
team selection

scoring
Average gameweek points

Average Points
1. Net Average Points
At the end of each gameweek, I posted 2 average scores: an average score for the random sample, and an average score for the top 10K as of the start of the week. The diagram below contains all those numbers with average point hits taken into account. A similar graph without deductions for point hits is HERE.
 Net average score of top 10K teams was always higher than net average points of the whole FPL. Average difference between the two indicators was 12.7 points. The highest difference was in GW 31 (almost 40 points); the smallest difference was in GW 36 (only 2.9 points).
2. Overall Average
 Overall average is a notoriously poor benchmark which becomes useless for most active players after a few starting gameweeks. If you had scored the official overall average each gameweek, you’d have finished this season on 1,868 points. Such a score would have meant a top 1.52o.ooo finish. Just above all the dead teams🙂
3. Top 10K Net Average Score
 Top 10K average was a much better indicator. Most active teams could usually use it to figure out whether they were going up or down in overall rankings. However, it is still far from being perfect. Where would you have finished if you had scored the top 10K net average score every gameweek? Suppose, you had a good start and had a 10,000 overall rank at the start of GW 12. Then this is how your overall rank would have changed if you scored top 10K net average points every gameweek:
 You’d have finished around the 30K mark losing to the 10,000th FPL team from 0.6 to 4.3 points on a regular basis, 1.8 points per GW on average. Why? Because I calculate average points for top 10K samples as of the start of each GW, so my calculations don’t take into account the turnover of FPL teams in the top 10K (teams with poor scores drop out, teams outside top 10K with good scores break into). So, this benchmark might not be very useful during the first gameweeks when the gaps in rankings are low and the turnover in top 10K is huge; but it is rather handy in the second part of the season – you just need to adjust it for the turnover of teams by adding a couple points – this would let you track the pace of the top 10K.
 Can the top 10K net average score be used to track the pace of top 100 or top 1K teams? I think, the answer is yes. Here is a diagram which depicts distance in points from the 10,000th team to 1,000th, 100th, and 1st team.
 It’s easy to notice that the red and blue lines are almost straight, they just have different slopes. It means that the 100th and 1,000th teams (in the postGW standings) regularly outscore the 10,000th team by a more or less stable amount of points. To be precise, for the period from GW 12 it was 1.5 points more for the 1,000th team and 2,7 points more for the 100th team. Points dynamics for the 1st team was very unpredictable but better on average (a bigger slope).
 What is the conclusion? The net average score for the 10k teams as of the start of a GW is a good indicator to track the pace of top 10,000 teams after a few starting gameweeks. You just need to add a couple points to it to adjust for the turnover of teams in the top 10K. It could also be used to track the pace of top 1,000 and top 100 teams, you have to score on average 3.3 points more to keep the pace of the top 1,000 teams and 4.5 points to keep the pace of the top 100 teams. Well, at least it was so this season.
team selection

scoring
Average gameweek points
