What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

"Cheap Move" or Nah? (1 Viewer)

If you play roto or category-based H2H leagues in other fantasy sports like baseball or basketball, you do a lot of benching players who are better in terms of overall value for players who are most likely to help you win in your specific situation.

It's a little weird in FF because points are points, but it's still kinda the same concept. Win probability of playing Conklin > win probability of playing Wilson.
 
Didn't you just say: "And to be fair, part of it's giving the OP a hard time"

That sure sounds like the definition of trolling, but if you say you weren't, I won't argue.

In no universe is that me trolling. It sucks to have someone I've never heard of accuse me of that but for someone that's been around like you, that's a bummer. Super sorry to hear you think that.
Man, you're on fire today.

I don't see light trolling as the worst thing on Earth, but it sure seems like what you said you were doing.

My apologies - no offense intended.
 
For all the handwringing, it actually does bring up some fun points.

Playing to score the most points vs playing not to lose is a huge and fascinating area.
I don't see that as any sort of dilemma.

The goal is to win the week.

The goal is not to score the most points possible in doing so.

If there were a benefit to scoring more points that exceeded the risk of losing the week, I would approach this differently.

But it is a weekly H2H league and I am ahead in my matchup. No brainer: play to win the week.
 
If @Hot Sauce Guy had asked me who to start tonight, of course I'd say Conklin gives him the best chance to win. Just like I thought drafting Deshaun Watson as a starter this summer did.

It's just not how I'd do it.
So when you devise your lineup for the week, you don't play the players that you think give you the best chance to win? Have you ever started a player over another player because he had a higher floor even though you didn't think he was the player you thought could score more?

I think this is a very fine line and understand the concept of playing to win vs playing to not lose but in this case I think by sitting Wilson for Conklin you are actually playing to win as opposed to playing not to lose. Just sitting Wilson and putting in nobody would be "playing not to lose" IMO. I fine distinction for sure.
 
From an old Random Shots. https://www.footballguys.com/article/2017bryant_random13
(Story about Eli Manning)

Eli Manning is no comparison to Ted Williams but this made me think of one of my favorite sports stories. And one I tell here often.

History lesson time. Heading into the last day, a doubleheader, of the 1941 season, 23-year-old Ted Williams' batting average was .39955. He could have sat out the meaningless last two games of the last day and his average would have rounded to the hallowed .400 mark.

From the sabr.org article: "In his autobiography, My Turn At Bat, Williams recalls Joe Cronin telling him, 'You don’t have to be put in if you don’t want to. You’re officially .400.' Ted reports his reaction: 'Well, God, that hit me like a lightning bolt! What do you mean I don’t have to play today?'"

But you probably know the story. Williams put his .400 mark at risk and played. Both games. And went 6 for 8, finishing the year at .406.

That's rad.

How that applies to you and me is simple. I feel pretty safe in saying we're not going to hit .400 in the majors. But we all get to walk to the plate every day and take some swings. Take yours.
Yeah, but he's not the one playing, Zach Wilson is. Williams was betting on himself. You're asking HSG to bet on Wilson.
 
For all the handwringing, it actually does bring up some fun points.

Playing to score the most points vs playing not to lose is a huge and fascinating area.
I don't see that as any sort of dilemma.

The goal is to win the week.

The goal is not to score the most points possible in doing so.

If there were a benefit to scoring more points that exceeded the risk of losing the week, I would approach this differently.

But it is a weekly H2H league and I am ahead in my matchup. No brainer: play to win the week.
Then the granularity of the true ultimate goal becomes interesting. Is every "point" the goal, or every "game" the goal, or every "championship" the goal, or "having the most championships" the goal?

If the granularity is at the point level, then unless you believe in Conklin outscoring Wilson, you're betraying the goal.

If the granularity is at the game level, you're doing exactly as you should.

If the granularity is at the championship level, again, you're doing it right.

If the granularity is at the "most championships all-time" level, then you're doing it right -- but, eliminated teams who don't lose on purpose are betraying the goal.

So I'm guessing most would say the granularity is at the game level.
 
Didn't you just say: "And to be fair, part of it's giving the OP a hard time"

That sure sounds like the definition of trolling, but if you say you weren't, I won't argue.

In no universe is that me trolling. It sucks to have someone I've never heard of accuse me of that but for someone that's been around like you, that's a bummer. Super sorry to hear you think that.
It wasn't an accusation in any way.

Clearly you put far more significance in that word than I do. Your PM to me was wild.
 
I assume if you lose points for INT you also lose points for fumbles.....an even smarter move would probably be to pick up and play somebody tonight who has an even lesser chance of touching the ball then Conklin....
 
I assume if you lose points for INT you also lose points for fumbles.....an even smarter move would probably be to pick up and play somebody tonight who has an even lesser chance of touching the ball then Conklin....
It's a league with only a WW, so that's not an option. But if it were, I don't see any issue with it.
 
I assume if you lose points for INT you also lose points for fumbles.....an even smarter move would probably be to pick up and play somebody tonight who has an even lesser chance of touching the ball then Conklin....
In not doing so, you could even be accused of damaging the integrity of the game, by not making your best effort to win the game.
 
This will be fun when Salah gets cute and Conklin throws 2 ints while ZW has a CJ Stroud type game.
I would bet substantial amounts against this happening if anyone is taking odds. :lol:

I'm honestly having trouble deciding which is less likely, Conklin throwing 2 picks or Zach Wilson having a blowup game. That would be like predicting that random 7 TD game from Nick Foles that one time.
Not to mention in this hypothetical, if ZW is having that epic game, why on Earth would they have Conklin throwing the ball? Make it make sense!
None of this thread makes sense, why do you want it to start now?
 
Not even a little bit "cheap". Absurd to think otherwise. You're plugging in an eligible player who will play in tonight's game and could theoretically outscore wilson (he's done so twice this year in my scoring system) The rules allow you to play a TE in that spot and it's the correct move.

You're taking a knee to run out the clock instead of running a toss sweep to the sideline.....like any smart person would. You're not violating the letter or spirit of any rule.
 
If you play roto or category-based H2H leagues in other fantasy sports like baseball or basketball, you do a lot of benching players who are better in terms of overall value for players who are most likely to help you win in your specific situation.

It's a little weird in FF because points are points, but it's still kinda the same concept. Win probability of playing Conklin > win probability of playing Wilson.
I've played FBB for decades now.

In H2H 6x6 format (a necessary evil) I can't count the times I've benched a hitter or pitcher because I had ERA, WHIP, K's, ave or obp locked up.

It's the same concept, I agree.
 
this is part of the reason where in the league I started and commish....I did not make negative points an option......FF is about scoring points.... not not scoring points....plus I think it's ridiculous to penalize a guy like Mahomes for the "INT" he threw in the DET game that was literally thrown perfectly but went straight through Toney hands.....why is Mahomes penalized for that?...also with fumbles, sometime they are on the QB/RB exchange but it could really be the fault of the other pesron, not the one that is penalized....
 
I assume if you lose points for INT you also lose points for fumbles.....an even smarter move would probably be to pick up and play somebody tonight who has an even lesser chance of touching the ball then Conklin....
In not doing so, you could even be accused of damaging the integrity of the game, by not making your best effort to win the game.
Correct. If I risk losing as opposed to locking up a victory, that would seem to be the highest integrity move possible.

Unnecessarily risking a loss could be throwing a game, no?
 
this is part of the reason where in the league I started and commish....I did not make negative points an option......FF is about scoring points.... not not scoring points....plus I think it's ridiculous to penalize a guy like Mahomes for the "INT" he threw in the DET game that was literally thrown perfectly but went straight through Toney hands.....why is Mahomes penalized for that?...also with fumbles, sometime they are on the QB/RB exchange but it could really be the fault of the other pesron, not the one that is penalized....
If you're going that far why not give wrs points for pi calls? They would have caught it if not fit the defense.
 
this is part of the reason where in the league I started and commish....I did not make negative points an option......FF is about scoring points.... not not scoring points....plus I think it's ridiculous to penalize a guy like Mahomes for the "INT" he threw in the DET game that was literally thrown perfectly but went straight through Toney hands.....why is Mahomes penalized for that?...also with fumbles, sometime they are on the QB/RB exchange but it could really be the fault of the other pesron, not the one that is penalized....
Scoring points is easy, minimizing the risk is harder. I don't mind a negative point here and there. Some of the deductions for missing a long FG attempt at the end of a half (over 50?) are a bit much, or negative defensive points when a team gets rolled over.

I do think the NFL could do a better job of giving the turnover (int, bad exchange) to the correct person and by extension that filtering to FF.
 
this is part of the reason where in the league I started and commish....I did not make negative points an option......FF is about scoring points.... not not scoring points....plus I think it's ridiculous to penalize a guy like Mahomes for the "INT" he threw in the DET game that was literally thrown perfectly but went straight through Toney hands.....why is Mahomes penalized for that?...also with fumbles, sometime they are on the QB/RB exchange but it could really be the fault of the other pesron, not the one that is penalized....
If you're going that far why not give wrs points for pi calls? They would have caught it if not fit the defense.
Related: I would love to see the spot foul go away forever. OPI is 10 yards. DPI could be the length of the field. I have always hated that. Anyway, that's off-topic.
 
From an old Random Shots. https://www.footballguys.com/article/2017bryant_random13
(Story about Eli Manning)

Eli Manning is no comparison to Ted Williams but this made me think of one of my favorite sports stories. And one I tell here often.

History lesson time. Heading into the last day, a doubleheader, of the 1941 season, 23-year-old Ted Williams' batting average was .39955. He could have sat out the meaningless last two games of the last day and his average would have rounded to the hallowed .400 mark.

From the sabr.org article: "In his autobiography, My Turn At Bat, Williams recalls Joe Cronin telling him, 'You don’t have to be put in if you don’t want to. You’re officially .400.' Ted reports his reaction: 'Well, God, that hit me like a lightning bolt! What do you mean I don’t have to play today?'"

But you probably know the story. Williams put his .400 mark at risk and played. Both games. And went 6 for 8, finishing the year at .406.

That's rad.

How that applies to you and me is simple. I feel pretty safe in saying we're not going to hit .400 in the majors. But we all get to walk to the plate every day and take some swings. Take yours.
I know the Splendid Splinter story well. I don't see how it is analogous to my situation.

Teddy Ballgame wasn't putting his team at a risk of a loss if he went out there and went 0-4. It was chasing personal glory.

I'm trying to win a game.

If you know the story than you know. It's no worries. I don't expect people to agree. It's an old school way to see the world that's not very common these days. Fully get it.

But you asked for opinions.
I respect you answering knowing your answer would be in the minority. I have a question for you though. In a game where the smart move is to get the ball to the 1 yd line and NOT SCORE because scoring the td gives the other team a chance to win do you consider that poor form as well? I recognize these situations arent 100% the same BUT they are in this way: both teams are making a move they would not normally make if not for 100% locking up a win.
 
In one of my leagues, a 12-team PPR SF with no K or D/ST, with -3 Int, after last night's game I'm up 97.8 to 92.7 (thank you, Tee Higgins)

It was a bad BYE week for us both. I'm currently the 3-seed, and top scorer in that league, and had Zach Wilson yet to play (Fields is out, ARich on IR, yeah, don't judge)

Anyway, after the game, I decided that the prudent thing to do with a narrow 5.1 point lead in a league with -3 for Interceptions would be to swap out ZW for Conkin in my SF spot. That way I protect my lead, and eliminate the risk of a bad beat with ZW coming out and craping the bed with a multi-pick game.

A friend in the league texted me that he saw I did that swap & called it a "cheap move". I asked if he thought there was anything in the rules against it. He said no, but he thought it was "kind of unsportsmanlike". I told him to pound sand.

Personally, I see it as smart management. I need 0 points to win, but I can't leave a roster spot open. Why wouldn't I be able to put whomever I want in my SF spot? Just happened to have another Jet to do it with. We don't have an in-season prize for season points total, so the extra points are irrelevant. But the negative points could be highly relevant .

Your thoughts:

Honest opinion.

Cheap move.

Not to say it's not the smart move. I just wouldn't do it unless it was a life or death type situation.
Huh? Why do you think you have to play a QB in a flex position just because it’s a SF league?

For the same reason Ted Williams didn't quit early and take the win without playing as I wrote above.
Yeah, I don't know what Joe is talking about here.
You're not the Splendid Splinter and you can start whoever you want, lock up the win and feel good about it.
 
Scoring points is easy, minimizing the risk is harder. I don't mind a negative point here and there. Some of the deductions for missing a long FG attempt at the end of a half (over 50?) are a bit much, or negative defensive points when a team gets rolled over.

I do think the NFL could do a better job of giving the turnover (int, bad exchange) to the correct person and by extension that filtering to FF.
Long-snapper sends it over the QB's head. -2 for the QB in FF.

Really drives home how unfair some negative scoring is.

With Interceptions, how many times is it because the WR or TE volley-balled the pass to a lucky defender who got a cheap pick? Ideally those negative points would go to the WR/TE - the QB hit them in the hands!

Screws fall out all the time. We live in an imperfect world.
 
From an old Random Shots. https://www.footballguys.com/article/2017bryant_random13
(Story about Eli Manning)

Eli Manning is no comparison to Ted Williams but this made me think of one of my favorite sports stories. And one I tell here often.

History lesson time. Heading into the last day, a doubleheader, of the 1941 season, 23-year-old Ted Williams' batting average was .39955. He could have sat out the meaningless last two games of the last day and his average would have rounded to the hallowed .400 mark.

From the sabr.org article: "In his autobiography, My Turn At Bat, Williams recalls Joe Cronin telling him, 'You don’t have to be put in if you don’t want to. You’re officially .400.' Ted reports his reaction: 'Well, God, that hit me like a lightning bolt! What do you mean I don’t have to play today?'"

But you probably know the story. Williams put his .400 mark at risk and played. Both games. And went 6 for 8, finishing the year at .406.

That's rad.

How that applies to you and me is simple. I feel pretty safe in saying we're not going to hit .400 in the majors. But we all get to walk to the plate every day and take some swings. Take yours.
I know the Splendid Splinter story well. I don't see how it is analogous to my situation.

Teddy Ballgame wasn't putting his team at a risk of a loss if he went out there and went 0-4. It was chasing personal glory.

I'm trying to win a game.

If you know the story than you know. It's no worries. I don't expect people to agree. It's an old school way to see the world that's not very common these days. Fully get it.

But you asked for opinions.
I respect you answering knowing your answer would be in the minority. I have a question for you though. In a game where the smart move is to get the ball to the 1 yd line and NOT SCORE because scoring the td gives the other team a chance to win do you consider that poor form as well? I recognize these situations arent 100% the same BUT they are in this way: both teams are making a move they would not normally make if not for 100% locking up a win.
That's a good question.

If the opposing team lets them score to preserve clock, is that also poor form?
 
this is part of the reason where in the league I started and commish....I did not make negative points an option......FF is about scoring points.... not not scoring points....plus I think it's ridiculous to penalize a guy like Mahomes for the "INT" he threw in the DET game that was literally thrown perfectly but went straight through Toney hands.....why is Mahomes penalized for that?...also with fumbles, sometime they are on the QB/RB exchange but it could really be the fault of the other pesron, not the one that is penalized....
Scoring points is easy, minimizing the risk is harder. I don't mind a negative point here and there. Some of the deductions for missing a long FG attempt at the end of a half (over 50?) are a bit much,
We adjusted this recently because it seems silly to lose a point for long FGs. Missed <45 yarders and XPs are -1
 
this is part of the reason where in the league I started and commish....I did not make negative points an option......FF is about scoring points.... not not scoring points....plus I think it's ridiculous to penalize a guy like Mahomes for the "INT" he threw in the DET game that was literally thrown perfectly but went straight through Toney hands.....why is Mahomes penalized for that?...also with fumbles, sometime they are on the QB/RB exchange but it could really be the fault of the other pesron, not the one that is penalized....
Scoring points is easy, minimizing the risk is harder. I don't mind a negative point here and there. Some of the deductions for missing a long FG attempt at the end of a half (over 50?) are a bit much,
We adjusted this recently because it seems silly to lose a point for long FGs. Missed <45 yarders and XPs are -1
We used to get accused of a league on steroids....... our scoring was .1 point for every yard rush/rec and .05 passing with bonus for length of TD and "100/300 yd bonus" FG pts varied from 3-10 pts..... but I liked it :)
 
If @Hot Sauce Guy had asked me who to start tonight, of course I'd say Conklin gives him the best chance to win. Just like I thought drafting Deshaun Watson as a starter this summer did.

It's just not how I'd do it.
So when you devise your lineup for the week, you don't play the players that you think give you the best chance to win?
I'm starting to wonder what I've been doing coming here for advice for the last 25 years now.


;)
 
Scoring points is easy, minimizing the risk is harder. I don't mind a negative point here and there. Some of the deductions for missing a long FG attempt at the end of a half (over 50?) are a bit much, or negative defensive points when a team gets rolled over.

I do think the NFL could do a better job of giving the turnover (int, bad exchange) to the correct person and by extension that filtering to FF.
Long-snapper sends it over the QB's head. -2 for the QB in FF.

Really drives home how unfair some negative scoring is.

With Interceptions, how many times is it because the WR or TE volley-balled the pass to a lucky defender who got a cheap pick? Ideally those negative points would go to the WR/TE - the QB hit them in the hands!

Screws fall out all the time. We live in an imperfect world.
Oh I agree. If it goes through the wr's hands (and like hits vs errors in MLB, its an easy catch not a spectacular one), it should be -1 to the WR (or whatever your league assigns to INTS).

Does a ball getting snapped over the qbs head, recovered by the def go as a lost fumble for the QB? I need to check that in some of my leagues lol.
 
this is part of the reason where in the league I started and commish....I did not make negative points an option......FF is about scoring points.... not not scoring points....plus I think it's ridiculous to penalize a guy like Mahomes for the "INT" he threw in the DET game that was literally thrown perfectly but went straight through Toney hands.....why is Mahomes penalized for that?...also with fumbles, sometime they are on the QB/RB exchange but it could really be the fault of the other pesron, not the one that is penalized....
Scoring points is easy, minimizing the risk is harder. I don't mind a negative point here and there. Some of the deductions for missing a long FG attempt at the end of a half (over 50?) are a bit much,
We adjusted this recently because it seems silly to lose a point for long FGs. Missed <45 yarders and XPs are -1
Nice. I always hated losing that point because why not try a 65 yarder to end the half.....
 
This is a superflex. HSG can start a QB, RB, WR, or TE in that spot. He's starting a TE. What's the big deal?

This happened to a buddy of mine years ago. He was up 5, his opponent was done, and he had Rex Grossman in the superflex. The game where Grossman has 6 turnovers and scored -7 points, he lost by 2. It the worst bad beat I have ever seen in 25 years of playing FF.

So what that Zach Wilson is projected to score more points that Tyler Conklin? What matters is Zach WIlson has a nonzero chance of score worse than -5 points. All it takes is 3 or 4 turnovers to do so. And Wilson is capable of doing that. So I would play Conklin if the objective was to win this week. Maybe HSG needs the win to keep his playoff hopes alive. I would only keep Wilson in if there is a nice bonus for scoring the most points at the end of the season.
 
Maybe HSG needs the win to keep his playoff hopes alive. I would only keep Wilson in if there is a nice bonus for scoring the most points at the end of the season.
Yep - I'm the 3-seed. It is 100% to keep my playoff hopes alive. Every win counts.

And nope - no season-long points total prize. As the #1 in points right now, I would potentially risk the win for that. by starting ZW.
 
Scoring points is easy, minimizing the risk is harder. I don't mind a negative point here and there. Some of the deductions for missing a long FG attempt at the end of a half (over 50?) are a bit much, or negative defensive points when a team gets rolled over.

I do think the NFL could do a better job of giving the turnover (int, bad exchange) to the correct person and by extension that filtering to FF.
Long-snapper sends it over the QB's head. -2 for the QB in FF.

Really drives home how unfair some negative scoring is.

With Interceptions, how many times is it because the WR or TE volley-balled the pass to a lucky defender who got a cheap pick? Ideally those negative points would go to the WR/TE - the QB hit them in the hands!

Screws fall out all the time. We live in an imperfect world.
Oh I agree. If it goes through the wr's hands (and like hits vs errors in MLB, its an easy catch not a spectacular one), it should be -1 to the WR (or whatever your league assigns to INTS).

Does a ball getting snapped over the qbs head, recovered by the def go as a lost fumble for the QB? I need to check that in some of my leagues lol.
And why are "Forced Fumble" and "Fumble Recovery" separate stats for DST or IDP scoring, but they can't happen independently? Dallas forced two fumbles yesterday, but Philly recovered both so Dallas doesn't get credited with a Forced Fumble because they didn't get the Fumble Recovery.
 
Does a ball getting snapped over the qbs head, recovered by the def go as a lost fumble for the QB? I need to check that in some of my leagues lol.
I'm pretty sure it does.

Like when a QB hands off to the RB - but screws it up and hits him in the face with the ball or something. That FL goes to the RB.
 
And why are "Forced Fumble" and "Fumble Recovery" separate stats for DST or IDP scoring, but they can't happen independently? Dallas forced two fumbles yesterday, but Philly recovered both so Dallas doesn't get credited with a Forced Fumble because they didn't get the Fumble Recovery.
Aha - now you're making a case for playing IDP.

In IDP, the player who forces the fumble gets points.
The player who recovers the fumble also gets points.

The forced fumble is indeed independent from a "fumble lost" so in the event that say a RB fumbles, and the RB recovers it, it's possible for the defender to get points without the RB losing points.

And this is why IDP is better x infinity.
 
I honestly didn't read through most of the thread but I see nothing cheap about this move.

In my opinion this is a great strategic move by you. I don't really understand how anyone could see it differently.
 
Interesting discussion. I certainly see nothing wrong with it.

-3 per INT? Wow. I wouldn't see a problem even if it were -1. But at -3, absolutely nothing wrong. Zach could go negative double digits.

A league mate that sees a problem first needs to re-visit how they feel about the league scoring system. Under this scoring system, it would be malpractice to start Zach tonight when you have Conklin.

If you're going to have massively punitive negative points, you have to expect that people will factor in those negative points.
 
Last edited:
I don't have an issue with it.
What is more likely, your QB getting you negative points and losing, or a scoring change lower your current score and you potentially losing?
Both seem very unlikely.
 
this is part of the reason where in the league I started and commish....I did not make negative points an option......FF is about scoring points.... not not scoring points....plus I think it's ridiculous to penalize a guy like Mahomes for the "INT" he threw in the DET game that was literally thrown perfectly but went straight through Toney hands.....why is Mahomes penalized for that?...also with fumbles, sometime they are on the QB/RB exchange but it could really be the fault of the other pesron, not the one that is penalized....
If you're going that far why not give wrs points for pi calls? They would have caught it if not fit the defense.
Related: I would love to see the spot foul go away forever. OPI is 10 yards. DPI could be the length of the field. I have always hated that. Anyway, that's off-topic.
College rues work for me. Shouldnt give them the length of the field when there is no way to assume they WOULD HAVE made the catch without the PI.
 
If you're going to have insanely punitive negative points, you have to expect that people will factor in those negative points.
What's funny is that -3 for Ints is the standard in all of my leagues now. I only have 1 redraft that still has -2, and that's an ooooooold league with big yardage bonuses.

With 6 point PaTd, -3 Int feels right to me.
 
I'm the type that I want to score as many points as I can each week. I don't want to play a lineup not to lose.
That's fair. I don't judge anyone for that approach.

I simply choose to avert risk where I can. Of the 2 players I can use in my SF slot, Conklin seems to give me the best chance to win for reasons stated. But if anyone approached it differently, hey, good for them.

That said, and with full understanding of what YOU would do in that scenario, do you object to the move? Do you find it in some way unethical?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top