Fantasy Premier League

Differentials worth owning

A player nobody owns is not a differential on his own — most of them are players nobody owns for a reason. Every row here clears an ownership threshold and a minutes floor, is ranked on the model's own currency, and says how much of its edge is the projection and how much is only the field's absence.

The field's biggest blind spot

Alex Scott

MID · BOU · 6.1m · owned by 5.8%

+2.35

Edge

That is 9.8 projected points over the next 3 rounds, which is what the board under it is ranked on.

Gameweek 6 · 3-round window · feed of 01/10 11:39

Alex Scott is the best-projected player in the game owned by under 7%: 9.8 over 3 rounds at 6.1m, held by 5.8%.

Against Morgan Rogers, the most-owned player in his position at 41%, +0.79 of his edge is projection and +1.56 is the field he is not in — so 34% of the case for him is football rather than ownership.

Own

5.8%

The share of managers holding him, against the 7% gate this board opens at.

Proj edge

+0.79

What the model rates him over the most-owned player in his position. Positive is football; negative means the only case for him is that nobody owns him.

Own edge

+1.56

What the field's absence is worth at what the template is worth. The two halves add up to his whole edge.

What the minutes floor took

124 low-owned players are left off because the minutes model puts them under 45% to start.

See the minutes board →

The top five on this board

The board as your controls leave it — the same five that open the table below.

Ranked 1 Alex Scott

MID BOU vs

9.8 Ahead

Own

5.8%

Proj edge

+0.79

Own edge

+1.56

Against Morgan Rogers
3.3
1. CHE (A)
2. SUN (H)
3. MUN (A)
Ranked 2 Vitaly Janelt

MID BRE vs

9.7 Ahead

Own

2.5%

Proj edge

+0.64

Own edge

+1.71

Against Morgan Rogers
3.0
1. AVL (A)
2. LIV (H)
3. HUL (A)
Ranked 3 Anton Stach

MID LEE vs

9.6 Ahead

Own

2.5%

Proj edge

+0.58

Own edge

+1.71

Against Morgan Rogers
3.7
1. ARS (A)
2. MUN (H)
3. SUN (A)
Ranked 4 Marcus Tavernier

MID BOU vs

9.6 Ahead

Own

6.8%

Proj edge

+0.57

Own edge

+1.52

Against Morgan Rogers
3.3
1. CHE (A)
2. SUN (H)
3. MUN (A)
Ranked 5 Granit Xhaka

MID SUN vs

9.5 Ahead

Own

3.6%

Proj edge

+0.45

Own edge

+1.66

Against Morgan Rogers
2.7
1. BHA (H)
2. BOU (A)
3. LEE (H)

Position

All GKP DEF MID FWD

Owned by under

10% 7% 5% 3%

Minutes played

Any 90+ 270+ 450+ 900+

At least

Any Very safe Safe Rotation risk

Rounds ahead

3 rounds 5 rounds 8 rounds

Price

Enter your squad to mark what you already own and what you could afford →

Showing 40 of 79 players 79 of 487 match your filters Clear filters

Player Price Pts Ahead Own Proj edge Own edge Start Next fixtures

1 Alex Scott MID vs BOU 6.1m 4.0 9.8 5.8% +0.79 +1.56 92%

CHE (A)
SUN (H)
MUN (A)

1 Alex Scott 9.8

MID vs BOU · 6.1m · 5.8% 92%

Proj edge: +0.79
Own edge: +1.56
Pts: 4.0

Against Morgan Rogers

CHE (A)
SUN (H)
MUN (A)

2 Vitaly Janelt MID vs BRE 5.0m 4.0 9.7 2.5% +0.64 +1.71 92%

AVL (A)
LIV (H)
HUL (A)

2 Vitaly Janelt 9.7

MID vs BRE · 5.0m · 2.5% 92%

Proj edge: +0.64
Own edge: +1.71
Pts: 4.0

Against Morgan Rogers

AVL (A)
LIV (H)
HUL (A)

3 Anton Stach MID vs LEE 6.0m 3.7 9.6 2.5% +0.58 +1.71 92%

ARS (A)
MUN (H)
SUN (A)

3 Anton Stach 9.6

MID vs LEE · 6.0m · 2.5% 92%

Proj edge: +0.58
Own edge: +1.71
Pts: 3.7

Against Morgan Rogers

ARS (A)
MUN (H)
SUN (A)

4 Marcus Tavernier MID vs BOU 6.1m 3.9 9.6 6.8% +0.57 +1.52 92%

CHE (A)
SUN (H)
MUN (A)

4 Marcus Tavernier 9.6

MID vs BOU · 6.1m · 6.8% 92%

Proj edge: +0.57
Own edge: +1.52
Pts: 3.9

Against Morgan Rogers

CHE (A)
SUN (H)
MUN (A)

5 Granit Xhaka MID vs SUN 5.5m 4.0 9.5 3.6% +0.45 +1.66 92%

BHA (H)
BOU (A)
LEE (H)

5 Granit Xhaka 9.5

MID vs SUN · 5.5m · 3.6% 92%

Proj edge: +0.45
Own edge: +1.66
Pts: 4.0

Against Morgan Rogers

BHA (H)
BOU (A)
LEE (H)

6 Enzo Le Fée MID vs SUN 5.7m 4.0 9.4 3.4% +0.39 +1.67 92%

BHA (H)
BOU (A)
LEE (H)

6 Enzo Le Fée 9.4

MID vs SUN · 5.7m · 3.4% 92%

Proj edge: +0.39
Own edge: +1.67
Pts: 4.0

Against Morgan Rogers

BHA (H)
BOU (A)
LEE (H)

7 Josh King MID vs FUL 5.5m 3.5 8.7 2.6% −0.30 +1.71 92%

IPS (A)
HUL (H)
COV (A)

7 Josh King 8.7

MID vs FUL · 5.5m · 2.6% 92%

Proj edge: −0.30
Own edge: +1.71
Pts: 3.5

Against Morgan Rogers

IPS (A)
HUL (H)
COV (A)

8 Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall MID vs EVE 6.6m 3.5 8.6 6.0% −0.39 +1.55 92%

HUL (A)
CHE (H)
ARS (A)

8 Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall 8.6

MID vs EVE · 6.6m · 6.0% 92%

Proj edge: −0.39
Own edge: +1.55
Pts: 3.5

Against Morgan Rogers

HUL (A)
CHE (H)
ARS (A)

9 Ethan Ampadu MID vs LEE 5.4m 3.4 8.5 0.9% −0.49 +1.78 92%

ARS (A)
MUN (H)
SUN (A)

9 Ethan Ampadu 8.5

MID vs LEE · 5.4m · 0.9% 92%

Proj edge: −0.49
Own edge: +1.78
Pts: 3.4

Against Morgan Rogers

ARS (A)
MUN (H)
SUN (A)

10 Matheus Cunha MID vs MUN 7.9m 3.6 8.5 5.8% −0.52 +1.56 92%

TOT (H)
LEE (A)
BOU (H)

10 Matheus Cunha 8.5

MID vs MUN · 7.9m · 5.8% 92%

Proj edge: −0.52
Own edge: +1.56
Pts: 3.6

Against Morgan Rogers

TOT (H)
LEE (A)
BOU (H)

11 Elliot Anderson MID vs MCI 6.3m 3.2 8.3 4.0% −0.72 +1.64 92%

LIV (A)
IPS (H)
AVL (A)

11 Elliot Anderson 8.3

MID vs MCI · 6.3m · 4.0% 92%

Proj edge: −0.72
Own edge: +1.64
Pts: 3.2

Against Morgan Rogers

LIV (A)
IPS (H)
AVL (A)

12 Emiliano Buendía Stati MID vs AVL 5.9m 3.4 8.3 1.0% −0.74 +1.78 92%

BRE (H)
NEW (A)
MCI (H)

12 Emiliano Buendía Stati 8.3

MID vs AVL · 5.9m · 1.0% 92%

Proj edge: −0.74
Own edge: +1.78
Pts: 3.4

Against Morgan Rogers

BRE (H)
NEW (A)
MCI (H)

13 Youri Tielemans MID vs MUN 5.8m 3.5 8.3 1.5% −0.74 +1.76 92%

TOT (H)
LEE (A)
BOU (H)

13 Youri Tielemans 8.3

MID vs MUN · 5.8m · 1.5% 92%

Proj edge: −0.74
Own edge: +1.76
Pts: 3.5

Against Morgan Rogers

TOT (H)
LEE (A)
BOU (H)

14 Harvey Barnes MID vs NEW 6.1m 3.3 8.3 5.7% −0.74 +1.57 92%

COV (A)
AVL (H)
CRY (A)

14 Harvey Barnes 8.3

MID vs NEW · 6.1m · 5.7% 92%

Proj edge: −0.74
Own edge: +1.57
Pts: 3.3

Against Morgan Rogers

COV (A)
AVL (H)
CRY (A)

15 Julio Enciso MID vs IPS 5.5m 3.5 8.2 0.8% −0.86 +1.79 92%

FUL (H)
MCI (A)
NFO (H)

15 Julio Enciso 8.2

MID vs IPS · 5.5m · 0.8% 92%

Proj edge: −0.86
Own edge: +1.79
Pts: 3.5

Against Morgan Rogers

FUL (H)
MCI (A)
NFO (H)

16 Alex Iwobi MID vs FUL 5.4m 3.3 8.1 0.7% −0.91 +1.79 92%

IPS (A)
HUL (H)
COV (A)

16 Alex Iwobi 8.1

MID vs FUL · 5.4m · 0.7% 92%

Proj edge: −0.91
Own edge: +1.79
Pts: 3.3

Against Morgan Rogers

IPS (A)
HUL (H)
COV (A)

17 Diego Gómez MID vs BHA 5.0m 3.2 8.0 4.0% −1.01 +1.64 92%

SUN (A)
CRY (H)
LIV (A)

17 Diego Gómez 8.0

MID vs BHA · 5.0m · 4.0% 92%

Proj edge: −1.01
Own edge: +1.64
Pts: 3.2

Against Morgan Rogers

SUN (A)
CRY (H)
LIV (A)

18 Keane Lewis-Potter MID vs BRE 5.5m 3.3 8.0 1.7% −1.03 +1.75 92%

AVL (A)
LIV (H)
HUL (A)

18 Keane Lewis-Potter 8.0

MID vs BRE · 5.5m · 1.7% 92%

Proj edge: −1.03
Own edge: +1.75
Pts: 3.3

Against Morgan Rogers

AVL (A)
LIV (H)
HUL (A)

19 Florian Wirtz MID vs LIV 7.3m 3.2 7.8 5.7% −1.17 +1.57 92%

MCI (H)
BRE (A)
BHA (H)

19 Florian Wirtz 7.8

MID vs LIV · 7.3m · 5.7% 92%

Proj edge: −1.17
Own edge: +1.57
Pts: 3.2

Against Morgan Rogers

MCI (H)
BRE (A)
BHA (H)

20 Mohamed Belloumi MID vs HUL 5.1m 3.3 7.8 5.1% −1.19 +1.59 92%

EVE (H)
FUL (A)
BRE (H)

20 Mohamed Belloumi 7.8

MID vs HUL · 5.1m · 5.1% 92%

Proj edge: −1.19
Own edge: +1.59
Pts: 3.3

Against Morgan Rogers

EVE (H)
FUL (A)
BRE (H)

21 Adam Wharton MID vs CRY 5.4m 3.2 7.8 0.7% −1.25 +1.79 92%

NFO (H)
BHA (A)
NEW (H)

21 Adam Wharton 7.8

MID vs CRY · 5.4m · 0.7% 92%

Proj edge: −1.25
Own edge: +1.79
Pts: 3.2

Against Morgan Rogers

NFO (H)
BHA (A)
NEW (H)

22 Daichi Kamada MID vs CRY 5.0m 3.2 7.8 0.5% −1.25 +1.80 92%

NFO (H)
BHA (A)
NEW (H)

22 Daichi Kamada 7.8

MID vs CRY · 5.0m · 0.5% 92%

Proj edge: −1.25
Own edge: +1.80
Pts: 3.2

Against Morgan Rogers

NFO (H)
BHA (A)
NEW (H)

23 John McGinn MID vs AVL 5.4m 3.2 7.8 2.2% −1.24 +1.73 92%

BRE (H)
NEW (A)
MCI (H)

23 John McGinn 7.8

MID vs AVL · 5.4m · 2.2% 92%

Proj edge: −1.24
Own edge: +1.73
Pts: 3.2

Against Morgan Rogers

BRE (H)
NEW (A)
MCI (H)

24 Lewis Miley MID vs NEW 5.5m 3.1 7.8 0.1% −1.25 +1.82 92%

COV (A)
AVL (H)
CRY (A)

24 Lewis Miley 7.8

MID vs NEW · 5.5m · 0.1% 92%

Proj edge: −1.25
Own edge: +1.82
Pts: 3.1

Against Morgan Rogers

COV (A)
AVL (H)
CRY (A)

25 Quinten Timber MID vs CRY 5.0m 3.2 7.8 0.0% −1.25 +1.82 88%

NFO (H)
BHA (A)
NEW (H)

25 Quinten Timber 7.8

MID vs CRY · 5.0m · 0.0% 88%

Proj edge: −1.25
Own edge: +1.82
Pts: 3.2

Against Morgan Rogers

NFO (H)
BHA (A)
NEW (H)

26 Matt Grimes MID vs COV 4.9m 3.3 7.7 0.1% −1.27 +1.82 92%

NEW (H)
TOT (A)
FUL (H)

26 Matt Grimes 7.7

MID vs COV · 4.9m · 0.1% 92%

Proj edge: −1.27
Own edge: +1.82
Pts: 3.3

Against Morgan Rogers

NEW (H)
TOT (A)
FUL (H)

27 Sandro Tonali MID vs TOT 5.3m 3.0 7.7 1.8% −1.30 +1.74 92%

MUN (A)
COV (H)
CHE (A)

27 Sandro Tonali 7.7

MID vs TOT · 5.3m · 1.8% 92%

Proj edge: −1.30
Own edge: +1.74
Pts: 3.0

Against Morgan Rogers

MUN (A)
COV (H)
CHE (A)

28 Rayan MID vs BOU 6.3m 3.1 7.7 1.6% −1.33 +1.75 92%

CHE (A)
SUN (H)
MUN (A)

28 Rayan 7.7

MID vs BOU · 6.3m · 1.6% 92%

Proj edge: −1.33
Own edge: +1.75
Pts: 3.1

Against Morgan Rogers

CHE (A)
SUN (H)
MUN (A)

29 Regan Slater MID vs HUL 4.5m 3.2 7.6 5.2% −1.42 +1.59 92%

EVE (H)
FUL (A)
BRE (H)

29 Regan Slater 7.6

MID vs HUL · 4.5m · 5.2% 92%

Proj edge: −1.42
Own edge: +1.59
Pts: 3.2

Against Morgan Rogers

EVE (H)
FUL (A)
BRE (H)

30 Oscar Bobb MID vs FUL 5.5m 3.0 7.5 0.3% −1.49 +1.81 92%

IPS (A)
HUL (H)
COV (A)

30 Oscar Bobb 7.5

MID vs FUL · 5.5m · 0.3% 92%

Proj edge: −1.49
Own edge: +1.81
Pts: 3.0

Against Morgan Rogers

IPS (A)
HUL (H)
COV (A)

31 Boubacar Kamara MID vs AVL 5.0m 3.1 7.5 0.3% −1.50 +1.81 92%

BRE (H)
NEW (A)
MCI (H)

31 Boubacar Kamara 7.5

MID vs AVL · 5.0m · 0.3% 92%

Proj edge: −1.50
Own edge: +1.81
Pts: 3.1

Against Morgan Rogers

BRE (H)
NEW (A)
MCI (H)

32 James McAtee MID vs NFO 5.5m 3.1 7.4 0.1% −1.62 +1.82 92%

CRY (A)
ARS (H)
IPS (A)

32 James McAtee 7.4

MID vs NFO · 5.5m · 0.1% 92%

Proj edge: −1.62
Own edge: +1.82
Pts: 3.1

Against Morgan Rogers

CRY (A)
ARS (H)
IPS (A)

33 Noah Sadiki MID vs SUN 4.9m 3.1 7.4 0.2% −1.64 +1.82 92%

BHA (H)
BOU (A)
LEE (H)

33 Noah Sadiki 7.4

MID vs SUN · 4.9m · 0.2% 92%

Proj edge: −1.64
Own edge: +1.82
Pts: 3.1

Against Morgan Rogers

BHA (H)
BOU (A)
LEE (H)

34 Harrison Armstrong MID vs EVE 5.0m 3.0 7.2 0.4% −1.78 +1.81 92%

HUL (A)
CHE (H)
ARS (A)

34 Harrison Armstrong 7.2

MID vs EVE · 5.0m · 0.4% 92%

Proj edge: −1.78
Own edge: +1.81
Pts: 3.0

Against Morgan Rogers

HUL (A)
CHE (H)
ARS (A)

35 Jack Rudoni MID vs COV 4.9m 3.1 7.0 0.1% −2.00 +1.82 75%

NEW (H)
TOT (A)
FUL (H)

35 Jack Rudoni 7.0

MID vs COV · 4.9m · 0.1% 75%

Proj edge: −2.00
Own edge: +1.82
Pts: 3.1

Against Morgan Rogers

NEW (H)
TOT (A)
FUL (H)

36 Saša Lukić MID vs IPS 4.9m 3.0 7.0 0.1% −2.01 +1.82 92%

FUL (H)
MCI (A)
NFO (H)

36 Saša Lukić 7.0

MID vs IPS · 4.9m · 0.1% 92%

Proj edge: −2.01
Own edge: +1.82
Pts: 3.0

Against Morgan Rogers

FUL (H)
MCI (A)
NFO (H)

37 Rodrigo Bentancur MID vs TOT 5.5m 2.7 6.9 0.2% −2.09 +1.82 75%

MUN (A)
COV (H)
CHE (A)

37 Rodrigo Bentancur 6.9

MID vs TOT · 5.5m · 0.2% 75%

Proj edge: −2.09
Own edge: +1.82
Pts: 2.7

Against Morgan Rogers

MUN (A)
COV (H)
CHE (A)

38 Iliman Ndiaye MID vs MCI 5.8m 2.6 6.8 6.7% −2.12 +1.52 75%

LIV (A)
IPS (H)
AVL (A)

38 Iliman Ndiaye 6.8

MID vs MCI · 5.8m · 6.7% 75%

Proj edge: −2.12
Own edge: +1.52
Pts: 2.6

Against Morgan Rogers

LIV (A)
IPS (H)
AVL (A)

39 Xaver Schlager MID vs NFO 5.0m 2.8 6.7 0.1% −2.33 +1.82 75%

CRY (A)
ARS (H)
IPS (A)

39 Xaver Schlager 6.7

MID vs NFO · 5.0m · 0.1% 75%

Proj edge: −2.33
Own edge: +1.82
Pts: 2.8

Against Morgan Rogers

CRY (A)
ARS (H)
IPS (A)

40 Pedro Neto MID vs CHE 6.5m 2.7 6.6 1.4% −2.39 +1.76 75%

BOU (H)
EVE (A)
TOT (H)

40 Pedro Neto 6.6

MID vs CHE · 6.5m · 1.4% 75%

Proj edge: −2.39
Own edge: +1.76
Pts: 2.7

Against Morgan Rogers

BOU (H)
EVE (A)
TOT (H)

each row's Ahead, drawn to scale every bar on one axis of 0 to 10

What an edge is here, and what it is measured against

Every row is owned by under 7% of the game. The threshold is the page's premise rather than a sort: the ranking under it is the weighted score for the rounds ahead, which is a unit this model is measured in.

The two edge columns are one figure split in two, under the rule this app already trades points against ownership by — points times one minus 0.5 times ownership, which is the captain shortlist's own aggressive setting. They add up to the whole edge exactly, so a reader can check the pair rather than trust it.

The template is the most-owned player the game has in that position, taken off the whole board rather than off the filtered rows — a differential is measured against the field, not against the least contrarian row left on the screen. A position the game has published nobody's ownership for has no template, and both columns print a dash rather than a nought.

The minutes floor is the projection's own start probability at 45%. It is the largest way a list like this goes wrong, so it is a gate rather than a column — and nothing on this site backtests the ownership half of the split.

A player the game has published no ownership figure for is left off rather than counted as owned by nobody. Missing is not nought, and the one place that mistake does the most damage is a board about ownership.

Every ranking here is in expected points or in the weighted score for the rounds ahead, which are the units this model is measured in. The value column is those figures restated over a price — it is a way of scanning the board, and nothing on this site backtests it.

Bonus points are projected nowhere on this site, so they are in none of these figures.

The board is every player the game would let you field, the flagged included — whether a doubtful player is worth picking is a judgement the projection makes with his published chance of playing, not one made by hiding him.

What is measured here, and what is not

Measured The projected points

Replayed against gameweek 2 after it was played: an average miss of 1.617 points a player, against 1.842 for “predict what he has averaged so far”, over 456 players. Recorded Sunday, 6 September 2026 and refreshed by hand, so the date is part of the claim.