Fantasy Trick 101? (1 Viewer)

[theJCdude]

I was wondering how many of you will start a QB or WR based on if your opponent has a QB or WR on the same team? For example... my opponent this week has WR Hous for Seattle and I have Hasselback. He has me by 13 points, Steelers D= 11 + L. White=2, so far since I have not had anyone play yet?

If I play Hasselback and he plays Hous, that means I pretty much cancel out is best WR (is also has Bowe). Right? Then I can count on my RBs (Turner & MOJO & J Jones) to take home the win for me. Does this work? And many of your do this? Is this a good "trick"???

His Team:

RBs- Hillis, Slaton, White

WRs- Bowe & Hous

TE- Gozo

Steelers D

K-Succo

Thank you for your thoughts...

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

I was wondering how many of you will start a QB or WR based on if your opponent has a QB or WR on the same team? For example... my opponent this week has WR Hous for Seattle and I have Hasselback. He has me by 13 points, Steelers D= 11 + L. White=2, so far since I have not had anyone play yet?If I play Hasselback and he plays Hous, that means I pretty much cancel out is best WR (is also has Bowe). Right? Then I can count on my RBs (Turner & MOJO & J Jones) to take home the win for me. Does this work? And many of your do this? Is this a good "trick"???His Team:RBs- Hillis, Slaton, WhiteWRs- Bowe & HousTE- GozoSteelers DK-Succo Thank you for your thoughts...

Best trick is to start the guys you think will score the most points at that position, regardless of who your opponent starts.

 

[Traders2001]

It does'nt work , always play your best player , always .

 

[JohnnyU]

I was wondering how many of you will start a QB or WR based on if your opponent has a QB or WR on the same team? For example... my opponent this week has WR Hous for Seattle and I have Hasselback. He has me by 13 points, Steelers D= 11 + L. White=2, so far since I have not had anyone play yet?If I play Hasselback and he plays Hous, that means I pretty much cancel out is best WR (is also has Bowe). Right? Then I can count on my RBs (Turner & MOJO & J Jones) to take home the win for me. Does this work? And many of your do this? Is this a good "trick"???His Team:RBs- Hillis, Slaton, WhiteWRs- Bowe & HousTE- GozoSteelers DK-Succo Thank you for your thoughts...

Best trick is to start the guys you think will score the most points at that position, regardless of who your opponent starts.

I agree, and that topic has been discussed in great lengths over the years.

 

[jon_mx]

I was wondering how many of you will start a QB or WR based on if your opponent has a QB or WR on the same team? For example... my opponent this week has WR Hous for Seattle and I have Hasselback. He has me by 13 points, Steelers D= 11 + L. White=2, so far since I have not had anyone play yet?If I play Hasselback and he plays Hous, that means I pretty much cancel out is best WR (is also has Bowe). Right? Then I can count on my RBs (Turner & MOJO & J Jones) to take home the win for me. Does this work? And many of your do this? Is this a good "trick"???His Team:RBs- Hillis, Slaton, WhiteWRs- Bowe & HousTE- GozoSteelers DK-Succo Thank you for your thoughts...

Best trick is to start the guys you think will score the most points at that position, regardless of who your opponent starts.

The trick is to send your QB a text message that you will start him only if he doesn't throw to player 'x' that week. If you have that kind of influence, the trick will work. Otherwise, playing the guy who will likely score you the most point is probably the best strategery.

 

[Wadsworth]

I disagree, especially when you have an early game's worth of data to work with. I'm not saying I'd do it in this situation but it is a strategy I consider very rarely. I only consider it when the player options I'm looking at are very close and the player I'd be covering for my opponent is a key part of his scoring potential. In a match up that you should win, it can be a way to limit your opponents "punchers chance" by having his big stud blow up on you.

 

[dansav]

What if J. Jones completes a halfback pass to Housh? Than you really cancel out his best wr.

 

[Jersey35]

It does'nt work , always play your best player , always .

This again? Those who speak in platitudes are always wrong. Always.This strategy is not usually a good way to determine your lineup, however, it can be a good bet-hedging strategy if you know a few things in advance.For example, in your case: you know that Hass plays the 3pm game. Assuming you can make last minute roster changes, pretend for a moment that you lead your opponent by 20 points going into that game with ONLY your QB and him ONLY Housh remaining.Let's say your options at QB are Kurt Warner (also a late game) and Hass. Normally you would start Warner over Hass - however, given the information you have, the wise choice would be to start Hass. This essentially prevents Housh from having the kind of game that could beat you.Contrary to popular opinion, the object of fantasy football is NOT to score as many points as you can. The object is to score more points than your opponent.ETA: I didn't really answer your specific question did I? Well, if your situation is not really similar to the one I described, I'd suggest you simply put forth the lineup that you believe will result in the highest score for your team.

 

[da_budman]

It does'nt work , always play your best player , always .

This again? Those who speak in platitudes are always wrong. Always.This strategy is not usually a good way to determine your lineup, however, it can be a good bet-hedging strategy if you know a few things in advance.

For example, in your case: you know that Hass plays the 3pm game. Assuming you can make last minute roster changes, pretend for a moment that you lead your opponent by 20 points going into that game with ONLY your QB and him ONLY Housh remaining.

Let's say your options at QB are Kurt Warner (also a late game) and Hass. Normally you would start Warner over Hass - however, given the information you have, the wise choice would be to start Hass. This essentially prevents Housh from having the kind of game that could beat you.

Contrary to popular opinion, the object of fantasy football is NOT to score as many points as you can. The object is to score more points than your opponent.

ETA: I didn't really answer your specific question did I? Well, if your situation is not really similar to the one I described, I'd suggest you simply put forth the lineup that you believe will result in the highest score for your team.

There ARE situations where this makes perfect sense but they are few and far between. I suggest there arent times where attempting to avoid the variance by pairing up a passing game with an opponents QB is the smart way to go. Generally these types of strategies can pay off when the remainder of your team is better than the remainder of their team by a decent margin. Another strategy along these same lines but not indentical is: Do I start the streakier player with big play potential or the steady guy with less big play potential. If your team is Better than the other team the smart play is usually the safer pick....to avoid the variance.

 

[lyon812]

Allowing last minute roster changes between the morning and afternoon games seems pretty silly.

 

[Instinctive]

Allowing last minute roster changes between the morning and afternoon games seems pretty silly.

\Isn't that exactly how 90% of FF does it?If somebody hasn't played yet, you cna change their position around on your team. If they have played, they are locked into that spot at kickoff of their own game.Allows neat little strategies like no DEF if you are winning on Monday night and don't want to go negative b/c your D is the only player left.And also lets you go to a guy who could be a 40 or 0 point player instea dof a solid 15-20 based on what you need to win.

 

[FUBAR]

the only time I let my opponent's player influence who I start is if we have the same player and it's close to begin with.

 

[Dark Matter]

Allowing last minute roster changes between the morning and afternoon games seems pretty silly.

\Isn't that exactly how 90% of FF does it?If somebody hasn't played yet, you cna change their position around on your team. If they have played, they are locked into that spot at kickoff of their own game.

Allows neat little strategies like no DEF if you are winning on Monday night and don't want to go negative b/c your D is the only player left.

And also lets you go to a guy who could be a 40 or 0 point player instea dof a solid 15-20 based on what you need to win.

I think being able to make changes to your roster prior to the games is okay but I don't think the bolded is such a great rule. In my leagues, you have to start a full roster or be subject to a fine. Roster management plain and simple.

 

[puckalicious]

Allowing last minute roster changes between the morning and afternoon games seems pretty silly.

\Isn't that exactly how 90% of FF does it?If somebody hasn't played yet, you cna change their position around on your team. If they have played, they are locked into that spot at kickoff of their own game.

Allows neat little strategies like no DEF if you are winning on Monday night and don't want to go negative b/c your D is the only player left.

And also lets you go to a guy who could be a 40 or 0 point player instea dof a solid 15-20 based on what you need to win.

I hope most leagues are like mine and you score 0 with an incomplete lineup. Would it be allowed for an NFL team to refuse to play because they are ahead and don't want to risk losing?

 

[FUBAR]

Allowing last minute roster changes between the morning and afternoon games seems pretty silly.

\Isn't that exactly how 90% of FF does it?If somebody hasn't played yet, you cna change their position around on your team. If they have played, they are locked into that spot at kickoff of their own game.

Allows neat little strategies like no DEF if you are winning on Monday night and don't want to go negative b/c your D is the only player left.

And also lets you go to a guy who could be a 40 or 0 point player instea dof a solid 15-20 based on what you need to win.

I hope most leagues are like mine and you score 0 with an incomplete lineup. Would it be allowed for an NFL team to refuse to play because they are ahead and don't want to risk losing?

kind of like taking a knee with a late lead?

 

[puckalicious]

Allowing last minute roster changes between the morning and afternoon games seems pretty silly.

\Isn't that exactly how 90% of FF does it?If somebody hasn't played yet, you cna change their position around on your team. If they have played, they are locked into that spot at kickoff of their own game.

Allows neat little strategies like no DEF if you are winning on Monday night and don't want to go negative b/c your D is the only player left.

And also lets you go to a guy who could be a 40 or 0 point player instea dof a solid 15-20 based on what you need to win.

I hope most leagues are like mine and you score 0 with an incomplete lineup. Would it be allowed for an NFL team to refuse to play because they are ahead and don't want to risk losing?

kind of like taking a knee with a late lead?

Not the same thing. They are still on the field and calling a play. A turnover could still happen. Not starting a player is refusing to play and to me is akin to "i'm taking my ball and going home".

 

[Chargers86]

In my league, you automatically forfeit that week if you submit an incomplete lineup. Even having player in your lineup with an "O" next to his name does not count. You must have an ACTIVE player in every position, bye week players are not allowed.

 

[Frank Black]

I agree that you should always start your best player regardless of who your opponent starts. However, what if the situation is all other things being equal, i.e. your choices for QB are between 2 equal players with equal matchups. How does the OP's question play out then?

 

[Instinctive]

In my league, you automatically forfeit that week if you submit an incomplete lineup. Even having player in your lineup with an "O" next to his name does not count. You must have an ACTIVE player in every position, bye week players are not allowed.

We require transaction fees, and if you don't want to pay when, for example, your kicker is on bye...you can wait til Monday and see if you need kicker points to win. And not playign a player b/c he can score negative is exactly like taking a knee. I have never ever seen a take-a-knee for real play be screwed up.

 

[Instinctive]

Not the same thing. They are still on the field and calling a play. A turnover could still happen. Not starting a player is refusing to play and to me is akin to "i'm taking my ball and going home".

Really? I think the line drawn there would be takning. Protect yourself from losing by strategically sitting a player seems more akin to sitting Peyton Manning in week 17 when your playoff berth is clinched.hmmmmm

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

It does'nt work , always play your best player , always .

This again? Those who speak in platitudes are always wrong. Always.This strategy is not usually a good way to determine your lineup, however, it can be a good bet-hedging strategy if you know a few things in advance.

For example, in your case: you know that Hass plays the 3pm game. Assuming you can make last minute roster changes, pretend for a moment that you lead your opponent by 20 points going into that game with ONLY your QB and him ONLY Housh remaining.

Let's say your options at QB are Kurt Warner (also a late game) and Hass. Normally you would start Warner over Hass - however, given the information you have, the wise choice would be to start Hass. This essentially prevents Housh from having the kind of game that could beat you.

Contrary to popular opinion, the object of fantasy football is NOT to score as many points as you can. The object is to score more points than your opponent.

ETA: I didn't really answer your specific question did I? Well, if your situation is not really similar to the one I described, I'd suggest you simply put forth the lineup that you believe will result in the highest score for your team.

The best way to score more points than your opponent are to play the players you think are going to score the most points on your roster, regardless of your opponent's starting roster.I will agree that one should always keep an open mind -- platitudes are not always worng, otherwise they would not have become platitudes, but you are right in that one should never say never. In the situation described, I think it's better to have the starting QB as the mitigator than the WR.

But even the situation you outline can be folly if, say, in addition to throwing a TD and giving Housh 60+ yards, Hass fumbles the ball away twice and throws 3 picks.

It's funny, I actually face this situation this week -- my opponent has Palmer, and I have Henry on my bench in a PPR league. I'm starting Santana Moss, even with a tough matchup against the Giants, though, as I think the point gains Moss gets from being targeted just a little more is worth more than mitigating potential points that Henry will have from Palmer. Palmer will surely be throwing to Ocho and others as well.

Bottom line, this is a strategy that can be used, for sure -- I just think a more consistant winning strategy is to play the players you think will get the most points.

 

[The Big Guy]

Just start the team that you think will score you the most points and you will win or lose based on that.

The true shark move is to have a signature that is 30 lines long, with 10 to explain your starting roster for no reason at all. That draws more attention to your posts and proves your value to the site.

 

[-baller]

Allowing last minute roster changes between the morning and afternoon games seems pretty silly.

\Isn't that exactly how 90% of FF does it?If somebody hasn't played yet, you cna change their position around on your team. If they have played, they are locked into that spot at kickoff of their own game.

Allows neat little strategies like no DEF if you are winning on Monday night and don't want to go negative b/c your D is the only player left.

And also lets you go to a guy who could be a 40 or 0 point player instea dof a solid 15-20 based on what you need to win.

I hope most leagues are like mine and you score 0 with an incomplete lineup. Would it be allowed for an NFL team to refuse to play because they are ahead and don't want to risk losing?

why would you possibly care if other leagues adhere to your nonsense rules?are you fundamentalist christian, by any chance?

 

[-baller]

The true shark move is to have a signature that is 30 lines long, with 10 to explain your starting roster for no reason at all. That draws more attention to your posts and proves your value to the site.

The best way to score more points than your opponent are to play the players you think are going to score the most points on your roster, regardless of your opponent's starting roster.

actually, the best way to score more points isn't to play the players you think will score more, but to play the players that score more.you are pretending that you actually know who will score more, but you don't, so it all becomes a risk/reward analysis.you might say that the guy 60% likely to score high points is better than the 40% likely guy, but what if the penalty for failing to accomplish this is 5x greater for the 60% guy?and on top of all this, you're just making up these 60/40 numbers in your own head, to begin with.yeah, it'd work great if I actually knew for sure would score the most points, but we don't know that, and neither do you.

 

[SSOG]

Allowing last minute roster changes between the morning and afternoon games seems pretty silly.

Forcing a player to decide at 10 AM Sunday whether to start a player who is a game-time decision and whose status won't be known until 3 PM Sunday seems pretty silly.If coaches of teams in the late games start announcing the results of all "Game-time decisions" prior to kickoff of the early games, then I'll start setting my complete lineup before the morning games and leaving it all day.

 

[-baller]

Allowing last minute roster changes between the morning and afternoon games seems pretty silly.

Forcing a player to decide at 10 AM Sunday whether to start a player who is a game-time decision and whose status won't be known until 3 PM Sunday seems pretty silly.If coaches of teams in the late games start announcing the results of all "Game-time decisions" prior to kickoff of the early games, then I'll start setting my complete lineup before the morning games and leaving it all day.

 

[puckalicious]

Allowing last minute roster changes between the morning and afternoon games seems pretty silly.

\Isn't that exactly how 90% of FF does it?If somebody hasn't played yet, you cna change their position around on your team. If they have played, they are locked into that spot at kickoff of their own game.

Allows neat little strategies like no DEF if you are winning on Monday night and don't want to go negative b/c your D is the only player left.

And also lets you go to a guy who could be a 40 or 0 point player instea dof a solid 15-20 based on what you need to win.

I hope most leagues are like mine and you score 0 with an incomplete lineup. Would it be allowed for an NFL team to refuse to play because they are ahead and don't want to risk losing?

why would you possibly care if other leagues adhere to your nonsense rules?are you fundamentalist christian, by any chance?

You're right, I really could care less about bush-league rules in other people's leagues. Let's not get religious here that's what the FFA is for.

 

[-baller]

Allowing last minute roster changes between the morning and afternoon games seems pretty silly.

\Isn't that exactly how 90% of FF does it?If somebody hasn't played yet, you cna change their position around on your team. If they have played, they are locked into that spot at kickoff of their own game.

Allows neat little strategies like no DEF if you are winning on Monday night and don't want to go negative b/c your D is the only player left.

And also lets you go to a guy who could be a 40 or 0 point player instea dof a solid 15-20 based on what you need to win.

I hope most leagues are like mine and you score 0 with an incomplete lineup. Would it be allowed for an NFL team to refuse to play because they are ahead and don't want to risk losing?

why would you possibly care if other leagues adhere to your nonsense rules?are you fundamentalist christian, by any chance?

You're right, I really could care less about bush-league rules in other people's leagues.

so, you're saying you really DO care quite a bit?

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

The true shark move is to have a signature that is 30 lines long, with 10 to explain your starting roster for no reason at all. That draws more attention to your posts and proves your value to the site.

The best way to score more points than your opponent are to play the players you think are going to score the most points on your roster, regardless of your opponent's starting roster.

actually, the best way to score more points isn't to play the players you think will score more, but to play the players that score more.you are pretending that you actually know who will score more, but you don't, so it all becomes a risk/reward analysis.

you might say that the guy 60% likely to score high points is better than the 40% likely guy, but what if the penalty for failing to accomplish this is 5x greater for the 60% guy?

and on top of all this, you're just making up these 60/40 numbers in your own head, to begin with.

yeah, it'd work great if I actually knew for sure would score the most points, but we don't know that, and neither do you.

It's true that this is all about risk analysis, but in the end, it is still based on the players you think will score more. Unless you have some Wellsian time machine squirreled away in your cupboard behind the margarita blender and that egg poacher you bought after seeing the infomercial at 4 AM but have never used, you won't know which players are the ones that score more...until you know.But now we're down to semantics.

 

[Jersey35]

It does'nt work , always play your best player , always .

This again? Those who speak in platitudes are always wrong. Always.This strategy is not usually a good way to determine your lineup, however, it can be a good bet-hedging strategy if you know a few things in advance.

For example, in your case: you know that Hass plays the 3pm game. Assuming you can make last minute roster changes, pretend for a moment that you lead your opponent by 20 points going into that game with ONLY your QB and him ONLY Housh remaining.

Let's say your options at QB are Kurt Warner (also a late game) and Hass. Normally you would start Warner over Hass - however, given the information you have, the wise choice would be to start Hass. This essentially prevents Housh from having the kind of game that could beat you.

Contrary to popular opinion, the object of fantasy football is NOT to score as many points as you can. The object is to score more points than your opponent.

ETA: I didn't really answer your specific question did I? Well, if your situation is not really similar to the one I described, I'd suggest you simply put forth the lineup that you believe will result in the highest score for your team.

The best way to score more points than your opponent are to play the players you think are going to score the most points on your roster, regardless of your opponent's starting roster.I will agree that one should always keep an open mind -- platitudes are not always worng, otherwise they would not have become platitudes, but you are right in that one should never say never. In the situation described, I think it's better to have the starting QB as the mitigator than the WR.

But even the situation you outline can be folly if, say, in addition to throwing a TD and giving Housh 60+ yards, Hass fumbles the ball away twice and throws 3 picks.

It's funny, I actually face this situation this week -- my opponent has Palmer, and I have Henry on my bench in a PPR league. I'm starting Santana Moss, even with a tough matchup against the Giants, though, as I think the point gains Moss gets from being targeted just a little more is worth more than mitigating potential points that Henry will have from Palmer. Palmer will surely be throwing to Ocho and others as well.

Bottom line, this is a strategy that can be used, for sure -- I just think a more consistant winning strategy is to play the players you think will get the most points.

This is a nice post, but you never know who will actually score the most points - you just make your best guess. In fact, you could even start with 100% efficiency and still lose - because the truth is, scoring as many points as you can doesn't even guarantee you a win.As you stated, the situation I offered up could be folly. Most people who make this argument fail to remember that starting the guy that you think could score the most points also can end in a loss. The point I'm making here is that the chance that his one player (Housh) can have a game-changing type performance is GREATLY reduced by hedging and going with what might be otherwise be perceived as the lesser player. Look at it this more closely:

As in my example, you're up 20 points with just QB (Warner or Hass) for you, and Housh for the opponent. Let's say scoring is 6pts/td, 1ppr, and 1pt/25yds rec.

If you start Warner, Housh must outscore by 20 points - certainly not easy to do - but also not impossible given a bad game by Warner and a great game by Housh.

If you start Hass, Housh must also outscore Hass by that same 20 points, but will have to do so with TD's essentially not counting. That's a minimum of 20 points worth of yards and receptions. Not to mention that not every TD pass by Hass is countered by Housh. The chances of outscoring Hass by 20 are far less likely than him outscoring Warner.

Clearly, starting Hass, while not the player you project to score more points, gives you a better chance to win in this scenario.

As I did state in my post, however, generally speaking, you have no choice but to simply start the guys you think will score the most.

Edited to finish my last statement.

 

[Chaka]

I love my egg poacher.

 

[-baller]

It's true that this is all about risk analysis, but in the end, it is still based on the players you think will score more. Unless you have some Wellsian time machine squirreled away in your cupboard behind the margarita blender and that egg poacher you bought after seeing the infomercial at 4 AM but have never used, you won't know which players are the ones that score more...until you know.

But now we're down to semantics.

no, we actually aren't down to semantics.you are making the case to play the guy who will score the most, while you don't actually know which player that is.

I'm suggesting using a risk/reward approach.

when you're discussing two entirely different things it's not semantics.

when you can show me which player will 100% score the most points, then I won't worry about the reward side of the equation, until then, taking the other guy's players into account is just a common sense strategy.

 

[Jersey35]

I love my egg poacher.

 

[Instinctive]

It's true that this is all about risk analysis, but in the end, it is still based on the players you think will score more. Unless you have some Wellsian time machine squirreled away in your cupboard behind the margarita blender and that egg poacher you bought after seeing the infomercial at 4 AM but have never used, you won't know which players are the ones that score more...until you know.

But now we're down to semantics.

no, we actually aren't down to semantics.you are making the case to play the guy who will score the most, while you don't actually know which player that is.

I'm suggesting using a risk/reward approach.

when you're discussing two entirely different things it's not semantics.

when you can show me which player will 100% score the most points, then I won't worry about the reward side of the equation, until then, taking the other guy's players into account is just a common sense strategy.

The problem here is that unless your opponent is better evrywhere, and thus forcing you to start guys with amazing matchups that could absolutely blow up instead of a conventional lineup...Your opponents players do not affect your team. You want to score more, yes, but who they start doesn't change how well any one of your guys will do. Now, in the Housh/Warner-Hass example, there is some semblanc eof reason to look at it. But under that extrmely difficult set of circumstances...(SEA must be playing the same time as ARZ, both must be playing after all other players on the Housh team are done, and all but the QBs on the Hass/Warner team are done. That situation would come up almost exclusively on SNF or MNF)

You play the guys that give you the best chance to win. The highest score has the best chance to win. Transitively, you will thus play the guys you think will score the highest if you are trying to win.

a=b

b=c

a=c

Simple high school freshman geometry.

 

[Montana16]

Oops, just saw the above poster said pretty much everything I say here. anyway...This is a topic that has been talked about at length by everyone I know who plays. I used to start kickers based on opponents qb, thinking that if he stalled in the red zone, id get the fg, lol. wr of my opponents qb etc etc. All of it is nonsense. The only answer is start who you think will score more. Im no math major or genius and i'll admit at first glance it looks like some tricky edge can be gained. There is no edge. it's simply mathematically rediculous when thought out.

Each position can be thought of as a nameless, faceless slot that puts a number next to it after the game. Ur qb tossing to the other guys wr is simply coincidence that it happened in the same play. it's no different than another wr miles away randomly catching a td from someone else that you couldv started. Ok great, hasselbeck tossed 2 tds for you and he had housh. If at the end of the game hass has 23 pnts but ur other qb had 24, whats the difference whether he had the wr who scored or not?

There is no edge, no trick.

 

[-baller]

Your opponents players do not affect your team. You want to score more, yes, but who they start doesn't change how well any one of your guys will do. Now, in the Housh/Warner-Hass example, there is some semblanc eof reason to look at it. But under that extrmely difficult set of circumstances...(SEA must be playing the same time as ARZ, both must be playing after all other players on the Housh team are done, and all but the QBs on the Hass/Warner team are done. That situation would come up almost exclusively on SNF or MNF)You play the guys that give you the best chance to win. The highest score has the best chance to win. Transitively, you will thus play the guys you think will score the highest if you are trying to win.a=bb=ca=cSimple high school freshman geometry.

I would suggest leaving the high school math to high school kids.this post is simpy a rehash of earlier posts --- nowhere in your post have you come close to addressing the issue.in a h2h league (not total points), I will take 100% to outscore my opponent over 70% to score extra points.that's all it boils down to, as illustrated pretty simply by an above poster.while I wouldn't say it comes up very often, it does come up often enough for discussion on a message board while awaiting sunday's games.

 

[Wadsworth]

Oops, just saw the above poster said pretty much everything I say here. anyway...This is a topic that has been talked about at length by everyone I know who plays. I used to start kickers based on opponents qb, thinking that if he stalled in the red zone, id get the fg, lol. wr of my opponents qb etc etc. All of it is nonsense. The only answer is start who you think will score more. Im no math major or genius and i'll admit at first glance it looks like some tricky edge can be gained. There is no edge. it's simply mathematically rediculous when thought out. Each position can be thought of as a nameless, faceless slot that puts a number next to it after the game. Ur qb tossing to the other guys wr is simply coincidence that it happened in the same play. it's no different than another wr miles away randomly catching a td from someone else that you couldv started. Ok great, hasselbeck tossed 2 tds for you and he had housh. If at the end of the game hass has 23 pnts but ur other qb had 24, whats the difference whether he had the wr who scored or not? There is no edge, no trick.

That's great if you are always able to predict how many points players will score. But if not then you are wrong. Using the Warner, Hass, Housh example, if you would start Warner instead of Hass in that situation it would be a mistake. Housh outing scoring Warner by 20 point is unlikely, but Housh outscoring Hass by 20 points is close to impossible if Hass isn't knocked out of the game. Since we can't predict injuries and Warner is certainly just as likely to get injured and removed from the game as Hass, starting Warner would be a mistake even if you project him to score 3 more points than Hass. This certainly isn't a strategy that you would normally use but in certain situations, which I could list a few but fear it would derail this thread even more, it is the shark move to start a player that you project to score fewer points.

 

[Instinctive]

Your opponents players do not affect your team. You want to score more, yes, but who they start doesn't change how well any one of your guys will do. Now, in the Housh/Warner-Hass example, there is some semblanc eof reason to look at it. But under that extrmely difficult set of circumstances...(SEA must be playing the same time as ARZ, both must be playing after all other players on the Housh team are done, and all but the QBs on the Hass/Warner team are done. That situation would come up almost exclusively on SNF or MNF)You play the guys that give you the best chance to win. The highest score has the best chance to win. Transitively, you will thus play the guys you think will score the highest if you are trying to win.a=bb=ca=cSimple high school freshman geometry.

I would suggest leaving the high school math to high school kids.this post is simpy a rehash of earlier posts --- nowhere in your post have you come close to addressing the issue.in a h2h league (not total points), I will take 100% to outscore my opponent over 70% to score extra points.that's all it boils down to, as illustrated pretty simply by an above poster.while I wouldn't say it comes up very often, it does come up often enough for discussion on a message board while awaiting sunday's games.

The problem is that you're acting like we're going to be performing along a Production Possibilities Curve. We aren't. There is no chances like what you mean. Now, you can say that Derrick Mason is a safer play than Chris Henry (which I agree with) but you never know. There is no such thing a a lock. Last season, down the stretch against KC, Peyton Hillis was a lock....then he broke his leg. Look, I see what you mean in that if you take all the safe plays and those totaled should outscore your opponent, go for it. But the point is to outscore them, and playign the players who you think will simply score the most points out of the rest of your team is the way to best guarantee a win. You act as though you have a crystal ball that can see exactly which lineup will beat your opponent by at least a tenth fo a point. You don't. Let me repeat...you don't. The reason you play the guys with the best chance to score the most points is because your opponent is doing the same. Now you can play everybody to get 10 points guaranteed, and have 100 points. But if you're opponent gets 63 from nine guys total (7 each), and then 39 from his last guy....your theory means nothing.Well, what I can make of your theory. It is either totally ignorant (not meant as an insult but a statement of fact using a more strict interpreatation of the word's definition) or incredibly poorly articulated.And oh, just because you made me laugh with your high school math retort....I teach high school math 3 days a week for community service...while I major in Mechanical Engineering here in New Haven.

 

[Instinctive]

That's great if you are always able to predict how many points players will score. But if not then you are wrong. Using the Warner, Hass, Housh example, if you would start Warner instead of Hass in that situation it would be a mistake. Housh outing scoring Warner by 20 point is unlikely, but Housh outscoring Hass by 20 points is close to impossible if Hass isn't knocked out of the game. Since we can't predict injuries and Warner is certainly just as likely to get injured and removed from the game as Hass, starting Warner would be a mistake even if you project him to score 3 more points than Hass. This certainly isn't a strategy that you would normally use but in certain situations, which I could list a few but fear it would derail this thread even more, it is the shark move to start a player that you project to score fewer points.

FYI, I agree that under this exact circumstance (which I outlined in a post roughly 4 posts ago) Hass is the better play. But that circumstance is one I have almost never encountered. Maybe twice a year. (out of 8 leagues) Everything else has to factor in sooooo perfectly...just isn't going to happen often enough to be called a strategy. Now, if the situation does come up, it is definitely a shrewd and correct play, just like the when down by 20 and you have 2 monday night guys at one position left and your opponent is done...the correct play is to go with the boom or bust guy, not the safe 10 point option.

 

[-baller]

You act as though you have a crystal ball that can see exactly which lineup will beat your opponent by at least a tenth fo a point. You don't. Let me repeat...you don't. The reason you play the guys with the best chance to score the most points is because your opponent is doing the same. Now you can play everybody to get 10 points guaranteed, and have 100 points. But if you're opponent gets 63 from nine guys total (7 each), and then 39 from his last guy....your theory means nothing.Well, what I can make of your theory. It is either totally ignorant (not meant as an insult but a statement of fact using a more strict interpreatation of the word's definition) or incredibly poorly articulated.And oh, just because you made me laugh with your high school math retort....I teach high school math 3 days a week for community service...while I major in Mechanical Engineering here in New Haven.

well, I will agree that there's obviously some kind of communication issue, as you don't seem to understand any of this, and just keep repeating the same post over and over.let me repeat.....you don't....know who is going to score the most points.maybe if I could find a high school english teacher.......by the way, I certainly can't take credit for this 'theory' any more than I'd take credit for using electricity.

 

[SSOG]

You play the guys that give you the best chance to win. The highest score has the best chance to win. Transitively, you will thus play the guys you think will score the highest if you are trying to win.a=bb=ca=cSimple high school freshman geometry.

The problem is that b doesn't automatically equal c just because you say it does.Let's perform a thought experiment. Let's say you're in a league that allows every player to be drafted and owned twice (i.e. two people can own Tom Brady, or Larry Fitzgerald, or Anquan Boldin). After all the Sunday games, you have a 1 point lead going into the Monday night game, and both you and your opponent only have your QB left to play. MNF is Dolphins vs. the Pats. Your opponent's QB is Chad Pennington. You have both Tom Brady and Chad Pennington. Which QB gives you the best chance of winning?Obviously, Tom Brady is projected to outscore Chad Pennington in any given week. That's a no-brainer, slam dunk pick. If you pick the guy who you *THINK* will score the most points, you'll start Tom Brady... and it will be a mistake. Your odds of winning this week might be 70%, or 80%, maybe even 90%... but if you start Chad Pennington, the guy you have projected to score fewer points, your odds of winning are 100%. The *ONLY* intelligent decision is to start Chad Pennington.While you will *USUALLY* be best served by starting the players you think will score the most points, there are *SPECIFIC SITUATIONS* where you will be better off using risk management and employing a strategy with a lower expected payout, but a higher expected chance of winning.

 

[Wadsworth]

That's great if you are always able to predict how many points players will score. But if not then you are wrong. Using the Warner, Hass, Housh example, if you would start Warner instead of Hass in that situation it would be a mistake. Housh outing scoring Warner by 20 point is unlikely, but Housh outscoring Hass by 20 points is close to impossible if Hass isn't knocked out of the game. Since we can't predict injuries and Warner is certainly just as likely to get injured and removed from the game as Hass, starting Warner would be a mistake even if you project him to score 3 more points than Hass.

This certainly isn't a strategy that you would normally use but in certain situations, which I could list a few but fear it would derail this thread even more, it is the shark move to start a player that you project to score fewer points.

FYI, I agree that under this exact circumstance (which I outlined in a post roughly 4 posts ago) Hass is the better play. But that circumstance is one I have almost never encountered. Maybe twice a year. (out of 8 leagues) Everything else has to factor in sooooo perfectly...just isn't going to happen often enough to be called a strategy. Now, if the situation does come up, it is definitely a shrewd and correct play, just like the when down by 20 and you have 2 monday night guys at one position left and your opponent is done...the correct play is to go with the boom or bust guy, not the safe 10 point option.

Agreed. It is a very rare situation and I strongly suspect that most of the time people try and "cover" another player or make the "safe" play that it's the wrong play. I was only responding to the people saying that it's never the correct move to start any player that you don't project to score the most points. In certain rare situations it's the right play.

 

[-baller]

You play the guys that give you the best chance to win. The highest score has the best chance to win. Transitively, you will thus play the guys you think will score the highest if you are trying to win.

a=b

b=c

a=c

Simple high school freshman geometry.

The problem is that b doesn't automatically equal c just because you say it does.Let's perform a thought experiment. Let's say you're in a league that allows every player to be drafted and owned twice (i.e. two people can own Tom Brady, or Larry Fitzgerald, or Anquan Boldin). After all the Sunday games, you have a 1 point lead going into the Monday night game, and both you and your opponent only have your QB left to play. MNF is Dolphins vs. the Pats. Your opponent's QB is Chad Pennington. You have both Tom Brady and Chad Pennington. Which QB gives you the best chance of winning?

Obviously, Tom Brady is projected to outscore Chad Pennington in any given week. That's a no-brainer, slam dunk pick. If you pick the guy who you *THINK* will score the most points, you'll start Tom Brady... and it will be a mistake. Your odds of winning this week might be 70%, or 80%, maybe even 90%... but if you start Chad Pennington, the guy you have projected to score fewer points, your odds of winning are 100%. The *ONLY* intelligent decision is to start Chad Pennington.

While you will *USUALLY* be best served by starting the players you think will score the most points, there are *SPECIFIC SITUATIONS* where you will be better off using risk management and employing a strategy with a lower expected payout, but a higher expected chance of winning.

what they really need here is an excellent post smiley.if people can't understand it after that one, I think it's time to give up.

 

[RudeDog]

Allowing last minute roster changes between the morning and afternoon games seems pretty silly.

\Isn't that exactly how 90% of FF does it?If somebody hasn't played yet, you cna change their position around on your team. If they have played, they are locked into that spot at kickoff of their own game.

Allows neat little strategies like no DEF if you are winning on Monday night and don't want to go negative b/c your D is the only player left.

And also lets you go to a guy who could be a 40 or 0 point player instea dof a solid 15-20 based on what you need to win.

I hope most leagues are like mine and you score 0 with an incomplete lineup. Would it be allowed for an NFL team to refuse to play because they are ahead and don't want to risk losing?

why would you possibly care if other leagues adhere to your nonsense rules?are you fundamentalist christian, by any chance?

Careful baller. Comments like that will get you a vacation.

 

[lyon812]

Allowing last minute roster changes between the morning and afternoon games seems pretty silly.

Forcing a player to decide at 10 AM Sunday whether to start a player who is a game-time decision and whose status won't be known until 3 PM Sunday seems pretty silly.If coaches of teams in the late games start announcing the results of all "Game-time decisions" prior to kickoff of the early games, then I'll start setting my complete lineup before the morning games and leaving it all day.

Nah, I misunderstood Jersey35's post. Since the OP's choices are Schaub and Hasselbeck, I interpreted his "you know that Hass plays the 3pm game. Assuming you can make last minute roster changes..." as being "see what Schaub does, then decide who to start". Which would be silly, hence my comment. But I see he was thinking of it in terms of two late game QB's, not early-late like the OP's situation. That's what I get for replying as I'm out the door.Regardless, to your game-time decision point, I'm admit I'm always shocked that so many fantasy football leagues don't have the ability to list backups in case someone doesn't play. It seems like it'd be pretty easy to implement.

 

[Instinctive]

You play the guys that give you the best chance to win. The highest score has the best chance to win. Transitively, you will thus play the guys you think will score the highest if you are trying to win.a=bb=ca=cSimple high school freshman geometry.

The problem is that b doesn't automatically equal c just because you say it does.Let's perform a thought experiment. Let's say you're in a league that allows every player to be drafted and owned twice (i.e. two people can own Tom Brady, or Larry Fitzgerald, or Anquan Boldin). After all the Sunday games, you have a 1 point lead going into the Monday night game, and both you and your opponent only have your QB left to play. MNF is Dolphins vs. the Pats. Your opponent's QB is Chad Pennington. You have both Tom Brady and Chad Pennington. Which QB gives you the best chance of winning?Obviously, Tom Brady is projected to outscore Chad Pennington in any given week. That's a no-brainer, slam dunk pick. If you pick the guy who you *THINK* will score the most points, you'll start Tom Brady... and it will be a mistake. Your odds of winning this week might be 70%, or 80%, maybe even 90%... but if you start Chad Pennington, the guy you have projected to score fewer points, your odds of winning are 100%. The *ONLY* intelligent decision is to start Chad Pennington.While you will *USUALLY* be best served by starting the players you think will score the most points, there are *SPECIFIC SITUATIONS* where you will be better off using risk management and employing a strategy with a lower expected payout, but a higher expected chance of winning.

I think we're to the point where we are making the same point. In all except the most specific situations...playign aorund like that is not good. But yes, in that circumstance, playing the same guy will guarantee you the win. That is not an a=b=c=a situation anymore though. Now you have changed variables. It is a=b and c=d, and neither c nor d are equal to a.So, as I stated in the post you conveniently cherry picked a small part of (which was explaining a different concept) under certain specific circumstances, there are unorthodox plays that are better. Which I believe I explained with the HassWarner vs Housh deal.I suppose I could clarify the variables. Let a=the players who you think will score most let b=the highest score let c= victoryTherefore, if the highest score is a result of playing the players who will score the highest, and the highest score is also going to result in a victory, then playing the players who will score the highest is also equal to a victory.I agree that in that extremely specific situation, preserving the status quo exactly is the right play to ensure victory. Just like not playing a def when your opponent's team is all done and you're going into MNF with a better score already.But, even in that situation, if Brady is going to score more than Penny, then a still equals c. Highest score still wins. In your situation, you are saying x+y+z > x+d+e and I agree. But if x+y+z is also greater than d+e+f, then you still win the game.

 

[-baller]

I suppose I could clarify the variables.

Let a=the players who you think will score most let b=the highest score let c= victory

Therefore, if the highest score is a result of playing the players who will score the highest, and the highest score is also going to result in a victory, then playing the players who will score the highest is also equal to a victory.

that would be correct, although you act as though you have a crystal ball that can see exactly which players will score the highest. You don't. Let me repeat...you don't. you even confused yourself on your own 'illustration', to use the term very loosely.

a /= the players who will score the highest

I hope to christ you never end up teaching any of my kids.

how are you possibly not getting this?

u + r = fail

 

[Man In The Box]

u + r = fail

 

[puckalicious]

That's great if you are always able to predict how many points players will score. But if not then you are wrong. Using the Warner, Hass, Housh example, if you would start Warner instead of Hass in that situation it would be a mistake. Housh outing scoring Warner by 20 point is unlikely, but Housh outscoring Hass by 20 points is close to impossible if Hass isn't knocked out of the game. Since we can't predict injuries and Warner is certainly just as likely to get injured and removed from the game as Hass, starting Warner would be a mistake even if you project him to score 3 more points than Hass. This certainly isn't a strategy that you would normally use but in certain situations, which I could list a few but fear it would derail this thread even more, it is the shark move to start a player that you project to score fewer points.

FYI, I agree that under this exact circumstance (which I outlined in a post roughly 4 posts ago) Hass is the better play. But that circumstance is one I have almost never encountered. Maybe twice a year. (out of 8 leagues) Everything else has to factor in sooooo perfectly...just isn't going to happen often enough to be called a strategy. Now, if the situation does come up, it is definitely a shrewd and correct play, just like the when down by 20 and you have 2 monday night guys at one position left and your opponent is done...the correct play is to go with the boom or bust guy, not the safe 10 point option.

I understand your point, and agree with it for the most part, but I always chuckle at this notion of a 'safe' 10 point option (assuming not a qb). I have never seen a player that is a lock for 10pts every week. IMO every player is boom or bust and I'd rather play the guy that booms with more consistency.SSOG's example is the perfect explanation, but it's sort of like telling a racecar driver to slow down in order to win. It's a hard concept to get for some.I totally get and agree with the example of starting your QB that throws to your opponents WR (Hass to Housh), but what about the other way around? In this case you gotta start the WR who you think will score more, because there's no guarantee your WR will get the all the TDs from his QB.

 

[DropKick]

Allowing last minute roster changes between the morning and afternoon games seems pretty silly.

\Isn't that exactly how 90% of FF does it?If somebody hasn't played yet, you cna change their position around on your team. If they have played, they are locked into that spot at kickoff of their own game.Allows neat little strategies like no DEF if you are winning on Monday night and don't want to go negative b/c your D is the only player left.And also lets you go to a guy who could be a 40 or 0 point player instea dof a solid 15-20 based on what you need to win.

One of the funniest things I've ever seen is a guy who did precisely that... pulled his "D" up by 2 points going into Monday night... On Wednesday, the NFL adjusted stats and his guy went from 100 to 99 yards rushing costing him several points and the game.His D scored in the mid teens.. too bad, karma is a biotch.