Is This A Proper Fantasy Lineup Strategy? (1 Viewer)

[BuffaloWings]

Let's say you are choosing between two RBs to start where it is a tossup on where they are ranked to do better for a given week. Is it a proper strategy to bench the RB that is on a team where you have another player on the same team in your lineup as well, in order to spread the risk?

Let's take a week 15 example. Let's say you have Michael Turner and Ryan Mathews. Both are ranked pretty close, and one can make an argument for starting one over the other. You also have Tony Gonzalez on your team too.

So, using the proposed strategy, you start Ryan Mathews in order to spread the risk a bit. This avoids having two players in your lineup who play on the same team, where points may be divided between the two.

Obviously, both players on the same team could blow up and both score tons of points in a given week. I am just talking about the odds and statistical probabilities.

Or is this type of strategy just b.s. and over-thought?

 

[elbowrm]

Search for "starting" and "players" and "same team"

 

[Topes]

Or is this type of strategy just b.s. and over-thought?

IMO, this.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Let's say you are choosing between two RBs to start where it is a tossup on where they are ranked to do better for a given week. Is it a proper strategy to bench the RB that is on a team where you have another player on the same team in your lineup as well, in order to spread the risk?Let's take a week 15 example. Let's say you have Michael Turner and Ryan Mathews. Both are ranked pretty close, and one can make an argument for starting one over the other. You also have Tony Gonzalez on your team too.So, using the proposed strategy, you start Ryan Mathews in order to spread the risk a bit. This avoids having two players in your lineup who play on the same team, where points may be divided between the twbviously, both players on the same team could blow up and both score tons of points in a given week. I am just talking about the odds and statistical probabilities. Or is this type of strategy just b.s. and over-thought?

Whether or not you own Tony Gonzalez on your fantasy team isn't going to impact how well Michael Turner will do on the field. Turner probably doesn't even follow your fantasy team that closely.There are specific, "late-game" scenarios (e.g. going into MNF) where you may want to minimize or maximize your variance in some way. But for the most part, when you're setting your lineup on Sunday morning, just start the players who you think will score the most points. Anyone who advises you otherwise is likely overthinking it, or overestimating their predictive abilities.

 

[Dought Man]

start the players you feel will score you the most points. fin.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

So, using the proposed strategy, you start Ryan Mathews in order to spread the risk a bit. This avoids having two players in your lineup who play on the same team, where points may be divided between the two.

I think it's a real stretch to try and link Gonzo's potential production to Turner's in any way. Both could be highly productive, both could have poor games, or one could be good one poor, but their points will never "be divided between the two" since there's no set pool of points available for Turner and Gonzo.

 

[BuffaloWings]

Turner probably doesn't even follow your fantasy team that closely.

Are you sure? Maybe he has an uncontrollable fetish of coming home after practice and checking in on the 100K+ fantasy teams that own him, just to make sure they aren't doing something stupid like not starting him against Jacksonville. You just never know with these prima donna athletes.

 

[Bad_Mo]

I think your strategy works perfectly, especially when applied to the WRONG FORUM.

 

[texansfan80]

I don't agree with this at all.

One year I had Welker and Moss, game over. One made up for the other underproducing, the very few games that happened.

Many argue starting two studs from the same team is an advantageous strategy.

That being said I would start Mathews over Turner this week regardless. Tight ends and runnings backs aren't correlated positions.

 

[BuffaloWings]

I think your strategy works perfectly, especially when applied to the WRONG FORUM.

Actually it is not the wrong forum, but nice try though.

 

[Sweet Love]

Or is this type of strategy just b.s. and over-thought?

IMO, this.

Exactly. It could go either way (and if we really knew which way, there would be no lineup questions). If you don't start Turner, and he goes off for 2 TDs and 100+ yards, does it really matter what Gonzo did or did not do? Either way, you lose by not starting Turner (in that case). A team could put up 48 points with virtually nothing going to Gonzo or Turner, they could be the main beneficiaries, or of course, something in the middle. Unless you know how to predict NFL defense performances (and frankly, I don't), you may as well start the RB who you think is best.

 

[The Great Snook]

I think a lot of posters aren't following what you are saying (or maybe I'm not). It isn't that there is any sort of correalation between Turner and Gonzo. It is spreading your risk in case Atlanta throws up a stinkbomb and does nothing as a team. In that case yes, you have two guys that suffer the pain. I don't have evidence to support it, but in a feast situation not everyone on the team benefits, but in a famine situation it seems like all players suffer.

All that aside, I think you are overthinking it and should just start who you think is better. If however, you feel Matthews and Turner are exactly equal then I do see some logic in playing Matthews.

Lastly, death to forum rule nazis

 

[Cookiemonster]

I think your strategy works perfectly, especially when applied to the WRONG FORUM.

Actually it is not the wrong forum, but nice try though.

At the top of this page:

Threads that are asking for advice on how you should draft or manage your team belong in The Assistant Coach forum.

That said, we have this type of thread in the Shark Pool all the time. 1/2 of the threads here are about managing your team. Tips on waiver wire picks. Questioning a player's ranking for a given week (a broad discussion about who to start).Anyways, to the OP. There have been many who say this is overthinking and paralysis by analysis. Well, there have been some very intelligent and well researched articles, thoughts and threads about this subject and the idea of starting good players from a same team generally reduces risk in overall scoring. Starting say, Mike Wallace and Antonio Brown is usually a good strategy. But always start the players you project to score the most on a given week. The "same team" theory is only useful if you have equal rankings for other options at a position. For my Wallace/Brown example, I would likely go with someone else at one or both of those spots with them facing the 49ers this week and a hobbled Ben or even worse Charlie Batch. 9er D will get to the passer either way, and I project this to be a low-scoring, defensive battle. Given my projections, if I had say, Dez Bryant (14.6 PPR/PPG) vs the Bucs who is right near Wallace (16.9), I'd go with Bryant expecting the Cowboys to pass all over the Bucs while trying to protect/preserve Felix Jones since he is their only remaining RB. Then maybe a Santana Moss vs NYG (11.1) vs Brown (12.5).

 

[theplayer11]

funny how so many jump in with the same old canned responses and don't actually read and comprehend what the poster is saying. Stating "play the guy who you think will score the most points" is not relevant when the poster states he is deciding between to players who are ranked even..

 

[cheese]

Here is a question for you....

If you knew Tony G was going to put up a dud, would that make you expect more points, less points, or the same points from Turner?

I think part of the problem is you example. Those 2 guys are on the same team, but its debatable what sort of relationship they have to each other.

In other words, if I believed the original premise that Matthews over Turner spreads the risk, I would subscribe to that strategy in certain situations (i.e. being a big favorite). I don't, so I don't.

If you would say, I'm favored by 20 and my Mike Williams and Dwayne Bowe are ranked the same and Josh Freeman is my QB, would you spread the risk? Yes, I would start Bowe.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

funny how so many jump in with the same old canned responses and don't actually read and comprehend what the poster is saying. Stating "play the guy who you think will score the most points" is not relevant when the poster states he is deciding between to players who are ranked even..

I understand exactly what the OP is talking about. It's not a useful strategy. He should just start whichever one he thinks will score more points - and if he thinks they will score exactly the same number of points, then he should just pick one (if they're going to score exactly the same number of points, it doesn't matter which one he picks). If he wants to use the rationale he posted in order to make that decision, mroe power to him, but it's not a better strategy than flipping a coin.

 

[BuffaloWings]

At the top of this page:

Threads that are asking for advice on how you should draft or manage your team belong in The Assistant Coach forum.

That said, we have this type of thread in the Shark Pool all the time. 1/2 of the threads here are about managing your team. Tips on waiver wire picks. Questioning a player's ranking for a given week (a broad discussion about who to start).

This question is about an overall fantasy strategy. Just because I used two people on my team for the example, doesn't mean this isn't the correct forum. Of course this question came from me analyzing my own team. That only makes sense. But the question is about the overall strategy; not a direct WDIS between Turner and Mathews - I just used that as an example to illustrate the point.Forum police drive me crazy sometimes (not necessarily saying you are one)

 

[Dr. Octopus]

At the top of this page:

Threads that are asking for advice on how you should draft or manage your team belong in The Assistant Coach forum.

That said, we have this type of thread in the Shark Pool all the time. 1/2 of the threads here are about managing your team. Tips on waiver wire picks. Questioning a player's ranking for a given week (a broad discussion about who to start).

This question is about an overall fantasy strategy. Just because I used two people on my team for the example, doesn't mean this isn't the correct forum. Of course this question came from me analyzing my own team. That only makes sense. But the question is about the overall strategy; not a direct WDIS between Turner and Mathews - I just used that as an example to illustrate the point.Forum police drive me crazy sometimes (not necessarily saying you are one)

You're strongly implying it though.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I think your strategy works perfectly, especially when applied to the WRONG FORUM.

Actually it is not the wrong forum, but nice try though.

At the top of this page:

Threads that are asking for advice on how you should draft or manage your team belong in The Assistant Coach forum.

That said, we have this type of thread in the Shark Pool all the time. 1/2 of the threads here are about managing your team. Tips on waiver wire picks. Questioning a player's ranking for a given week (a broad discussion about who to start).
Anyway, to the OP. There have been many who say this is overthinking and paralysis by analysis. Well, there have been some very intelligent and well researched articles, thoughts and threads about this subject and the idea of starting good players from a same team generally reduces risk in overall scoring. Starting say, Mike Wallace and Antonio Brown is usually a good strategy. But always start the players you project to score the most on a given week. The "same team" theory is only useful if you have equal rankings for other options at a position. For my Wallace/Brown example, I would likely go with someone else at one or both of those spots with them facing the 49ers this week and a hobbled Ben or even worse Charlie Batch. 9er D will get to the passer either way, and I project this to be a low-scoring, defensive battle. Given my projections, if I had say, Dez Bryant (14.6 PPR/PPG) vs the Bucs who is right near Wallace (16.9), I'd go with Bryant expecting the Cowboys to pass all over the Bucs while trying to protect/preserve Felix Jones since he is their only remaining RB. Then maybe a Santana Moss vs NYG (11.1) vs Brown (12.5).

I don't think he was. I was supporting his thread by popping off to Bad_Mo and gave what I thought was a good answer. To clarify, if you project the similar # of points for your WRs & QBs on the same team as other options, it limits risk by starting teammates. I don't know that RB & TE have any correlation, but QB/WR/RB will tend to even things out the most, minimizing risk but also possibly minimizing upside at the expense of risk. If you are a favorite, the "same team" theme is preferred. If you are a dog by quite a bit, you may want to pick non-teammates in the hopes of hitting lesser odds and getting the high scoring player from each team.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

To clarify, if you project the similar # of points for your WRs & QBs on the same team as other options, it limits risk by starting teammates. I don't know that RB & TE have any correlation, but QB/WR/RB will tend to even things out the most, minimizing risk but also possibly minimizing upside at the expense of risk. If you are a favorite, the "same team" theme is preferred. If you are a dog by quite a bit, you may want to pick non-teammates in the hopes of hitting lesser odds and getting the high scoring player from each team.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but can you provide some statistical evidence for your claim that you are "limiting risk" by starting teammates? If anything, intuitively, I'd think you have it completely backwards, at least with your QB/WR combos.

 

[Cookiemonster]

To clarify, if you project the similar # of points for your WRs & QBs on the same team as other options, it limits risk by starting teammates. I don't know that RB & TE have any correlation, but QB/WR/RB will tend to even things out the most, minimizing risk but also possibly minimizing upside at the expense of risk. If you are a favorite, the "same team" theme is preferred. If you are a dog by quite a bit, you may want to pick non-teammates in the hopes of hitting lesser odds and getting the high scoring player from each team.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but can you provide some statistical evidence for your claim that you are "limiting risk" by starting teammates? If anything, intuitively, I'd think you have it completely backwards, at least with your QB/WR combos.

Search this forum. I know I've read it here. Analysis has been done by some staff Big Wigs and discussed in depth in the Shark Pool. They even state this many times over on the "Rate My Team" feature they do for free early in the year. I may be wrong about the QB+WR combos, but WR+WR is a definite risk mitigator and I'm pretty sure RB+WR is good.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

To clarify, if you project the similar # of points for your WRs & QBs on the same team as other options, it limits risk by starting teammates. I don't know that RB & TE have any correlation, but QB/WR/RB will tend to even things out the most, minimizing risk but also possibly minimizing upside at the expense of risk. If you are a favorite, the "same team" theme is preferred. If you are a dog by quite a bit, you may want to pick non-teammates in the hopes of hitting lesser odds and getting the high scoring player from each team.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but can you provide some statistical evidence for your claim that you are "limiting risk" by starting teammates? If anything, intuitively, I'd think you have it completely backwards, at least with your QB/WR combos.

Search this forum. I know I've read it here. Analysis has been done by some staff Big Wigs and discussed in depth in the Shark Pool. They even state this many times over on the "Rate My Team" feature they do for free early in the year. I may be wrong about the QB+WR combos, but WR+WR is a definite risk mitigator and I'm pretty sure RB+WR is good.

It's pretty standard when making a claim like yours to actually provide some evidence backing it up, not tell people to go find it themselves. It's hard to take your word for it (e.g. "I know I've read it here") when in the next like you admit you may be wrong about it.

 

[Cookiemonster]

To clarify, if you project the similar # of points for your WRs & QBs on the same team as other options, it limits risk by starting teammates. I don't know that RB & TE have any correlation, but QB/WR/RB will tend to even things out the most, minimizing risk but also possibly minimizing upside at the expense of risk. If you are a favorite, the "same team" theme is preferred. If you are a dog by quite a bit, you may want to pick non-teammates in the hopes of hitting lesser odds and getting the high scoring player from each team.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but can you provide some statistical evidence for your claim that you are "limiting risk" by starting teammates? If anything, intuitively, I'd think you have it completely backwards, at least with your QB/WR combos.

Search this forum. I know I've read it here. Analysis has been done by some staff Big Wigs and discussed in depth in the Shark Pool. They even state this many times over on the "Rate My Team" feature they do for free early in the year. I may be wrong about the QB+WR combos, but WR+WR is a definite risk mitigator and I'm pretty sure RB+WR is good.

It's pretty standard when making a claim like yours to actually provide some evidence backing it up, not tell people to go find it themselves. It's hard to take your word for it (e.g. "I know I've read it here") when in the next like you admit you may be wrong about it.

I am also probably shorter on time to peruse the internet than you. I told you where I have seen it.

 

[Captain Hook]

Or is this type of strategy just b.s. and over-thought?

Asked and Answered your own question

 

[footballnerd]

PPR Mathews

Non-PPR Turner

 

[Mr. Fusion]

I don't agree with this at all.One year I had Welker and Moss, game over. One made up for the other underproducing, the very few games that happened. Many argue starting two studs from the same team is an advantageous strategy. That being said I would start Mathews over Turner this week regardless. Tight ends and runnings backs aren't correlated positions.

The only time I don't really like having 2 guys from the same team is WR/QB and only if they have a tough matchup. For example, if I have a Vick and DJax vs the Jets I may be hesitant to play them both in case the passing offense is shut down. On the other hand, if I had Felix Jones and Tony Romo this week vs. TB, I would start Jones over a very comparable back because I believe Dallas will score a bunch of points and I want in on (potentially) all of them.

 

[Zegras11]

Should I bench Welker or Gronk?

 

[BuffaloWings]

Should I bench Welker or Gronk?

Both. Start Ochocinco and Ridley.

 

[glumpy]

I think a lot of posters aren't following what you are saying (or maybe I'm not). It isn't that there is any sort of correalation between Turner and Gonzo. It is spreading your risk in case Atlanta throws up a stinkbomb and does nothing as a team. In that case yes, you have two guys that suffer the pain. I don't have evidence to support it, but in a feast situation not everyone on the team benefits, but in a famine situation it seems like all players suffer.

All that aside, I think you are overthinking it and should just start who you think is better. If however, you feel Matthews and Turner are exactly equal then I do see some logic in playing Matthews.

Lastly, death to forum rule nazis

I'm with you here but for one thing--I could see where you might expect an inverse correlation in numbers between Turner and Gonzo. I'd have to really look at the season's numbers on a case-by-case basis, but would expect that the TE and RB would each be primary targets once the team gets into the redzone, and both can't score on the same trip. If it was a question of the z-receiver and the runningback then I could see where they would be irrelevant, assuming a good matchup for each, but with the example given they're both maybe most useful in the same circumstances.

 

[glumpy]

I don't agree with this at all.One year I had Welker and Moss, game over. One made up for the other underproducing, the very few games that happened. Many argue starting two studs from the same team is an advantageous strategy. That being said I would start Mathews over Turner this week regardless. Tight ends and runnings backs aren't correlated positions.

The only time I don't really like having 2 guys from the same team is WR/QB and only if they have a tough matchup. For example, if I have a Vick and DJax vs the Jets I may be hesitant to play them both in case the passing offense is shut down. On the other hand, if I had Felix Jones and Tony Romo this week vs. TB, I would start Jones over a very comparable back because I believe Dallas will score a bunch of points and I want in on (potentially) all of them.

Helluvan example. Missed picking up Jones; really looking at benching Dez now that Austin is back. Yes he did well last week--length of td bonus got me into the semifinals--but that was his only reception on a team low two targets. I'll at least get the Romo half if I sit him, and have comparable options at WR with some pretty fair matchups of their own. Generally on a good matchup I really do like having the QB/WR double. Romo/Dez has been gold for me. Assuming I'm pretty stable at other spots of course.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

To clarify, if you project the similar # of points for your WRs & QBs on the same team as other options, it limits risk by starting teammates. I don't know that RB & TE have any correlation, but QB/WR/RB will tend to even things out the most, minimizing risk but also possibly minimizing upside at the expense of risk. If you are a favorite, the "same team" theme is preferred. If you are a dog by quite a bit, you may want to pick non-teammates in the hopes of hitting lesser odds and getting the high scoring player from each team.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but can you provide some statistical evidence for your claim that you are "limiting risk" by starting teammates? If anything, intuitively, I'd think you have it completely backwards, at least with your QB/WR combos.

Search this forum. I know I've read it here. Analysis has been done by some staff Big Wigs and discussed in depth in the Shark Pool. They even state this many times over on the "Rate My Team" feature they do for free early in the year. I may be wrong about the QB+WR combos, but WR+WR is a definite risk mitigator and I'm pretty sure RB+WR is good.

It's pretty standard when making a claim like yours to actually provide some evidence backing it up, not tell people to go find it themselves. It's hard to take your word for it (e.g. "I know I've read it here") when in the next like you admit you may be wrong about it.

I am also probably shorter on time to peruse the internet than you. I told you where I have seen it.

I just don't want you confusing people with misinformation. Since you can't seem to provide anything to back up your theory, we'll safely assume you're wrong.

 

[Cookiemonster]

To clarify, if you project the similar # of points for your WRs & QBs on the same team as other options, it limits risk by starting teammates. I don't know that RB & TE have any correlation, but QB/WR/RB will tend to even things out the most, minimizing risk but also possibly minimizing upside at the expense of risk. If you are a favorite, the "same team" theme is preferred. If you are a dog by quite a bit, you may want to pick non-teammates in the hopes of hitting lesser odds and getting the high scoring player from each team.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but can you provide some statistical evidence for your claim that you are "limiting risk" by starting teammates? If anything, intuitively, I'd think you have it completely backwards, at least with your QB/WR combos.

Search this forum. I know I've read it here. Analysis has been done by some staff Big Wigs and discussed in depth in the Shark Pool. They even state this many times over on the "Rate My Team" feature they do for free early in the year. I may be wrong about the QB+WR combos, but WR+WR is a definite risk mitigator and I'm pretty sure RB+WR is good.

It's pretty standard when making a claim like yours to actually provide some evidence backing it up, not tell people to go find it themselves. It's hard to take your word for it (e.g. "I know I've read it here") when in the next like you admit you may be wrong about it.

I am also probably shorter on time to peruse the internet than you. I told you where I have seen it.

I just don't want you confusing people with misinformation. Since you can't seem to provide anything to back up your theory, we'll safely assume you're wrong.

This is not civil court (unlike so many stat freaks like to act like it is), and so not up to me to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You can be lazy like me, and chose not to look for it. You can be a little bit lazy and look where I pointed you to. Or you can be an ostrich and stick your head in the sand and pretend you never heard it at all. Thanks for your concern for all those poor other people out there who might have listened to a crazy like me.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I read somewhere once that RBs who are listed as doubtful score more fantasy points than RBs listed as probable.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I read somewhere once that RBs who are listed as doubtful score more fantasy points than RBs listed as probable.

The only interesting statistic I did find today was your ranking in the ESPN Gridiron Challenge that we did as a group of FBGs. You are currently 102nd of 106 entries from guys on this forum. Just for some comparison, I'm currently 4th. ETA the links you love so much.

FBGs thread here.

Your ranking here.

 

[Bad_Mo]

I think your strategy works perfectly, especially when applied to the WRONG FORUM.

Actually it is not the wrong forum, but nice try though.

So, who did you start and was this thread helpful?

 

[LBH]

So, using the proposed strategy, you start Ryan Mathews in order to spread the risk a bit. This avoids having two players in your lineup who play on the same team, where points may be divided between the two.

I think it's a real stretch to try and link Gonzo's potential production to Turner's in any way. Both could be highly productive, both could have poor games, or one could be good one poor, but their points will never "be divided between the two" since there's no set pool of points available for Turner and Gonzo.

Agree with Doc.

 

[Zackattack]

I like Mathews but considering he seems to get hurt so easy he could go down in the first quarter. Turner is the safer play and mathews the riskier play but with more upside.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I read somewhere once that RBs who are listed as doubtful score more fantasy points than RBs listed as probable.

The only interesting statistic I did find today was your ranking in the ESPN Gridiron Challenge that we did as a group of FBGs. You are currently 102nd of 106 entries from guys on this forum. Just for some comparison, I'm currently 4th. ETA the links you love so much.

FBGs thread here.

Your ranking here.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Thought you'd get a kick out of that. All in good fun.

 

[BuffaloWings]

I think your strategy works perfectly, especially when applied to the WRONG FORUM.

Actually it is not the wrong forum, but nice try though.

So, who did you start and was this thread helpful?

I started Turner. He did ok. Funny, it was Gonzo who threw up the dud. So in a sense, this thread was helpful. Basically, just go with your gut.