I thought it was dead-on-balls-accurate to the point. Cliches don't win fantasy games, points do.That it needed to be said was validated by the fact that someone almost immediately challenged it with something they thought was equally profound (but I didn't understand at all). In what situation does scoring fewer points ever help you win?
I always start the guys I expect to score the most points.
I don't. I always start the guys I expect to give me the highest likelihood of winning.
I'd love to hear further explanation of this.I know your a statistical zealot, so are we in the realm of "likely outcome" vs "improbably but possible outcome"?
Situation #1: It's Monday afternoon, you have a 1 point lead over your competitor, and all of his players are done for the week. All of your players have played except for your RB. You have a choice between starting two different players. One is Adrian Peterson, and one is Ben Tate. Assuming your league doesn't penalize you for starting players on IR, and assuming that fumbles are worth negative points, who is the smart play, here?Well, I would expect Adrian Peterson to score way more points than Ben Tate. Really, it's not even close. Peterson would likely DEMOLISH Tate. With that said, if I start Ben Tate, I have a 100% chance of winning. If I start Adrian Peterson, I have a 99% chance of him winning, and a 1% chance of something absolutely crazy happening, such as Peterson fumbling on his first carry, getting injured, and not returning to the game. Remember his 14 rushes for 3 yards game against San Fran his rookie year? If he fumbled, he would have scored negative points and lost me the game. In this case, starting the guy I expect to score fewer points increases my chances of winning.Situation #2: The Vikings are playing the Saints, and my opponent has drafted every Saint on the planet. His starting lineup is Drew Brees, Pierre Thomas, Reggie Bush, Marques Colston, Devery Henderson, Robert Meachem, Jeremy Shockey, and Garrett Hartley. I happen to own the Vikings defense, as well as some other mediocre defense, and the scoring is extremely dependent on points allowed and yardage allowed. In this case, even if I have the Vikings defense rated highly, I should start my other defense. If the Vikings defense performs well, his entire team is going to blow that week, so I won't need the points that that defense provides. If his team scores a ton of points and I need my defense to step up, the Vikings defense will be getting hammered and possibly even providing a negative score. In this case, starting your "worse" defense should be an absolute no-brainer.At the end of the day, unless you're playing in a total points or all-play league, or you're playing in a league that offers cash prizes to the weekly high scorer, the goal is NOT to score the most points, the goal is to score more points than your opponent. It's a key distinction. Some strategies that maximize your expected point output do NOT maximize your chances of outscoring your opponent.Now, situations where I'm intentionally not maximizing my scoring potential are rare, but I'd say I find myself in Situation #1 a half dozen times per season, and if there's no real rule against it, I'll frequently pick up and start a player that's already been ruled out for the games just to guarantee myself the win. Situation #2 is much rarer, but there have still been times where I have allowed my opponent's team to influence my own starting lineup, and most especially to influence which defense I choose to start. I don't like starting a defense that's facing a lot of his players, simply because while the expected value of the start might be high, the points it scores won't be "timely"- either that defense will score a lot of points in what was already a blowout win for me, or else it'll score very few points in a close game for me. Neither alternative really helps me at all.
Constantly evaluate your roster. Down to the last man and decide who they are. They are who you think they are.
