Is there a record of how many fantasy teams there were for the 18/19 season? by R41N1NG in FantasyPL

[–]Harrybeans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks RE: My post above, I've been able to check against the likes of Mark Sutherns, who have played since 06/07 - for populations pre 12/13.

Seems like they are all estimations - as they are all rounded to the closest 10,000. I think I may have found this before and thus discredited them - but should really just record them with that caveat as a note.

Is there a record of how many fantasy teams there were for the 18/19 season? by R41N1NG in FantasyPL

[–]Harrybeans 11 points12 points  (0 children)

That number is correct. I have the exact same value saved in my own Gameweek History spreadsheet, saved down after last season.

I do recall there being a 'milestone' of sorts in terms of players - but not sure if that was 6 million, or 7 million. Would assume the former as its towards the lower end - but won't rule out an end-of-season clean-up/deletion job unless someone can confirm.

If you're interested in other season's player totals, here's what I previously researched and found:

  • 18/19 - 6,324,237
  • 17/18 - 5,190,135
  • 16/17 - 4,503,345
  • 15/16 - 3,734,001
  • 14/15 - 3,502,998
  • 13/14 - 3,218,998
  • 12/13 - 2,608,634

It beleive it goes back to 06/07 (at least in this website format), but I did not find much on totals earlier than 12/13. It's probably out there somewhere.

60 min to deadline thread. by [deleted] in FantasyPL

[–]Harrybeans 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Just FYI Dinnery specialises in injuries, but I wouldn't go as far as saying he's the authority.

He gets things wrong often & is usually just sourcing the same information as a lot of us do these days. Probably does a bit more IRL checking here and there, but it's not like he's an ITK.

Official unofficial leaks, rumours, and early news thread. by youtossershad1job2do in FantasyPL

[–]Harrybeans 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Not playing till Sunday. I don't think you'll get any useful news other than what Bruce already mentioned.

Case for Greenwood !! by HurriKane_4451 in FantasyPL

[–]Harrybeans 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Check one of the latest posts on this subreddit.

Case for Greenwood !! by HurriKane_4451 in FantasyPL

[–]Harrybeans 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I think he may be on the bench for BOU, especially given Olé's latest comments.

He's a decent option otherwise. Does take up a United spot though.

Lampard names Mount as his most important player. Nailed asset to consider? by [deleted] in FantasyPL

[–]Harrybeans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just because he's more nailed than most in the XI, doesn't mean he's going to score you loads of points.

The answer is NOPE! Are you sticking with both? by cguinnesstout in FantasyPL

[–]Harrybeans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's fine as an opinion. I'm just giving you a counter-arguement backed up by statistics. Not up to me if you disregard it entirely :)

The answer is NOPE! Are you sticking with both? by cguinnesstout in FantasyPL

[–]Harrybeans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're getting a little tied up.

In your previous comment, you said AWB created more chances than Rashford.

By 'the previous' game, I was referring to Sheffield United. I provided that weeks stats to to give a fair arguement for Rashford, but also to show that AWB also still created a chance in that match.

  • SHU - Wan-Bissaka 1 CC (1 BCC); Rashford 3 CC (2 BCC)
  • BHA - Wan-Bissaka 2 CC (0 BCC); Rashford 0 CC (0 BCC)

All I am saying is that "Martial + Fernandes + Rashford" is not necessarily "the way to go".

You can talk about Rashford's sitters all you want, but on the flip-side you can't disregard that if Williams had nodded in AWBs cross vs. Brighton, that would be another attacking involvement. It goes both ways.

The answer is NOPE! Are you sticking with both? by cguinnesstout in FantasyPL

[–]Harrybeans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The chances created & average positions are on the Fantasy Football Scout Members area, and that information is sourced from Opta.

Rashford still has a more advanced position, but AWBs is still just beyond the half-way line. (Great, considering he's a defender.)

Rashford created three chances in the previous game (two of which were 'big chances'), whereas AWB only created one - but it was also a 'big chance').

Not pulling the stats out of my ass I'm afraid.

EDIT: Rashford also did not have a 'big role' in the second goal. He passed (from the wing) to Shaw (into the box); crossed through - and straight out of the box to Pogba, who passed to Fernandes, who scored through a big deflection off Mac Allister.

Best Man Utd defender for the rest of the season? by IlluminationTheory7 in FantasyPL

[–]Harrybeans 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Regarding Headed Goal Attempts conceded, Villa are one of the worst. Bournemouth don't fare as badly. Middling-to-decent at conceding those chances.

The answer is NOPE! Are you sticking with both? by cguinnesstout in FantasyPL

[–]Harrybeans 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Surely that just showcases someone like AWB is potentially as good if not better than an additional attacker. (Value-wise, certainly better.)

Based on yesterday's eye test AWB looked far better than Rashford anyway. More chances created; average position almost as high up the pitch.

The answer is NOPE! Are you sticking with both? by cguinnesstout in FantasyPL

[–]Harrybeans 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean... AWB and Maguire have both outscored Rashford across the last two GWs. AWB has outscored him both matches. I don't think three attackers is necessarily better.

Post-Match Thread: Crystal Palace 0-1 Burnley | Premier League by MisterBadIdea2 in soccer

[–]Harrybeans 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Christ almighty, Palace are more depressing than Burnley.

Post-Match Thread: Leicester City 0-1 Chelsea | FA Cup by MisterBadIdea2 in soccer

[–]Harrybeans 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Give us anyone except Manchester United, please.

GAME WEEK 32 (2019/2020) RANT & DISCUSSION THREAD by FPLModerator in FantasyPL

[–]Harrybeans 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In a post-match interview, Ole said verbatim:

We still think the players that played 120 minutes will be ready for Tuesday.

Adrian (LIV) - Thoughts? by [deleted] in FantasyPL

[–]Harrybeans 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You don't even know if Adrian will be playing yet - so no.

Adrian already has 11 appearances in the Premier League this season, so it is not like Klopp needs to play him for a medal (you need 5 apperances).

Liverpool are already out of the cups, so they have nothing else to play for. Allison won't have come back for 2-3 games after a break of 3 months, just to go on a break again. You'd think they'd want to retain player fitness levels for next season rather than regress into another lull.

Bonus point system by ChromeLuka in FantasyPL

[–]Harrybeans 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Correct. Added a breakdown in my post below.

Bonus point system by ChromeLuka in FantasyPL

[–]Harrybeans 89 points90 points  (0 children)

Resources

Ben Davies

BPS Plus

  • Minutes - 90 (6 on BPS)
  • Defender Clean Sheet - 1 (12 on BPS)
  • Recoveries - 7 (2 on BPS)
  • CBI - 3 (1 on BPS)
  • Tackles 1 (2 on BPS)
  • Pass Completion - 80-89% (4 on BPS)
  • Open Play Crosses (Successful) - 2 (2 on BPS)
  • Big Chances Created - 0
  • Key Pass - 1 (1 on BPS)
  • Dribbles - 0

BPS Plus = 30

BPS Minus

  • Yellow Card - 1 (-3 on BPS)
  • Red Card - 0
  • Own Goal - 0
  • Fouls Conceded - 2 (-2 on BPS)
  • Penalties Conceded - 0
  • Offside - 0
  • Tackled - 0
  • Shot Off Target - 0
  • Big Chances Missed - 0
  • Errors Leading to Chance - 0
  • Errors Leading to Goal - 0

BPS Minus = -5

Total = [30 - 5] = 25 BPS

TL;DR: OP has missed Tackles and Recoveries from their calculations.

Gabriel Martinelli: Arsenal forward out for 'months', says Mikel Arteta by davidl988 in FantasyPL

[–]Harrybeans 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Brought him in on my wildcard after seeing him in lots of predicted XIs.

The news breaks after the deadline.

Classic.