"Neutralizing" players (1 Viewer)

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

It depends on if you are risk averse or risk prone, and potentially what the score of your game is at the time.

 

[BassNBrew]

First I would like the Lord Jesus Christ for the ability to know the right answer.Start the players that will score the most.

Not even Tebow, much less jesus could pick the player that would score. Even Dodds doesn't nail that and he's forgotten more about ff then jesus and Tebow combined.

 

[BassNBrew]

It depends on if you are risk averse or risk prone, and potentially what the score of your game is at the time.

With the early games this topic even becomes more relevant. going beyond favorites and dogs on paper, you now have stinkers from McCoy/Hillis or great games like Brown's that you can factor in these cases in some situations. If my opponet had started either McCoy or Mendy and I had played Brown, I'd be looking for any opportunity to neutralize.

 

[Jersey35]

It depends on if you are risk averse or risk prone, and potentially what the score of your game is at the time.

With the early games this topic even becomes more relevant. going beyond favorites and dogs on paper, you now have stinkers from McCoy/Hillis or great games like Brown's that you can factor in these cases in some situations. If my opponet had started either McCoy or Mendy and I had played Brown, I'd be looking for any opportunity to neutralize.

Bingo!

 

[dboysrock94]

Played the guy with brady last week. sadly for him my gronk outscored him lol

 

[FUBAR]

It depends on if you are risk averse or risk prone, and potentially what the score of your game is at the time.

With the early games this topic even becomes more relevant. going beyond favorites and dogs on paper, you now have stinkers from McCoy/Hillis or great games like Brown's that you can factor in these cases in some situations. If my opponet had started either McCoy or Mendy and I had played Brown, I'd be looking for any opportunity to neutralize.

If your opponent is starting McCoy, he was already at a disadvantage before Thursday.

 

[bigflig]

Ok then.

I have Eli Manning and Matthew Stafford.

He is starting Victor Cruz and Hakeem Nicks.

I'm ahead 21 points (antonio brown!), but a big underdog this first week of playoffs(my running backs are all hurt).

Who do I start? (standard scoring)

 

[BassNBrew]

Ok then.I have Eli Manning and Matthew Stafford.He is starting Victor Cruz and Hakeem Nicks.I'm ahead 21 points (antonio brown!), but a big underdog this first week of playoffs(my running backs are all hurt).Who do I start? (standard scoring)

If you'll post both rosters with Dodds projected points and starting requirements, I'll be glad to dive into this further. I think you have a good example that might spur some conversation.

 

[identikit]

Biggest urban legend in FF.

Play your best options without any regard for your opponent's choices is my rule.

 

[Area51Inhabitant]

Played the guy with brady last week. sadly for him my gronk outscored him lol

Who would you have played without trying to "neutralize" Brady? Honestly I'm still trying to understand the strategic benefit here.

 

[BassNBrew]

Played the guy with brady last week. sadly for him my gronk outscored him lol

Who would you have played without trying to "neutralize" Brady? Honestly I'm still trying to understand the strategic benefit here.

This scenario isn't pertinent to the discussion so don't try to understand this post. You wouldn't sit the number on ff te for anyone regardless of lead, opponent's lineup, or underdog status.

 

[Assani Fisher]

1. Playing a WR/QB that neutralizes one of your opponents starters is a way to minimize variance.

2. If you are the favorite, you should want to minimize variance.

3. If you are the underdog, you should want to maximize variance.

 

[FUBAR]

Biggest urban legend in FF.

Play your best options without any regard for your opponent's choices is my rule.

Hypothetically, say you play in a league where each player is available twice. Your options for your #4WR are Boldin, Vincent Jackson, or Maclin. Your opponent is startingVincent Jackson. I wouldn't dare start either of the others even if I liked the other matchups better.

 

[gethugefast1]

First I would like the Lord Jesus Christ for the ability to know the right answer.

Start the players that will score the most.

ON THE FIELD?

 

[DoubleG]

1. Playing a WR/QB that neutralizes one of your opponents starters is a way to minimize variance.2. If you are the favorite, you should want to minimize variance.3. If you are the underdog, you should want to maximize variance.

(which is basically what has been said about 4 times in about 3 different ways).

 

[da_budman]

It depends on if you are risk averse or risk prone, and potentially what the score of your game is at the time.

With the early games this topic even becomes more relevant. going beyond favorites and dogs on paper, you now have stinkers from McCoy/Hillis or great games like Brown's that you can factor in these cases in some situations. If my opponet had started either McCoy or Mendy and I had played Brown, I'd be looking for any opportunity to neutralize.

If your opponent is starting McCoy, he was already at a disadvantage before Thursday.

Maybe, maybe not. A we dont know the rest of the players on each team and B leagues are different. What looks like a bad starter becomes understandable when you factor in league size and starting requirements.

 

[da_budman]

Biggest urban legend in FF.

Play your best options without any regard for your opponent's choices is my rule.

Hypothetically, say you play in a league where each player is available twice. Your options for your #4WR are Boldin, Vincent Jackson, or Maclin. Your opponent is startingVincent Jackson. I wouldn't dare start either of the others even if I liked the other matchups better.

really?lets assume its a 3 player roster ( for simplicity sake)

you have Rogers and McCoy as your other starters and he has Rogers and Reggie Bush.

so we have:

your team:

Rogers

McCoy

Jackson

versus His:

Rogers

Bush

Jackson

Like your chances to win here??? of course you do.

Now reverse the teams. Still wanna start Jackson???? The team with McCoy is much better on paper. If you are the guy with McCoy starting jackson is a no brainer( even if you have him rated slightly lower) If youre the guy with Bush why boil this contest down to a Mccoy vs bush contest when you have other good options to hopefully help offset your having the lesser of the 2 running backs.

Perfect example of why you should NOT always start the same player the other guy does.

 

[bigflig]

Ok then.I have Eli Manning and Matthew Stafford.He is starting Victor Cruz and Hakeem Nicks.I'm ahead 21 points (antonio brown!), but a big underdog this first week of playoffs(my running backs are all hurt).Who do I start? (standard scoring)

If you'll post both rosters with Dodds projected points and starting requirements, I'll be glad to dive into this further. I think you have a good example that might spur some conversation.

 

[bigflig]

Ok then.I have Eli Manning and Matthew Stafford.He is starting Victor Cruz and Hakeem Nicks.I'm ahead 21 points (antonio brown!), but a big underdog this first week of playoffs(my running backs are all hurt).Who do I start? (standard scoring)

If you'll post both rosters with Dodds projected points and starting requirements, I'll be glad to dive into this further. I think you have a good example that might spur some conversation.

 

[mbuehner]

Im deeply impressed with how many guys in this thread know how many fantasy points their players are going to score. Must make fantasy so much easier. Unfortunately for the rest of us, there come situations where from time to time we have to make a judgement call and every edge is appreciated.

That being the case, i agree its a good way to mitigate an opposing player in certain circumstances, but scoring system has to be considered. In ppr especially the positions arent as well correlated as other leagues.

 

[grateful zed]

this belongs in the 'ac'