Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
i think there are some examples of where cancelling out could be a great strategy. Lets say you play in a deep league where one of your opponents starts both glenn and owens. You have Romo and maybe a qb who scores just a couple more points than romo per week. In that situation, i would start romo instead of my other qb just to hedge my bet. I can remember one time, and of course these situations are rare, but still applicable, where my opponent had all but one player going at noon and i had a few that were going to be on sunday and monday night. I had a huge lead and the only player my opponent had left was moulds. I had Brady and Holcomb left in a sunday night game and actually started holcomb over brady just to be safe. I figured the ONLY way i am losing is if Moulds goes for 150 yards and 2tds and i get zip from brady. By starting holcomb it made it so moulds had to get like 250 yds and 4tds and have holcomb throw nothing else to another WR.In these two cases it is hard to argue against it.
it might be great for your psyche, but I don't think it affects how your team scores.
agreed.
Sorry, forgot the
smilie. I meant to point out that starting the highest scoring team is usually the strategy to follow.never understood the canceling or whatever its being called theory...you start who will score the most points end of story...on another note does anyone remember how sandbox handled IDP a very loooooong time ago?
Look at it the other way; you have Bulger and Palmer, and your opponent has Holt. In addition, you have Chad Johnson at WR, and he has Bruce Gradkowski at QB. Oh, and in this league, you start just 1 QB and 1 WR and no other positions.You think Palmer is likely to score more than Bulger, but you don't know that. You know that Holt can't have a big game without Bulger also having a big game. So, since your team is better, you start Bulger, effectively meaning that he has to get good points out of Gradkowski to beat you. If you'd started Palmer, a stinker game by Palmer would let him beat you with a good game by Holt.
The WR wins the battle.. Reason being his points will be close to the QB's and he isn't a QB.. The yards is the deciding factor.. If the QB gets 1 for every 50 and the WR gets 1 for every 10-20.. WR could score more then the QB.. I have seen that happen..
I sure hope Torry Holt (Monday night game) remembers that I was playing against FWP this week :fingerscrossed:
If you start Bulger because your opponent started Holt NOT because he's your best QB that's foolish IMO.If Holt gets 5 catches for 80 yards and a TD that's 19 points in many leagues.If Bulger throws for 150 yards and a TD that's not very good(points vary a ton for QBs, skipping that point example, let's just agree it's not good)Holts stats are fine, Bulger's are not. Bulger's will cost ya as the other QB is likely to throw for more than that. Bulger's FF team's #1 WR may/should be able to come close to or beat Holt's score.It's overthinking
I was throwing numbers around above but some examples-using PPR point for every ten receiving, 25 yards passing=point and 6 for TDs for both(WR+QB) scoring -1 for INTWeek 1Bulger 217 0 TDs- 8 pointsHolt 7 for 80 yards 0 TDs-15 pointsWeek 11Bulger 142 1 INT-6 pointsHolt 7 for 68 yards-13 pointsSee these two weeks you'd have shot yourself in the foot
Congrats, you just proved this theory for the guy starting Holt
I think it is a valid theory if:1) You are the dog.2) You can cancel out a "stronger" position with a "weaker" position. This depends on how your league scores. If your league favors QBs in scoring, then the QB would be the strong position and the WR would be the weak position. I think it can work in a situation like this because head to head scoring comes down to differentials. If you can overcome a high scoring position with a relatively weaker one, that leaves you with a high scoring position left to play and your opponent with a weaker one, closing your gap with the stronger team. In your above example, the team with Holt is now in the stronger position regardless of the rest of the players on either team because he still has a QB to score which, on average, will normally outscore the WR position.why would the one with Holt bother cancelling out?Congrats, you just proved this theory for the guy starting Holt
It depends on the situation. A couple of situations (some already mentioned):
It's not about the name, it's about the position. With the scoring example you gave, QBs as a whole will greatly outperform WRs in terms of raw points, just based on TDs alone (QBs will throw many more TDs than a WR will catch, and each score 6 points). In this scenario you have effectively given yourself the upper hand because you basically guarantee that one of your WR will score the same as your opponent's QB. To me, this is a huge guarantee if I am the dog because that gives me an edge in point differential since the odds are that my QB will outscore his WR, no matter who is playing in those positions (to an extent, of course). He is then playing behind the eight ball to make up the point differential with the same positions playing on either side.why would the one with Holt bother cancelling out?Congrats, you just proved this theory for the guy starting Holt
That's the bottom line. But it does seem like there are more and more close decisions where applying this strategy makes sense. For example, this week's FBG QBs projections have players 6 through 18 within 2.0 fantasy points of each other.Of course, the end goal is to start the players who score the most points. But a lot of these decisions are effectively coin flips. Applying the "cancel out" theory, depending on whether you're favored or the underdog in a given week, can be as good a basis as any to make the final decision.
I disagree with your disagreement. I'm also not sure what you mean by weighing a name vs. a matchup. I am obviously assuming, for the sake of the example, that Hasselbeck, under normal conditions, would have been the clear cut starter over Delhomme or Leinart. If Fitzgerald has a huge game, there is a high probability that Leinart does, as well. If Leinart does well, there is a high probability I win based on the remainder of my lineup and the remainder of my opponent's lineup. I like those chances better than risk the possbility of getting little from my QB while Fitzgerald has a big game.
Obviously it's less attractive in a PPR league, although the reverse cancel (having the WR of your opponent's QB) becomes more attractive.But there's no indication that you shot yourself in the foot from the numbers above; you still reduced the variance between your QB and his WR. Week 1, Carson Palmer had 127 yards and 0 TD, by the way.Week 6, Holt had 154 yards and 3 TD, Palmer had 261 yards and 1 TD. That's exactly the kind of variance you're trying to avoid with this strategy.
If Fitz has a huge game, yeah I agree it's likely Leinart will BUT if Fitz has a good game that doesn't indicate Leinart will."good" and "huge" are a considerable difference IMO
that would be cancelling out though, wouldn't it? in this theory?
sorry to keep it going
Last few years I see more PPR than notYour experience is different than mine so not much we can debate here then
Only thing to add is that a WR is an imperfect hedge for a QB; Palmer can go off with CJ getting nearly nothing. If you start the QB for an opponent's WR, his WR can't have a big day w/o your QB having one, too.eta: here are a couple SP links regarding hedging
