Point Block Strategy - Does it actually Work? (1 Viewer)

[AAABatteries]

One more simplistic example to help cement it:

You play in a league where the starting requirements are 1QB/3WR and that's it.

Your team:

Palmer/Brees

Burress

Colston

Galloway

His team:

D. Anderson

Chad Johnson

TJ Housh

C. Henry

Also, assume that Palmer and Brees are predicted to score about the same but Brees just slightly more (say 22 - 20).

So, who are you going to start, Palmer or Brees?

 

[daveandken]

One more simplistic example to help cement it:You play in a league where the starting requirements are 1QB/3WR and that's it.Your teamalmer/BreesBurressColstonGallowayHis team. AndersonChad JohnsonTJ HoushC. HenryAlso, assume that Palmer and Brees are predicted to score about the same but Brees just slightly more (say 22 - 20).So, who are you going to start, Palmer or Brees?

It depends. Is the rest of my team better than his?If I think my team wins outside of these players, I start the players we have on the same team. Otherwise I do the opposite. Because if I think my team needs HELP winning outside these players, I need a distinct advantage. And hedging will pull down my score relative to his (just as it pulls down his relative to mine for these players). In essence you are somewhat cancelling them out. So if I look at the rest of the team and don't think I can win, I DONT want to cancel them out.

 

[Steeler]

It makes no sense to sit a better player..........EVER!!!!

OK, I'm going to take one more stab at this. You are starting Portis, Jamal Lewis, Randy Moss, Laveranues Coles, and Des Clark.

Your opponent, because of byes and injuries, only has one player in his lineup. It's Marques Colston.

Do you start Tom Brady or Drew Brees?

If you agree that Brees is the better play in this situation, then is it so unreasonable to think that the same phenomenon might be working (much more subtly, obviously) in less extreme situations?

Not at the example... it's perfect.

at the arguments in this thread against this example.

Doug's situation above really lays it out perfectly... Brees is clearly and without question the correct play.

Remember, your goal is to score more than your opponent, not to try to score the most points possible.

This example does a good job of explaining how to apply the theory, but it doesn't prove anything. This extreme example only proves that your chance of winning might be tied to your opponent's lineup... not a ringing endorsement of the theory IMO.

 

[Jersey35]

It makes no sense to sit a better player..........EVER!!!!

OK, I'm going to take one more stab at this. You are starting Portis, Jamal Lewis, Randy Moss, Laveranues Coles, and Des Clark.

Your opponent, because of byes and injuries, only has one player in his lineup. It's Marques Colston.

Do you start Tom Brady or Drew Brees?

If you agree that Brees is the better play in this situation, then is it so unreasonable to think that the same phenomenon might be working (much more subtly, obviously) in less extreme situations?

Not at the example... it's perfect.

at the arguments in this thread against this example.

Doug's situation above really lays it out perfectly... Brees is clearly and without question the correct play.

Remember, your goal is to score more than your opponent, not to try to score the most points possible.

This example does a good job of explaining how to apply the theory, but it doesn't prove anything. This extreme example only proves that your chance of winning might be tied to your opponent's lineup... not a ringing endorsement of the theory IMO.

It got to the point, in this thread, where extreme examples needed to be made in order to explain a simple irrefutable fact to some, in order to find common ground for discussion.Obviously, the example above is extreme, but it proves that the strategy is applicable in theory. It remains only to determine how applicable and effective in real life.

 

[SuperJohn96]

I just can't ever see getting to the point where I choose my players based on who my opponent is starting.

The point is this: maximizing your score is not the same as maximizing your probability of winning the game. If your score and your opponent's score are not independent (which they're not, if the same NFL team contains players from both your and your opponent's team), then it is possible in some cases to decrease your expected score while increasing your probability of having a higher score than your opponent. This is a mathematical fact. It's not disputable.The only question is whether this potential abstract theoretical advantage is ever actually big enough to use as a factor in determining your lineups. As with many things, it can probably win you an extra couple games per decade if you use it right, or it can lose you an extra couple games per year if you overuse it.

Okay, please tell me how my team is better if they don't score the most points they can each week?This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

MAXIMIZING YOUR SCORE IS THE SAME THING AS MAXIMIZING YOUR CHANCE TO WIN.

PERIOD!!!!

Wrong.

How is my team better by NOT scoring the most points it can each week?

This should be good

Have you ever played in a league, or heard of a league, where the highest scoring team missed the playoffs? The reason for this is that, in head-to-head, it doesn't ultimately matter how many points you score. What matters is whether you score more points than your opponent on a given week.Can we at least agree to put to bed the belief that scoring the most points you can each week is better than outscoring your opponent each week? Then we can get to the task of discussing whether or not hedging your bets at WR is a valid strategy for accomplishing this.

Yes I have been in leagues where the highest scoring team missed the playoffs.But I've never seen the lowest scoring team make them.

Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe I'm just a little obtuse......but it doesn't make sense to leave points on your bench, just to counteract your opponents lineup..

Lowest scoring team in my league right now is 6-3 and in first place in his division.

 

[BassNBrew]

It makes no sense to sit a better player..........EVER!!!!

OK, I'm going to take one more stab at this. You are starting Portis, Jamal Lewis, Randy Moss, Laveranues Coles, and Des Clark.Your opponent, because of byes and injuries, only has one player in his lineup. It's Marques Colston.Do you start Tom Brady or Drew Brees?If you agree that Brees is the better play in this situation, then is it so unreasonable to think that the same phenomenon might be working (much more subtly, obviously) in less extreme situations?

I think I would bench everyone else and start only Desmond Clark and Jamal Lewis so I can win by 1 point. Seriously, I would start the best QB, who happens to be named Brady. If it were between the 2 best players in the world then I would pick based upon their defensive matchup. There is no call that is so close between 2 players, their teams, injuries, and the 2 defenses they face that I would use an opponents line-up to make the choice. I can't predict my own players effectively so why would I think I could predict my opponent's results as well.

Did you even think through the example before you responded? Brees is such a slam dunk start in this instance that Vince Young even got this Wonderlic question right.

 

[BassNBrew]

One more simplistic example to help cement it:You play in a league where the starting requirements are 1QB/3WR and that's it.Your teamalmer/BreesBurressColstonGallowayHis team. AndersonChad JohnsonTJ HoushC. HenryAlso, assume that Palmer and Brees are predicted to score about the same but Brees just slightly more (say 22 - 20).So, who are you going to start, Palmer or Brees?

If my RBs are LT and Westbrook to his Benson and Foster then I'm starting Palmer...if I'm the one with Benson and Foster then I'm starting Brees (even if Brees is predicted to score slightly less).

 

[AAABatteries]

One more simplistic example to help cement it:

You play in a league where the starting requirements are 1QB/3WR and that's it.

So, who are you going to start, Palmer or Brees?

If my RBs are LT and Westbrook to his Benson and Foster then I'm starting Palmer...if I'm the one with Benson and Foster then I'm starting Brees (even if Brees is predicted to score slightly less).

I understand what you are saying and don't disagree, but in my hypothetical you only start 1QB/3WR. Maybe I should have included RBs of equal value for both teams to save the confusion. My point is to help show the logic behind it, despite how infrequent you may use it.

 

[Wrigley]

I just can't ever see getting to the point where I choose my players based on who my opponent is starting.

The point is this: maximizing your score is not the same as maximizing your probability of winning the game. If your score and your opponent's score are not independent (which they're not, if the same NFL team contains players from both your and your opponent's team), then it is possible in some cases to decrease your expected score while increasing your probability of having a higher score than your opponent. This is a mathematical fact. It's not disputable.The only question is whether this potential abstract theoretical advantage is ever actually big enough to use as a factor in determining your lineups. As with many things, it can probably win you an extra couple games per decade if you use it right, or it can lose you an extra couple games per year if you overuse it.

Okay, please tell me how my team is better if they don't score the most points they can each week?This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

MAXIMIZING YOUR SCORE IS THE SAME THING AS MAXIMIZING YOUR CHANCE TO WIN.

PERIOD!!!!

Wrong.

How is my team better by NOT scoring the most points it can each week?

This should be good

Have you ever played in a league, or heard of a league, where the highest scoring team missed the playoffs? The reason for this is that, in head-to-head, it doesn't ultimately matter how many points you score. What matters is whether you score more points than your opponent on a given week.Can we at least agree to put to bed the belief that scoring the most points you can each week is better than outscoring your opponent each week? Then we can get to the task of discussing whether or not hedging your bets at WR is a valid strategy for accomplishing this.

Yes I have been in leagues where the highest scoring team missed the playoffs.But I've never seen the lowest scoring team make them.

Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe I'm just a little obtuse......but it doesn't make sense to leave points on your bench, just to counteract your opponents lineup..

Lowest scoring team in my league right now is 6-3 and in first place in his division.

Did your playoffs start this week or something?Get back to me when the playoffs start.

 

[GregR_2]

I just can't ever see getting to the point where I choose my players based on who my opponent is starting.

The point is this: maximizing your score is not the same as maximizing your probability of winning the game. If your score and your opponent's score are not independent (which they're not, if the same NFL team contains players from both your and your opponent's team), then it is possible in some cases to decrease your expected score while increasing your probability of having a higher score than your opponent. This is a mathematical fact. It's not disputable.The only question is whether this potential abstract theoretical advantage is ever actually big enough to use as a factor in determining your lineups. As with many things, it can probably win you an extra couple games per decade if you use it right, or it can lose you an extra couple games per year if you overuse it.

Okay, please tell me how my team is better if they don't score the most points they can each week?This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

MAXIMIZING YOUR SCORE IS THE SAME THING AS MAXIMIZING YOUR CHANCE TO WIN.

PERIOD!!!!

Wrong.

How is my team better by NOT scoring the most points it can each week?

This should be good

Sort of skimmed after page 1, so apologies if this has been said like this before. You are stating an outcome, "maximizing my team's points" which isn't really the decision you are faced with because it isn't a certainty. Doug is dealing with the actual decision you are faced with, which is ATTEMPTING to maximize your points, vs ATTEMPTING to make sure your favored team doesn't have a worse week than your opponent's underdog team.Let me put that another way. You are talking as if the choice is to get the max points your team WILL score, or not. That isn't the choice you're faced with, because that lineup could end up scoring less. You have to work within the probabilities of what your team scores, and realize there is a range of possibilities. And if you are able to create a dependency between your opponent's score and yours, you also need to deal with the range of possibilities of what he scores.

The choice you're faced with is this... do you start the team that is more likely BUT NOT CERTAIN to score more points than your other lineup combinations.... or do you start the team that is more likely to be above average when your opponent is also above average.

If I have the better team and am favored to win on any given week, what worries me isn't my average week against my opponent's average week, his bad against my bad or his good against my good. It's my bad week against his average week. Or my average week against his good week.

If I can assure that IF his WR goes off for an above-average 3 TDs, that I had the QB throwing those TDs, I've lessened the chance that he has a good week while I have just an average one. Even if my other QB might be expected to score 2 points more on average, he won't ALWAYS score 2 points more. Some times he's going to score less than my backup who covers my opponent. And since I generally have the better team, those weeks are the ones that are most likely to give me a loss. By starting players with scores dependent on each other, I can increase my chances of zigging when he zigs or zagging when he zags. If we play 100 times, maybe my expected points are lower... but there might be fewer times in those 100 games that my opponent scored more than I did... which is what you want to aim your decision at.

 

[NoFBinLA]

One more simplistic example to help cement it:You play in a league where the starting requirements are 1QB/3WR and that's it.Your teamalmer/BreesBurressColstonGallowayHis team. AndersonChad JohnsonTJ HoushC. HenryAlso, assume that Palmer and Brees are predicted to score about the same but Brees just slightly more (say 22 - 20).So, who are you going to start, Palmer or Brees?

Meaning no disrespect to Doug's earlier example (the exxxxxtrreeeeeeme one) I like this example better - I can't get behind hyperbole driven examples as they make little sense.This one does to me - and I would agree that in this case, as close as Brees and Palmer have been lately - I would deifintely think about starting Palmer to counter the Bengals WR combo.In this case, it makes sense to me.

 

[BassNBrew]

One more simplistic example to help cement it:

You play in a league where the starting requirements are 1QB/3WR and that's it.

So, who are you going to start, Palmer or Brees?

If my RBs are LT and Westbrook to his Benson and Foster then I'm starting Palmer...if I'm the one with Benson and Foster then I'm starting Brees (even if Brees is predicted to score slightly less).

I understand what you are saying and don't disagree, but in my hypothetical you only start 1QB/3WR. Maybe I should have included RBs of equal value for both teams to save the confusion. My point is to help show the logic behind it, despite how infrequent you may use it.

All other things being equal (being neither a favorite or a dog), then I'm starting the players that I have projected to score the most. "Point blocking" or "hedging" only isn't applicable in a vacuum.

 

[BassNBrew]

I'll leave you with an example (6 pt pass TD, ppr)...His team:BradyWestbrookLTWelkerOwensEdwardsWittenFolkYour team:YoungPortisLynchMossColesHoltScaifeKeadingBench: Curtis and MaroneyI'd argue that your best probablity of winning would be to bench Moss for Curtis and Lynch for Maroney. Your best score would mean starting Moss.

How does benching your best WR help?

When your bench player score more than your best WR/ Actually tonite was a good example of how to hedge. The underdog playing a Brady owner who bench his Moss for another WR option and started his Maroney over a Portis may have pulled off a head to head upset.

 

[Lash]

i look at it opposite that the examples here of blocking an opponent's stud QB with one of his WRs

i have in the past, blocked the stud WR with the WRs QB

2006 examples that i can remember:

going up against Steve Smith, start Delhomme over Hasselbeck/ASmith

going up against Larry Fitzgerald, Leinart over Grossman/Favre

that way i am ASSURED of matching the opponents most lethal weapon at least in TD points

if his best player goes off then my QB has a nice day too

if his best player has a bad day then i am okay too and double bonus if my QB actually throws to someone else for a couple touches

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

I lost by 1/2 a point this week because my opponent's Chad Johnson caught the final pass of the Sunday Night game from my QB Carson Palmer for 13 yards, flipping the outcome.

It's not a myth after all - I got cancelled out!!!

 

[DropKick]

Hint - start your three best receivers, this probbly excludes Ike Hilliard.

 

[DropKick]

I'll leave you with an example (6 pt pass TD, ppr)...His team:BradyWestbrookLTWelkerOwensEdwardsWittenFolkYour team:YoungPortisLynchMossColesHoltScaifeKeadingBench: Curtis and MaroneyI'd argue that your best probablity of winning would be to bench Moss for Curtis and Lynch for Maroney. Your best score would mean starting Moss.

How does benching your best WR help?

When your bench player score more than your best WR/ Actually tonite was a good example of how to hedge. The underdog playing a Brady owner who bench his Moss for another WR option and started his Maroney over a Portis may have pulled off a head to head upset.

I'm going to bench Moss for Ted Ginn this week because I'm playing Brady... pure idiocy.By the way, some spaz getting lucky every now and then validates zilch.

 

[BassNBrew]

I'll leave you with an example (6 pt pass TD, ppr)...His team:BradyWestbrookLTWelkerOwensEdwardsWittenFolkYour team:YoungPortisLynchMossColesHoltScaifeKeadingBench: Curtis and MaroneyI'd argue that your best probablity of winning would be to bench Moss for Curtis and Lynch for Maroney. Your best score would mean starting Moss.

How does benching your best WR help?

When your bench player score more than your best WR/ Actually tonite was a good example of how to hedge. The underdog playing a Brady owner who bench his Moss for another WR option and started his Maroney over a Portis may have pulled off a head to head upset.

I'm going to bench Moss for Ted Ginn this week because I'm playing Brady... pure idiocy.By the way, some spaz getting lucky every now and then validates zilch.

Come back when your reading comprehension advances beyond elementary school.

 

[daveandken]

I'm going to bench Moss for Ted Ginn this week because I'm playing Brady... pure idiocy.By the way, some spaz getting lucky every now and then validates zilch.

Reading Comprehension?If you actually, you know, read the thread, you'd see that this is suggested only when the decision is a close one.