What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Point Block Strategy - Does it actually Work? (1 Viewer)

jbalicki10

jbalicki10

Footballguy
Point Block Strategy. Is this a good idea?

I know this sounds like assistant coach thread but it is more of a fantasy football strategy. I tried the search button and could not find any threads on a strategy like this.

I am in a must win situtation to make the playoffs with my team. My opponent has several players that are matched up with mine that he is starting. Is it a good strategy since my team is weaker this week to match his points?

Examples:

He has Carson Palmer starting for QB.

I have TJ Housh and Chris Henry and Shayne Grahm Kicker.

He has Brandon Marshall WR starting and I have Cutler QB.

Pros:

If Carson has a great game, I can cash in and protect myself and can

score more than him.

The FF score in theory for my game will be close enough to his so anything

can happen.

Cons:

If Cincy and Denver have bad games, I think the strategy won't work.

Does this strategy actually work? Anyone try it?

All TDs 6 points, WR/TE get .5 PPR, .1 per yard for WR/RB/TE, 1.0 for 25 yards passing

Start 1QB, 2 RBs, 3 WRs, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 Def

My Team:

Pos Player Team

QB16 Jay Cutler

QB17 Jeff Garcia

QB19 Vince Young

RB4 Willie Parker

RB16 Ryan Grant

RB36 Adrian Peterson

RB40 DeAngelo Williams

WR4 T.J. Houshmandzadeh

WR5 Braylon Edwards

WR13 Steve Smith

WR32 Chris Henry

WR33 Ike Hilliard

TE1 Antonio Gates

PK9 Shayne Graham

PK14 Jeff Reed

DEF3 Jaguars

DEF11 Broncos

His Team:

QB4 Carson Palmer

QB22 Kyle Boller

QB24 Kellen Clemens

RB3 Brian Westbrook

RB11 Maurice Jones-Drew

RB15 Chester Taylor

RB28 Ahman Green

RB74 Joe Echemandu

WR12 Plaxico Burress

WR27 Brandon Marshall

WR34 Roddy White

WR40 Bernard Berrian

WR43 Ronald Curry

WR66 Brandon Stokley

TE6 Dallas Clark

PK6 Neil Rackers

DEF10 Packers GB/7

 
My favorite strategy is to put my best players on the field. If you are making lineup decisions based upon your opponent I don't think it will end well.

 
Statcruncher said:
My favorite strategy is to put my best players on the field. If you are making lineup decisions based upon your opponent I don't think it will end well.
Click to expand...
:lmao: How many times do we need to hear this same question? There's been about 500 million threads on this same ridiculous topic.
 
guitarmonkiy said:
Statcruncher said:
My favorite strategy is to put my best players on the field. If you are making lineup decisions based upon your opponent I don't think it will end well.
Click to expand...
:confused: How many times do we need to hear this same question? There's been about 500 million threads on this same ridiculous topic.
Click to expand...
I know this is going to open a can of worms here, but who ARE the best players to put on the field each week? In the right circumstances and in the right scoring system, a move like this can make sense.Theoretically, putting the players who will score the most points into our starting lineup is the right choice, but we don't know who that will be in advance - particularly in the case of equivalently tiered players. This can be a factor to consider when evaluating your options.Remember, scoring as many points as you can in head-to-head does NOT guarantee you a win. Only scoring more points than your opponent guarantees you the victory.
 
The "Cancel Out" theory doesn't work, quit trying to prove that it does.

You should start the players that will get you the most points, regardless of your opponents lineup...

 
DumpTruck said:
The "Cancel Out" theory doesn't work, quit trying to prove that it does.You should start the players that will get you the most points, regardless of your opponents lineup...
Click to expand...
And what about the rare case when you aren't completely certain who will get you the most points? :confused:
 
DumpTruck said:
The "Cancel Out" theory doesn't work, quit trying to prove that it does.You should start the players that will get you the most points, regardless of your opponents lineup...
Click to expand...
It does work when you have to choose between similar players.
 
I find it can work in PPR leagues that award low QB yardage numbers (1pt per 25 or less) or high int deductions (-3 or more per) and high WR yardage bonuses (1pt per 10 or better)

My friend won our league last year with Reggie Wayne against Peyton Manning.

Two weeks ago I beat our Romo owner with TO and in week 2 in another league beat the Palmer owner with Ocho.

But you have to ALWAYS start your best players. I would never start a marginal WR2 or 3 instead of a more consistent player in a game against the other guys QB.

I also find schedule matchups to be overrated. Look at the Bills vs. the Dolphins last week. I start my studs and most consistent players and tend to do pretty good in my 14 and 12 team PPRs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ckalltheway said:
I find it can work in PPR leagues that award low QB yardage numbers (1pt per 25 or less) or high int deductions (-3 or more per) and high WR yardage bonuses (1pt per 10 or better)My friend won our league last year with Reggie Wayne against Peyton Manning.Two weeks ago I beat our Romo owner with TO and in week 2 in another league beat the Palmer owner with Ocho.But you have to ALWAYS start your best players. I would never start a marginal WR2 or 3 instead of a more consistent player in a game against the other guys QB. I also find schedule matchups to be overrated. Look at the Bills vs. the Dolphins last week. I start my studs and most consistent players and tend to do pretty good in my 14 and 12 team PPRs.
Click to expand...
And who would have started instead of Wayne, TO or Johnson? Using upper tier "start every week" stud receivers doesn't validate the theory. You use them no matter what QB the other team has. If you start some borderline WR because you're playing against his QB, that's applying the theory (and, as pointed out above, usually making a bad decision).
 
apalmer said:
ckalltheway said:
I find it can work in PPR leagues that award low QB yardage numbers (1pt per 25 or less) or high int deductions (-3 or more per) and high WR yardage bonuses (1pt per 10 or better)My friend won our league last year with Reggie Wayne against Peyton Manning.Two weeks ago I beat our Romo owner with TO and in week 2 in another league beat the Palmer owner with Ocho.But you have to ALWAYS start your best players. I would never start a marginal WR2 or 3 instead of a more consistent player in a game against the other guys QB. I also find schedule matchups to be overrated. Look at the Bills vs. the Dolphins last week. I start my studs and most consistent players and tend to do pretty good in my 14 and 12 team PPRs.
Click to expand...
And who would have started instead of Wayne, TO or Johnson? Using upper tier "start every week" stud receivers doesn't validate the theory. You use them no matter what QB the other team has. If you start some borderline WR because you're playing against his QB, that's applying the theory (and, as pointed out above, usually making a bad decision).
Click to expand...
I have yet to see someone argue that you start a "borderline WR" over a stud WR in defense of this theory, yet its detractors always use this argument as evidence against it.In advocating the use of this "strategy" it should be assumed that:1) you are choosing between roughly equally projected players for the week2) the player you are considering starting via application of this strategy is the "go-to" receiver for said QB3) your league must almost certainly be a league where performance numbers can favor WR scoring (such as PPR, where WR's can have exceptional games even without scoring a TD)Nobody is arguing that you start D.Bowe over TO if your opponent is starting B.Croyle. But you might start D.Bowe over S.Holmes in that same scenario.
 
Anyone who thinks this kind of strategy gives an advantage has very little understanding of basic math and statistics.

 
My God...trying to argue the genius of this strategy is like trying to talk sense with a guy who still ranks all positions across the board using total points. Get out of the dark ages and into the new world my stubborn minded friends.

1. NOBODY IS SAYING THEY WANT TO START DAVID PATTEN OVER RANDY MOSS BECAUSE THEIR OPPONENT HAS DREW BREES!

- Get over yourselves. It's not the be-all-end-all strategy to submitting a lineup. It's just one more tool to use in certain matchups when deciding between players in the same tier.

2. NOBODY KNOWS THE STATS AHEAD OF TIME!

- Stop saying, "I just start the best players." Of course you do. You're a friggin genius and a psychic. If I roll my eyes any further at these clowns I'm going to be staring at my own brain.

3. WE ARE NOT SAYING THIS APPLIES ALL THE TIME!

- Advocates of this strategy realize that this is a card you pull out only in certain situations. For example, if the PROJECTIONS have your team with a much stronger team, you shouldn't be making decisions based on your opponents roster. But if your opponent appears to have a decided edge, and you feel you need several things to go your way, then sure take a chance and play the matchup.

The reality is there are some people who get it, and there are others who still think the Earth is flat.

The other thing that troubles me is this board is supposed to be about FF strategy as much as it is about NFL info.

Why come here if you are not going to make an attempt to understand or try to learn new ideas? Don't we all want that extra edge? Should being here mean you have SOMEWHAT of an open mind for stuff like this?

Oh yeah, I forgot...you just always start the best players.

 
I play in a 2 team league. Every week I drop and ad WR's & my TE just to block the points my opponents QB may get from tossing TD's. It is working great, I have locked up the 2nd playoff spot already!

 
cstu said:
DumpTruck said:
The "Cancel Out" theory doesn't work, quit trying to prove that it does.
Click to expand...
It does work when you have to choose between similar players.
Click to expand...
I understand that the "Cancel Out" theory is one of the last tie-breakers or whatever when choosing between two similar players, but why is this more effective than flipping a coin?I just can't ever see getting to the point where I choose my players based on who my opponent is starting.
 
Eric said:
Anyone who thinks this kind of strategy gives an advantage has very little understanding of basic math and statistics.
Click to expand...
Wrong, anyone who categorically dismisses a theory like this without taking the circumstances into consideration is very naive.I can imagine a scenario where the opposition has Palmer as their only real threat. You have TJ starting and CJ on your bench. You might want to start CJ in this scenario to mitigate the risk of CJ getting all the targets from Palmer.Worst case scenario, Bengals entire passing offense struggles - but since Palmer is the opponent's only threat, you win anyway.Its a win-win.
 
daveandken said:
Eric said:
Anyone who thinks this kind of strategy gives an advantage has very little understanding of basic math and statistics.
Click to expand...
Wrong, anyone who categorically dismisses a theory like this without taking the circumstances into consideration is very naive.I can imagine a scenario where the opposition has Palmer as their only real threat. You have TJ starting and CJ on your bench. You might want to start CJ in this scenario to mitigate the risk of CJ getting all the targets from Palmer.Worst case scenario, Bengals entire passing offense struggles - but since Palmer is the opponent's only threat, you win anyway.Its a win-win.
Click to expand...
Nope. Worst case scenario is Palmer throws 2 TD's to Henry, 1 to a TE and 2 to his RB's. Meanwhile, TO (who you benched for CJ) gets 165 yards and 3 TD's. You lose because you didn't play TO.
 
apalmer said:
daveandken said:
Eric said:
Anyone who thinks this kind of strategy gives an advantage has very little understanding of basic math and statistics.
Click to expand...
Wrong, anyone who categorically dismisses a theory like this without taking the circumstances into consideration is very naive.I can imagine a scenario where the opposition has Palmer as their only real threat. You have TJ starting and CJ on your bench. You might want to start CJ in this scenario to mitigate the risk of CJ getting all the targets from Palmer.Worst case scenario, Bengals entire passing offense struggles - but since Palmer is the opponent's only threat, you win anyway.Its a win-win.
Click to expand...
Nope. Worst case scenario is Palmer throws 2 TD's to Henry, 1 to a TE and 2 to his RB's. Meanwhile, TO (who you benched for CJ) gets 165 yards and 3 TD's. You lose because you didn't play TO.
Click to expand...
What kind of guppy league gets TJ Housh, Johnson, and Owens on the same team?
 
As I stated in the other thread, and as most state here - START YOUR BEST PLAYERS WITH THE BEST MATCHUPS.

Now, if you have two that are a tie, or virtual tie, then think of it this way:

Outside of some cases where you have say Steve Smith and Delhomme, the WR you are talking about is not going to be a "must start every week" player. Because if they were, you wouldnt care who your opponents QB might be.

So, if we are talking about guys that won't be the big time target on a team and trying to find a typical #3 type WR, when you start the WR of an opponent's QB, this is what happens.

EVERY time your guy scores, it is almost guaranteed that your opponent's QB will score (albeit sometimes 4 vs. 6 pts and less for yards, but still, he scores).

EVERY time your opponents QB scores, MAYBE your guy scores... and OFTEN he does not.

So, if your WR goes off, your opponents QB is almost guaranteed to do very well at least, as well.

If your WR does not go off, your opponents QB could still have a very good game and definately at least a good game.

So, you limit your upside. You increase your downside.

You dont much hurt nor help your opponent's upside...

Makes no sense. And that is not going into the actual math to show you... start your best player.

 
jbalicki10 said:
apalmer said:
daveandken said:
Eric said:
Anyone who thinks this kind of strategy gives an advantage has very little understanding of basic math and statistics.
Click to expand...
Wrong, anyone who categorically dismisses a theory like this without taking the circumstances into consideration is very naive.I can imagine a scenario where the opposition has Palmer as their only real threat. You have TJ starting and CJ on your bench. You might want to start CJ in this scenario to mitigate the risk of CJ getting all the targets from Palmer.Worst case scenario, Bengals entire passing offense struggles - but since Palmer is the opponent's only threat, you win anyway.Its a win-win.
Click to expand...
Nope. Worst case scenario is Palmer throws 2 TD's to Henry, 1 to a TE and 2 to his RB's. Meanwhile, TO (who you benched for CJ) gets 165 yards and 3 TD's. You lose because you didn't play TO.
Click to expand...
What kind of guppy league gets TJ Housh, Johnson, and Owens on the same team?
Click to expand...
Again, if you don't have a 3rd WR equal to Housh and CJ, "point blocking" has nothing to do with your decision. If Housh and CJ are your best 2 WR's they're going to start whether you're playing Palmer's team or not. If you're using them as an argument that "point blocking" makes sense you must, by definition, have an equal 3rd WR (note the post said CJ was on your bench).
 
apalmer said:
daveandken said:
Eric said:
Anyone who thinks this kind of strategy gives an advantage has very little understanding of basic math and statistics.
Click to expand...
Wrong, anyone who categorically dismisses a theory like this without taking the circumstances into consideration is very naive.I can imagine a scenario where the opposition has Palmer as their only real threat. You have TJ starting and CJ on your bench. You might want to start CJ in this scenario to mitigate the risk of CJ getting all the targets from Palmer.Worst case scenario, Bengals entire passing offense struggles - but since Palmer is the opponent's only threat, you win anyway.Its a win-win.
Click to expand...
Nope. Worst case scenario is Palmer throws 2 TD's to Henry, 1 to a TE and 2 to his RB's. Meanwhile, TO (who you benched for CJ) gets 165 yards and 3 TD's. You lose because you didn't play TO.
Click to expand...
And you would have made that decision to start TO regardless of this theory. TO >>> CJ this year. Please stay on topic. We are talking about the decision between two equivalent players. There is a scenario where it helps to play the WR on the same team as your opponents' team. There is no scenario where it definitely hurts without the benefit of hindsight.
 
What am I missing here?

Option A WR scores 30 FF points

Option B WR scores 23 FF points

Regardless of who the QB's are, if you played option A, you would have 7 more fantasy points.

 
Steeler said:
I just can't ever see getting to the point where I choose my players based on who my opponent is starting.
Click to expand...
The point is this: maximizing your score is not the same as maximizing your probability of winning the game. If your score and your opponent's score are not independent (which they're not, if the same NFL team contains players from both your and your opponent's team), then it is possible in some cases to decrease your expected score while increasing your probability of having a higher score than your opponent. This is a mathematical fact. It's not disputable.The only question is whether this potential abstract theoretical advantage is ever actually big enough to use as a factor in determining your lineups. As with many things, it can probably win you an extra couple games per decade if you use it right, or it can lose you an extra couple games per year if you overuse it.
 
daveandken said:
apalmer said:
daveandken said:
Eric said:
Anyone who thinks this kind of strategy gives an advantage has very little understanding of basic math and statistics.
Click to expand...
Wrong, anyone who categorically dismisses a theory like this without taking the circumstances into consideration is very naive.I can imagine a scenario where the opposition has Palmer as their only real threat. You have TJ starting and CJ on your bench. You might want to start CJ in this scenario to mitigate the risk of CJ getting all the targets from Palmer.Worst case scenario, Bengals entire passing offense struggles - but since Palmer is the opponent's only threat, you win anyway.Its a win-win.
Click to expand...
Nope. Worst case scenario is Palmer throws 2 TD's to Henry, 1 to a TE and 2 to his RB's. Meanwhile, TO (who you benched for CJ) gets 165 yards and 3 TD's. You lose because you didn't play TO.
Click to expand...
And you would have made that decision to start TO regardless of this theory. TO >>> CJ this year. Please stay on topic. We are talking about the decision between two equivalent players. There is a scenario where it helps to play the WR on the same team as your opponents' team. There is no scenario where it definitely hurts without the benefit of hindsight.
Click to expand...
First, YOU'RE the one who said CJ was on your bench. Why was he on the bench if you didn't have somebody better? Second, if using TO confuses you, change it to WR "X" who you benched to play CJ (you know, the guy who had CJ on the bench to begin with?) and let him get the 165 & 3. The point is the same: "worst case scenario" is NOT that you win.
 
A quick example.

Suppose the average score in your league is around 100 points. 150 is a very good score. 180 is the league record. You are playing against an average team this week. God comes to you and tells you that you can have your choice this week:

1. a guaranteed 150 points

or

2. a guaranteed one more point than your opponent.

Choosing option 1 is the equivalent of "start the player you think will score the most points." It's not the right play.

A ridiculous example? Of course. But sometimes an extreme example helps clarify what the issue is. The issue is that, when your score and your opponents score are tied together, maximizing expected score is not synonymous with maximizing win probability. If your WR is on the same NFL team as your opponent's QB, then the scores are tied together. They're much more loosely tied together than in the above example, of course, but the same principle applies.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jersey35 said:
Remember, scoring as many points as you can in head-to-head does NOT guarantee you a win. Only scoring more points than your opponent guarantees you the victory.
Click to expand...
Please explain to me like I'm Shuke the situations where it would be beneficial for me to not play my roster that has the highest score potential. And aren't 99% of all tiebreakers point total related?
 
I like using this in positions that have high variance (K, DB). For example -- I really like Shayne Graham if he has Housh, etc. The reason -- you can't tell; For a while I played in a "IDP" league -- we had one spot for a DB, and I would pick up a DB who was on the opposing defense -- that way I benefited from interceptions. The points is that you don't know who is going to have a good day -- and you want to have a good day if he has a good day -- so you can link the probabilities.

I don't understand the resistance people have to this idea. I think if people are dumb -- e.g. starting Santonio Holmes because he has Jason Campbell it's not going to work, but in borderline cases, it helps.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SuperJohn96 said:
My God...trying to argue the genius of this strategy is like trying to talk sense with a guy who still ranks all positions across the board using total points. Get out of the dark ages and into the new world my stubborn minded friends.1. NOBODY IS SAYING THEY WANT TO START DAVID PATTEN OVER RANDY MOSS BECAUSE THEIR OPPONENT HAS DREW BREES!- Get over yourselves. It's not the be-all-end-all strategy to submitting a lineup. It's just one more tool to use in certain matchups when deciding between players in the same tier.2. NOBODY KNOWS THE STATS AHEAD OF TIME!- Stop saying, "I just start the best players." Of course you do. You're a friggin genius and a psychic. If I roll my eyes any further at these clowns I'm going to be staring at my own brain.3. WE ARE NOT SAYING THIS APPLIES ALL THE TIME!- Advocates of this strategy realize that this is a card you pull out only in certain situations. For example, if the PROJECTIONS have your team with a much stronger team, you shouldn't be making decisions based on your opponents roster. But if your opponent appears to have a decided edge, and you feel you need several things to go your way, then sure take a chance and play the matchup.The reality is there are some people who get it, and there are others who still think the Earth is flat.The other thing that troubles me is this board is supposed to be about FF strategy as much as it is about NFL info.Why come here if you are not going to make an attempt to understand or try to learn new ideas? Don't we all want that extra edge? Should being here mean you have SOMEWHAT of an open mind for stuff like this?Oh yeah, I forgot...you just always start the best players.
Click to expand...
:thumbup: Both the ridicule and the comments on attitude/smarminess of the posters is fantastic.
 
PatsFanCT said:
What am I missing here? Option A WR scores 30 FF pointsOption B WR scores 23 FF pointsRegardless of who the QB's are, if you played option A, you would have 7 more fantasy points.
Click to expand...
You are missing the fact that we are talking about comparing two equivalent players without the benefit of hindsight... :thumbup:
 
Tom Brady averages 3.7 passing TD's per game, his highest WR (Randy Moss) averages 1.3 receiving TD's.

Peyton Manning averages 1.8 passing TD's per game, his highest TE (Dallas Clark) averages .8 receiving TD's.

Carson Palmer averages 1.8 passing TD's per game, his highest WR (TJ Housh) averages 1.1 receiving TD's.

Derek Anderson averages 2.2 passing TD's per game, his highest WR (Braylon Edwards) averages 1.1 receiving TD's.

Tony Romo averages 2.6 passing TD's per game, his highest TE (Jason Witten) averages 1 receiving TD's.

Big Ben averages 2.4 passing TD's per game, his highest TE (Heath Miller) averages 1 receiving TD's.

As you can see other the best receivers in the league don't even grab half the TD's a QB typically throws. I don't see how any receivers could effectively "block" a QB.

 
Statcruncher said:
Tom Brady averages 3.7 passing TD's per game, his highest WR (Randy Moss) averages 1.3 receiving TD's.Peyton Manning averages 1.8 passing TD's per game, his highest TE (Dallas Clark) averages .8 receiving TD's.Carson Palmer averages 1.8 passing TD's per game, his highest WR (TJ Housh) averages 1.1 receiving TD's.Derek Anderson averages 2.2 passing TD's per game, his highest WR (Braylon Edwards) averages 1.1 receiving TD's.Tony Romo averages 2.6 passing TD's per game, his highest TE (Jason Witten) averages 1 receiving TD's.Big Ben averages 2.4 passing TD's per game, his highest TE (Heath Miller) averages 1 receiving TD's.As you can see other the best receivers in the league don't even grab half the TD's a QB typically throws. I don't see how any receivers could effectively "block" a QB.
Click to expand...
OK, how about the reverse. Does any WR get significant points without the QB getting points as well? I have rarely used this strategy, but to suggest that it is pointless is extremely naive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug Drinen said:
Steeler said:
I just can't ever see getting to the point where I choose my players based on who my opponent is starting.
Click to expand...
The point is this: maximizing your score is not the same as maximizing your probability of winning the game. If your score and your opponent's score are not independent (which they're not, if the same NFL team contains players from both your and your opponent's team), then it is possible in some cases to decrease your expected score while increasing your probability of having a higher score than your opponent. This is a mathematical fact. It's not disputable.The only question is whether this potential abstract theoretical advantage is ever actually big enough to use as a factor in determining your lineups. As with many things, it can probably win you an extra couple games per decade if you use it right, or it can lose you an extra couple games per year if you overuse it.
Click to expand...
Very good posting. I've demonstrated how hedging works time and time again on this board. Every year a new group argues that maximizing your score is more important than maximizing your probability of winning. To effectively answer this question you need projections for the starters do determine if you're a favorite or a dog by enough of a margin to pursue hedging.I'll leave you with an example (6 pt pass TD, ppr)...His team:BradyWestbrookLTWelkerOwensEdwardsWittenFolkYour team:YoungPortisLynchMossColesHoltScaifeKeadingBench: Curtis and MaroneyI'd argue that your best probablity of winning would be to bench Moss for Curtis and Lynch for Maroney. Your best score would mean starting Moss.
 
Statcruncher said:
Tom Brady averages 3.7 passing TD's per game, his highest WR (Randy Moss) averages 1.3 receiving TD's.Peyton Manning averages 1.8 passing TD's per game, his highest TE (Dallas Clark) averages .8 receiving TD's.Carson Palmer averages 1.8 passing TD's per game, his highest WR (TJ Housh) averages 1.1 receiving TD's.Derek Anderson averages 2.2 passing TD's per game, his highest WR (Braylon Edwards) averages 1.1 receiving TD's.Tony Romo averages 2.6 passing TD's per game, his highest TE (Jason Witten) averages 1 receiving TD's.Big Ben averages 2.4 passing TD's per game, his highest TE (Heath Miller) averages 1 receiving TD's.As you can see other the best receivers in the league don't even grab half the TD's a QB typically throws. I don't see how any receivers could effectively "block" a QB.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing on the yardage.That said, they are other effective ways to hedge than WR.
 
daveandken said:
PatsFanCT said:
What am I missing here? Option A WR scores 30 FF pointsOption B WR scores 23 FF pointsRegardless of who the QB's are, if you played option A, you would have 7 more fantasy points.
Click to expand...
You are missing the fact that we are talking about comparing two equivalent players without the benefit of hindsight... :football:
Click to expand...
Which ever receiver scores more points had more of an impact on your fantasy team. It doesn't matter who the QB was for those games. You never have the benefit if hindsight. You choose the one you think/hope will score more points. Who the QB is is totally irreverent. But feel free to roll your eyes at everyone who disagrees with you.
 
Doug Drinen said:
Steeler said:
I just can't ever see getting to the point where I choose my players based on who my opponent is starting.
Click to expand...
The point is this: maximizing your score is not the same as maximizing your probability of winning the game. If your score and your opponent's score are not independent (which they're not, if the same NFL team contains players from both your and your opponent's team), then it is possible in some cases to decrease your expected score while increasing your probability of having a higher score than your opponent. This is a mathematical fact. It's not disputable.The only question is whether this potential abstract theoretical advantage is ever actually big enough to use as a factor in determining your lineups. As with many things, it can probably win you an extra couple games per decade if you use it right, or it can lose you an extra couple games per year if you overuse it.
Click to expand...
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.MAXIMIZING YOUR SCORE IS THE SAME THING AS MAXIMIZING YOUR CHANCE TO WIN.

PERIOD!!!!

 
Wrigley said:
Doug Drinen said:
Steeler said:
I just can't ever see getting to the point where I choose my players based on who my opponent is starting.
Click to expand...
The point is this: maximizing your score is not the same as maximizing your probability of winning the game. If your score and your opponent's score are not independent (which they're not, if the same NFL team contains players from both your and your opponent's team), then it is possible in some cases to decrease your expected score while increasing your probability of having a higher score than your opponent. This is a mathematical fact. It's not disputable.The only question is whether this potential abstract theoretical advantage is ever actually big enough to use as a factor in determining your lineups. As with many things, it can probably win you an extra couple games per decade if you use it right, or it can lose you an extra couple games per year if you overuse it.
Click to expand...
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.MAXIMIZING YOUR SCORE IS THE SAME THING AS MAXIMIZING YOUR CHANCE TO WIN.

PERIOD!!!!
Click to expand...
Wrong.
 
Doug Drinen said:
A quick example.

Suppose the average score in your league is around 100 points. 150 is a very good score. 180 is the league record. You are playing against an average team this week. God comes to you and tells you that you can have your choice this week:

1. a guaranteed 150 points

or

2. a guaranteed one more point than your opponent.

Choosing option 1 is the equivalent of "start the player you think will score the most points." It's not the right play.

A ridiculous example? Of course. But sometimes an extreme example helps clarify what the issue is. The issue is that, when your score and your opponents score are tied together, maximizing expected score is not synonymous with maximizing win probability. If your WR is on the same NFL team as your opponent's QB, then the scores are tied together. They're much more loosely tied together than in the above example, of course, but the same principle applies.
Click to expand...
Thank you Doug. This is exactly what I was saying in my earlier post. If you are playing head-to-head, the victory goes to the team who outscores the other - NOT the team who maximizes their scoring potential. There can be a very fine distinction between these two statements, but the difference is there nonetheless. Some of you who are so dead-set against this strategy need to wake up and read this again:If you are playing head-to-head, the victory goes to the team who outscores the other - NOT the team who maximizes their scoring potential.

If you are able to start "no-brainer" studs each week without any deliberation over who to start, more power to you. To dismiss, out-of-hand, a strategy that can help owners in the right circumstance eke out a victory, is irresponsible.

I believe the Shark Pool was designed to discuss fantasy football strategy. If fantasy football was as easy as "start your best players, period" I doubt we'd be here discussing anything other than consensus player rankings.

In a head-to-head league, your sole goal should be to outscore your opponent for that week by any means possible If circumstances allow you to choose one player over another similar player, with the purpose or expectation that the player in question is more likely to outscore a player on your opponent's roster, that's the right choice.

As with any decisions in fantasy football, it comes down to percentages. If I believe that Dwayne Bowe and Santonio Holmes will likely put up the same number of points, and my opponent is starting Brodie Croyle. And I'm equally certain that Dwayne Bowe will be the recipient of the majority of Brodie Croyle's statistics, I can feel relatively confident that no matter what happens with my projections, Dwayne Bowe will outperform Brodie, based on my PPR scoring. Maybe Holmes will post better numbers overall than Bowe, but we don't know that. What we do know is that we've hedged our bets, and that, good or bad game, we'll outscore our opponent's QB with our WR.

It can't be said enough: the goal here is NOT to score as many points as you can, the goal is to outscore your opponent. There's nothing you can do to ensure that you'll maximize your scoring potential, but there *can* be something you can do to increase your chances to outscore your opponent.

 
daveandken said:
Wrigley said:
Doug Drinen said:
Steeler said:
I just can't ever see getting to the point where I choose my players based on who my opponent is starting.
Click to expand...
The point is this: maximizing your score is not the same as maximizing your probability of winning the game. If your score and your opponent's score are not independent (which they're not, if the same NFL team contains players from both your and your opponent's team), then it is possible in some cases to decrease your expected score while increasing your probability of having a higher score than your opponent. This is a mathematical fact. It's not disputable.The only question is whether this potential abstract theoretical advantage is ever actually big enough to use as a factor in determining your lineups. As with many things, it can probably win you an extra couple games per decade if you use it right, or it can lose you an extra couple games per year if you overuse it.
Click to expand...
Okay, please tell me how my team is better if they don't score the most points they can each week?This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

MAXIMIZING YOUR SCORE IS THE SAME THING AS MAXIMIZING YOUR CHANCE TO WIN.

PERIOD!!!!
Click to expand...
Wrong.
Click to expand...
How is my team better by NOT scoring the most points it can each week?

This should be good

 
Wrigley said:
How is my team better by NOT scoring the most points it can each week?This should be good
Click to expand...
No need for me to explain it - read the thread. There are valid points above. If there is a way to hedge the value of one of your players over one of theirs where it can maximize your score RELATIVE to theirs, then it is more important than maximizing your actual score.
 
BassNBrew said:
I'll leave you with an example (6 pt pass TD, ppr)...His team:BradyWestbrookLTWelkerOwensEdwardsWittenFolkYour team:YoungPortisLynchMossColesHoltScaifeKeadingBench: Curtis and MaroneyI'd argue that your best probablity of winning would be to bench Moss for Curtis and Lynch for Maroney. Your best score would mean starting Moss.
Click to expand...
:shrug: How does benching your best WR help?
 
daveandken said:
Wrigley said:
How is my team better by NOT scoring the most points it can each week?This should be good
Click to expand...
No need for me to explain it - read the thread. There are valid points above. If there is a way to hedge the value of one of your players over one of theirs where it can maximize your score RELATIVE to theirs, then it is more important than maximizing your actual score.
Click to expand...
How possibly can scoring fewer points be a good idea?
 
Wrigley said:
daveandken said:
Wrigley said:
Doug Drinen said:
Steeler said:
I just can't ever see getting to the point where I choose my players based on who my opponent is starting.
Click to expand...
The point is this: maximizing your score is not the same as maximizing your probability of winning the game. If your score and your opponent's score are not independent (which they're not, if the same NFL team contains players from both your and your opponent's team), then it is possible in some cases to decrease your expected score while increasing your probability of having a higher score than your opponent. This is a mathematical fact. It's not disputable.The only question is whether this potential abstract theoretical advantage is ever actually big enough to use as a factor in determining your lineups. As with many things, it can probably win you an extra couple games per decade if you use it right, or it can lose you an extra couple games per year if you overuse it.
Click to expand...
Okay, please tell me how my team is better if they don't score the most points they can each week?This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

MAXIMIZING YOUR SCORE IS THE SAME THING AS MAXIMIZING YOUR CHANCE TO WIN.

PERIOD!!!!
Click to expand...
Wrong.
Click to expand...
How is my team better by NOT scoring the most points it can each week?

This should be good
Click to expand...
Have you ever played in a league, or heard of a league, where the highest scoring team missed the playoffs? The reason for this is that, in head-to-head, it doesn't ultimately matter how many points you score. What matters is whether you score more points than your opponent on a given week.Can we at least agree to put to bed the belief that scoring the most points you can each week is better than outscoring your opponent each week? Then we can get to the task of discussing whether or not hedging your bets at WR is a valid strategy for accomplishing this.

 
Doug Drinen said:
Wrigley said:
MAXIMIZING YOUR SCORE IS THE SAME THING AS MAXIMIZING YOUR CHANCE TO WIN.
Click to expand...
That's what I used to think too. Until someone pointed out to me that I was wrong.
Click to expand...
I have never once set my lineup based on who my opponent is playing.Sure I can play the WR to his QB......but last time I checked his QB throws to more than one guy........and while you were playing this "Block Strategy" the WR you should have played, went for 100 and a TD.You should always play your best team possible..........if you don't you are only setting yourself up to lose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FFCollusion
Roster Churning: Week 1
Replies
24
Views
1K
BobbyLayne
BobbyLayne
T
Travdogg's 3 round mock draft
2
Replies
71
Views
2K
travdogg
T
ffmail4me
2024 Dynasty Startup Thread
Replies
19
Views
1K
Gally
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top