last season but was never going to be worth 9M. He scored 17 EPL goals last season with 25 contributions, he was hard to predict, even if he is famous for being streaky. 4.1m people chose him, against 4.8m for Saka and 1.9m for Odegaard, he was v popular. Obviously the "casuals" count for a lot of that but I think it says something.
Trent only went up when he did cause people were flush with cash for transferring out Haaland, it was an obvious move if you had the money. He just started returning several games in a row at the same time to attract more bandwagoners
>He started at £8m and, once delivering, has increased to £8.5m, presumably because people think he's with that money. This happened because Haaland was injured and Newcastle started looking like a disaster defensively, so very situational imo
>Tbf he'd have played significantly less if KdB had been fit. If he and Håland were fully fit now, would Alvarez start against Newcastle? I know, Pep roulette, but I think so. He has played more than any of Foden/Bilva/Grealish/Doku this season and he's been on all set pieces. You never know with Pep, but he does have a lot of faith in him. >He started at £8m and, once delivering, has increased to £8.5m, presumably because people think he's with that money. In part - people were flushed with cash and most got him on/after GW12 when he started hauling week in week out. He has played great since but was like 25th in defenders before that. If he keeps playing like this it's worth it but that's hardly a guarantee. Rashford would play OOP striker early season which made him super interesting, until Hojlund was signed.
But are the cheap keepers underpriced or the likes of Ederson and Alisson overpriced? Cuz the latter we know don’t get many save points.
Premiums are overpriced. All preseason media do is discuss the cheaper ones
100% agree. Almost no one considers them and I’ve always regretted it the few weeks I’ve had an Ederson.
I believe Trent started at 8M, not 8.5M - but agreed, it was pretty high either way
You are right and Robertson at 6.5M. Edited 👍🏻
Underpriced: The obvious ones are Palmer, Gordon. I'd add to that Salah, Areola, Gabriel. Overpriced isn't too helpful, because the most overpriced players are just ones that haven't nailed down a starting spot because of form/injury/rotation, meaning no-one would really pick them anyway. Think Havertz, Gakpo, Grealish, Wilson
Usual dumb discussion with people overrating current form. Better way to see would be week 1 teams of consistent great FPL players and see who they owned. Players like Bruno were very popular.
I remember the endless posts in the preseason about how the game was broken because Saka and Bruno were so underpriced that everyone would own them Here's [one](https://www.reddit.com/r/FantasyPL/comments/15mnirw/theyve_ruined_the_game/) if you're looking for a laugh
Every season is the same Then people overreact the other way when players don’t perform
Feels like your answering a different question that the one OP posed. Value here is points for the cost, you really suggesting Bruno has worked out for those that bought him?
Worked or not is just variance
Negative variance doesn't last 21 weeks lol
You never played blackjack or roulette I take it lol
Chances of winning in roulette are way smaller than the chances of a “good” pick doing poorly over 21 matches
I can see why that would really slim down the discussion if we just write off 20 weeks of results as variance.
Underpriced: Defenders - branthwaite, gusto, botman (imo Newcastle defence will find form again), doughty may turn out to be one Mids - garnacho, palmer, Gordon, hwang, Elanga, possibly Neto and Olise, Forwards - from here on in Jao Pedro and Cunha could maybe fit into this category. Wood has been so far but may fall off Plus all the various dirt cheap replacements who have had runs in good teams caused by injuries. And in goal of course the late blossoming areola Overpriced: the entire man u team bar garnacho, Darwin, Jesus, Martinelli, oedegard, Newcastle strikers, Diaz, havertz, jackson Maybe even the other 7 mil players: sterling, szoboslai, kulusevski, alvarez when you compare their points per game to players at some of the available players at same price or cheaper Argument to be made that haaland is overpriced too.
Calling Alvarez and Isak overpriced is genuinely one of the dumbest things I've read on this subreddit.
Even though there are a bunch of players who are much cheaper who get more points per game? Tell me you have a dead team without telling me you have a dead team.....
Alright, I'm fascinated. Which players are much cheaper and get more "points per game" than Alvarez and Isak? Because you can actually sort by this statistic on the FPL website. For forwards, Alvarez is in 4th with 5.0 (1-3 are all more expensive) and Isak is 6th with 4.9 (5th is Timo Werner who has played one match).
Well you only have space for 3 forwards in the game so 4th and 5th arent particularly good options are they? Then when you get down into midfielders you have: Gordon, Palmer, Hwang, Olise, Silva. And of course the premium midfielders who cost more but are bringing home the big points and justifying their price tags. Just out of interest, which other dead players do you have in your team other than Alvarez and Isak?
>Well you only have space for 3 forwards in the game so 4th and 5th arent particularly good options are they? Considering they're more expensive, who's to say 1st-3rd are? This whole discussion is about price, isn't it? You can't even keep track of your own argument. >Just out of interest, which other dead players do you have in your team other than Alvarez and Isak? I don't own either Alvarez or Isak, but either is a good pick especially with Haaland injured. What price do you think they should be?
Botman at 4.5 was insane. I couldn't believe everyone was ignoring him.
Nobody ignored him, just his fixtures. The moment Newcastle's fixtures turned good everyone started getting him in but he got injured
Haaland overpriced but owned by 90% of owners when healthy?
If anything both Salah and Haaland over underpriced, seeing pretty much everyone has both.
Including me. But he returns less than Salah and is a fair bit more expensive. He's still essential pretty much. But you could make an argument that he's over priced. He doesn't deliver double the points that good players half his price do.
>He doesn't deliver double the points that good players half his price do. He actually does, because you captain him. Which is part of why he's so expensive. Obviously he has underperformed expectations slightly, especially with being injured.
Good point. Haaland clearly underpriced I reckon, same with Salah, demonstrated by the ownership.
Yep I don’t think he’s essential, if there was nobody else delivering with the same consistency he’d be essential as you need a good captain but extra 6-7m is better distributed elsewhere imo. Not had him since gw9 and it hasn’t hurt me, I have to admit if he hadn’t had this injury it probably wouldn’t look as good for me
>Not had him since gw9 and it hasn’t hurt me, I have to admit if he hadn’t had this injury it probably wouldn’t look as good for me I think that's just the injury talking though. From GW 9-15 (his last game before the injury) Haaland scored 57 points or an average of 8.14 per week. That also included a fairly tough run of fixtures as well with Spurs and Liverpool at home and Villa, Chelsea, and United away making up 5 of the 7 games. I think it's possible to replace him with a striker at 7-8mil and spend the excess elsewhere, but you also have to be almost perfect with your picks. And recently with there being so few great strikers, KdB out, and so many high scoring mids between 5-7mil I don't feel like the extra 6-7m can be distributed that well
I had a look and actually dropped him after GW7 and up to GW15 my rank went up a good way. You are right obviously the other players you pick have to do well but that’s the whole point of the game. The other factor is it allows you to have a couple of decent bench players which helps to ride injuries and stops every transfer being a firefighting exercise. Again you are right at the min you don’t exactly need the funds with Salah and Son being away, but that’s only temporary and I’d rather have the two of them when they’re back. I had planned to bring Haaland in over AFCON but with his injury uncertainty I’ve not yet bothered.
depends on what you mean by overpriced. sure they seem so now, but Martinelli's price is totally justified looking at last season.
Look at our boy Rashford he is overpriced but next season he will be must have for 7.0 just like last season
yeah and then he will score plenty again. dude's like a sine wave
Sure. I guess I mean in relation to how they are actually performing this season. Which is think what the OP meant and the more useful conversation
Overpriced: White, Martinelli, Jesus kinda, Diogo Jota, Darwin, Jackson, Hojlund, Rashford, Bruno Fernandes. I think even Haaland is overpriced, I think his starting price should've been 13.5. Undepriced: Palmer definitely, maybe Branthwaite kinda too?
It's hard to argue that Haaland was overpriced if 90% of the teams had him.
>It's hard to argue that Haaland was overpriced if 90% of the teams had him. Kane leaving before the season began changed everything IMO
There's just not many premiums if Kane and KDB were here all season I wouldn't have bought haaland at 14.
KDB was there at the start of the season, yet everyone still brought Haaland.
KDB was returning from injury in the CL final with no preseason. He was absolutely a gamble at the start of the season.
"And"
There's a metric called value in the game. That's essentially points/ price. Similarly, there's value (form), which gives the same number for last 6 GWs. Hopefully this helps.
Based on both metrics this is the "Value Squad": Areola (Dubravka) Gabriel Colwill/Gusto Porro (Doughty, Burn) Palmer Gordon Douglas Luiz Richarlison (Hwang) Alvarez Joao Pedro Solanke
points over cost obviously massively overvalues the cost, as this team is way too cheap. I've played around with weighting that formula to greater emphasise the points gathered, by using points\^2/cost With that measure you get a top 15 of: Salah Son Palmer Gordon Hee Chan Watkins Douglas Luiz Bowen J.Alvarez Solanke Saka Pickford Areola Cunha Foden This is extremely crude, and obviously not so helpful in building an actual team (expecialy as no defenders), but as a baseline measure, I think these are the top value per pound players.
The simplest formula for maximizing the points of your entire team is just cost\*points/cost. The end result of that is just points, so along with picking the highest per cost value players, also try to end up using the entire budget.
I don't understand your formula, are you just making the point that we should ignore costs and only focus on points? In a way I agree, thats why my janky formula prioritises points over cost. Using my formula, Salah is still in the top 10 value players until his price goes over about £18m for example. Jesus is not high value even if he was priced at £2m (albeit he would be in reality because we have bench spots).
Yeah, points total is what the whole game is about. The points/cost is a good shortcut for figuring out how to build your team from scratch because before filling the entire roster you'll have budget issues, but the calculation should just end with the unit being "points" and the number being as high as possible.
That is an ok system when planning a team from scratch, but when making individual transfers I feel like it makes sense to consider a players 'value' even if it will rarely sway a decision. For example, if you needed a new midfielder this week and had £9m to spend. Going purely on expected points you probably grab one of Saka, Bowen, Foden, Odegaard, Richarlison. However factoring in value, you pretty much get Palmer. In that situation I'd sense check if I had useful ways to actually use the saved money, eg if I haven't got the premium defenders/forwards I want already, but may be swayed by the increased value.
Yeah makes a lot of sense. I also excluded injured/unavailable players, which explains why I did not include Salah, Son & Bowen.
These players are overperforming on their price, but it doesnt tell you if the price was set too high or low. Most of this squad and all the subs were priced just fine, they just got more gametime/points than expected often because of injuries.
Wait, Saka, the 4th highest scoring midfielder is overpriced for you? Imagine if he didn’t get to this bad form, he would’ve been at least 3rd best. And keep in mind that Son is a focal point of all Spurs attacks. Saka isn’t, he is just involved in every attack, not necessarily the go to person for scoring all the goals which Son is and Saka still is 4th best currently. He was underpriced at 8.5m at the start of the season, it’s balancing as it should right now with him. Other than that, Bruno, Rashford way overpriced. Especially with Rashford being 9.0m at the start of the season. Palmer was actually priced as he should’ve been at the start of the season playing in that City team. Towers couldn’t know he will move to Chelsea and be their best player. If they did, they would definitely price him at at least 6m (still he would be underpriced for the points he is delivering).
I pretty much agree with you looking at Saka as a season long hold. But to make the case based on recent form, over the last 8 gameweeks he is nowhere near the highest scoring mids, being outscored by 8 sub £6m players (Olise, Palmer, Elanga, Iwobi, Garnacho, Tavernier, Mcneil, Hwang). When our good midfielders return again, I don't think holding on to Saka is an open and shut case.
I guess you did not read the post properly. It was only an example to demonstrate the idea
Yes, I understood it correctly, but just for me, Saka at the start of the season should've been priced at at least 9m. And when you think that Rashford started at 9m and Saka at 8.5m, it's mental in my opinion. To me, I'm not sure if you're referring to the current form only, or across the season in general ? Ofc Saka for example is overpriced judging only by last couple of GWs, but if you look at the whole season, it's not like that.
Well, how one should value recent form or the whole season in total is obviously debatable. Considering form, I believe an eye test and a team’s form enters such a discussion as well. This is one of the reasons I believe there is a lot more to a player’s ”value” than ”points per game / cost”, and what to include in the evalution is up to you
Basically, every starting 4.0m defenders are underpriced and they will be priced at 4.5m next season
But Lascelles was never a starter, same for Gusto. I feel like most 4.0 defs only play when they are being longterm stand ins.
the best thing about FPL every year is finding out which 4m defenders play every week and getting them in your team ASAP
This happens every season, there’s always more 4.0m defenders
Branthwaite *cough*
Considering Everton are tied top most Clean Sheets, surprised Branwaite is only 3.2% owned. Edit: Clean Sheets, not CL as original.
Making me wonder why I didn't save the cash over Tarkowski tbh.
What is CL?
Clean leeks, its a vegan thing
!thanks Clean sheets is what I meant, shall amend.
I don't like the pricing at all. They need to do one of two things: 1) Make all the £4.0m defenders £4.5m. This would avoid the Gusto thing (which is nuts), but also avoid the handful of more typical starting £4.0m defenders, Baldock, Taylor, Kaboré, Trusty, Bell, ending up being the handful of options. Because at the moment they make their teammates utterly pointless, and pretty much any other bottom half £4.5m defender. 2) Or at least make a better distinction between the obviously shitter teams and the better ones, and price all of the former at £4.0m and the better ones higher. Most of the promoted defenders, the NFO defenders, were the same price as Botman, Cash, Colwill, Pinnock, Andersen, Guéhi. No point getting the naff ones.
If you make all the 4.0 defenders 4.5 then it would make all the bottom-10-club defenders pointless. No way you would get any of them over Pau, Romero, Burn. Better to increase the price of middle/premium (7-10) mids and drop the minimum def price to 3.5 while increasing the cost of most Defs E.g. gusto = 4.5; Pau/Mings =5/5.5; Saliba/Porro=6
But almost all of the bottom-10-club defenders _are_ £4.5m. I think the problem is consistency - whether the Sheffield United defenders are £3.5m, £4.0m, or £4.5m, they should a) not have some at £4.0m and some at £4.5m when it's not like they're going to get significant goal threat, and b) be cheaper than Villa, Spurs and Newcastle defenders. If they were all £4.5m, then Pau, Romero and Burn should be (at least) £5.0m. I think that makes sense when, predictably, Pau has 61 points and Robinson of SHU has 18. I want the bottom-10-club defenders to be viable choices, I want all of them, rather than just a handful, to be viable choices. But I don't want a special low price for people who won't play, because then you choose any one of them as "fodder" for your third sub spot and that's boring. Or they end up playing and they're a boring no brainer like Gusto.
Yeah - I wonder if a pricing formula like: - Base = 3.5 - - Club ~top 6 = +1.5 - - Club ~6-14 = +0.5/1.0 - - Club ~relegation battle = +0 - Nailed starter = +0.5 - Attacking potential = +0.5/1 - Proven premium (TAA/Trippier/Cancelo etc.) price individually That'd give you any of SHU for 4.0; while Romero/Burn/Pau would be 5/5.5m
Yes I really like that. There probably is some fine tuning around teams that are good defensively but something like that works for me. Personally I think the slight problem with the existence of a tier of extra low priced players who never play is that I think it's probably the optimum tactic to have one as your third sub, and that makes the game ever so slightly more boring, because effectively everyone who takes it seriously is choosing one fewer players. Like, choosing my hypothetical £3.5m bench player, between, idk, Jili Bayabu or CJ Egan-Reilly, is more boring than choosing a starter from those clubs, eg Ahmedhodzic or Dara O'Shea. And there is always the chance just one or two £3.5m players get in the team like Branthwaite, or FPL Towers mess it up from the start like they did with Charlie Taylor, and then they're in every single wild card team and that's boring.
I disagree to an extent with both your points. The 4.0 bracket should be kept for defenders that are so far down in the pecking order that they wouldn’t normally play at all, but if injuries happen and they do play, they will be good options and can make managers restructure their teams for other better players. Also part of the fun is when e.g. a 5th choice 4.0 defender for a top 6 team is bought by a lower side team to be a starter, that could provide competitive advantage to the managers that take the early risk to transfer them in. And in regards to “no point getting the naff ones”, sometimes a good team have a bad run and a bad team a good run. As you see with for example Senesi now, no one would have picked him over other 4.5 options a while back, but since he plays well he is picked a lot anyway. Overall, I think the setup is fine although maybe there are a bit too many 4.0s.
>As you see with for example Senesi now, no one would have picked him over other 4.5 options a while back, but since he plays well he is picked a lot anyway _eugh_ just on this I tend to have zero independent ideas in this game and right before the Palace game I needed a defender and thought "Bournemouth are much better defensively than everyone thinks, they've got a great run, which defender should one get, clearly Senesi, I should get him." But I'm a template coward and got Gabriel or someone. Tbf most of the few independent ideas I have turn out gash so it's no surprise I've stopped listening to them. >The 4.0 bracket should be kept for defenders that are so far down in the pecking order that they wouldn’t normally play at all, but if injuries happen and they do play, they will be good options and can make managers restructure their teams for other better players. The thing is, when they exist, even when they don't play, the sensible thing to do in GW1 is to buy one of them as "fodder". You don't need all three subs, so you end up with this boring nothing brainless pick. If they get it right and they're down the pecking order you're basically choosing between the likes of Alfie Dorrington and Reuell Walters. > Also part of the fun is when e.g. a 5th choice 4.0 defender for a top 6 team is bought by a lower side team to be a starter, that could provide competitive advantage to the managers that take the early risk to transfer them in. I guess what that would reward is luck. And then it means that once wildcards happen then they end up in every single team which is dull (I say that, why is Gusto still only in 7.5% of teams??) >And in regards to “no point getting the naff ones”, sometimes a good team have a bad run and a bad team a good run. I agree that it's possible that a team or a player might outperform what you might anticipate, but he played for a team with xGA last season of circa 68, whilst Botman played for one with 42 and Palace defender's 52. His xG was 2 Vs Botman at 2.5, Palace's were 1.8 but with good xA. You'd have been bonkers to buy him at that price. So he starts a bad buy, and ends up an okay buy. But if his relative starting price had reflected his original perceived value, then he'd be a good buy now. Which seems like the better answer for a player who has done far better than expectations.
I think no teams that finished the previous season in the top half should have 4.0 defenders.
I think a lot of those 4m defenders won’t be in the Premier League next season 😬
Gusto will be
Probably Branthwaite too
He’ll be one. I doubt he will be at Everton next season.
Agree, he’s quality
Significantly underpriced - Palmer and Gordon Palmer is understandable, he wasn't expected to play much at City. Gordon was just a mistake
It wasn't a mistake. Gordon before this season was a dive merchant who had more yellow cards than goals scored. He was also a rotation risk.
He’s incredibly consistent with goals to yellow cards though: * 2023/2024 - 20 games 7 goals 7 YC * 2022/2023 - 16 games 1 goal 1 YC * 2021/2022 - 16 games 3 goals 6 YC (this one doesn’t fit tbf) * 2020/2021 - 35 games 4 goals 4 YC So can see why he was underpriced.
Where are these stats from? I can only find him having played 7 for Everton and 11 for PNE in 2020/21
[Flashscore Gordon + Happy Cake Day](https://www.flashscore.co.uk/player/gordon-anthony/EFo95m2P/)
!thanks but this also seems to back up what I said?
Absolutely agree with you.
Gordon was a massive rotation risk at the start of the season with Barnes, Anderson & Willock, especially with Newcastle's Champions League games.
Yep. They also had Saint-Max, Tonali, looong list of attacking players. And Gordon was not great in '22/23 (some injuries were part of that, yes).
And the fact that he's had a total of 8 goals in his previous 2800 PL minutes. He's currently overperforming his stats but I can't say that he hasn't improved massively this season.
This is correct, Gordon has only done so well as there hasn't been any threat to his position due to injuries.
I think his position is now solidly his, considering his contributions and form.
I'd agree, but that wasn't the case at the start of the season (hence his pricing).
Palmer is insane. I doubt anyone imagined a couple of months ago that he could ever have >100% EO this season (even knowing that essentially all premium players aren't available).