an age old question revisited (1 Viewer)

[zilladog]

I'm wondering if over the years anyone has managed to compile some actual data as to what the better strategy is. The quetion is one we've all faced many times and I'm sure we all have opinions about.

Should I start a WR specifically because my opponent has his QB? Regardless of matchups? It's easy to ignore this question by saying something like "start your best players", and maybe that is the correct answer. But I'm wondering if any of the great FF minds on this forum has compiled any data to support it.

The heart of the question comes down to this I think. QB's tend to score more than WR's in most scoring systems. So are you really nullifying some of your opponents points by starting his no. 1 WR against him? Or are you putting your team at risk because if the NFL team in question does poorly, then 2 scenarios are likely to happen. 1) His QB will likely still score higher than your WR anyway, and 2) his WR (playing for some other NFL team) is likely to outscore yours, leaving you to have to make up those lost points in other places (likely your own QB). What if you have another option, though? What if you have a "lesser" WR for another NFL team that you could start, but he has a better matchup? Who would you roll with? are your chances of winning significantly increased or decreased? What if you have two recievers from that team (because of bye week issues or say, a WR and TE from the same team), how does that affect things when both of those options are catching passes from your opponents QB?

Just some food for thought and debate.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

As always I will say start the guy that will score you the most points. That is how you win

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm wondering if over the years anyone has managed to compile some actual data as to what the better strategy is. The quetion is one we've all faced many times and I'm sure we all have opinions about.

Should I start a WR specifically because my opponent has his QB? Regardless of matchups? It's easy to ignore this question by saying something like "start your best players", and maybe that is the correct answer. But I'm wondering if any of the great FF minds on this forum has compiled any data to support it.

The heart of the question comes down to this I think. QB's tend to score more than WR's in most scoring systems. So are you really nullifying some of your opponents points by starting his no. 1 WR against him? Or are you putting your team at risk because if the NFL team in question does poorly, then 2 scenarios are likely to happen. 1) His QB will likely still score higher than your WR anyway, and 2) his WR (playing for some other NFL team) is likely to outscore yours, leaving you to have to make up those lost points in other places (likely your own QB). What if you have another option, though? What if you have a "lesser" WR for another NFL team that you could start, but he has a better matchup? Who would you roll with? are your chances of winning significantly increased or decreased? What if you have two recievers from that team (because of bye week issues or say, a WR and TE from the same team), how does that affect things when both of those options are catching passes from your opponents QB?

Just some food for thought and debate.

I don't know what kind of data you're looking for. I'd guess there's a pretty good correlation between the points scored by QBs and WRs on the same team. That won't shed any light on whether or not it's a good idea to start a WR if your opponent has their QB. The only time this kind of thinking might be useful is if you're facing this decision going into the Sunday/Monday night games. If you're winning and need to hold onto the lead, start the WR that plays with your opponent's QB. If you're losing and need to catch up, don't start the WR that plays with you're opponents QB. But it's very rare that you're actually faced with this situation.

I know it's not the answer you're looking for, but in general you start whoever you think will score the most points.

 

[CaptainHook]

its definitely good to do this if ur not sitting a much better player. a huge risk in head-to-head style FF is your opponents qb blowing up in the week he goes against you. this greatly mitigates that risk. people saying just start your best players are wrong.

 

[Mello]

As always I will say start the guy that will score you the most points. That is how you win

In HTH leagues you win by scoring more than your opponent. Yeah, if there's someone that's clearly going to score more points then you start him. Most often when someone's thinking about this, they have a couple different options that they think will score somewhere in the same range of points. In that case, starting a receiver on the team of your opponent's QB slightly reduces point variance. Both for you and your opponent. There's less chance that his QB will blow up while your receiver does nothing, but also there's less chance your WR will blow up if your opponent's QB sucks. If you WR options are almost equal, and you think that the rest of your team is much stronger than your opponent, then it might be slightly beneficial to start the WR on the same team as his QB. If the rest of your team is weaker, you would want to start a different WR. This is a very small effect though. Most teams have 3+ receiving options and there's no guarantee his QB will do well only if your WR does well. Still, if you have 2+ receivers who you think will score around the same number of points, I think you'll do better in the long run thinking about this than just flipping a coin.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

its definitely good to do this if ur not sitting a much better player. a huge risk in head-to-head style FF is your opponents qb blowing up in the week he goes against you. this greatly mitigates that risk. people saying just start your best players are wrong.

Yes, it's definitely good to do this if you're not sitting a better player. In other words, start your best player.

 

[RenegadeGM]

I'm wondering if over the years anyone has managed to compile some actual data as to what the better strategy is. The quetion is one we've all faced many times and I'm sure we all have opinions about.

Should I start a WR specifically because my opponent has his QB? Regardless of matchups? It's easy to ignore this question by saying something like "start your best players", and maybe that is the correct answer. But I'm wondering if any of the great FF minds on this forum has compiled any data to support it.

The heart of the question comes down to this I think. QB's tend to score more than WR's in most scoring systems. So are you really nullifying some of your opponents points by starting his no. 1 WR against him? Or are you putting your team at risk because if the NFL team in question does poorly, then 2 scenarios are likely to happen. 1) His QB will likely still score higher than your WR anyway, and 2) his WR (playing for some other NFL team) is likely to outscore yours, leaving you to have to make up those lost points in other places (likely your own QB). What if you have another option, though? What if you have a "lesser" WR for another NFL team that you could start, but he has a better matchup? Who would you roll with? are your chances of winning significantly increased or decreased? What if you have two recievers from that team (because of bye week issues or say, a WR and TE from the same team), how does that affect things when both of those options are catching passes from your opponents QB?

Just some food for thought and debate.

I don't know what kind of data you're looking for. I'd guess there's a pretty good correlation between the points scored by QBs and WRs on the same team. That won't shed any light on whether or not it's a good idea to start a WR if your opponent has their QB. The only time this kind of thinking might be useful is if you're facing this decision going into the Sunday/Monday night games. If you're winning and need to hold onto the lead, start the WR that plays with your opponent's QB. If you're losing and need to catch up, don't start the WR that plays with you're opponents QB. But it's very rare that you're actually faced with this situation.

I know it's not the answer you're looking for, but in general you start whoever you think will score the most points.

A situation similar to what you described above happened in my matchup last week, but for my opponent, and not me.

Going into Sunday night, he had a pretty decent lead and I still had Randy Moss to play. He had a choice at QB: Vince Young on MNF or Brett Favre on SNF. Young was in his lineup. Basically the only way I could have pulled off a W going into the SNF games was for Moss to go nuts. I was hoping he'd leave Young in there, despite having a better matchup, just because if he made the switch to Favre he'd pretty much kill any chance I had at a comeback, as most likely any TDs to Moss would come from Favre.

He left Young in, but it didn't matter, as Moss was pretty quiet. Even though he was hurt on MNF my opponent already had the W in the bag.

But... it could have mattered, had Moss went for 100+ and 2 or 3 TDs or something.

 

[We Tigers]

A situation similar to what you described above happened in my matchup last week, but for my opponent, and not me.Going into Sunday night, he had a pretty decent lead and I still had Randy Moss to play. He had a choice at QB: Vince Young on MNF or Brett Favre on SNF. Young was in his lineup. Basically the only way I could have pulled off a W going into the SNF games was for Moss to go nuts. I was hoping he'd leave Young in there, despite having a better matchup, just because if he made the switch to Favre he'd pretty much kill any chance I had at a comeback, as most likely any TDs to Moss would come from Favre.He left Young in, but it didn't matter, as Moss was pretty quiet. Even though he was hurt on MNF my opponent already had the W in the bag.But... it could have mattered, had Moss went for 100+ and 2 or 3 TDs or something.

It would have mattered because he would have chosen to start the wrong quarterback, not because he didn't "cancel" your points.

 

[zilladog]

I was thinking more along the lines of when it's not so cut and dry. Let me paint a hypothetical scenario...

1)You have to choose whether to start Calvin johnson or Andre Johnson ( I know Calvin's on a bye, but its hypothetical so bear with me), both are very good options and lets say both have decent matchups. Your opponent is starting matt Schaub. Which WR do you start and why? Let's just say for this case that you can't/won't start both.

2)Or, your lineup consists of...

WR: Reggie Wayne, Randy Moss, Andre Johnson

TE: Dallas Clark (forget the IR thing for a minute), Aaron Hernandez

You can start 2 WR's and 1 TE.

Your opponent is starting Peyton manning.

Do you start Wayne and/or Clark? Neither? Both?

I know it's a little convoluted but this sort of stuff does seem to come up often. And if anyone has done any sort of studies on this kind of thing, I'd be interested in seeing what people have found.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm wondering if over the years anyone has managed to compile some actual data as to what the better strategy is. The quetion is one we've all faced many times and I'm sure we all have opinions about.

Should I start a WR specifically because my opponent has his QB? Regardless of matchups? It's easy to ignore this question by saying something like "start your best players", and maybe that is the correct answer. But I'm wondering if any of the great FF minds on this forum has compiled any data to support it.

The heart of the question comes down to this I think. QB's tend to score more than WR's in most scoring systems. So are you really nullifying some of your opponents points by starting his no. 1 WR against him? Or are you putting your team at risk because if the NFL team in question does poorly, then 2 scenarios are likely to happen. 1) His QB will likely still score higher than your WR anyway, and 2) his WR (playing for some other NFL team) is likely to outscore yours, leaving you to have to make up those lost points in other places (likely your own QB). What if you have another option, though? What if you have a "lesser" WR for another NFL team that you could start, but he has a better matchup? Who would you roll with? are your chances of winning significantly increased or decreased? What if you have two recievers from that team (because of bye week issues or say, a WR and TE from the same team), how does that affect things when both of those options are catching passes from your opponents QB?

Just some food for thought and debate.

I don't know what kind of data you're looking for. I'd guess there's a pretty good correlation between the points scored by QBs and WRs on the same team. That won't shed any light on whether or not it's a good idea to start a WR if your opponent has their QB. The only time this kind of thinking might be useful is if you're facing this decision going into the Sunday/Monday night games. If you're winning and need to hold onto the lead, start the WR that plays with your opponent's QB. If you're losing and need to catch up, don't start the WR that plays with you're opponents QB. But it's very rare that you're actually faced with this situation.

I know it's not the answer you're looking for, but in general you start whoever you think will score the most points.

A situation similar to what you described above happened in my matchup last week, but for my opponent, and not me.

Going into Sunday night, he had a pretty decent lead and I still had Randy Moss to play. He had a choice at QB: Vince Young on MNF or Brett Favre on SNF. Young was in his lineup. Basically the only way I could have pulled off a W going into the SNF games was for Moss to go nuts. I was hoping he'd leave Young in there, despite having a better matchup, just because if he made the switch to Favre he'd pretty much kill any chance I had at a comeback, as most likely any TDs to Moss would come from Favre.

He left Young in, but it didn't matter, as Moss was pretty quiet. Even though he was hurt on MNF my opponent already had the W in the bag.

But... it could have mattered, had Moss went for 100+ and 2 or 3 TDs or something.

Exactly, you're opponent made a huge mistake playing Young. This is a perfect example of a situation where you'd want to think about things like this, but it's also the only time you should be making considerations like this. How often does it really happen that you're going into Sunday night, and not only do you have a WR left that plays with your opponent's QB, but you also have some other WR that you can swap into your lineup? Not often. When it comes up once in a while, you think about it. But when you're setting your lineup at 10am on Sunday morning, it doesn't matter who your opponent's QB is. You start whoever you think is going to score the most points.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

A situation similar to what you described above happened in my matchup last week, but for my opponent, and not me.Going into Sunday night, he had a pretty decent lead and I still had Randy Moss to play. He had a choice at QB: Vince Young on MNF or Brett Favre on SNF. Young was in his lineup. Basically the only way I could have pulled off a W going into the SNF games was for Moss to go nuts. I was hoping he'd leave Young in there, despite having a better matchup, just because if he made the switch to Favre he'd pretty much kill any chance I had at a comeback, as most likely any TDs to Moss would come from Favre.He left Young in, but it didn't matter, as Moss was pretty quiet. Even though he was hurt on MNF my opponent already had the W in the bag.But... it could have mattered, had Moss went for 100+ and 2 or 3 TDs or something.

It would have mattered because he would have chosen to start the wrong quarterback, not because he didn't "cancel" your points.

No, that's exactly why it would have mattered. If you're holding a lead, and the only player your opponent has left is Moss, you have to start Moss's QB. It would be stupid to do otherwise. This is the only type of situation where it doesn't really matter whether you start the QB who scores more points - by starting Favre he is effectively guaranteeing the win (barring a Favre injury during the game). Whether Favre goes nuts or Favre puts up a dud doesn't matter. Either way he has his opponent covered.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I'm wondering if over the years anyone has managed to compile some actual data as to what the better strategy is. The quetion is one we've all faced many times and I'm sure we all have opinions about.

Should I start a WR specifically because my opponent has his QB? Regardless of matchups? It's easy to ignore this question by saying something like "start your best players", and maybe that is the correct answer. But I'm wondering if any of the great FF minds on this forum has compiled any data to support it.

The heart of the question comes down to this I think. QB's tend to score more than WR's in most scoring systems. So are you really nullifying some of your opponents points by starting his no. 1 WR against him? Or are you putting your team at risk because if the NFL team in question does poorly, then 2 scenarios are likely to happen. 1) His QB will likely still score higher than your WR anyway, and 2) his WR (playing for some other NFL team) is likely to outscore yours, leaving you to have to make up those lost points in other places (likely your own QB). What if you have another option, though? What if you have a "lesser" WR for another NFL team that you could start, but he has a better matchup? Who would you roll with? are your chances of winning significantly increased or decreased? What if you have two recievers from that team (because of bye week issues or say, a WR and TE from the same team), how does that affect things when both of those options are catching passes from your opponents QB?

Just some food for thought and debate.

I don't know what kind of data you're looking for. I'd guess there's a pretty good correlation between the points scored by QBs and WRs on the same team. That won't shed any light on whether or not it's a good idea to start a WR if your opponent has their QB. The only time this kind of thinking might be useful is if you're facing this decision going into the Sunday/Monday night games. If you're winning and need to hold onto the lead, start the WR that plays with your opponent's QB. If you're losing and need to catch up, don't start the WR that plays with you're opponents QB. But it's very rare that you're actually faced with this situation.

I know it's not the answer you're looking for, but in general you start whoever you think will score the most points.

A situation similar to what you described above happened in my matchup last week, but for my opponent, and not me.

Going into Sunday night, he had a pretty decent lead and I still had Randy Moss to play. He had a choice at QB: Vince Young on MNF or Brett Favre on SNF. Young was in his lineup. Basically the only way I could have pulled off a W going into the SNF games was for Moss to go nuts. I was hoping he'd leave Young in there, despite having a better matchup, just because if he made the switch to Favre he'd pretty much kill any chance I had at a comeback, as most likely any TDs to Moss would come from Favre.

He left Young in, but it didn't matter, as Moss was pretty quiet. Even though he was hurt on MNF my opponent already had the W in the bag.

But... it could have mattered, had Moss went for 100+ and 2 or 3 TDs or something.

A perfect example to answer the OP's question. Obviously starting the WR that will give you the most points is the best strategy but what was laid out here is the best hedge. Hedging a bet, is a good strategy; muting your rewards but limiting your risks. Trying to pick out the best WR you have can be tricky but handcuffing an opponent's QB to your WR (or vice-versa) can be a winning strategy and is easier to do. It has worked for me, and no I don't do it religiously.

 

[We Tigers]

A situation similar to what you described above happened in my matchup last week, but for my opponent, and not me.Going into Sunday night, he had a pretty decent lead and I still had Randy Moss to play. He had a choice at QB: Vince Young on MNF or Brett Favre on SNF. Young was in his lineup. Basically the only way I could have pulled off a W going into the SNF games was for Moss to go nuts. I was hoping he'd leave Young in there, despite having a better matchup, just because if he made the switch to Favre he'd pretty much kill any chance I had at a comeback, as most likely any TDs to Moss would come from Favre.He left Young in, but it didn't matter, as Moss was pretty quiet. Even though he was hurt on MNF my opponent already had the W in the bag.But... it could have mattered, had Moss went for 100+ and 2 or 3 TDs or something.

It would have mattered because he would have chosen to start the wrong quarterback, not because he didn't "cancel" your points.

No, that's exactly why it would have mattered. If you're holding a lead, and the only player your opponent has left is Moss, you have to start Moss's QB. It would be stupid to do otherwise. This is the only type of situation where it doesn't really matter whether you start the QB who scores more points - by starting Favre he is effectively guaranteeing the win (barring a Favre injury during the game). Whether Favre goes nuts or Favre puts up a dud doesn't matter. Either way he has his opponent covered.

Are you sure? Assume standard scoring setup with 4-point QB TDs, and, say, 2 point penalties for INTs.Moss gets 100 yards and 2 TDs, for 22 points.Favre throws for 200 yards, 2 TDs, and 2 interceptions. 14 points.Vince Young throws for 180 yards, 2 TDs, and rushes for 25 yards. 19.5 points.Is that scenario or something similar so outlandish? Interceptions, fumbles, and the general scoring differences between a QB and a WR in most leagues provide significant limitations on the success of hedging your bets by trying to cancel points.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

This doesn't make any sense. If you were talking about starting the QB of your opponent's stud WR then I could maybe see this in extreme cases. By starting a WR on your opponent's QB's team you're only blocking yourself. The QB can score without you getting anything, but any time your WR scores you opponent will as well.

I think you have this backwards. I'm aware of no such "age old question" about starting a WR to block your opponent's QB.

 

[RenegadeGM]

A situation similar to what you described above happened in my matchup last week, but for my opponent, and not me.Going into Sunday night, he had a pretty decent lead and I still had Randy Moss to play. He had a choice at QB: Vince Young on MNF or Brett Favre on SNF. Young was in his lineup. Basically the only way I could have pulled off a W going into the SNF games was for Moss to go nuts. I was hoping he'd leave Young in there, despite having a better matchup, just because if he made the switch to Favre he'd pretty much kill any chance I had at a comeback, as most likely any TDs to Moss would come from Favre.He left Young in, but it didn't matter, as Moss was pretty quiet. Even though he was hurt on MNF my opponent already had the W in the bag.But... it could have mattered, had Moss went for 100+ and 2 or 3 TDs or something.

It would have mattered because he would have chosen to start the wrong quarterback, not because he didn't "cancel" your points.

You're forgetting one key point here: you don't know before Favre and Young play who the "right" QB is. So you hedge, knowing you have a lead that can only be overcome with a field day from Moss that you aren't also benefitting from.

 

[pittstownkiller]

This doesn't make any sense. If you were talking about starting the QB of your opponent's stud WR then I could maybe see this in extreme cases. By starting a WR on your opponent's QB's team you're only blocking yourself. The QB can score without you getting anything, but any time your WR scores you opponent will as well.

I think you have this backwards. I'm aware of no such "age old question" about starting a WR to block your opponent's QB.

The WR to your opponent's QB, would only work if the QB leans almost exclusively on your WR; it does happen and in most scoring scenarios a WR is going to get more points than the QB on any given play. A much trickier technique for sure.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

This doesn't make any sense. If you were talking about starting the QB of your opponent's stud WR then I could maybe see this in extreme cases. By starting a WR on your opponent's QB's team you're only blocking yourself. The QB can score without you getting anything, but any time your WR scores you opponent will as well.

I think you have this backwards. I'm aware of no such "age old question" about starting a WR to block your opponent's QB.

The WR to your opponent's QB, would only work if the QB leans almost exclusively on your WR; it does happen and in most scoring scenarios a WR is going to get more points than the QB on any given play. A much trickier technique for sure.

Yeah, but people are talking about making a lineup decision that was already close based on this. How many elite quarterbacks lean on WRs that aren't sure starts anyway? Obviously if you have Andre Johnson or Greg Jennings or Malcolm Floyd you're going to start them, but it's entirely possible (and almost likely, even) for Schaub, Rodgers, and Rivers to have big days without Walter, James Jones, or Legadu Naanee doing anything.

 

[HenryMuto]

I don't even look at my opponents line up most of the time so it isn't an age old question for me.

 

[comfortably numb]

I like to start my opponent's players kicker when I can.

Reduces any TD's by 1 pt

 

[glumpy]

Are you sure? Assume standard scoring setup with 4-point QB TDs, and, say, 2 point penalties for INTs.

I've been reading through this looking for someone to raise the scoring system question. It seems like most discussions relating to balancing out your opponent's QB assume that they score the same for td's at least--and I would question if the 4/6 point system is actually still the "standard", as it seems people have been moving away from that for some years. For the record, unless I feel like winning a particular matchup is a real uphill battle where I need to find lightning somewhere--I favor balancing out an opponent's QB, all other things being comparable. In my league td's are equally weighted across the board.

 

[Angus82]

I don't even look at my opponents line up most of the time so it isn't an age old question for me.

This!! I set my line-up based on match-ups and go from there. Fantasy is such a crap shoot that trying play your opponents line-up is a suckers dream. Play your best players and hope for the best.

 

[Pickle Rody]

To answer the OP's first question, I do not know if there are any studies out there to review.

I do not follow along with this type of philosophy. I always start who I believe is going to score the most points positionally, thus helping my team win. When I start a WR from the same NFL team as my opponents starting QB I consider that as a little bit of a cover, but I know full well that it likely won't be a wash. I'm also not starting that WR because of his QB, but rather because I feel that WR gives me the best opportunity to get the most out of that position. When my opponent starts a WR from the same NFL team as my QB I do not worry much, knowing full well that my QB will likely score more than his WR. I do not consider starting a different QB unless I believe that QB will provide my team with more points out of the position. Most of my leagues score passing TD's as 6 points.

Of course, there are always a few times where one needs to take careful consideration during a tight fantasy matchup when the late game Sunday and the Monday night game have players involved that could conceivably alter the outcome of the fantasy game.

 

[Trig2U]

This debate comes up every season but it seems to me the answer has been worked out, at least conclusively enough for me.

First, the glib reply "start your best player" is essentially meaningless because, unless you're psychic, no one can know in advance who the "best" (ie highest scoring) player will be that week. And unless you're talking about the non-choice between a clear #1 receiver and a clear #2, you have decisions to make in setting a line-up based on various factors. One of those factors could be that there's a general correlation between the scoring of a QB and a WR who play for the same NFL team.

I think "covering" an opponents QB with one of your receivers can be a viable strategy, but it works best when it's your #2 or #3 receiver, (or possibly a TE). And again, this applies to receivers who are ranked fairly closely, not a stud vs scrub.

The goal is to get your #2 receiver to score a high percentage of the points that your opponents QB scores. Let's say that in a non-ppr format a top 10 QB scores an average of between 22 and 24 pts a game, a top 10 WR scores 11-14 pts per game, and a solid #2 WR scores between 8-11 pts a game.

So typically a #2 WR scores in the range of 33% to 50% of the pts that a top QB will score. Therefore, if your #2 WR gets blown out by your opposing QB (like outscored 25-5) you have a lot of ground to make up. But if your #2 WR can score significantly above 50% of the points your opponents QB puts up, you've gained an advantage, and the pressure is on your opponent to match the difference between your QB and his #2 receiver.

Now let's say you're playing against Eli Manning and you have a choice between starting Davone Bess or Mario Manningham as your #2 WR. All other factors being more or less equal, I'd argue that if you want to play with the odds on your side you go with Manningham. Because of the real-life correlation between the the two players, Mario has a decent chance of keeping his score within a reasonable range of Eli's pts. And that's true even if Manningham doesn't score much, as long as Eli has a rough day too.

I'm not saying that there are any guarantees that this strategy will work every time, but you're playing the odds here, and in some circumstances you can use the correlation between QB and WR to your advantage.

 

[Angus82]

This debate comes up every season but it seems to me the answer has been worked out, at least conclusively enough for me. First, the glib reply "start your best player" is essentially meaningless because, unless you're psychic, no one can know in advance who the "best" (ie highest scoring) player will be that week. And unless you're talking about the non-choice between a clear #1 receiver and a clear #2, you have decisions to make in setting a line-up based on various factors. One of those factors could be that there's a general correlation between the scoring of a QB and a WR who play for the same NFL team. I think "covering" an opponents QB with one of your receivers can be a viable strategy, but it works best when it's your #2 or #3 receiver, (or possibly a TE). And again, this applies to receivers who are ranked fairly closely, not a stud vs scrub. The goal is to get your #2 receiver to score a high percentage of the points that your opponents QB scores. Let's say that in a non-ppr format a top 10 QB scores an average of between 22 and 24 pts a game, a top 10 WR scores 11-14 pts per game, and a solid #2 WR scores between 8-11 pts a game. So typically a #2 WR scores in the range of 33% to 50% of the pts that a top QB will score. Therefore, if your #2 WR gets blown out by your opposing QB (like outscored 25-5) you have a lot of ground to make up. But if your #2 WR can score significantly above 50% of the points your opponents QB puts up, you've gained an advantage, and the pressure is on your opponent to match the difference between your QB and his #2 receiver. Now let's say you're playing against Eli Manning and you have a choice between starting Davone Bess or Mario Manningham as your #2 WR. All other factors being more or less equal, I'd argue that if you want to play with the odds on your side you go with Manningham. Because of the real-life correlation between the the two players, Mario has a decent chance of keeping his score within a reasonable range of Eli's pts. And that's true even if Manningham doesn't score much, as long as Eli has a rough day too. I'm not saying that there are any guarantees that this strategy will work every time, but you're playing the odds here, and in some circumstances you can use the correlation between QB and WR to your advantage.

I really do not see the correlation. We will use this week in particular. I have R.White, W.Welker, and M.Williams(TB), I really do not care who my opponent has. If Tom Brady throws three TD's to Branch I have Brees. This may work in some cases but I would only use it as a last resort.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Are you sure? Assume standard scoring setup with 4-point QB TDs, and, say, 2 point penalties for INTs.Moss gets 100 yards and 2 TDs, for 22 points.Favre throws for 200 yards, 2 TDs, and 2 interceptions. 14 points.Vince Young throws for 180 yards, 2 TDs, and rushes for 25 yards. 19.5 points.Is that scenario or something similar so outlandish? Interceptions, fumbles, and the general scoring differences between a QB and a WR in most leagues provide significant limitations on the success of hedging your bets by trying to cancel points.

Is that scenario possible? Of course. But unless the probability of a scenario like that is absurdly high, it doesn't matter. The fact is, when you're faced with making this lineup decision, the probability of Moss outscoring Favre by a ton of points is a lot lower than the probability of Moss outscoring Young by a ton of points. That's what hedging this kind of risk is about. Will it work 100% of the time? No - as I said, Favre could get hurt on the first play of the game and leave with zero points. But if you're winning, and your opponent only has Moss left, and you have a choice between Favre and Young, you'd be dumb to start Young. Is it possible that it won't work out in your favor on this one occasion? Sure, but that doesn't mean it was a bad decision.

 

[Trig2U]

This debate comes up every season but it seems to me the answer has been worked out, at least conclusively enough for me. First, the glib reply "start your best player" is essentially meaningless because, unless you're psychic, no one can know in advance who the "best" (ie highest scoring) player will be that week. And unless you're talking about the non-choice between a clear #1 receiver and a clear #2, you have decisions to make in setting a line-up based on various factors. One of those factors could be that there's a general correlation between the scoring of a QB and a WR who play for the same NFL team. I think "covering" an opponents QB with one of your receivers can be a viable strategy, but it works best when it's your #2 or #3 receiver, (or possibly a TE). And again, this applies to receivers who are ranked fairly closely, not a stud vs scrub. The goal is to get your #2 receiver to score a high percentage of the points that your opponents QB scores. Let's say that in a non-ppr format a top 10 QB scores an average of between 22 and 24 pts a game, a top 10 WR scores 11-14 pts per game, and a solid #2 WR scores between 8-11 pts a game. So typically a #2 WR scores in the range of 33% to 50% of the pts that a top QB will score. Therefore, if your #2 WR gets blown out by your opposing QB (like outscored 25-5) you have a lot of ground to make up. But if your #2 WR can score significantly above 50% of the points your opponents QB puts up, you've gained an advantage, and the pressure is on your opponent to match the difference between your QB and his #2 receiver. Now let's say you're playing against Eli Manning and you have a choice between starting Davone Bess or Mario Manningham as your #2 WR. All other factors being more or less equal, I'd argue that if you want to play with the odds on your side you go with Manningham. Because of the real-life correlation between the the two players, Mario has a decent chance of keeping his score within a reasonable range of Eli's pts. And that's true even if Manningham doesn't score much, as long as Eli has a rough day too. I'm not saying that there are any guarantees that this strategy will work every time, but you're playing the odds here, and in some circumstances you can use the correlation between QB and WR to your advantage.

I really do not see the correlation. We will use this week in particular. I have R.White, W.Welker, and M.Williams(TB), I really do not care who my opponent has. If Tom Brady throws three TD's to Branch I have Brees. This may work in some cases but I would only use it as a last resort.

Hang on a second, Angus. I can understand that you might not feel totally comfortable employing the strategy, or you prefer a different approach, but surely you agree that there is an actual, real-time correlation between the performance of a WR and the performance of his NFL QB, right? Now, obviously that doesn't guarantee that the two performances will always match, but like I said, we're looking for an advantage by playing the odds and exploiting the fairly high potential for the correlation to be realized on the field. Somebody who's a lot better at math than I am could demonstrate this I'm sure, but I'd definitely be interested to see a break-down showing the statistical connection between fantasy points scored by a WR and his NFL QB.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

As always I will say start the guy that will score you the most points. That is how you win

that makes decisions easy every week.

 

[Angus82]

This debate comes up every season but it seems to me the answer has been worked out, at least conclusively enough for me. First, the glib reply "start your best player" is essentially meaningless because, unless you're psychic, no one can know in advance who the "best" (ie highest scoring) player will be that week. And unless you're talking about the non-choice between a clear #1 receiver and a clear #2, you have decisions to make in setting a line-up based on various factors. One of those factors could be that there's a general correlation between the scoring of a QB and a WR who play for the same NFL team. I think "covering" an opponents QB with one of your receivers can be a viable strategy, but it works best when it's your #2 or #3 receiver, (or possibly a TE). And again, this applies to receivers who are ranked fairly closely, not a stud vs scrub. The goal is to get your #2 receiver to score a high percentage of the points that your opponents QB scores. Let's say that in a non-ppr format a top 10 QB scores an average of between 22 and 24 pts a game, a top 10 WR scores 11-14 pts per game, and a solid #2 WR scores between 8-11 pts a game. So typically a #2 WR scores in the range of 33% to 50% of the pts that a top QB will score. Therefore, if your #2 WR gets blown out by your opposing QB (like outscored 25-5) you have a lot of ground to make up. But if your #2 WR can score significantly above 50% of the points your opponents QB puts up, you've gained an advantage, and the pressure is on your opponent to match the difference between your QB and his #2 receiver. Now let's say you're playing against Eli Manning and you have a choice between starting Davone Bess or Mario Manningham as your #2 WR. All other factors being more or less equal, I'd argue that if you want to play with the odds on your side you go with Manningham. Because of the real-life correlation between the the two players, Mario has a decent chance of keeping his score within a reasonable range of Eli's pts. And that's true even if Manningham doesn't score much, as long as Eli has a rough day too. I'm not saying that there are any guarantees that this strategy will work every time, but you're playing the odds here, and in some circumstances you can use the correlation between QB and WR to your advantage.

I really do not see the correlation. We will use this week in particular. I have R.White, W.Welker, and M.Williams(TB), I really do not care who my opponent has. If Tom Brady throws three TD's to Branch I have Brees. This may work in some cases but I would only use it as a last resort.

Hang on a second, Angus. I can understand that you might not feel totally comfortable employing the strategy, or you prefer a different approach, but surely you agree that there is an actual, real-time correlation between the performance of a WR and the performance of his NFL QB, right? Now, obviously that doesn't guarantee that the two performances will always match, but like I said, we're looking for an advantage by playing the odds and exploiting the fairly high potential for the correlation to be realized on the field. Somebody who's a lot better at math than I am could demonstrate this I'm sure, but I'd definitely be interested to see a break-down showing the statistical connection between fantasy points scored by a WR and his NFL QB.

Of course there is a real time correlation between a WR and his QB. Just because you have Pierre Garcon doesn't mean that you bench Kenny Britt if the match up is right. Having Devery Henderson in your line-up because your opponent has Drew Brees means nothing. I(as well as you) do not know who the main target will be on any given week. If you are the fence, it may work. Otherwise, I personally do not care about your team.

 

[Squatch]

This doesn't make any sense. If you were talking about starting the QB of your opponent's stud WR then I could maybe see this in extreme cases. By starting a WR on your opponent's QB's team you're only blocking yourself. The QB can score without you getting anything, but any time your WR scores you opponent will as well.

I think you have this backwards. I'm aware of no such "age old question" about starting a WR to block your opponent's QB.

This is my take as well. The QB is the one who stands to offset the points (TDs especially) of receiver scoring, not vice-versus. I'm not saying I go out of my way to play a QB when an opponent has one of his receivers, but the relationship here clearly benefits the QB owner, not the receiver owner.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

This doesn't make any sense. If you were talking about starting the QB of your opponent's stud WR then I could maybe see this in extreme cases. By starting a WR on your opponent's QB's team you're only blocking yourself. The QB can score without you getting anything, but any time your WR scores you opponent will as well.

I think you have this backwards. I'm aware of no such "age old question" about starting a WR to block your opponent's QB.

This is my take as well. The QB is the one who stands to offset the points (TDs especially) of receiver scoring, not vice-versus. I'm not saying I go out of my way to play a QB when an opponent has one of his receivers, but the relationship here clearly benefits the QB owner, not the receiver owner.

I disagree.in my league we get more pts for receiving yds than passing yds, only 5 pts for passing td, a bonus at 100 receiving yds, and .6 ppr.

all that gives the receiver an edge in pts over the qb fo rthe same production, and that's before the consideration of positions.

if you are playing chess and can sacrifice a rook to take a queen, you'd do it.

 

[PolishNorbi]

My opinion, and I'll see if I can back it up with numbers, is WR1 is a must start no matter what. WR2 and WR3s is where it gets dicey and you might actually be better not starting them against your opponents QB to maximize opportunity.

EDIT: I'm adding more. It really comes down to if you are the projected winner or not. Then the decisions will change.

 

[videoguy505]

This debate comes up every season

There's a thread on it every week.Start your best player works most of the time. In some specific instances, one might wish to make a higher- or lower- variance move, that's the only time it matters. But those don't come up often enough to really worry about.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I think an interesting exercise for those who say to simply 'start the highest scoring player' would be to post your roster in this thread and note which players are going to score the most points --- then we can grade you on monday.

 

[Acrobat7]

i did it the other way around 2 or 3 season ago. my opponent started Fitz and Boldin and i put Warner in my line-up despite him being my backup then.

 

[pittstownkiller]

i did it the other way around 2 or 3 season ago. my opponent started Fitz and Boldin and i put Warner in my line-up despite him being my backup then.

How did it work out?

 

[Acrobat7]

i did it the other way around 2 or 3 season ago. my opponent started Fitz and Boldin and i put Warner in my line-up despite him being my backup then.

How did it work out?

i can't recall the exact outcome, but warner and my WR more than negated their scoring which was the purpose. it's 6pts for passing TDs in that league.give Fitz and Boldin 100-1 each and we're looking at 32pts combined. for Warner to reach 32 pts he'd have to get 12 in addition to the 200-2 = 20 pts plus i have another WR starting.

 

[Bri]

I'd swear Drinen or Chase did this some time ago...I'm not 100% but I really really think one of them ran the #s here

 

[Trig2U]

This debate comes up every season but it seems to me the answer has been worked out, at least conclusively enough for me. First, the glib reply "start your best player" is essentially meaningless because, unless you're psychic, no one can know in advance who the "best" (ie highest scoring) player will be that week. And unless you're talking about the non-choice between a clear #1 receiver and a clear #2, you have decisions to make in setting a line-up based on various factors. One of those factors could be that there's a general correlation between the scoring of a QB and a WR who play for the same NFL team. I think "covering" an opponents QB with one of your receivers can be a viable strategy, but it works best when it's your #2 or #3 receiver, (or possibly a TE). And again, this applies to receivers who are ranked fairly closely, not a stud vs scrub. The goal is to get your #2 receiver to score a high percentage of the points that your opponents QB scores. Let's say that in a non-ppr format a top 10 QB scores an average of between 22 and 24 pts a game, a top 10 WR scores 11-14 pts per game, and a solid #2 WR scores between 8-11 pts a game. So typically a #2 WR scores in the range of 33% to 50% of the pts that a top QB will score. Therefore, if your #2 WR gets blown out by your opposing QB (like outscored 25-5) you have a lot of ground to make up. But if your #2 WR can score significantly above 50% of the points your opponents QB puts up, you've gained an advantage, and the pressure is on your opponent to match the difference between your QB and his #2 receiver. Now let's say you're playing against Eli Manning and you have a choice between starting Davone Bess or Mario Manningham as your #2 WR. All other factors being more or less equal, I'd argue that if you want to play with the odds on your side you go with Manningham. Because of the real-life correlation between the the two players, Mario has a decent chance of keeping his score within a reasonable range of Eli's pts. And that's true even if Manningham doesn't score much, as long as Eli has a rough day too. I'm not saying that there are any guarantees that this strategy will work every time, but you're playing the odds here, and in some circumstances you can use the correlation between QB and WR to your advantage.

I really do not see the correlation. We will use this week in particular. I have R.White, W.Welker, and M.Williams(TB), I really do not care who my opponent has. If Tom Brady throws three TD's to Branch I have Brees. This may work in some cases but I would only use it as a last resort.

Hang on a second, Angus. I can understand that you might not feel totally comfortable employing the strategy, or you prefer a different approach, but surely you agree that there is an actual, real-time correlation between the performance of a WR and the performance of his NFL QB, right? Now, obviously that doesn't guarantee that the two performances will always match, but like I said, we're looking for an advantage by playing the odds and exploiting the fairly high potential for the correlation to be realized on the field. Somebody who's a lot better at math than I am could demonstrate this I'm sure, but I'd definitely be interested to see a break-down showing the statistical connection between fantasy points scored by a WR and his NFL QB.

Of course there is a real time correlation between a WR and his QB. Just because you have Pierre Garcon doesn't mean that you bench Kenny Britt if the match up is right. Having Devery Henderson in your line-up because your opponent has Drew Brees means nothing. I(as well as you) do not know who the main target will be on any given week. If you are the fence, it may work. Otherwise, I personally do not care about your team.

OK, I see what you're saying but I also think that the example you gave would be a great situation for a guy who's going up against Peyton Manning to start Garcon that week. It's true we don't know who the main target will be in a given week, but I think we're talking about playing the odds here, and for my money if Peyton Manning goes off for 30 pts I'd wager that there's a considerably better chance that Pierre Garcon will pick up 12-14 pts than Kenny Britt will.

 

[kutta]

I think an interesting exercise for those who say to simply 'start the highest scoring player' would be to post your roster in this thread and note which players are going to score the most points --- then we can grade you on monday.

Agreed. If it was as easy as "start the guys who are going to score you the most points," none of us would be here right now and FBG would be out of business.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

I always thought the two variables that needed to come into play to even THINK about employing this is:

1. If you have two players who you project to score a similar amount of points, a toss-up lineup decision basically, and

2. Whether you project yourself to be the favorite or the underdog in your matchup. If you're the favorite, you may want to use the "cancelling" player as a hedge against your opponent, whereas if you're the underdog, you want to avoid the "cancelling" player so as to create more point variance with your lineup in relation to your opponent's.

Or something like that...

 

[Hooper31]

Doug Drinen wrote an article specifically about this topic back in 2001. He used the term "hookup" in the article. Happy searching.

 

[Catbird]

I always thought the two variables that needed to come into play to even THINK about employing this is:1. If you have two players who you project to score a similar amount of points, a toss-up lineup decision basically, and2. Whether you project yourself to be the favorite or the underdog in your matchup. If you're the favorite, you may want to use the "cancelling" player as a hedge against your opponent, whereas if you're the underdog, you want to avoid the "cancelling" player so as to create more point variance with your lineup in relation to your opponent's.Or something like that...

This is right. If you expect to win, you don't want the opposing QB to go off on you and change that. You always start your best WR. If you are in a start 3 WR (or 2 WR plus flex), I think you start your best 2. But if you are a strong favorite to win, you still have a WR or flex spot left and have a WR and another guy of roughly equal probable value, it is sometimes worth using a Santana Moss over Harvin if your opponent is starting McNabb, even if you think Harvin is the slightly better choice based on all of the variables. Its true that you probably won't get quite as high a total score (taking into account that we never know who will actually score what) but if you are this strong favorite, one of the few ways your opponent is likely to beat you is if McNabb goes off. If you start Moss, it will be hard for McNabb to get a huge edge on Moss so since you are stronger you will porbably still win. If McNabb doesn't go off, it doesn't matter which guy you used because you will probably win on being the stronger team (with Donovan and Moss doing badly).Conversely, if you don't expect to win, and you face McNabb, you would prefer not to use Moss since your best chance of winning is for McNabb to NOT have a good game while your WR not to be pulled down with him. If Donovan has a great game you will probably lose even if you use Moss and he shares McNabb's success (because we agreed that you were probably the weaker team that week). But if McNabb has a bad game you are more likely to overcome the distance between you and win with an unrelated WR than with a WR likely to be brought down by McNabb's bad outing. But it still just tendencies and likelihoods (but what else are we calculating and projecting in FF) and at most its a slight edge in a particular circumstance. But I think most people who think it through see the advantage of playing the favorable side of those good or bad correlations as being worth more than the difference in value between 8.7 projected points and maybe 8.4 projected points (when we are rountiely 5 or 10 points off on our predictions for any player in any game anyway). And some guys will fail or refuse to see the value and never think further than 'start your best players.' And that probably doesn't hurt them more than once in four team/years - or once a year if you have 4 teams. Hardly a world changer. But the short answer to the OPs question is apparently: 'No'. No one has done a conclusive study on how much this actually helps you - although it has been argued here a length at least half a dozen times that I can recall.

 

[Gary Davenport]

I don't generally even look at my opponent's lineup.

Start who you believe will get you the most points, period. All that worrying about QB A throwing to WRB vs. my WRC "cuff" is going to accomplish is giving you an aneurysm.

Overthinking will screw you up just as thouroughly and as quickly as not.

Score more than they do. Not hard (in theory)

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I think an interesting exercise for those who say to simply 'start the highest scoring player' would be to post your roster in this thread and note which players are going to score the most points --- then we can grade you on monday.

And yet the entire basis for employing a risk-hedging strategy like that proposed in the OP involves accurately projecting not only what your own players will score, but also what your opponent's players will score. That's why it's a completely useless train of thought on Sunday morning. You start who you think will be the highest scoring player. Some people always start their studs. Others swap players in and out based on matchups. And others apparently take into consideration their opponent's players when making their own lineup decisions. That's fine, but let's not pretend it has any real rational basis or provides any kind of strategic advantage over any other lineup-setting strategy.

For those wondering if anyone has ever "crunched the numbers" what exactly are you looking to see? Whether or not there is a correlation between a QB's fantasy points and his WR's fantasy points? I've never done any analysis on it, but I guarantee you'd find a pretty strong correlation. But it doesn't provide any insight into whether you should start the WR that plays with your opponent's QB (unless, as discussed earlier, you're making this decision going into the Sunday/Monday night games and they're the only players left to play).

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I think an interesting exercise for those who say to simply 'start the highest scoring player' would be to post your roster in this thread and note which players are going to score the most points --- then we can grade you on monday.

And yet the entire basis for employing a risk-hedging strategy like that proposed in the OP involves accurately projecting not only what your own players will score, but also what your opponent's players will score.

incorrect.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I think an interesting exercise for those who say to simply 'start the highest scoring player' would be to post your roster in this thread and note which players are going to score the most points --- then we can grade you on monday.

And yet the entire basis for employing a risk-hedging strategy like that proposed in the OP involves accurately projecting not only what your own players will score, but also what your opponent's players will score.

incorrect.