Catbird
Footballguy
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.
C'mon SSOG. You're getting more than a little bit cocky and looking for fights where they don't exist. Six times a year you face situation #1, where you have to sit the better player to ensure a win? The situation you describe would only occur when you have a 1-2 point lead, your opponent has no players left and you have some, and have time to change your lineup. So only in a Sunday evening or later circumstance with only you having players left and you holding a 1-2 point lead? Six times a year? You are only going to have the lead with 1 or 2 games yet to be played, on average, 8 times per year (if you dominate your league, maybe 11 times). You are claiming that MOST of those your lead is only 1 or 2 (or 3?) points, you have a player left and your opponent doesn't? That's just not the case.
The number of times your FF defense faces a host of offensive players owned by your opponent is equally rare, if not moreso. You would only face that situation if your defense is, lets say, the Vikings and you play a particularly Viking-heavy opponent. (If an opponent only has Favre, for example, I don't see intentionally playing your significantly worse defense based on Favre's production facing your defense's production). So facing a particularly Viking-heavy offense could happen once a year (possibly twice based on league size and schedule). I suggest that far more often, the key Viking players are split up amongst several teams, so that you would only face one or maybe 2 at a time and there is no compelling reason to play your significantly lesser defense. So altering your defensive choice to teh significantly lesser scoring option might happen once (or twice) if some guy has a particularly Viking-heavy offense, but more often than not, with the key Vikings split up, doesn't happen at all in the season.
In my leagues, total points are part of the playoff tiebreaker calculation. In some, total points IS the tiebreaker. In others, its the fallback tiebreaker. I am not going to be sitting ADP, or my best defensive option except in the rarest of situations. Take into account that you won't see situation #1 coming, if ever, until after the Sunday afternoon games are over and I think you should agree that at least going in, you start the guys you think will score the most, unless there is some very rare other situation occurring?
For my 2 cents, on the real question here, I don't rate guys as 'stud' or 'non-stud' and play some no matter what. I look at the situation everyone on my roster faces, remember why I picked the guys early that I did, and try to play those I think will score the most that week. And I hope my opponent is starting Boldin against Revis, and over Hines Ward, because he thought Anquan 'a stud' and thus unsittable.
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.
C'mon SSOG. You're getting more than a little bit cocky and looking for fights where they don't exist. Six times a year you face situation #1, where you have to sit the better player to ensure a win? The situation you describe would only occur when you have a 1-2 point lead, your opponent has no players left and you have some, and have time to change your lineup. So only in a Sunday evening or later circumstance with only you having players left and you holding a 1-2 point lead? Six times a year? You are only going to have the lead with 1 or 2 games yet to be played, on average, 8 times per year (if you dominate your league, maybe 11 times). You are claiming that MOST of those your lead is only 1 or 2 (or 3?) points, you have a player left and your opponent doesn't? That's just not the case.
The number of times your FF defense faces a host of offensive players owned by your opponent is equally rare, if not moreso. You would only face that situation if your defense is, lets say, the Vikings and you play a particularly Viking-heavy opponent. (If an opponent only has Favre, for example, I don't see intentionally playing your significantly worse defense based on Favre's production facing your defense's production). So facing a particularly Viking-heavy offense could happen once a year (possibly twice based on league size and schedule). I suggest that far more often, the key Viking players are split up amongst several teams, so that you would only face one or maybe 2 at a time and there is no compelling reason to play your significantly lesser defense. So altering your defensive choice to teh significantly lesser scoring option might happen once (or twice) if some guy has a particularly Viking-heavy offense, but more often than not, with the key Vikings split up, doesn't happen at all in the season.
In my leagues, total points are part of the playoff tiebreaker calculation. In some, total points IS the tiebreaker. In others, its the fallback tiebreaker. I am not going to be sitting ADP, or my best defensive option except in the rarest of situations. Take into account that you won't see situation #1 coming, if ever, until after the Sunday afternoon games are over and I think you should agree that at least going in, you start the guys you think will score the most, unless there is some very rare other situation occurring?
For my 2 cents, on the real question here, I don't rate guys as 'stud' or 'non-stud' and play some no matter what. I look at the situation everyone on my roster faces, remember why I picked the guys early that I did, and try to play those I think will score the most that week. And I hope my opponent is starting Boldin against Revis, and over Hines Ward, because he thought Anquan 'a stud' and thus unsittable.
