Benching Players To Win (1 Viewer)

[wlwiles]

I did this in my semi-final matchup last year. In this league any missed kick (FG or PAT) counts as -3. I know, I know, stupid rule.... I had a 0.8 pt lead going into MNF, my opponent was done and all I had left was a kicker. I benched him and secured the win, advanced to the finals, then got blown out to finish 2nd. Could have gotten stat corrected, but I didn't want to have a long miss or two haunt me either.

If the league has a hard and fast rule that says you must fill out a full active legit starting lineup, then you gotta take your chances and start them. But in a league of friends/acquaintances/whatever, once it's playoff time, you do what you gotta do to win.

 

[ghostguy123]

Simple rule, players can't score a negative amount. Solved

 

[Gally]

Simple rule, players can't score a negative amount. Solved

That doesn't solve the problem. It actually benefits the guy that was thinking about benching a player and possibly losing on a stat correction. Now he gets the best of both worlds and gets to play a guy with no risk while also increasing his chances of avoiding a loss due to a stat correction.

 

[ghostguy123]

Simple rule, players can't score a negative amount. Solved

That doesn't solve the problem. It actually benefits the guy that was thinking about benching a player and possibly losing on a stat correction. Now he gets the best of both worlds and gets to play a guy with no risk while also increasing his chances of avoiding a loss due to a stat correction.

Everyone plays by the same rules.

 

[Gally]

Everyone plays by the same rules.

I don't think I said that they wouldn't be playing by the same rules. If there is no rule to playing without a player how are people playing by different rules?

 

[ghostguy123]

Everyone plays by the same rules.

I don't think I said that they wouldn't be playing by the same rules. If there is no rule to playing without a player how are people playing by different rules?

You said it benefits the guy.
If everyone plays by the same rules, there's no advantage.
I'm not talking about changing the rules during week 17.

 

[Hankmoody]

If I'm worried about a 1-catch and fumble costing me the game I'm certainly not starting some random scrub I have never heard of before. If the league requires a starter (and no league should allow intentional partial lineups) then I'm starting my best player available. I am in a .75 PPR league that awards -4 per fumble so we've seen position players with negatives before.

 

[spurs44]

I love this strategy, but my league would never let it happen. Any kind of outside-the-box strategy is perceived as "somebody trying to pull one over on us" and "violating the integrity of this league that has always been based on honesty".

They sound fun. Maybe fie iny leaguend a different league in the future IMO

Same in my league. We've been in existence for close to 30 years. That BS wouldn't fly.

Why is it BS?

I agree, why is it BS?

Your not turning in your best lineup on purpose. Same as tanking.

Same????
Tanking is losing on purpose
This is WINNING on purpose.
Same??? Lol

I respect your opinion but I think it sets a bad precedence.

 

[ghostguy123]

I love this strategy, but my league would never let it happen. Any kind of outside-the-box strategy is perceived as "somebody trying to pull one over on us" and "violating the integrity of this league that has always been based on honesty".

They sound fun. Maybe fie iny leaguend a different league in the future IMO

Same in my league. We've been in existence for close to 30 years. That BS wouldn't fly.

Why is it BS?

I agree, why is it BS?

Your not turning in your best lineup on purpose. Same as tanking.

Same????
Tanking is losing on purpose
This is WINNING on purpose.
Same??? Lol

I respect your opinion but I think it sets a bad precedence.

Do explain.
I don't agree at all

 

[Mister CIA]

What are the odds that Higgins puts up a negative score vs a scrub who could get thrust into action due to an injury? Is there a stat nerd in the house who can query for all the negative performances over the past several years for the usual flex‐eligible positions (rb/wr/te) from a typical ppr scoring setup?

I have no issues with an owner benching Higgins if it's meant to secure a playoff win, but I'm starting Higgins percent of the time because I think he is a more sure thing.

...but what if we were discussing Antonio Brown instead of Higgins, and what if he intentionally ran the wrong way and scored 6 for the opposing team? How would that be scored in your fantasy league?

 

[spurs44]

I love this strategy, but my league would never let it happen. Any kind of outside-the-box strategy is perceived as "somebody trying to pull one over on us" and "violating the integrity of this league that has always been based on honesty".

They sound fun. Maybe fie iny leaguend a different league in the future IMO

Same in my league. We've been in existence for close to 30 years. That BS wouldn't fly.

Why is it BS?

I agree, why is it BS?

Your not turning in your best lineup on purpose. Same as tanking.

Same????
Tanking is losing on purpose
This is WINNING on purpose.
Same??? Lol

I respect your opinion but I think it sets a bad precedence.

Do explain.
I don't agree at all

I think it encourages tanking.

 

[spurs44]

I love this strategy, but my league would never let it happen. Any kind of outside-the-box strategy is perceived as "somebody trying to pull one over on us" and "violating the integrity of this league that has always been based on honesty".

They sound fun. Maybe fie iny leaguend a different league in the future IMO

Same in my league. We've been in existence for close to 30 years. That BS wouldn't fly.

Why is it BS?

I agree, why is it BS?

Because they didn’t think ahead enough to write a proper rulebook, so rather than face their own embarrassment head on they just get mad instead.

No, that's not it at all. Nobody's embarrassed. We play with our best players. It's that simple.

 

[spurs44]

Hypothetical Championship scenario.
Your PPR league has negative 1 point for fumbles and interceptions.
You are up by 2 points going into tonight.
Your opponent's players have all played.
You have Tee Higgins.
You can bench him for a scrub that won't play.
What do you do?

No.offense but it seems like a bush league move me. Kind of where we are at in our today's world.

I don't understand this viewpoint at all. Bush league? Seems like normal, responsible managing and simply trying to win a game within the rules. I see it as no different than: intentional walks, kneeling at the end of a football game, a soccer team playing keep away to milk the clock or "parking the bus," hitting iron off the tee in golf or laying up to avoid a hazard on the 72nd when you have a two-shot lead, etc.

We play our best players.

 

[spurs44]

I love this strategy, but my league would never let it happen. Any kind of outside-the-box strategy is perceived as "somebody trying to pull one over on us" and "violating the integrity of this league that has always been based on honesty".

They sound fun. Maybe fie iny leaguend a different league in the future IMO

Same in my league. We've been in existence for close to 30 years. That BS wouldn't fly.

Why is it BS?

I agree, why is it BS?

Your not turning in your best lineup on purpose. Same as tanking.

With all due respect, turning in a lineup that guarantees you a legitimate victory and minimizes any chance of losing that victory is your best lineup. Tanking means you're trying to lose. It's the exact opposite of tanking.
Trying to win vs trying to lose.

I love this strategy, but my league would never let it happen. Any kind of outside-the-box strategy is perceived as "somebody trying to pull one over on us" and "violating the integrity of this league that has always been based on honesty".

They sound fun. Maybe fie iny leaguend a different league in the future IMO

Same in my league. We've been in existence for close to 30 years. That BS wouldn't fly.

Why is it BS?

I agree, why is it BS?

Your not turning in your best lineup on purpose. Same as tanking.

With all due respect, turning in a lineup that guarantees you a legitimate victory and minimizes any chance of losing that victory is your best lineup. Tanking means you're trying to lose. It's the exact opposite of tanking.
Trying to win vs trying to lose.

Not all leagues are the same. We play our best available player. I apologize for my initial response. It works for us.

 

[spurs44]

It's not unethical to bench Higgins. But it is unsporting. In a low-stakes or for-fun league you should play him, because it's more fun to play him than to sit him.

That was my point way upthread. I don't think it's unethical per se, but honestly a bit unsportsmanlike if you're talking about a low-stakes/fun league. Big money, I can see the allure of ensuring the win.

While this is clearly on a much smaller scale, consider Ted Williams. Heading into the last day of the 1941 season, Williams had a batting average of .3995. While he could have sat out and his average would have been rounded up to .400 anyway, he wanted to make sure that it was an honorable .400 and decided to play in the doubleheader that final day. Of course, being Ted Williams he went 6 for 8 and ended the season at .406, but that's beside the point. Be like Ted.

This encapsulates my feelings as well. Very well said. Thank you.

 

[ghostguy123]

I love this strategy, but my league would never let it happen. Any kind of outside-the-box strategy is perceived as "somebody trying to pull one over on us" and "violating the integrity of this league that has always been based on honesty".

They sound fun. Maybe fie iny leaguend a different league in the future IMO

Same in my league. We've been in existence for close to 30 years. That BS wouldn't fly.

Why is it BS?

I agree, why is it BS?

Your not turning in your best lineup on purpose. Same as tanking.

Same????
Tanking is losing on purpose
This is WINNING on purpose.
Same??? Lol

I respect your opinion but I think it sets a bad precedence.

Do explain.
I don't agree at all

I think it encourages tanking.

So not tanking encourages tanking?? No lol

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

...but what if we were discussing Antonio Brown instead of Higgins, and what if he intentionally ran the wrong way and scored 6 for the opposing team? How would that be scored in your fantasy league?

Well, for one thing, I'm pretty sure that would only count as two points for the opposing team ...

 

[Gally]

We play our best players

"Best" can have different definitions. Best could be playing a lesser guy because he blocks your opponents upside. This could be playing a lesser QB because your opponent has a WR on his team so you can minimize that guys damage.

"Best" can also be not playing a guy that risks negative points when your opponent has nobody left and you are already winning.

This is as far from tanking as you can possibly be.

 

[spurs44]

I love this strategy, but my league would never let it happen. Any kind of outside-the-box strategy is perceived as "somebody trying to pull one over on us" and "violating the integrity of this league that has always been based on honesty".

They sound fun. Maybe fie iny leaguend a different league in the future IMO

Same in my league. We've been in existence for close to 30 years. That BS wouldn't fly.

Why is it BS?

I agree, why is it BS?

Your not turning in your best lineup on purpose. Same as tanking.

Same????
Tanking is losing on purpose
This is WINNING on purpose.
Same??? Lol

I respect your opinion but I think it sets a bad precedence.

Do explain.
I don't agree at all

I think it encourages tanking.

So not tanking encourages tanking?? No lol

Well, I think I may have set a bad precedence by my initial response to the poll. I enjoy comming to this site. I don't like see the bickering though. I'm afraid I may have started something of that nature. I'll conclude by saying that if it works in your league, then great . I still stand by my opinion and it works in our league. Thanks for your input and taking time to respond.

 

[zamboni]

I love this strategy, but my league would never let it happen. Any kind of outside-the-box strategy is perceived as "somebody trying to pull one over on us" and "violating the integrity of this league that has always been based on honesty".

They sound fun. Maybe fie iny leaguend a different league in the future IMO

Same in my league. We've been in existence for close to 30 years. That BS wouldn't fly.

Why is it BS?

I agree, why is it BS?

Your not turning in your best lineup on purpose. Same as tanking.

Same????
Tanking is losing on purpose
This is WINNING on purpose.
Same??? Lol

I respect your opinion but I think it sets a bad precedence.

Do explain.
I don't agree at all

I think it encourages tanking.

So not tanking encourages tanking?? No lol

Well, I think I may have set a bad precedence by my initial response to the poll.

Your initial response about it not flying in your league is similar to mine. Starting say, Trenton Irwin, over Tee Higgins would be viewed as pretty wimpy in our league and scoffed at, no matter what the score is.

Stones would be thrown, first born would be in jeopardy, etc. I kid, but that's the way my league rolls. But I understand others/other leagues may feel differently, and that's perfectly understandable.

 

[Gally]

Your initial response about it not flying in your league is similar to mine. Starting say, Trenton Irwin, over Tee Higgins would be viewed as pretty wimpy in our league and scoffed at, no matter what the score is.

I am not really sure why this would even been in consideration based on the scenario posted in the OP. I can't see why you would sub in a lesser player that has more risk of fumbling on the few touches they get over the normal starter with a very high probably of not going negative.

Now if you were trying to lose for draft picks and playing Irwin over Higgins in a typical week then the ridicule and shaming would happen for sure.

 

[zamboni]

Your initial response about it not flying in your league is similar to mine. Starting say, Trenton Irwin, over Tee Higgins would be viewed as pretty wimpy in our league and scoffed at, no matter what the score is.

I am not really sure why this would even been in consideration based on the scenario posted in the OP. I can't see why you would sub in a lesser player that has more risk of fumbling on the few touches they get over the normal starter with a very high probably of not going negative.

Now if you were trying to lose for draft picks and playing Irwin over Higgins in a typical week then the ridicule and shaming would happen for sure.

Fair point - maybe Irwin wasn’t a good example. Swap him for a special teamer listed as a WR that never plays on offense.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

You can bench him for a scrub that won't play.

Would do this to ensure victory, assuming it doesn't violate any league rules. Play the player that guarantees the win. Not even sure how that's controversial.

 

[Statorama]

Hahhaa. I am in this exact situation but have Tyler Bass and scoring that is -1 per missed FG.

I am worried about a scoring change coming through later but there is a world with 3 missed kicks makes me lose.

Morally i have no issue with the benching but worry about the scoring change.

Well stated. In the given scenario I'd play Higgins, as there is always the likelihood of "banked" points being taken away due to a scoring change later in the week. That has a far greater potential than Higgins fumbling two reverses in a row and getting benched.

Like you, if having an 'inactive' player in my lineup guaranteed victory I'd lose no sleep winning that way.

 

[Statorama]

How could you live with yourself if you lost a championship game by not making a move you knew guaranteed you victory? I'd take a loss like that to my grave.

Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women