Do you ever change your line-up based on opponents players from same teams? (QB and WR) (1 Viewer)

[eoMMan]

Do you ever do this?

What I mean by this is let's say you are starting Tom Brady and your opponent is starting Gronk and Josh Gordon.  Would this make you fade the NE offense for a slightly lesser option? If Brady blows up, chanced are that your opponent has a big day.

Thoughts?

 

[Hawkeye21]

I always play my best players and that's all that matters.  Play the people you think are going to score the most and don't worry about the other team.  Doesn't make much sense to me to worry about the other team.

 

[Insein]

I mean if you're superstitious, sure. Otherwise, why would you bench a player if you think he'll have a higher score than your alternative? If Brady Scores 30 but your back QB score on 20, how did that help you?

 

[need2know]

Play your best players

 

[msudaisy26]

I would only do this if I was  a massive under dog.

If he had a bunch of guys going Thrusday and they blew up. So if Gronk and/or Gordon go off it won't matter that I have Brady to limit the damage and if Gronk and Gordon suck it won't matter because it is unlikely that Brady will go off. So I would hedge and hope the Pats play like they did against the Lions and start my other qb to make up points. 

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

I always play my best players and that's all that matters.  

No. No, it's not. Fantasy football isn't a scoring competition - it's a series of weekly head-to-head matchups. It makes perfect sense to adjust your lineups based on your opponent and the situation you find yourself in. If you don't do this, you are leaving wins on the table.

The OP is asking a very good question, but your thinking is backwards. If he's got Gronk and Gordon it should make you more apt to start Brady, not less, because those guys can't blow up for him without benefiting you as well. The only time I'd veer from this thinking is if I were a huge underdog, in which case a big day from NE probably doesn't get you any closer to your opponent and I'd probably fade the Pats and hope for the best.

Same thinking goes for starting or sitting a DST vs. your opponent's opposing QB. If you're a big favorite it often doesn't make sense, because he'll need a big QB day to beat you anyway, which will hurt your DST score and make it easier for him. But if you're a big underdog you should increase variance, which means you should always stack the DST against his QB since his loss doubles your potential gain.

There are many other examples, but it's much more nuanced than "always start your best players".

 

[Hawkeye21]

No. No, it's not. Fantasy football isn't a scoring competition - it's a series of weekly head-to-head matchups. It makes perfect sense to adjust your lineups based on your opponent and the situation you find yourself in. If you don't do this, you are leaving wins on the table.

The OP is asking a very good question, but your thinking is backwards. If he's got Gronk and Gordon it should make you more apt to start Brady, not less, because those guys can't blow up for him without benefiting you as well. The only time I'd veer from this thinking is if I were a huge underdog, in which case a big day from NE probably doesn't get you any closer to your opponent and I'd probably fade the Pats and hope for the best.

Same thinking goes for starting or sitting a DST vs. your opponent's opposing QB. If you're a big favorite it often doesn't make sense, because he'll need a big QB day to beat you anyway, which will hurt your DST score and make it easier for him. But if you're a big underdog you should increase variance, which means you should always stack the DST against his QB since his loss doubles your potential gain.

There are many other examples, but it's much more nuanced than "always start your best players".

So if you had Brees and Brady on your roster, you would start Brady because the person you're facing has Gronk and Gordon.  What if the Pats are playing the Jags defense and Brees is playing the Falcons in a shoot out?  You'd still play Brady?  I know I'd play the one I think is going to score more points.

 

[FF Ninja]

The OP is asking a very good question, but your thinking is backwards. If he's got Gronk and Gordon it should make you more apt to start Brady, not less, because those guys can't blow up for him without benefiting you as well. The only time I'd veer from this thinking is if I were a huge underdog, in which case a big day from NE probably doesn't get you any closer to your opponent and I'd probably fade the Pats and hope for the best.

I agree with you that there are absolutely cases where you should consider altering your lineup based on the opponent. In the case listed, if you are the underdog facing Gronk and Gordon, then it would make sense to actually bench Brady because the most likely way you are going to win is if Brady has a dud game causing Gronk and Gordon to underperform. Therefore, if that happens, Brady is probably not the highest scoring QB on your roster that week. It's a gamble for sure, but a strategic one.

 

[Gally]

So if you had Brees and Brady on your roster, you would start Brady because the person you're facing has Gronk and Gordon.  What if the Pats are playing the Jags defense and Brees is playing the Falcons in a shoot out?  You'd still play Brady?  I know I'd play the one I think is going to score more points.

What he is saying is that you factor in the likely outcome of your game if players perform as expected.  If you are a huge underdog based on players performing as expected you need something unexpected to pull off the win.  In these instances you put your highest ceiling players in the lineup because you need everything to go right for you to win so you need those ceiling plays.  Or contrast that with if you are the heavy favorite you don't want to have variance.  You want status quo so you would play the QB to hedge against your opponent getting big games out of his WR's on the same team.  It allows you to cancel some of the upside of your opponent by getting a piece of that upside. 

If you knew for sure that QB A would outscore QB B then yes, you play the one that will score more as that gives you the best chance to win.  In reality you don't know that to be true so you must factor in likely overall outcomes and try and formulate your lineup to give you the best chance to win based on likely outcomes from both teams. 

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

So if you had Brees and Brady on your roster, you would start Brady because the person you're facing has Gronk and Gordon.  What if the Pats are playing the Jags defense and Brees is playing the Falcons in a shoot out?  You'd still play Brady?  I know I'd play the one I think is going to score more points.

 I said it would make me more apt to start Brady, not that I'd start him no matter what. Obviously if my other option is another HOF-caliber guy on turf against a terrible defense I'd lean that way.

The underlying point I didn't make (but will now) is that in general, everyone is grossly overconfident in their ability to rank and make point predictions about individual players on a weekly basis. The correlation between how I (or you, or ESPN) think they'll do and how they actually do is pretty weak; whereas the correlation between the number of points Gronk / Gordon will score and Brady will score is much stronger. There are many times when it pays to rely on the stronger correlation for the purposes of trying to win a head-to-head matchup, even if it means going against "predictions".

 

[LittlePhatty]

Some people refer to the "cancel out" theory, which is similar to what you are asking. Is my WR's high score cancelled out by my opponent's QB from the same team also putting up a high score? 

My thoughts are that 95% of the time, your opponent's roster should not affect your decisions at all. Start the players that you think will score the most points. That's all you need to think about on Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday afternoon. Start your best players. 

In my mind, there's a fairly rare situation that could happen after the early Sunday games in which you might consider changing that strategy. Example: IF you have a WR decision to make in the late games (Sunday night or Monday night), and IF your opponent has that same team's QB, then you might want to consider the current score in your matchup. Are you behind in points and you need a home run? Then it might be a better decision to start the WR on the other team. In that case you are hoping your other WR does well and your opponent's QB has a bad day. You need that long shot because you are behind, and if your opponent's QB is throwing to your WR then their outcome is somewhat intertwined. It's still not a clear-cut decision of course, because it is always possible for the "same team" WR to put up a lot of points in a game (yardage and PPR) while the QB has a bad day (no TDs, throws some INTs, etc.) but I still think it is something to consider.

 

[kutta]

 I said it would make me more apt to start Brady, not that I'd start him no matter what. Obviously if my other option is another HOF-caliber guy on turf against a terrible defense I'd lean that way.

The underlying point I didn't make (but will now) is that in general, everyone is grossly overconfident in their ability to rank and make point predictions about individual players on a weekly basis. The correlation between how I (or you, or ESPN) think they'll do and how they actually do is pretty weak; whereas the correlation between the number of points Gronk / Gordon will score and Brady will score is much stronger. There are many times when it pays to rely on the stronger correlation for the purposes of trying to win a head-to-head matchup, even if it means going against "predictions".

I agree.

It’s quite silly to say “play your best guys” or “play the guys that will, or that you think will, score he most points.” We just don’t know.

We can guess, but if there are other factors that we can use that may help us win our game, we should look at those too.

 

[eoMMan]

Hmm...so I should start Daulton against the Falcons? 

 

[kutta]

Hmm...so I should start Daulton against the Falcons? 

Not sure who that is, but Andy Dalton is probably a good play this week.

How does that relate to the conversation?

 

[eoMMan]

Not sure who that is, but Andy Dalton is probably a good play this week.

How does that relate to the conversation?

Sorry, I was thinking of the Roadhouse Daulton....you're right...it's Andy Dalton.

It relates because in my OP post, I'm in that exact situation where I own Brady and I'm probably facing Gordon and Gronk.  Just wondering how the sharks approach this situation (when your opponent has players from the same team). 

I was in a similar situation last week where I owned Antonio Brown and faced Ben Roethlisberger but we all in know that in 99.99% of situations, AB is a must start no matter what.

 

[Insein]

When setting my lineup, I don't even look who my opponent has. Just who I think will score the most for that week. My selections don't affect his in any real way so why give yourself useless data to worry about.

 

[kutta]

Sorry, I was thinking of the Roadhouse Daulton....you're right...it's Andy Dalton.

It relates because in my OP post, I'm in that exact situation where I own Brady and I'm probably facing Gordon and Gronk.  Just wondering how the sharks approach this situation (when your opponent has players from the same team). 

I was in a similar situation last week where I owned Antonio Brown and faced Ben Roethlisberger but we all in know that in 99.99% of situations, AB is a must start no matter what.

Well if you're talking about THAT Daulton, of course you start him.

 

[NeverEnough]

No. No, it's not. Fantasy football isn't a scoring competition - it's a series of weekly head-to-head matchups. It makes perfect sense to adjust your lineups based on your opponent and the situation you find yourself in. If you don't do this, you are leaving wins on the table.

The OP is asking a very good question, but your thinking is backwards. If he's got Gronk and Gordon it should make you more apt to start Brady, not less, because those guys can't blow up for him without benefiting you as well. The only time I'd veer from this thinking is if I were a huge underdog, in which case a big day from NE probably doesn't get you any closer to your opponent and I'd probably fade the Pats and hope for the best.

Same thinking goes for starting or sitting a DST vs. your opponent's opposing QB. If you're a big favorite it often doesn't make sense, because he'll need a big QB day to beat you anyway, which will hurt your DST score and make it easier for him. But if you're a big underdog you should increase variance, which means you should always stack the DST against his QB since his loss doubles your potential gain.

There are many other examples, but it's much more nuanced than "always start your best players".

It's not a scoring competition? What?! The team that scores the most wins the match-up, man.

 

[zftcg]

Good Lord, this thread again? 

 

[Elevencents]

Nope. Doesn’t matter what your opponent is doing. 

 

[Dismattle]

Depends on the matchup. In the example I’d love to start the kicker

 

[xrayveggin]

There are a couple situations where I will consider something along these lines.

Last week going into MNF down 19 points, I had Fitzpatrick and Big Ben as possible QBs, and I had Smith Shuster playing, and I was having a hard time deciding which would score better between my two QB options. I considered the JJSS/BigBen stack but my opponent was starting Evans, so I decided starting Fitz would be a partially neutralizing move to my opponents 2nd highest scoring player. But this didn't really change my lineup, it just weighted my decision.

If I had the lead going into the last game where my opponent and I both had our last players going, and I owned both QBs playing in the game, I can conceive of a similar situation where I would take the QB who was expected to have a poorer performance if my opponent had his WR going that same game.

It's hard to bench a star QB for a middling QB barring these two circumstances - I think it's better to play the QB with significantly higher scoring expectations.

 

[Deamon]

All having the same team players as your opponent does is add consistency to your two scores.  If it's a close-ish matchup, don't even consider the change.  I guess if you're a huge underdog and you need the stars to align for a win, then you could swap Brady out as you'd need a bad pats offense game.  If you're a huge favourite, then I could see trying to have the same team as your opponent.  Less number of players for him to bridge the gap and catch up to your projections.

But again, this would only be in very very rare cases where there is a very very large favourite to win the matchup, and you have 2 QBs that you have similarly ranked for the weak.  99.9% of the time you just start your best guy regardless of your opponent.