Benching K or DEF to Protect a Lead? (2 Viewers)

[TJ-Raider]

I am sure this has been discussed before, but I could not find a thread.

What is the general opinion of benching a Kicker or Defense (sisnce they have the potential to go negative in certain scoring rules) to protect a narrow lead going into Sunday/Monday Night.

There is no specific rule to make this an illegal roster, since we have allowed people to start players on bye to protect roster spots.

Just curious.

Is it a PUNK move, or is it, "My team is so good I don't even need all my players"?

 

[beaux]

In my league if you don't field a complete starting lineup, you get zero points for the week.

 

[SacramentoBob]

It has. Most real leagues require you to field a valid lineup.

 

[two_dollars]

Good smart move. Like kneeling to secure a win.

 

[solorca]

Three years ago, someone in my league was up by 3 points going into the semi-finals playoff game with only his defense left to play. He benched them to protect the lead in the event his defense scored negative points. Three days later, there was a stat correction that gave his opponent 3.1 points, and he was knocked out of the playoffs. The next week, his eliminated team broke the leagues all-time scoring record in the third place game.

After that game, no one in my league ever benched a defense.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I am sure this has been discussed before, but I could not find a thread.What is the general opinion of benching a Kicker or Defense (sisnce they have the potential to go negative in certain scoring rules) to protect a narrow lead going into Sunday/Monday Night.There is no specific rule to make this an illegal roster, since we have allowed people to start players on bye to protect roster spots.Just curious.Is it a PUNK move, or is it, "My team is so good I don't even need all my players"?

you'd have to have mental issues to have some kind of emotional reaction to doing that, but just bear in mind it might backfire on you if there are point corrections, or if you're in a total point tiebreaker for the playoffs later.

 

[netnalp]

Need league rules for this, because while my league's site requires a team to enter a full lineup, it doesn't prevent a team from having a defense on a bye in their starting lineup. I don't think it would come up though very that often, you'd have to have a defense that plays after all your opponent's players have completed their games.

 

[Dought Man]

Three years ago, someone in my league was up by 3 points going into the semi-finals playoff game with only his defense left to play. He benched them to protect the lead in the event his defense scored negative points. Three days later, there was a stat correction that gave his opponent 3.1 points, and he was knocked out of the playoffs. The next week, his eliminated team broke the leagues all-time scoring record in the third place game.After that game, no one in my league ever benched a defense.

"And THAT is why you always leave a note!"

 

[Deamon]

I am sure this has been discussed before, but I could not find a thread.What is the general opinion of benching a Kicker or Defense (sisnce they have the potential to go negative in certain scoring rules) to protect a narrow lead going into Sunday/Monday Night.There is no specific rule to make this an illegal roster, since we have allowed people to start players on bye to protect roster spots.Just curious.Is it a PUNK move, or is it, "My team is so good I don't even need all my players"?

I don't think its a punk move, nor is it 'my team is so good'. It's simply a smart move. Only way it can backfire is if you end up with a tie in the standings that uses total points as a tiebreaker, so be careful for that. But if that's not a huge concern then I'd do it.

 

[LittlePhatty]

There is no specific rule to make this an illegal roster....

It's either legal or illegal according to your league's rules - no opinions necessary.Since your league allows it, then it's OK to do it.The rules apply to every owner. Your opponent could do it too.

 

[Reepicheep]

Three years ago, someone in my league was up by 3 points going into the semi-finals playoff game with only his defense left to play. He benched them to protect the lead in the event his defense scored negative points. Three days later, there was a stat correction that gave his opponent 3.1 points, and he was knocked out of the playoffs. The next week, his eliminated team broke the leagues all-time scoring record in the third place game.After that game, no one in my league ever benched a defense.

If the score is close enough (within a few points) to consider this, it's also close enough that you could lose on a stat correction. You play your whole team reguardless of league rules.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Nope. I can guarantee the odds of a stat correction 3 pts. in favor of your opponent are FAR AND AWAY longer than your starting D scoring -3 pts.

There are many reasons you'd want to go ahead and start your D (i.e - maintaining frienships and a sense of "good will" if it's a local league, or that you have to in order to field a legal roster) but fearing a 3 pt. stat correction in your opponent's favor is not one of them.

 

[Reepicheep]

Nope. I can guarantee the odds of a stat correction 3 pts. in favor of your opponent are FAR AND AWAY longer than your starting D scoring -3 pts.

There are many reasons you'd want to go ahead and start your D (i.e - maintaining frienships and a sense of "good will" if it's a local league, or that you have to in order to field a legal roster) but fearing a 3 pt. stat correction in your opponent's favor is not one of them.

What are the odds specifically? Or should we just take your word for it?

 

[mquinnjr]

Three years ago, someone in my league was up by 3 points going into the semi-finals playoff game with only his defense left to play. He benched them to protect the lead in the event his defense scored negative points. Three days later, there was a stat correction that gave his opponent 3.1 points, and he was knocked out of the playoffs. The next week, his eliminated team broke the leagues all-time scoring record in the third place game.After that game, no one in my league ever benched a defense.

"And THAT is why you always leave a note!"

I'm contributing nothing to this thread but props to DM for the J. Walter Weatherman reference. Well played, sir. Miniseries coming to a Netflix or Roku near you before the movie release. /threadhijacking

 

[FantasyTrader]

Nope. I can guarantee the odds of a stat correction 3 pts. in favor of your opponent are FAR AND AWAY longer than your starting D scoring -3 pts.

There are many reasons you'd want to go ahead and start your D (i.e - maintaining frienships and a sense of "good will" if it's a local league, or that you have to in order to field a legal roster) but fearing a 3 pt. stat correction in your opponent's favor is not one of them.

What are the odds specifically? Or should we just take your word for it?

You should just take my word for it. Looking through the first 5 weeks of the season, there's been exactly ONE stat change accounting for greater than 3 pts (and I was surprised to see there was even one). Week 2, Hakeem Nicks 3 rec for 15 yds changed to 4 rec for 38 yds - and even that is only 3 pts IF you're in PPR. This is assuming a fairly standard 1pt. per sack, 1 pt per fumble, 1 pt. per 10 rush/rec, etc.In comparison, we've already had 11 instances of a defense scoring -3 or fewer fantasy points.

 

[Instinctive]

1. Forcing somebody to field all starters is stupid in these cases. A simple anti-tanking rule should be enough if you're playing with the right kind of people. Not only because this is actually a strategy to try and win, but also because I may not want to drop a bench full of start-able depth to pick up a backup D or K one week, perhaps I'd rather keep them and risk a loss because of the zero to better ensure my team's future is the best ti can be?

2. I have sat a RB before up by 3 with no obvious plays that could get adjusted just in case he fumbles and gets injured his first carry...

I think it's absolutely the right thing to do but you should look at the players on both teams to check for potential stat changes. Make sure a screen to a WR that gave him rushing yards isn't going to be changed to a catch and receiving yards if you're in PPR, for instance. Or that the QB who threw a play that was originally a "lateral pass" that goes for a TD isn't going to get a TD pass added to his stats and kill you.

 

[Short Corner]

We have a $25 fine for not fielding a complete team, $50 if it is done in the way you describe.

 

[Instinctive]

We have a $25 fine for not fielding a complete team, $50 if it is done in the way you describe.

Should I quote myself here?

1. Forcing somebody to field all starters is stupid in these cases. A simple anti-tanking rule should be enough if you're playing with the right kind of people.

Isn't the point to win? Shouldn't you be allowed to do what you can to win?

 

[shnikies]

It's all good until you lose the tie breaker to get into the playoffs by the 4 points you would have gotten from your defense. You should never bench your kicker. I don't know the odds of a kicker not ending up with at least 0 points but it's but it's got to be minuscule. In regards to defense, it really depends on your scoring and who your defense is playing. I usually lean toward playing my defense in the situation but if you're up by less than 2 I wouldn't blame you if you benched them.

 

[Instinctive]

It's all good until you lose the tie breaker to get into the playoffs by the 4 points you would have gotten from your defense. You should never bench your kicker. I don't know the odds of a kicker not ending up with at least 0 points but it's but it's got to be minuscule. In regards to defense, it really depends on your scoring and who your defense is playing. I usually lean toward playing my defense in the situation but if you're up by less than 2 I wouldn't blame you if you benched them.

Definitely a point to consider. You should have an idea of how your team is doing each week and if this will come into play.

 

[Short Corner]

We have a $25 fine for not fielding a complete team, $50 if it is done in the way you describe.

Should I quote myself here?

I don't see why other than hearing yourself talk (figuratively speaking.)

 

[Instinctive]

We have a $25 fine for not fielding a complete team, $50 if it is done in the way you describe.

Should I quote myself here?

I don't see why other than hearing yourself talk (figuratively speaking.)

Way to just address the sarcastic quip and not the legitimate question that followed...typical...

 

[Short Corner]

We have a $25 fine for not fielding a complete team, $50 if it is done in the way you describe.

Should I quote myself here?

I don't see why other than hearing yourself talk (figuratively speaking.)

Way to just address the sarcastic quip and not the legitimate question that followed...typical...

First, why should one team have an advantage just because their players play later?Second, how is our rule not allowing you to win?

 

[bonesman]

Nope. I can guarantee the odds of a stat correction 3 pts. in favor of your opponent are FAR AND AWAY longer than your starting D scoring -3 pts.

There are many reasons you'd want to go ahead and start your D (i.e - maintaining frienships and a sense of "good will" if it's a local league, or that you have to in order to field a legal roster) but fearing a 3 pt. stat correction in your opponent's favor is not one of them.

What are the odds specifically? Or should we just take your word for it?

Really?... it's nice to quantify things but that statement should be pretty obvious.

 

[Instinctive]

We have a $25 fine for not fielding a complete team, $50 if it is done in the way you describe.

Should I quote myself here?

I don't see why other than hearing yourself talk (figuratively speaking.)

Way to just address the sarcastic quip and not the legitimate question that followed...typical...

First, why should one team have an advantage just because their players play later?Second, how is our rule not allowing you to win?

Because forcing me to start another player could cause me to lose - it is not in the best interest of my team to do so.Why shouldn't a team have that advantage? We have one guy in our league who always takes kickers who play Sun/Mon night for one reason or another.What if my K is on bye and I want to keep him for the future, rather than drop him or another player in order to field a full lineup? I get fined $25? Do all players lock at once, or do they lock at separate times? Because maybe having two RB2 choices playing Sunday night while my opponent's team is done is the same advantage, no? I get to decide if I should play the upside guy or the safe one based on the score at that point. If that's your argument, shouldn't all players be locked into lineup slots at the very first kickoff?

 

[Short Corner]

We have a $25 fine for not fielding a complete team, $50 if it is done in the way you describe.

Should I quote myself here?

I don't see why other than hearing yourself talk (figuratively speaking.)

Way to just address the sarcastic quip and not the legitimate question that followed...typical...

First, why should one team have an advantage just because their players play later?Second, how is our rule not allowing you to win?

Because forcing me to start another player could cause me to lose - it is not in the best interest of my team to do so.

And?

Why shouldn't a team have that advantage? We have one guy in our league who always takes kickers who play Sun/Mon night for one reason or another.

Because they are skirting the line up requirements.

What if my K is on bye and I want to keep him for the future, rather than drop him or another player in order to field a full lineup? I get fined $25?

Yep

Do all players lock at once, or do they lock at separate times? Because maybe having two RB2 choices playing Sunday night while my opponent's team is done is the same advantage, no? I get to decide if I should play the upside guy or the safe one based on the score at that point. If that's your argument, shouldn't all players be locked into lineup slots at the very first kickoff?

It's not the same advantage. You are still submitting a legal line up.

 

[Instinctive]

First, why should one team have an advantage just because their players play later?Second, how is our rule not allowing you to win?

Because forcing me to start another player could cause me to lose - it is not in the best interest of my team to do so.

And?

Is the point of the game not to win it? I think you should actually penalize me for STARTING a defense that has potential for negative points...it's basically trying to lose. That rule could cause me to lose when I should win. Can I just pay the fine and accept the win? Does the league winner get the fines? If It's title game then it's ok because the fine money goes to the champ anyway?

Why shouldn't a team have that advantage? We have one guy in our league who always takes kickers who play Sun/Mon night for one reason or another.

Because they are skirting the line up requirements.

And? Why are those the requirements? Why are you forced to field a full lineup? If the intent is to prevent tanking, why not just say, "no tanking," and enforce it on a case-by-case basis? And what could the other intent of that rule possibly be? Enforce league parity by causing better teams to drop good players in order to field a full lineup?

What if my K is on bye and I want to keep him for the future, rather than drop him or another player in order to field a full lineup? I get fined $25?

Yep

That's ####ed up. You're literally screwing guys because their teams are too good? Who came up with that idea?

Do all players lock at once, or do they lock at separate times? Because maybe having two RB2 choices playing Sunday night while my opponent's team is done is the same advantage, no? I get to decide if I should play the upside guy or the safe one based on the score at that point. If that's your argument, shouldn't all players be locked into lineup slots at the very first kickoff?

It's not the same advantage. You are still submitting a legal line up.

Before I address that, let's see what you actually said earlier, but left off this post:

why should one team have an advantage just because their players play later?

To me, it seems like you are now contradicting that point. You just said the reason for your rule is to prevent me from having an advantage because my guys play later. And then you said that it is acceptable for me to have an advantage because my guys play later, did you not?Besides:It is the same advantage, isn't it? You're saying that if I have on my roster last week Michael Turner and Antone Smith, and I decide to start Smith (a gameday, healthy inactive at RB) when I see that I'm winning just to make sure that Turner doesn't get injured on a 5 yard loss and fumble and give me -2.5 points...then it's ok? But sitting Matt Bryant isn't?So it's ok for me to sit John Kasay if I put in Garret Hartley, but I can't simply sit Kasay? I can sit Dan Bailey for David Buehler, but I can't just sit Dan Bailey? Sit BJGE for Vereen?That's asinine.It's exactly the same advantage in every case. I am taking a zero at a spot with a nobody player in order to secure a win. I can only do so because my player is in primetime and my opponent is done already. It is not different from simply not playing somebody at that position.How can you defend that rule? Nothing good comes from it. You're penalizing a team for 1) being shrewd and sitting a player or 2) having too strong a lineup to drop a guy for a K

 

[Instinctive]

Oh. I get it now. Well done. I can admit when I've been successfully trolled. Well done.

 

[Short Corner]

The rule helps prevent teams from falling asleep when they are out of it and not updating their line up. We don't want teams getting cheap wins that can effect playoff spots. The rule has evolved to what it is now when someone pulled these same shenanigans years ago. If your kicker is THAT good that you can't drop him on his bye week, then feel free to eat the fine. If you do this in the playoffs you forfeit. Fines go into a kitty that pays for LM fees and pays out bonuses for top score of the year, etc. You obviously don't like the way we handle it, our league is probably not for you, however we feel it is unfair for team to win by intentionally not fielding a complete team.

 

[Short Corner]

Oh. I get it now. Well done. I can admit when I've been successfully trolled. Well done.

 

[dwarfboy]

I've done it and it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. We do include total points scored as a tiebreaker, so you may be giving up a few points if it comes to a tiebreaker, but winning a game is clearly the most important thing.

 

[Deamon]

The rule helps prevent teams from falling asleep when they are out of it and not updating their line up. We don't want teams getting cheap wins that can effect playoff spots. The rule has evolved to what it is now when someone pulled these same shenanigans years ago. If your kicker is THAT good that you can't drop him on his bye week, then feel free to eat the fine. If you do this in the playoffs you forfeit. Fines go into a kitty that pays for LM fees and pays out bonuses for top score of the year, etc. You obviously don't like the way we handle it, our league is probably not for you, however we feel it is unfair for team to win by intentionally not fielding a complete team.

I think Instinctive pretty much made better points on all of your reasoning and you failed to reply to some of his points. I don't see why its not a perfectly good strategy to use. Your fine is used so people do not lose on purpose but preventing him from benching his defense is losing on purpose. Our defenses and kickers can't go negative in points so its not an issue in my league, but I've done it once for a rb where I was up 1 point going into monday night so benched my rb. Only thing you gotta watch is points for tie breakers.

 

[saintsfan1977]

Why even draft a DEF if all you get is 3 points or a possible negative? In my league a DEF/ST on average every week scores about 25-30 points per game. Unless you know a DEF will shut another team out, any DEF will get you positive points. If I had to worry about a DEF giving me negative points, I would never pick one up. Just like having decimal points in the final score I think its ######ed. I have been playing for about 8 years and only saw maybe 1 or 2 ties.Ties go to the bench. When a team wins its usually by 5+ points 95% of the time.

 

[Short Corner]

The rule helps prevent teams from falling asleep when they are out of it and not updating their line up. We don't want teams getting cheap wins that can effect playoff spots. The rule has evolved to what it is now when someone pulled these same shenanigans years ago. If your kicker is THAT good that you can't drop him on his bye week, then feel free to eat the fine. If you do this in the playoffs you forfeit. Fines go into a kitty that pays for LM fees and pays out bonuses for top score of the year, etc. You obviously don't like the way we handle it, our league is probably not for you, however we feel it is unfair for team to win by intentionally not fielding a complete team.

I think Instinctive pretty much made better points on all of your reasoning and you failed to reply to some of his points. I don't see why its not a perfectly good strategy to use. Your fine is used so people do not lose on purpose but preventing him from benching his defense is losing on purpose. Our defenses and kickers can't go negative in points so its not an issue in my league, but I've done it once for a rb where I was up 1 point going into monday night so benched my rb. Only thing you gotta watch is points for tie breakers.

A better case for what? I am not making a case for one over the other. All I did was tell you how my main money league handles it. We feel that altering your line up in such a way to avoid negative points isn't fair. I play in other leagues where it is allowed. There are arguments for both, but to say one is correct and the other is not is like arguing that rewarding PPR is incorrect and standard scoring is the only way to go.

 

[shnikies]

The rule helps prevent teams from falling asleep when they are out of it and not updating their line up. We don't want teams getting cheap wins that can effect playoff spots. The rule has evolved to what it is now when someone pulled these same shenanigans years ago. If your kicker is THAT good that you can't drop him on his bye week, then feel free to eat the fine. If you do this in the playoffs you forfeit. Fines go into a kitty that pays for LM fees and pays out bonuses for top score of the year, etc. You obviously don't like the way we handle it, our league is probably not for you, however we feel it is unfair for team to win by intentionally not fielding a complete team.

I think Instinctive pretty much made better points on all of your reasoning and you failed to reply to some of his points. I don't see why its not a perfectly good strategy to use. Your fine is used so people do not lose on purpose but preventing him from benching his defense is losing on purpose. Our defenses and kickers can't go negative in points so its not an issue in my league, but I've done it once for a rb where I was up 1 point going into monday night so benched my rb. Only thing you gotta watch is points for tie breakers.

A better case for what? I am not making a case for one over the other. All I did was tell you how my main money league handles it. We feel that altering your line up in such a way to avoid negative points isn't fair. I play in other leagues where it is allowed. There are arguments for both, but to say one is correct and the other is not is like arguing that rewarding PPR is incorrect and standard scoring is the only way to go.

No! You are either right or wrong! There is no gray area. Not worth your time, just ignore him.

 

[Deamon]

The rule helps prevent teams from falling asleep when they are out of it and not updating their line up. We don't want teams getting cheap wins that can effect playoff spots. The rule has evolved to what it is now when someone pulled these same shenanigans years ago. If your kicker is THAT good that you can't drop him on his bye week, then feel free to eat the fine. If you do this in the playoffs you forfeit. Fines go into a kitty that pays for LM fees and pays out bonuses for top score of the year, etc. You obviously don't like the way we handle it, our league is probably not for you, however we feel it is unfair for team to win by intentionally not fielding a complete team.

I think Instinctive pretty much made better points on all of your reasoning and you failed to reply to some of his points. I don't see why its not a perfectly good strategy to use. Your fine is used so people do not lose on purpose but preventing him from benching his defense is losing on purpose. Our defenses and kickers can't go negative in points so its not an issue in my league, but I've done it once for a rb where I was up 1 point going into monday night so benched my rb. Only thing you gotta watch is points for tie breakers.

A better case for what? I am not making a case for one over the other. All I did was tell you how my main money league handles it. We feel that altering your line up in such a way to avoid negative points isn't fair. I play in other leagues where it is allowed. There are arguments for both, but to say one is correct and the other is not is like arguing that rewarding PPR is incorrect and standard scoring is the only way to go.

Fair enough. It just seemed like the topic was steering off of 'our method of doing it' and onto 'whats the reasoning and best way to handle that situation"

 

[Instinctive]

Why even draft a DEF if all you get is 3 points or a possible negative? In my league a DEF/ST on average every week scores about 25-30 points per game. Unless you know a DEF will shut another team out, any DEF will get you positive points. If I had to worry about a DEF giving me negative points, I would never pick one up. Just like having decimal points in the final score I think its ######ed. I have been playing for about 8 years and only saw maybe 1 or 2 ties.Ties go to the bench. When a team wins its usually by 5+ points 95% of the time.

You don't have decimal points in the final score? (EDIT: Or you think not having decimal is stupid? I think that's poorly worded. I think not having decimals is stupid with the computing capability our world has. I think you fall the same way based on the comment about ties, but you may want to try better wording next time.)EDIT2: Wait - you do think having decimal scoring is dumb. Why would you think that? Just resistance to change? A RB with 14 yards didn't do more than one who got 10?Can a K get you negative?Can a RB get you negative?Can a QB get you negative? Sanchez was -5.15 iirc in my league on his awful week.Do you just not penalize for lost fumbles, ints, missed XPs or close FGs (we don't penalize for longer ones), negative yardage, giving up a ton of points...???

 

[Joe Summer]

Three years ago, someone in my league was up by 3 points going into the semi-finals playoff game with only his defense left to play. He benched them to protect the lead in the event his defense scored negative points. Three days later, there was a stat correction that gave his opponent 3.1 points, and he was knocked out of the playoffs. The next week, his eliminated team broke the leagues all-time scoring record in the third place game.After that game, no one in my league ever benched a defense.

"And THAT is why you always leave a note!"

 

[Joe Summer]

Can a K get you negative?

Matt Stover with a -2 in 1992: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199209270cle.htm

 

[Keith R]

Might be a jerk move, but if the rules allow for it, it's legal.