Benching Players To Win (2 Viewers)

[Joe Bryant]

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?

 

[GroveDiesel]

Seems like a bad theoretical because in a PPR, even a catch for 0 yards evens out if it’s -1 for a fumble. So unless the Bengals would suddenly decide to run multiple end arounds with Higgins and he’s fumbling every time, there really is zero risk in this situation.

IMO, the issue can be completely avoided if league rules simply require a full lineup or it’s a forfeit.

 

[Gally]

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.

 

[Sarlakticacid]

To the bench unless you are shooting for a milestone score. Lead changed in our championship game 3 times on Kirk Cousins turnovers alone

Scrubs away!!

 

[zamboni]

Personally, I wouldn’t want to win that way. I’d rather put my best players in and whatever happens was meant to be.

 

[-OZ-]

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.

I’ve considered benching bass tonight. But will take the chance. It’s not a “moral” issue here, any more than having your QB take a knee with a minute left.

 

[Joe Bryant]

To the bench unless you are shooting for a milestone score. Lead changed in our championship game 3 times on Kirk Cousins turnovers alone

Scrubs away!!

Thanks. Can you vote in the poll?

 

[Gally]

Since it is PPR I voted to play him because he gets a pt every catch to balance the potential lost point for a fumble. The risk of losing two fumbles without a reception is so low its less than a scoring change to lose situation.

 

[Stat Correction]

In this hypothetical, the odds of Higgins losing you 2 or more points is so remote and astronomically small, that I wouldn't even contemplate a move. Enjoy the game while further burying your opponent.

(side note: I am 16.6 points down and still have Burrow and Bass. He has Higgins. Standard scoring, Non-ppr, and 4-point QB TD passes. Could be tight.)

 

[Marauder]

In all my years of playing FF, I don't think I've ever seen a WR end up with negative points in this scoring system. Probably a higher chance of you losing 2 points with a Thursday scoring change (although the chances of that are low too) so in this case I would play him. If it was a QB or a kicker (if you lose points for missed field goals) I would have no problem benching him though.

 

[menobrown]

Why risk it? Especially a player who has left I think 3 games early this year due to injuries.

 

[Fruitbat]

This is precisely why we have a floor of zero for a player's weekly score, even though we penalize for INTs and fumbles. Prevents the owner of MNF players from having an ever-so-slight-and-rare advantage.

 

[scottybo]

In all my years of playing FF, I don't think I've ever seen a WR end up with negative points in this scoring system. Probably a higher chance of you losing 2 points with a Thursday scoring change (although the chances of that are low too) so in this case I would play him. If it was a QB or a kicker (if you lose points for missed field goals) I would have no problem benching him though.

Rondale Moore in Week 11 ran for -6 yards and then left with an injury.

While it's improbable Higgins would be the one to do an end around or rush over Chase, a rush for negative yardage that results in a fumble and injury is completely possible.

 

[scottybo]

This is precisely why we have a floor of zero for a player's weekly score, even though we penalize for INTs and fumbles. Prevents the owner of MNF players from having an ever-so-slight-and-rare advantage.

Good rule. I like it.

 

[Gally]

This is precisely why we have a floor of zero for a player's weekly score, even though we penalize for INTs and fumbles. Prevents the owner of MNF players from having an ever-so-slight-and-rare advantage.

What advantage is solved by having a floor of 0? If a player cannot go negative then there is no reason to bench a guy so the "advantage" of benching the guy to avoid a negative is actually enhanced because you can't lose no matter what.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

This is precisely why we have a floor of zero for a player's weekly score, even though we penalize for INTs and fumbles. Prevents the owner of MNF players from having an ever-so-slight-and-rare advantage.

Or just not penalize at all. My league has no negative points, which makes the whole ethical question moot. I can hear the objections already but the best way to solve these questions is not to have questions in the first place

 

[Marauder]

In all my years of playing FF, I don't think I've ever seen a WR end up with negative points in this scoring system. Probably a higher chance of you losing 2 points with a Thursday scoring change (although the chances of that are low too) so in this case I would play him. If it was a QB or a kicker (if you lose points for missed field goals) I would have no problem benching him though.

Rondale Moore in Week 11 ran for -6 yards and then left with an injury.

While it's improbable Higgins would be the one to do an end around or rush over Chase, a rush for negative yardage that results in a fumble and injury is completely possible.

I was just going to come back and post that the only way I could think of him getting -2 points would be if he gets the ball on an end around, loses more than 10 yards and fumbles and never touches the ball again. More than improbable. I still say a late scoring change is more likely. Of course if you scores are final after the Monday night game I can see benching him since there is zero downside in that case;.

 

[Gally]

Or just not penalize at all. My league has no negative points, which makes the whole ethical question moot. I can hear the objections already but the best way to solve these questions is not to have questions in the first place

I am not sure what the ethical question is. As an owner you are trying to put the lineup in that gives you the best chance to win. It is not necessarily to put in the players that score the most. For example, you may play a WR on a team of your opponents QB to block points even though you think a different WR may score more. Benching a player to avoid negative points to give you a better chance to win doesn't break any morality issues unless there is a specific rule against it.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Or just not penalize at all. My league has no negative points, which makes the whole ethical question moot. I can hear the objections already but the best way to solve these questions is not to have questions in the first place

I am not sure what the ethical question is. As an owner you are trying to put the lineup in that gives you the best chance to win. It is not necessarily to put in the players that score the most. For example, you may play a WR on a team of your opponents QB to block points even though you think a different WR may score more. Benching a player to avoid negative points to give you a better chance to win doesn't break any morality issues unless there is a specific rule against it.

I have no problem going with the pre stated rules. It sounds like the OP might though, thus this thread.

 

[Dacomish]

In all my years of playing FF, I don't think I've ever seen a WR end up with negative points in this scoring system. Probably a higher chance of you losing 2 points with a Thursday scoring change (although the chances of that are low too) so in this case I would play him. If it was a QB or a kicker (if you lose points for missed field goals) I would have no problem benching him though.

Although incredibly rare, those unicorns do occasionally exist, case in point:

Greg Olsen had -2 in a game

14 Sept 2008 - 2 catches, 7 yards, 2 lost fumbles.

Greg Olsen 2008 Game Log | StatMuse

Greg Olsen's game log for the 2008 NFL regular season and playoffs

www.statmuse.com

I lost by 1 point.....and even with that long memory of heartache, I still say you play your studs and best players regardless in the OP scenario.

 

[joey]

all of my leagues require a valid lineup otherwise there’s a small fee. That said, I might eat that fee to guarantee winning the big money.

 

[TheWinz]

Let me totally overexaggerate to make my point. Let's say you are ahead and the scores have been verified and 100% will not change. Now your family has been kidnapped and will all be killed if you lose. Do you start Higgins or bench him?

 

[eighsse2]

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".

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Need 25 from Tee Higgins tonight so I doubt I am the one to weigh in on whatever the situation

PPR/100+-3 pts
100/2TDs
13+12=25
Whatever the number of catches, we good

PPR/100+ 3
100+/No TDs
12/150 gets it done w/o TDs
Much easier to connect when the TDs are poured in...1-2-3 whatever

 

[rockaction]

Wow. This got intense in a hurry. There's now kidnapping involved? What happened to my game of skill? (Report to the authorities notwithstanding.)

 

[(HULK)]

No problem at all with it, but it's on you if there is a stat correction later in the week and you lose

I'm up 7.5 right now in my championship, he has no players left and I have Allen, Higgins, and Knox. If I thought I was in real danger of negatives shifting the score so much I could lose, I'd bench them. As it stands, I'm playing them, but I see no ethical dilemma here, this is akin to taking a knee to wind down the clock IMO.

 

[houston]

What’s with all the ethics hypotheticals lately?

 

[(HULK)]

In my league, a defense can put up -4 (and Denver did that to me last week, almost costing me).

If I was up 3 heading into tonight with only a defense left, I'd 100% bench them. Unless you have a rule specifically pertaining to this sort of thing, there is nothing wrong with playing to win IMO. This is why the league has clock stoppage\run off rules for penalties under 2 minutes, and mandatory timeouts for injuries but doesn't have a rule against taking a knee.

 

[Zow]

No problem at all with it, but it's on you if there is a stat correction later in the week and you lose

I'm up 7.5 right now in my championship, he has no players left and I have Allen, Higgins, and Knox. If I thought I was in real danger of negatives shifting the score so much I could lose, I'd bench them. As it stands, I'm playing them, but I see no ethical dilemma here, this is akin to taking a knee to wind down the clock IMO.

Exactly - perfect analogy to this situation where I also see no moral dilemma or wrongdoing as, to me at least, it's the obvious safe choice to ensure the win.

I learned my lesson on this issue back in 2001 (or maybe 2022?) when I actually won a game that got me into the playoffs because I was down one going into MNF and my opponent started an otherwise good player - Stephen Davis maybe? - and that player fumbled twice and wound up with negative points so I won. I recall already thinking this strategy through (as I wondered whether my opponent would have employed it) so it wasn't some revelation, but it eliminated any doubt I may have had about whether to employ it or be annoyed if employed by my opponent.

 

[Zow]

What’s with all the ethics hypotheticals lately?

I thought the same thing. It's almost as if our fearless leader misses threads, perhaps previously contained in a sub forum, whereby philosophical, moral, and "other" debates were prominent.

 

[TheWinz]

Wow. This got intense in a hurry. There's now kidnapping involved? What happened to my game of skill? (Report to the authorities notwithstanding.)

Not just kidnapping... murder!

 

[(HULK)]

No problem at all with it, but it's on you if there is a stat correction later in the week and you lose

I'm up 7.5 right now in my championship, he has no players left and I have Allen, Higgins, and Knox. If I thought I was in real danger of negatives shifting the score so much I could lose, I'd bench them. As it stands, I'm playing them, but I see no ethical dilemma here, this is akin to taking a knee to wind down the clock IMO.

Exactly - perfect analogy to this situation where I also see no moral dilemma or wrongdoing as, to me at least, it's the obvious safe choice to ensure the win.

I learned my lesson on this issue back in 2001 (or maybe 2022?) when I actually won a game that got me into the playoffs because I was down one going into MNF and my opponent started an otherwise good player - Stephen Davis maybe? - and that player fumbled twice and wound up with negative points so I won. I recall already thinking this strategy through (as I wondered whether my opponent would have employed it) so it wasn't some revelation, but it eliminated any doubt I may have had about whether to employ it or be annoyed if employed by my opponent.

I look at it this way, just like the team that takes a knee 3 times to end the game, you got yourself into the position where you can do that to ensure victory. Nothing wrong with it at all.

 

[Fruitbat]

This is precisely why we have a floor of zero for a player's weekly score, even though we penalize for INTs and fumbles. Prevents the owner of MNF players from having an ever-so-slight-and-rare advantage.

What advantage is solved by having a floor of 0? If a player cannot go negative then there is no reason to bench a guy so the "advantage" of benching the guy to avoid a negative is actually enhanced because you can't lose no matter what.

Sorry I am not following. We don't want situations where it is "better" for team to bench a player vs keeping them in their lineup. So we floor each player at zero. If we did not, teams with players on monday night would potentially have a situation where they could bench their players to protect a small lead. Just like in the OP.

It's probably less about the team having an advantage, and more about just eliminating the option from even coming up.

Requiring full lineups would also kind of accomplish this...but we did not opt for that. First of all, you can end up with a situation like in the OP where a team just starts some 6th string player instead. Additionally, there have been plenty of times in our league history (dynasty) that a team legitimately did not want to go with a full lineup (willing to take a zero to not cut a player).

As for the original posting...go ahead and bench Tee if its legal in your league. I'd have no problem with it as an owner.

 

[Gally]

Sorry I am not following. We don't want situations where it is "better" for team to bench a player vs keeping them in their lineup. So we floor each player at zero. If we did not, teams with players on monday night would potentially have a situation where they could bench their players to protect a small lead. Just like in the OP.

My point was that there is no need to bench a player if they cannot go negative so you have already conceded that the guy winning by two has already won. The player on MNF is completely irrelevant. So in essence you just gave the guy ahead by two an even bigger advantage because he has no decision to make.

 

[Gally]

The only reason to force a full lineup is in a dynasty type situation where losing is an advantage so playing an incomplete lineup gains you an advantage. In that case it is morally wri g to sit a guy because you are affecting other players by throwing games.

In the OP, having an incomplete lineup is a way to win the game which is the entire point of playing. No moral issue with that.

 

[Marauder]

In all my years of playing FF, I don't think I've ever seen a WR end up with negative points in this scoring system. Probably a higher chance of you losing 2 points with a Thursday scoring change (although the chances of that are low too) so in this case I would play him. If it was a QB or a kicker (if you lose points for missed field goals) I would have no problem benching him though.

Although incredibly rare, those unicorns do occasionally exist, case in point:

Greg Olsen had -2 in a game

14 Sept 2008 - 2 catches, 7 yards, 2 lost fumbles.

Greg Olsen 2008 Game Log | StatMuse

Greg Olsen's game log for the 2008 NFL regular season and playoffs

www.statmuse.com

I lost by 1 point.....and even with that long memory of heartache, I still say you play your studs and best players regardless in the OP scenario.

That's a +.7 point game in the scoring system Joe specified.

 

[-OZ-]

No problem at all with it, but it's on you if there is a stat correction later in the week and you lose

I'm up 7.5 right now in my championship, he has no players left and I have Allen, Higgins, and Knox. If I thought I was in real danger of negatives shifting the score so much I could lose, I'd bench them. As it stands, I'm playing them, but I see no ethical dilemma here, this is akin to taking a knee to wind down the clock IMO.

Exactly - perfect analogy to this situation where I also see no moral dilemma or wrongdoing as, to me at least, it's the obvious safe choice to ensure the win.

I learned my lesson on this issue back in 2001 (or maybe 2022?) when I actually won a game that got me into the playoffs because I was down one going into MNF and my opponent started an otherwise good player - Stephen Davis maybe? - and that player fumbled twice and wound up with negative points so I won. I recall already thinking this strategy through (as I wondered whether my opponent would have employed it) so it wasn't some revelation, but it eliminated any doubt I may have had about whether to employ it or be annoyed if employed by my opponent.

I look at it this way, just like the team that takes a knee 3 times to end the game, you got yourself into the position where you can do that to ensure victory. Nothing wrong with it at all.

Exactly right. There is no “ethical” issue here. Whether you start or bench the player is totally your call. Unless of course your league has a rule where you must start a full lineup in which case that’s clear too.
The only leagues I’m in where you’re required to start a specific position is the coach, where it’s fairly common for the losing coach to have negative points. There’s no ethical issue there either because the rules state what happens if you don’t start a coach.
Coach's Win = 5 pts
Coach's Point Differential = 1 pt per 5 (So win by 10 and get 7 pts. Lose by 10 and get -2 pts. Win by 3 and get 5 pts. Lose by 3 and get 0 pts).
Choosing not to start a HC when one is available (either on your roster or WW) = -5 pts
Having no HC available to start = -2 pts

Tanking is a different matter entirely.

Not that it’s particularly Relevant here but I find this discussion somewhat interesting, as I’m an ethics attorney

 

[-OZ-]

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".

Ridiculous unless you’re tanking.

 

[(HULK)]

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 find a different league in the future IMO

 

[JohnnyU]

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?

I say bench higgins. In the leagues I commish we have a non-written rule that you're supposed to play your best players, but that is to prevent teams from tanking for a better draft position. I can see where this might be a problem for some, but to me it's apples and oranges. Teams aren't trying to tank in the playoffs, so in my mind it is a good strategic move to take away the possibility of losing.

 

[eighsse2]

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 find a different league in the future IMO

Would you leave a dynasty league that lets you draft AJ Brown with the 3.04, CeeDee Lamb with the 1.12, Chris Godwin as a post-draft IR replacement, etc?

 

[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.

 

[Zow]

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.

 

[Zow]

Also, I think it's been mentioned above thread, but there's always the possibility of a scoring change so there is some risk to the strategy as well.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

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?

Too lazy to read all the replies. How can you be sure there won’t be a stat change?

 

[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.

 

[Zow]

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?

 

[JohnnyU]

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?

 

[JohnnyU]

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?

Too lazy to read all the replies. How can you be sure there won’t be a stat change?

You bring up a good point and that would be a hoot to lose on a stat change after benching Higgins.

 

[jerry jones]

Personally, I wouldn’t want to win that way. I’d rather put my best players in and whatever happens was meant to be.

You’re a manager of a pretend football team, there’s no moral high ground for filling out a line up