Starting a player to negate an opponents. (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Anonymous]

Are you better than your opponent on paper? Because otherwise, by playing Warner against Boldin, you are eliminating one of the ways you can differentiate your performance from his. If you're better, then you are eliminating one of the ways HE can differentiate his performance versus you.

 

[Marvin88]

Are you better than your opponent on paper? Because otherwise, by playing Warner against Boldin, you are eliminating one of the ways you can differentiate your performance from his. If you're better, then you are eliminating one of the ways HE can differentiate his performance versus you.

Yes, I think I am better. Boldin is his biggest threat to me. I would essentially still have Larry Johnson, Memo, Harrison, and Gonzo against his J. Jones, Edge, D. Bennett and LJ Smith.

 

[EdwardCat]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

 

[cstu]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

And if Carson Palmer goes for 35?

 

[Marvin88]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

That's the whole point - you do not know this up front - only afterwards do you know this. So if two players are projected for the same amount of points, then why not play the hedge?

 

[EdwardCat]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

That's the whole point - you do not know this up front - only afterwards do you know this. So if two players are projected for the same amount of points, then why not play the hedge?

Because starting a specific player does not negate another player's performance. Only the amount of points scored by one player negates another player's points. If they are both projected to score the same # of points, go with the player you think might have the better shot of going off. You are doing nothing in the way of preventing your opponent from doing well by following this superstition.

 

[Marvin88]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

That's the whole point - you do not know this up front - only afterwards do you know this. So if two players are projected for the same amount of points, then why not play the hedge?

Because starting a specific player does not negate another player's performance. Only the amount of points scored by one player negates another player's points. If they are both projected to score the same # of points, go with the player you think might have the better shot of going off. You are doing nothing in the way of preventing your opponent from doing well by following this superstition.

I have only been trying to explain why someone might want to try this strategy. I am debating the merits of it myself. I find it VERY interesting though that it is the people AGAINST this strategy that are the ones getting VERY DEFENSIVE on this subject. "Superstition"? That's a little strong! That's also what people said about the theory that the earth was round.

 

[apalmer]

I've been playing fantasy football for 10 years now. I have NEVER considered my opponents lineup in determining my lineup, even to break a tie between players. I hope to play this game another 50 years, God willing, and I will NEVER consider my opponents lineup in determining my lineup. NEVER.

Too bad.

 

[EdwardCat]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

That's the whole point - you do not know this up front - only afterwards do you know this. So if two players are projected for the same amount of points, then why not play the hedge?

Because starting a specific player does not negate another player's performance. Only the amount of points scored by one player negates another player's points. If they are both projected to score the same # of points, go with the player you think might have the better shot of going off. You are doing nothing in the way of preventing your opponent from doing well by following this superstition.

I have only been trying to explain why someone might want to try this strategy. I am debating the merits of it myself. I find it VERY interesting though that it is the people AGAINST this strategy that are the ones getting VERY DEFENSIVE on this subject. "Superstition"? That's a little strong! That's also what people said about the theory that the earth was round.

It is a superstition. This is straight from dictionary.com:"An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. "

You pick the best player for your lineup. You don't pick a player based on what your opponent is starting. They don't form a logical relationship other than someone thinking you can negate whatever points your opponent gets (and you won't). As for being defensive, I suggest you take a hard look in the mirror.

 

[cstu]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

That's the whole point - you do not know this up front - only afterwards do you know this. So if two players are projected for the same amount of points, then why not play the hedge?

Because starting a specific player does not negate another player's performance. Only the amount of points scored by one player negates another player's points. If they are both projected to score the same # of points, go with the player you think might have the better shot of going off. You are doing nothing in the way of preventing your opponent from doing well by following this superstition.

I have only been trying to explain why someone might want to try this strategy. I am debating the merits of it myself. I find it VERY interesting though that it is the people AGAINST this strategy that are the ones getting VERY DEFENSIVE on this subject. "Superstition"? That's a little strong! That's also what people said about the theory that the earth was round.

It is a superstition. This is straight from dictionary.com:"An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. "

You pick the best player for your lineup. You don't pick a player based on what your opponent is starting. They don't form a logical relationship other than someone thinking you can negate whatever points your opponent gets (and you won't). As for being defensive, I suggest you take a hard look in the mirror.

Read you read my post #28 on page one?

 

[EdwardCat]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

That's the whole point - you do not know this up front - only afterwards do you know this. So if two players are projected for the same amount of points, then why not play the hedge?

Because starting a specific player does not negate another player's performance. Only the amount of points scored by one player negates another player's points. If they are both projected to score the same # of points, go with the player you think might have the better shot of going off. You are doing nothing in the way of preventing your opponent from doing well by following this superstition.

I have only been trying to explain why someone might want to try this strategy. I am debating the merits of it myself. I find it VERY interesting though that it is the people AGAINST this strategy that are the ones getting VERY DEFENSIVE on this subject. "Superstition"? That's a little strong! That's also what people said about the theory that the earth was round.

It is a superstition. This is straight from dictionary.com:"An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. "

You pick the best player for your lineup. You don't pick a player based on what your opponent is starting. They don't form a logical relationship other than someone thinking you can negate whatever points your opponent gets (and you won't). As for being defensive, I suggest you take a hard look in the mirror.

Read you read my post #28 on page one?

I did and I don't agree with you. You start Burress because you believe he will do the best. You can start Driver for the same reason. It's not protection against your opponent's QB doing well. He could throw all his TDs to Tiki Barber and then you are screwed. Driver could go off and then you are a loser on 2 accounts. Manning doing well does not mean Burress will do well. Burress could score 20 points as the result of Manning's good day. Driver could score 25 that same day. That's a difference of -5. I wouldn't call that negating you opponent's players. I would call that going on a hunch that if you start Burress, somehow you will be negating Manning's points.The logic only works if there is a direct correlation between subject A and B where when A does well, B does just as well or better. Even if that were true, you have a new variable, C, that needs to be accounted for. If C outscores B, C was the better option even if B could negate A. So, the choice would be whether you start B because it might negate A. The choice is between B and C and which will gain you more points. If the difference between B and C is negligible, then neither B or C is a better option and will help your cause any more. You could start B in that case but it doesn't mean you are negating A. It means neither B nor C offer a better option. In that case, you could rely on hunch that starting B might help you against you A...but it isn't based in logic. The logic is the choice between B and C and which will help your bottom line; the obvious conclusion of scoring the most points for your team.

 

[Fresh Prince]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

And if Carson Palmer goes for 35?

Carson getting 35 changes nothing. Key still got 20 and Housh still got 17. The guy who hedged is down 3 more points than the guy who thought Key would score more and decided not to hedge.

 

[Fresh Prince]

I'm in a league that uses cbssportsline, and it always amuses me to see the "coach's ratings."

My coach's rating is 12th. The other guy in my division who I've been contending with is 1st.

I'm 10-3, with a deep bench but only one stud. He's 7-6, with Tomlinson, Jordan, and a number of other no-brainers, and absolutely no bench whatsover. It's easy to make the right decisions when you have no other options.

I would bet he's 90%+ efficient, while I'm probably no better than 75% efficient... and that's whether I go with FBG's recommendations in LD (using our scoring), which I usually do, or not. With everyone but the top 20 players in the league, and those beyond the top 100, you are just guessing as to who will have a better game, with matchups the only thing you have to work with.

You would be last in my league. Only 1 team is less than 80%. I guess maybe you should work on better choices on who to start that working on this strategy. If you use hedging a lot, maybe that is affecting your rating.

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

I'm in a league that uses cbssportsline, and it always amuses me to see the "coach's ratings."

My coach's rating is 12th. The other guy in my division who I've been contending with is 1st.

I'm 10-3, with a deep bench but only one stud. He's 7-6, with Tomlinson, Jordan, and a number of other no-brainers, and absolutely no bench whatsover. It's easy to make the right decisions when you have no other options.

I would bet he's 90%+ efficient, while I'm probably no better than 75% efficient... and that's whether I go with FBG's recommendations in LD (using our scoring), which I usually do, or not. With everyone but the top 20 players in the league, and those beyond the top 100, you are just guessing as to who will have a better game, with matchups the only thing you have to work with.

You would be last in my league. Only 1 team is less than 80%. I guess maybe you should work on better choices on who to start that working on this strategy. If you use hedging a lot, maybe that is affecting your rating.

I have no idea what percentage efficiency I have. I was just guessing. I do know that trying every week to decide whether to start D. Davis vs. M. Anderson as my #2 RB, or R. Smith or TJ Housh as my #2 WR, etc., means that I am going to be wrong a lot more often than if I were choosing between Tiki Barber and Tatum Bell. The teams with the best "coach's ratings" in my league are almost perfectly correlated with the team's with the least depth. Or, put another way, the teams with the worst coach's ratings are the ones in the playoffs, because they have choices.If only one team in your league makes mistakes in who to start from his lineup, week to week, your league must not be very active on the waiver wire, or must have 16 teams in it. Otherwise, good teams should have choices, and players are not that predictable.

I guarantee you I would not be last in your league. I suspect I would be no worse than second to last, at least, based on the evidence available to me.

And nobody uses hedging a lot. It is rarely applicable. I would only use it where it was applicable, and it would improve my odds of winning. I know this because it is mathmatically valid principle. Some people are just not good at statistics, I guess. No use trying to convince them that statistics may be superior in certain situations to their own gut instincts.

This has been interesting to watch, however.

p.s. I was just looking at cbsportsline, and there the rating does sound like a percentage. Mine is 77, and I have the best record in the league. The guy with the 2nd best record has an 81; the guy with the third best record has a 77. Those are the three worst coach ratings. The guy with the worst record has an 84. The guy with LT and Lamont Jordan, among other obvious choices and by far the strongest lineup, has the #1 coach rating of 92 and a 7-6 record. So it is probably the case that poor coach ratings generally go with strong rosters and therefore fantasy football success. Though I haven't made a statistical study of it prove this.

 

[cstu]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

And if Carson Palmer goes for 35?

Carson getting 35 changes nothing. Key still got 20 and Housh still got 17. The guy who hedged is down 3 more points than the guy who thought Key would score more and decided not to hedge.

That's not correct because you don't know what the actual scores will be unless you can foresee the future. Key could have a range of points from (for example) 10-30 while Housh could be from 7-27. So before they play you may think they will get 20 and 17, but that's not exactly what will happen. If Palmer goes off for 35 then there a good chance that Housh will be closer to 27 than 7. Like I said before, if you are playing someone whose strength is their QB, starting that team's WR gives you an edge statistically.

 

[cstu]

I guarantee you I would not be last in your league. I suspect I would be no worse than second to last, at least, based on the evidence available to me.

 

[EdwardCat]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

And if Carson Palmer goes for 35?

Carson getting 35 changes nothing. Key still got 20 and Housh still got 17. The guy who hedged is down 3 more points than the guy who thought Key would score more and decided not to hedge.

That's not correct because you don't know what the actual scores will be unless you can foresee the future. Key could have a range of points from (for example) 10-30 while Housh could be from 7-27. So before they play you may think they will get 20 and 17, but that's not exactly what will happen. If Palmer goes off for 35 then there a good chance that Housh will be closer to 27 than 7. Like I said before, if you are playing someone whose strength is their QB, starting that team's WR gives you an edge statistically.

It's not by your opponent's QB that you choose to start the WR that's likely to do better. You simply choose to start that WR because the WR's QB does well and as a consequence, so does that player. It doesn't matter if your opponent is starting him or someone else is...you start the better player.

 

[cstu]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

And if Carson Palmer goes for 35?

Carson getting 35 changes nothing. Key still got 20 and Housh still got 17. The guy who hedged is down 3 more points than the guy who thought Key would score more and decided not to hedge.

That's not correct because you don't know what the actual scores will be unless you can foresee the future. Key could have a range of points from (for example) 10-30 while Housh could be from 7-27. So before they play you may think they will get 20 and 17, but that's not exactly what will happen. If Palmer goes off for 35 then there a good chance that Housh will be closer to 27 than 7. Like I said before, if you are playing someone whose strength is their QB, starting that team's WR gives you an edge statistically.

It's not by your opponent's QB that you choose to start the WR that's likely to do better. You simply choose to start that WR because the WR's QB does well and as a consequence, so does that player. It doesn't matter if your opponent is starting him or someone else is...you start the better player.

Ok, let me give you an example that would be easier to understand (assume average matchups across the board):His team:

P. Manning

Kevin Jones

Jamal Lewis

Branch

Stallworth

Your team:

Palmer

Portis

Dunn

Harrison

Holt

Fitzgerald

In this case you have to choose 2 WR's out of the 3. You clearly have the better team and should win barring a huge day from Manning and/or a complete collapse from your team. Harrison is the primary target for Manning and for Manning to have a huge day many of his passes will have to go to Harrison.

You could start Fitz and Holt, but you would be subject to bad days from them costing you the game. However, by starting Harrison you are limiting the relative damage that Manning can do and ensuring that a loss would be due to his other players doing much better than expected.

 

[EdwardCat]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

And if Carson Palmer goes for 35?

Carson getting 35 changes nothing. Key still got 20 and Housh still got 17. The guy who hedged is down 3 more points than the guy who thought Key would score more and decided not to hedge.

That's not correct because you don't know what the actual scores will be unless you can foresee the future. Key could have a range of points from (for example) 10-30 while Housh could be from 7-27. So before they play you may think they will get 20 and 17, but that's not exactly what will happen. If Palmer goes off for 35 then there a good chance that Housh will be closer to 27 than 7. Like I said before, if you are playing someone whose strength is their QB, starting that team's WR gives you an edge statistically.

It's not by your opponent's QB that you choose to start the WR that's likely to do better. You simply choose to start that WR because the WR's QB does well and as a consequence, so does that player. It doesn't matter if your opponent is starting him or someone else is...you start the better player.

Ok, let me give you an example that would be easier to understand (assume average matchups across the board):His team:

P. Manning

Kevin Jones

Jamal Lewis

Branch

Stallworth

Your team:

Palmer

Portis

Dunn

Harrison

Holt

Fitzgerald

In this case you have to choose 2 WR's out of the 3. You clearly have the better team and should win barring a huge day from Manning and/or a complete collapse from your team. Harrison is the primary target for Manning and for Manning to have a huge day many of his passes will have to go to Harrison.

You could start Fitz and Holt, but you would be subject to bad days from them costing you the game. However, by starting Harrison you are limiting the relative damage that Manning can do and ensuring that a loss would be due to his other players doing much better than expected.

This is a matter of simple math. Whichever players are going to do the best in your mind's eye are the players you start because they will give you the most points. In your scenario, if you lose it isn't because you chose to start or not start Harrison. It's simply because his entire team scored more points than your entire team. Manning has Stokley, Wayne, Clark, Harrison and James to throw the ball to. When you decide not to start your best players in your mind's eye, you go against your statistical advantage. It may not pan out but it is your best option.

 

[Callas Disregard]

I guarantee you I would not be last in your league. I suspect I would be no worse than second to last, at least, based on the evidence available to me.

I caught that too and thought it was funny.I am in what has to be the TEXTBOOK example of the "surprising performance" situation this weekend. Normally, I don't believe in hedging. But this week in the playoffs I'm the #3 seed playing the #6 seed. Over the last 6 weeks, I've outscored my opponent by an average of almost 40 ppg. Unfortunately, during one of those weeks he beat me 141-139, even though my score was second highest in the league, and even though it's the only week out of the last 6 where he scored more than 82. (I'm especially bitter about this because that loss cost me the #2 seed and a week 14 bye.)

Here's the kicker: my only weak spot is QB, where I'm carrying Plummer, Delhomme, Brunell, and Fitzpatrick -- and none of them have been impressive. But my opponent's best player is Holt, and he has the best chance of blowing up (I would think). Even though I have rejected hedging in the past, I think this is the one scenario where it really does make sense, and so I'll be starting Fitzpatrick.

 

[Marvin88]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

And if Carson Palmer goes for 35?

Carson getting 35 changes nothing. Key still got 20 and Housh still got 17. The guy who hedged is down 3 more points than the guy who thought Key would score more and decided not to hedge.

That's not correct because you don't know what the actual scores will be unless you can foresee the future. Key could have a range of points from (for example) 10-30 while Housh could be from 7-27. So before they play you may think they will get 20 and 17, but that's not exactly what will happen. If Palmer goes off for 35 then there a good chance that Housh will be closer to 27 than 7. Like I said before, if you are playing someone whose strength is their QB, starting that team's WR gives you an edge statistically.

It's not by your opponent's QB that you choose to start the WR that's likely to do better. You simply choose to start that WR because the WR's QB does well and as a consequence, so does that player. It doesn't matter if your opponent is starting him or someone else is...you start the better player.

Ok, let me give you an example that would be easier to understand (assume average matchups across the board):His team:

P. Manning

Kevin Jones

Jamal Lewis

Branch

Stallworth

Your team:

Palmer

Portis

Dunn

Harrison

Holt

Fitzgerald

In this case you have to choose 2 WR's out of the 3. You clearly have the better team and should win barring a huge day from Manning and/or a complete collapse from your team. Harrison is the primary target for Manning and for Manning to have a huge day many of his passes will have to go to Harrison.

You could start Fitz and Holt, but you would be subject to bad days from them costing you the game. However, by starting Harrison you are limiting the relative damage that Manning can do and ensuring that a loss would be due to his other players doing much better than expected.

This is a matter of simple math. Whichever players are going to do the best in your mind's eye are the players you start because they will give you the most points. In your scenario, if you lose it isn't because you chose to start or not start Harrison. It's simply because his entire team scored more points than your entire team. Manning has Stokley, Wayne, Clark, Harrison and James to throw the ball to. When you decide not to start your best players in your mind's eye, you go against your statistical advantage. It may not pan out but it is your best option.

This is why you are not getting this and never will apparently. It is a false statement to say that "whichever players are going to do the best in your mind's eye are the players you start because they will give you the most points". That is blatantly false. If that were true, then no fantasy game would ever need to be played. You simply put your fantasy team on paper and match it up to your opponent's team and see who wins. LISTEN VERY CLOSELY - you can play who you THINK will give you the most fantasy points, but as we all know, things do not always work out this way. So if Warner and Hasslbeck are both predicted to score 18.9 (which they are), then why not play the one that utilizes a "block" strategy? The more you keep posting the same thing, the more you sound clueless as to be able to comprehend this concept.

 

[BassNBrew]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

And if Carson Palmer goes for 35?

Carson getting 35 changes nothing. Key still got 20 and Housh still got 17. The guy who hedged is down 3 more points than the guy who thought Key would score more and decided not to hedge.

That's not correct because you don't know what the actual scores will be unless you can foresee the future. Key could have a range of points from (for example) 10-30 while Housh could be from 7-27. So before they play you may think they will get 20 and 17, but that's not exactly what will happen. If Palmer goes off for 35 then there a good chance that Housh will be closer to 27 than 7. Like I said before, if you are playing someone whose strength is their QB, starting that team's WR gives you an edge statistically.

It's not by your opponent's QB that you choose to start the WR that's likely to do better. You simply choose to start that WR because the WR's QB does well and as a consequence, so does that player. It doesn't matter if your opponent is starting him or someone else is...you start the better player.

Ok, let me give you an example that would be easier to understand (assume average matchups across the board):His team:

P. Manning

Kevin Jones

Jamal Lewis

Branch

Stallworth

Your team:

Palmer

Portis

Dunn

Harrison

Holt

Fitzgerald

In this case you have to choose 2 WR's out of the 3. You clearly have the better team and should win barring a huge day from Manning and/or a complete collapse from your team. Harrison is the primary target for Manning and for Manning to have a huge day many of his passes will have to go to Harrison.

You could start Fitz and Holt, but you would be subject to bad days from them costing you the game. However, by starting Harrison you are limiting the relative damage that Manning can do and ensuring that a loss would be due to his other players doing much better than expected.

This is a matter of simple math. Whichever players are going to do the best in your mind's eye are the players you start because they will give you the most points. In your scenario, if you lose it isn't because you chose to start or not start Harrison. It's simply because his entire team scored more points than your entire team. Manning has Stokley, Wayne, Clark, Harrison and James to throw the ball to. When you decide not to start your best players in your mind's eye, you go against your statistical advantage. It may not pan out but it is your best option.

Let's look at the stats and debunk this myth.Manning is the biggest threat to his team losing. Manning has 9 multiple TD games. Here's the breakdown of Manning TDs to Harrison TDs in those games.

Manning TDs / Harrison TDs

2/1

4/2

2/1

2/1

3/2

3/1

3/0

2/1

3/1

In 8 of 9 good Manning games (or 89% of the time), Harrison has had a decent day. When the odds are that high, I play the correlation.

The point you're missing is that in h2h leagues what matters is the W or L, not how much you win or lose by.

 

[The Gator]

Just got a call from my buddie, "Im starting Delhome baby, gonna keep Steve Smith in check!" He's benching a red hot Warner so we'll see

 

[EdwardCat]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

And if Carson Palmer goes for 35?

Carson getting 35 changes nothing. Key still got 20 and Housh still got 17. The guy who hedged is down 3 more points than the guy who thought Key would score more and decided not to hedge.

That's not correct because you don't know what the actual scores will be unless you can foresee the future. Key could have a range of points from (for example) 10-30 while Housh could be from 7-27. So before they play you may think they will get 20 and 17, but that's not exactly what will happen. If Palmer goes off for 35 then there a good chance that Housh will be closer to 27 than 7. Like I said before, if you are playing someone whose strength is their QB, starting that team's WR gives you an edge statistically.

It's not by your opponent's QB that you choose to start the WR that's likely to do better. You simply choose to start that WR because the WR's QB does well and as a consequence, so does that player. It doesn't matter if your opponent is starting him or someone else is...you start the better player.

Ok, let me give you an example that would be easier to understand (assume average matchups across the board):His team:

P. Manning

Kevin Jones

Jamal Lewis

Branch

Stallworth

Your team:

Palmer

Portis

Dunn

Harrison

Holt

Fitzgerald

In this case you have to choose 2 WR's out of the 3. You clearly have the better team and should win barring a huge day from Manning and/or a complete collapse from your team. Harrison is the primary target for Manning and for Manning to have a huge day many of his passes will have to go to Harrison.

You could start Fitz and Holt, but you would be subject to bad days from them costing you the game. However, by starting Harrison you are limiting the relative damage that Manning can do and ensuring that a loss would be due to his other players doing much better than expected.

This is a matter of simple math. Whichever players are going to do the best in your mind's eye are the players you start because they will give you the most points. In your scenario, if you lose it isn't because you chose to start or not start Harrison. It's simply because his entire team scored more points than your entire team. Manning has Stokley, Wayne, Clark, Harrison and James to throw the ball to. When you decide not to start your best players in your mind's eye, you go against your statistical advantage. It may not pan out but it is your best option.

This is why you are not getting this and never will apparently. It is a false statement to say that "whichever players are going to do the best in your mind's eye are the players you start because they will give you the most points". That is blatantly false. If that were true, then no fantasy game would ever need to be played. You simply put your fantasy team on paper and match it up to your opponent's team and see who wins. LISTEN VERY CLOSELY - you can play who you THINK will give you the most fantasy points, but as we all know, things do not always work out this way. So if Warner and Hasslbeck are both predicted to score 18.9 (which they are), then why not play the one that utilizes a "block" strategy? The more you keep posting the same thing, the more you sound clueless as to be able to comprehend this concept.

I'm far from clueless and fully understand what you are trying to say. The simple truth is that you have no grasp of logic.

 

[BassNBrew]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

And if Carson Palmer goes for 35?

Carson getting 35 changes nothing. Key still got 20 and Housh still got 17. The guy who hedged is down 3 more points than the guy who thought Key would score more and decided not to hedge.

That's not correct because you don't know what the actual scores will be unless you can foresee the future. Key could have a range of points from (for example) 10-30 while Housh could be from 7-27. So before they play you may think they will get 20 and 17, but that's not exactly what will happen. If Palmer goes off for 35 then there a good chance that Housh will be closer to 27 than 7. Like I said before, if you are playing someone whose strength is their QB, starting that team's WR gives you an edge statistically.

It's not by your opponent's QB that you choose to start the WR that's likely to do better. You simply choose to start that WR because the WR's QB does well and as a consequence, so does that player. It doesn't matter if your opponent is starting him or someone else is...you start the better player.

Ok, let me give you an example that would be easier to understand (assume average matchups across the board):His team:

P. Manning

Kevin Jones

Jamal Lewis

Branch

Stallworth

Your team:

Palmer

Portis

Dunn

Harrison

Holt

Fitzgerald

In this case you have to choose 2 WR's out of the 3. You clearly have the better team and should win barring a huge day from Manning and/or a complete collapse from your team. Harrison is the primary target for Manning and for Manning to have a huge day many of his passes will have to go to Harrison.

You could start Fitz and Holt, but you would be subject to bad days from them costing you the game. However, by starting Harrison you are limiting the relative damage that Manning can do and ensuring that a loss would be due to his other players doing much better than expected.

This is a matter of simple math. Whichever players are going to do the best in your mind's eye are the players you start because they will give you the most points. In your scenario, if you lose it isn't because you chose to start or not start Harrison. It's simply because his entire team scored more points than your entire team. Manning has Stokley, Wayne, Clark, Harrison and James to throw the ball to. When you decide not to start your best players in your mind's eye, you go against your statistical advantage. It may not pan out but it is your best option.

This is why you are not getting this and never will apparently. It is a false statement to say that "whichever players are going to do the best in your mind's eye are the players you start because they will give you the most points". That is blatantly false. If that were true, then no fantasy game would ever need to be played. You simply put your fantasy team on paper and match it up to your opponent's team and see who wins. LISTEN VERY CLOSELY - you can play who you THINK will give you the most fantasy points, but as we all know, things do not always work out this way. So if Warner and Hasslbeck are both predicted to score 18.9 (which they are), then why not play the one that utilizes a "block" strategy? The more you keep posting the same thing, the more you sound clueless as to be able to comprehend this concept.

I'm far from clueless and fully understand what you are trying to say. The simple truth is that you have no grasp of logic.

Speaking of logic....

PASSING

CP/AT YDS TD INT

P. Manning 9/11 168 2 0

RECEIVING

REC YDS TD LG

M. Harrison 4 110 2 65

 

[EdwardCat]

Speaking of logic.... PASSING CP/AT YDS TD INT P. Manning 9/11 168 2 0 RECEIVING REC YDS TD LG M. Harrison 4 110 2 65

Wow, you just proved it right there. Way to go genius. I guess I bow down to you. *snicker*

 

[Synthesizer]

The funny thing about this argument is that it's probably 50/50 that it would work out well for you. When Harrison goes off, it was a great move. But if Wayne had those 2 TDs, you'd be nowhere.

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

This isn't logic - lots of things that are valid are counterintuitive to everyday commonsense - it's probabilities and statistics. I'll agree that an example doesn't prove the case, but it is ironic that the example used to illustrate the case is proving the merit of the argument, in the particular case of this weekend.What's been interesting to me is that those opposed to this tactic have completely ignored the "to use it you need to be better on paper than your opponent," and seem to have operated from the presumption that you know in advance which of your players will outscore the others. Hell, if you knew that, you wouldn't need to know anything.I anxiously await example two of this tactic, as I have Favre (instead of McNair) starting, versus my inferior opponent's Driver. I already know, for certain, that a shocking Driver performance isn't going to be beat me, while Favre is pretty much a wash compared with McNair. Now my opponent will have to beat me with one of his other seven inferior starters. (Which he may do; expected scoring and actual scoring aren't the same thing, but at least I don't have to worry about Driver.) I'm actually doubling down on this - again, because my opponent shouldn't beat me more than 20% of the time - by starting the Lions DT as well. Because if one of my own players is going to beat me, it will be Favre throwing INTs for TDs or the Lions getting blown up for 35 points. (Here I don't have good alternatives - McNair and Bills - so I'm trying to get a reasonable amount of points out of the combo of Favre and Lions, rather than the possibility of negative points - or, more points - out of the combo of McNair and Bills. I'll trade off the elimination of the downside for the possibility of upside.)

 

[BassNBrew]

Speaking of logic.... 

PASSING

CP/AT YDS TD INT

P. Manning 9/11 168 2 0

RECEIVING

REC YDS TD LG

M. Harrison 4 110 2 65

Wow, you just proved it right there. Way to go genius. I guess I bow down to you. *snicker*

Your lack of ability to grasp probability and statistics amazes me. The concept of hedging is no different then modifying your play in hold 'em depending on whether you're the table leader or short stack. Drinen did a long article supporting the theory which was linked in one of these threads. Bottom line was that employing the practice will very slightly increase your chances of winning.

 

[Righetti]

I started Chris Henry to negate Carson Palmergreat theory

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

Speaking of logic.... 

PASSING

CP/AT YDS TD INT

P. Manning 9/11 168 2 0

RECEIVING

REC YDS TD LG

M. Harrison 4 110 2 65

Wow, you just proved it right there. Way to go genius. I guess I bow down to you. *snicker*

Your lack of ability to grasp probability and statistics amazes me. The concept of hedging is no different then modifying your play in hold 'em depending on whether you're the table leader or short stack. Drinen did a long article supporting the theory which was linked in one of these threads. Bottom line was that employing the practice will very slightly increase your chances of winning.

A way more high-brow discussion of this. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...6414&hl=hedging

And this article uses math and everything!

http://www.cheatsheets.net/drinenbellcurve.htm

 

[BassNBrew]

The funny thing about this argument is that it's probably 50/50 that it would work out well for you. When Harrison goes off, it was a great move. But if Wayne had those 2 TDs, you'd be nowhere.

Not 50/50.Fitz has a big day...

1. Harrison and Manning go off. Neutral

2. Harrison and Manning stink. Neutral

3. Harrison stinks, Manning goes off (only happened 1 in 9 games this year).

4. Harrison goes off, Manning only connects with him.

Fitz doesn't have a big day...

5. Harrison and Manning go off.

6. Harrison and Manning stink. Neutral

7. Harrison stinks, Manning goes off (only happened 1 in 9 games this year). Neutral

8. Harrison goes off, Manning only connects with him.

The only way you truly get smoked is if Manning goes nuts while Harrison tanks and Fitz/Holt have a big day. I already demonstrated before the game why that wasn't likely to happen. Even if it did, we're working under the assumption that the Harrison team is a 20-30 pt favorite coming into the game, which should be enough to preserve a victory in most cases.

 

[cstu]

Speaking of logic....

PASSING

CP/AT YDS TD INT

P. Manning 9/11 168 2 0

RECEIVING

REC YDS TD LG

M. Harrison 4 110 2 65

Wow, you just proved it right there. Way to go genius. I guess I bow down to you. *snicker*

Your lack of ability to grasp probability and statistics amazes me. The concept of hedging is no different then modifying your play in hold 'em depending on whether you're the table leader or short stack. Drinen did a long article supporting the theory which was linked in one of these threads. Bottom line was that employing the practice will very slightly increase your chances of winning.

A way more high-brow discussion of this. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...6414&hl=hedging

And this article uses math and everything!

http://www.cheatsheets.net/drinenbellcurve.htm

The Anti-Hookup

This one is a bit stickier, because we can no longer avoid the covariance term. Suppose your opponent has Elway and not much else. His lineup looks like this

Team BE (bad, Elway): Elway, W Dunn, Murrell, Drayton, Emmanuel, Alexander

You have the following guys pencilled into your lineup: Bledsoe, Bettis, Kaufman, and Cris Carter. You have to choose one more WR and have Rod Smith and Antonio Freeman to choose from. At the TE slot, you can opt for Rickey Dudley or Shannon Sharpe. In both spots, you can expect the same average production. Do you want to go with the Bronco pair or not?

I mentioned above that, if you think you have the better team (which in this case you obviously do), you should go for the anti-hookup. Play Smith and Sharpe. Let's call that team Team AH (anti-hookup), and the Dudley-Freeman team Team DF (for lack of a better acronym).

As expected, the covariance between Team BE and Team AH is greater than the covariance between Team BE and Team DF. The bottom line is as follows:

Team AH will beat Team BE 81.8% of the time

Team DF will beat Team BE 76.4% of the time

Unfortunately, Team AH has a lower variance than team DF, which makes the difference look bigger than it is. It's tough to find examples which don't have some sort of bias. It does appear that a small but not negligible advantage can be gained by opting for the anti-hookup if you're the favorite.

Now suppose that your buddy who has Elway makes some trades. He somehow manages to pawn off his entire starting lineup (except Elway) and acquires Barry Sanders, Dorsey Levens, Wesley Walls, Rob Moore, and Joey Galloway in return. His team can now change its name to Team GE (good, Elway). Quicker than you can say "collusion," have gone from being a favorite to being an underdog. Hence the Gaussian says you should go for Team DF. Sure enough....

Team AH will beat Team GE 39.5% of the time

Team DF will beat Team GE 40.8% of the time

Again, there may be some bias here (some kind of relationship between Levens and Freeman, for example), so this shouldn't be viewed as conclusive evidence of anything.

Assumption: The Anti-hookup (choosing a WR and/or TE from the same NFL team as you opponent's QB) is a wise strategy for favorites and a poor strategy for underdogs.

Drinen's conclusion:

I'm going to have to call this inconclusive. I just don't know how to do away with all the biases that polluted the study of the anti-hookup. All we have here is the theoretical knowledge.

 

[BassNBrew]

I started Chris Henry to negate Carson Palmer

great theory

CP/AT YDS TD INT C. Palmer 7/13 60 0 1

Seems to be working.

 

[Synthesizer]

The funny thing about this argument is that it's probably 50/50 that it would work out well for you.  When Harrison goes off, it was a great move.  But if Wayne had those 2 TDs, you'd be nowhere.

Not 50/50.Fitz has a big day...

1. Harrison and Manning go off. Neutral

2. Harrison and Manning stink. Neutral

3. Harrison stinks, Manning goes off (only happened 1 in 9 games this year).

4. Harrison goes off, Manning only connects with him.

Fitz doesn't have a big day...

5. Harrison and Manning go off.

6. Harrison and Manning stink. Neutral

7. Harrison stinks, Manning goes off (only happened 1 in 9 games this year). Neutral

8. Harrison goes off, Manning only connects with him.

The only way you truly get smoked is if Manning goes nuts while Harrison tanks and Fitz/Holt have a big day. I already demonstrated before the game why that wasn't likely to happen. Even if it did, we're working under the assumption that the Harrison team is a 20-30 pt favorite coming into the game, which should be enough to preserve a victory in most cases.

It's close to 50/50. You can't discount the fact that it's more likely that Fitz has a big day compared to him not having a big day. He's scored over 10 pts in 10 of 12 games this year in my league. So your 2nd set of outcomes is less likely to occur than the 1st set of outcomes.

 

[BassNBrew]

The funny thing about this argument is that it's probably 50/50 that it would work out well for you.  When Harrison goes off, it was a great move.  But if Wayne had those 2 TDs, you'd be nowhere.

Not 50/50.Fitz has a big day...

1. Harrison and Manning go off. Neutral

2. Harrison and Manning stink. Neutral

3. Harrison stinks, Manning goes off (only happened 1 in 9 games this year).

4. Harrison goes off, Manning only connects with him.

Fitz doesn't have a big day...

5. Harrison and Manning go off.

6. Harrison and Manning stink. Neutral

7. Harrison stinks, Manning goes off (only happened 1 in 9 games this year). Neutral

8. Harrison goes off, Manning only connects with him.

The only way you truly get smoked is if Manning goes nuts while Harrison tanks and Fitz/Holt have a big day. I already demonstrated before the game why that wasn't likely to happen. Even if it did, we're working under the assumption that the Harrison team is a 20-30 pt favorite coming into the game, which should be enough to preserve a victory in most cases.

It's close to 50/50. You can't discount the fact that it's more likely that Fitz has a big day compared to him not having a big day. He's scored over 10 pts in 10 of 12 games this year in my league. So your 2nd set of outcomes is less likely to occur than the 1st set of outcomes.

Agreed.Keep in mind the same applies to Harrison. Using Dodds numbers for this week we had Fitz at 13.1, Holt at 12.1, and Harrison at 11.7.

Props to the original poster with this example.

 

[BassNBrew]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

And if Carson Palmer goes for 35?

Carson getting 35 changes nothing. Key still got 20 and Housh still got 17. The guy who hedged is down 3 more points than the guy who thought Key would score more and decided not to hedge.

That's not correct because you don't know what the actual scores will be unless you can foresee the future. Key could have a range of points from (for example) 10-30 while Housh could be from 7-27. So before they play you may think they will get 20 and 17, but that's not exactly what will happen. If Palmer goes off for 35 then there a good chance that Housh will be closer to 27 than 7. Like I said before, if you are playing someone whose strength is their QB, starting that team's WR gives you an edge statistically.

It's not by your opponent's QB that you choose to start the WR that's likely to do better. You simply choose to start that WR because the WR's QB does well and as a consequence, so does that player. It doesn't matter if your opponent is starting him or someone else is...you start the better player.

Ok, let me give you an example that would be easier to understand (assume average matchups across the board):His team:

P. Manning

Kevin Jones

Jamal Lewis

Branch

Stallworth

Your team:

Palmer

Portis

Dunn

Harrison

Holt

Fitzgerald

In this case you have to choose 2 WR's out of the 3. You clearly have the better team and should win barring a huge day from Manning and/or a complete collapse from your team. Harrison is the primary target for Manning and for Manning to have a huge day many of his passes will have to go to Harrison.

You could start Fitz and Holt, but you would be subject to bad days from them costing you the game. However, by starting Harrison you are limiting the relative damage that Manning can do and ensuring that a loss would be due to his other players doing much better than expected.

 

[shahekee]

I agree that hedging is ONLY a good strategy if your team is heavily favored, though this week I am faced with a new situation. My opponent, due to injury, will be starting 2 WRs from the same team (Bruce and Holt). I have Fitzpatrick and will be starting him over Brad Johnson. Though I HATE playing defense, this one is a no brainer. If Fitz has a huge game, I have him in there. If he has a bad game, the likely, so do Bruce/Holt.

Hope your league doesn't penalize for interceptions.

 

[Marvin88]

Used the "block" strategy to perfection. Got a huge lead early and the only way my opponent could beat me at that point was for Boldin to go off. So I simply inserted Warner to negate Boldin and my opponent was snookered. The other thing the naysayers are failing to grasp is that you can set your lineup up until kickoff. So if I have a big lead going into the 4PM games and I have this option (which I did with Warner) it works perfect. No one in their right mind can tell me if the only way their opponent could beat them was for Boldin to go off and they could insert Warner to stop this that they would not do this. DOES CRAZY CATS or whatever his name is finally get this?

 

[BassNBrew]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

And if Carson Palmer goes for 35?

Carson getting 35 changes nothing. Key still got 20 and Housh still got 17. The guy who hedged is down 3 more points than the guy who thought Key would score more and decided not to hedge.

That's not correct because you don't know what the actual scores will be unless you can foresee the future. Key could have a range of points from (for example) 10-30 while Housh could be from 7-27. So before they play you may think they will get 20 and 17, but that's not exactly what will happen. If Palmer goes off for 35 then there a good chance that Housh will be closer to 27 than 7. Like I said before, if you are playing someone whose strength is their QB, starting that team's WR gives you an edge statistically.

It's not by your opponent's QB that you choose to start the WR that's likely to do better. You simply choose to start that WR because the WR's QB does well and as a consequence, so does that player. It doesn't matter if your opponent is starting him or someone else is...you start the better player.

Ok, let me give you an example that would be easier to understand (assume average matchups across the board):His team:

P. Manning

Kevin Jones

Jamal Lewis / Taylor

Branch

Stallworth

Your team:

Palmer

Portis

Dunn

Harrison

Holt

Fitzgerald

In this case you have to choose 2 WR's out of the 3. You clearly have the better team and should win barring a huge day from Manning and/or a complete collapse from your team. Harrison is the primary target for Manning and for Manning to have a huge day many of his passes will have to go to Harrison.

You could start Fitz and Holt, but you would be subject to bad days from them costing you the game. However, by starting Harrison you are limiting the relative damage that Manning can do and ensuring that a loss would be due to his other players doing much better than expected.

You almost couldn't have scripted a better example as to how hedging works. Going to the scoreboard (do note that I'm subbing Chester Taylor for Lewis as most competent owners wouldn't start a guy not playing).P. Manning 24.8

Kevin Jones 7.2

Jamal Lewis / Taylor 7.3

Branch 8.3

Stallworth 4.3

Your team:

Palmer 7.8

Portis 18.1

Dunn 10.2

Harrison 25.7

Holt 9.5

Fitzgerald 2.3

His team posted 51.9 points. If you had started the two highest rated WRs per FBG, your team would have scored 47.9 and would be out of the playoffs. If you hedged with Harrison and still started Fitz over Holt you would be moving on with a total of 64.1.

At the outset, your team's RB advantage was almost a certainty. The only way his team competes against your's is if Manning his a big day. Even with a clunker from Palmer and Fitz, the hedge gives you an easy victory.

Once again, the start your best player theory is exposed as flawwed. I do wish my earlier thread had taken off and we could have had numerous examples of this theory being successfully applied.

 

[noleswin]

Still don't know if this works or not. I started Warner thinking that he would block Fitz if he went off. He did not and Warner had a subpar day. 15 points. I would have normally started Brees who I was leaning towards before I started this thread. Brees and Vick both would have got me 30. Did not matter in the end as I won by a large margin thanks to great days by Gado and Davis. My WR had decent days as well.

 

[EdwardCat]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

And if Carson Palmer goes for 35?

Carson getting 35 changes nothing. Key still got 20 and Housh still got 17. The guy who hedged is down 3 more points than the guy who thought Key would score more and decided not to hedge.

That's not correct because you don't know what the actual scores will be unless you can foresee the future. Key could have a range of points from (for example) 10-30 while Housh could be from 7-27. So before they play you may think they will get 20 and 17, but that's not exactly what will happen. If Palmer goes off for 35 then there a good chance that Housh will be closer to 27 than 7. Like I said before, if you are playing someone whose strength is their QB, starting that team's WR gives you an edge statistically.

It's not by your opponent's QB that you choose to start the WR that's likely to do better. You simply choose to start that WR because the WR's QB does well and as a consequence, so does that player. It doesn't matter if your opponent is starting him or someone else is...you start the better player.

Ok, let me give you an example that would be easier to understand (assume average matchups across the board):His team:

P. Manning

Kevin Jones

Jamal Lewis / Taylor

Branch

Stallworth

Your team:

Palmer

Portis

Dunn

Harrison

Holt

Fitzgerald

In this case you have to choose 2 WR's out of the 3. You clearly have the better team and should win barring a huge day from Manning and/or a complete collapse from your team. Harrison is the primary target for Manning and for Manning to have a huge day many of his passes will have to go to Harrison.

You could start Fitz and Holt, but you would be subject to bad days from them costing you the game. However, by starting Harrison you are limiting the relative damage that Manning can do and ensuring that a loss would be due to his other players doing much better than expected.

You almost couldn't have scripted a better example as to how hedging works. Going to the scoreboard (do note that I'm subbing Chester Taylor for Lewis as most competent owners wouldn't start a guy not playing).P. Manning 24.8

Kevin Jones 7.2

Jamal Lewis / Taylor 7.3

Branch 8.3

Stallworth 4.3

Your team:

Palmer 7.8

Portis 18.1

Dunn 10.2

Harrison 25.7

Holt 9.5

Fitzgerald 2.3

His team posted 51.9 points. If you had started the two highest rated WRs per FBG, your team would have scored 47.9 and would be out of the playoffs. If you hedged with Harrison and still started Fitz over Holt you would be moving on with a total of 64.1.

At the outset, your team's RB advantage was almost a certainty. The only way his team competes against your's is if Manning his a big day. Even with a clunker from Palmer and Fitz, the hedge gives you an easy victory.

Once again, the start your best player theory is exposed as flawwed. I do wish my earlier thread had taken off and we could have had numerous examples of this theory being successfully applied.

The problem is that you are applying criteria that was never specified. You are assuming that what FBG picks as the top WRs are actually the top WRs. What if I had Harrison picked higher in my mind? At that point, your theory would be flawed because Harrison would be the best WR to pick in my mind. No one said we are using the FBG cheatsheets to decide who the best WR is to start. It's all about who you think is going to do the best. IF you read Drinnen's article, he says flat out that the theory is biased at best and there's by no means conclusive evidence there's any basis for it.

 

[BassNBrew]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

And if Carson Palmer goes for 35?

Carson getting 35 changes nothing. Key still got 20 and Housh still got 17. The guy who hedged is down 3 more points than the guy who thought Key would score more and decided not to hedge.

That's not correct because you don't know what the actual scores will be unless you can foresee the future. Key could have a range of points from (for example) 10-30 while Housh could be from 7-27. So before they play you may think they will get 20 and 17, but that's not exactly what will happen. If Palmer goes off for 35 then there a good chance that Housh will be closer to 27 than 7. Like I said before, if you are playing someone whose strength is their QB, starting that team's WR gives you an edge statistically.

It's not by your opponent's QB that you choose to start the WR that's likely to do better. You simply choose to start that WR because the WR's QB does well and as a consequence, so does that player. It doesn't matter if your opponent is starting him or someone else is...you start the better player.

Ok, let me give you an example that would be easier to understand (assume average matchups across the board):His team:

P. Manning

Kevin Jones

Jamal Lewis / Taylor

Branch

Stallworth

Your team:

Palmer

Portis

Dunn

Harrison

Holt

Fitzgerald

In this case you have to choose 2 WR's out of the 3. You clearly have the better team and should win barring a huge day from Manning and/or a complete collapse from your team. Harrison is the primary target for Manning and for Manning to have a huge day many of his passes will have to go to Harrison.

You could start Fitz and Holt, but you would be subject to bad days from them costing you the game. However, by starting Harrison you are limiting the relative damage that Manning can do and ensuring that a loss would be due to his other players doing much better than expected.

You almost couldn't have scripted a better example as to how hedging works. Going to the scoreboard (do note that I'm subbing Chester Taylor for Lewis as most competent owners wouldn't start a guy not playing).P. Manning 24.8

Kevin Jones 7.2

Jamal Lewis / Taylor 7.3

Branch 8.3

Stallworth 4.3

Your team:

Palmer 7.8

Portis 18.1

Dunn 10.2

Harrison 25.7

Holt 9.5

Fitzgerald 2.3

His team posted 51.9 points. If you had started the two highest rated WRs per FBG, your team would have scored 47.9 and would be out of the playoffs. If you hedged with Harrison and still started Fitz over Holt you would be moving on with a total of 64.1.

At the outset, your team's RB advantage was almost a certainty. The only way his team competes against your's is if Manning his a big day. Even with a clunker from Palmer and Fitz, the hedge gives you an easy victory.

Once again, the start your best player theory is exposed as flawwed. I do wish my earlier thread had taken off and we could have had numerous examples of this theory being successfully applied.

The problem is that you are applying criteria that was never specified. You are assuming that what FBG picks as the top WRs are actually the top WRs. What if I had Harrison picked higher in my mind? At that point, your theory would be flawed because Harrison would be the best WR to pick in my mind. No one said we are using the FBG cheatsheets to decide who the best WR is to start. It's all about who you think is going to do the best. IF you read Drinnen's article, he says flat out that the theory is biased at best and there's by no means conclusive evidence there's any basis for it.

That assumption is no different then assuming that you can "pick your best players". Like it or not, most of us use FBG projections as the baseline for discussion on this board. In reality, if you're consistantly better then Dodds' at making projections, you should start your own service and I'll be your first customer. Please don't take that as a poke at you as it's a complement towards Dodds.I agree with you to an extent regarding your interpretation of the Drinnen article. His conclusions are very foggy and possibly even contridictory. I had hope to do numerous case studies regarding this, but people apparently would rather discuss TO's birthday party.

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

The problem is that you are applying criteria that was never specified. You are assuming that what FBG picks as the top WRs are actually the top WRs. What if I had Harrison picked higher in my mind? At that point, your theory would be flawed because Harrison would be the best WR to pick in my mind. No one said we are using the FBG cheatsheets to decide who the best WR is to start. It's all about who you think is going to do the best. IF you read Drinnen's article, he says flat out that the theory is biased at best and there's by no means conclusive evidence there's any basis for it.

Drinen didn't say the theory was biased, he said there may be biases in the statistics and he didn't have enough to data to determine conclusively. He also said that the theory behind it is in favor.

"We determined that, in theory, three things are true" (the 'determining' is all the statistical theory behind why this should work more often than not)

then

"I'm going to have to call this inconclusive. I just don't know how to do away with all the biases that polluted the study of the anti-hookup. All we have here is the theoretical knowledge." (Again, the theory is, in Drinen's words, a form of 'knowledge;' it's the covariances in the statistics that cause him to say this is inconclusive. Drinen is a good statistician and is not going to call something conclusive until he believes he has a valid sample size and data without covariances that 'pollute' his samples.)

I'm not going to go develop 30 samples of data or 50 or whatever is necessary to "prove this theory." The fact that it is theoretically sound is good enough for me. The biggest problem with doing samples is that the teams that should implement this strategy should win anyway. Add in the wide variances that even a good team experiences in its scoring from week to week, and - as I noted in the 'highbrow' thread version of this discussion - you'd probably need a sample size of a 100 to declare this 'conclusive.' Nobody has bothered to do this - partly because the theory's soundness makes all that work unnecessary.

Using FBG projections is an objective base. Nothing wrong with stipulating that as a starting point. Again, if "in your mind" you think player X is going to score more than player Y, that doesn't mean that is actually what will happen.

That is the whole point of this. Hedging allows you to protect against the unthinkable happening, while allowing the rest of your players to win the game. Again, it has been stipulated by everyone promoting this strategy, including Drinen, that a minimum requirement to use this strategy is that you should expect to win the game, such that you can absorb the cost of perhaps sub-optimizing your scoring in order to lock in a spread between your scoring and your opponent's with respect to certain players.

You do not have a theoretically sound foundation behind your 'strategy' ("play the best players" - whoever they may turn out to be after the games are played.)

Does your investment portfolio consist soley of Google stock (or whatever you think is the best buy out there?), because you expect it to outperform any other investment option? Using your thinking, you should only own the one stock in the world that you expect to be the best performer; otherwise, owning more than the "best stock" would cause you to diversify into other investments that you would expect to bring your returns down. That may 'makes no sense' to you, but there are a lot of poor saps who have lost everything using your thinking, whereas everything in modern portfolio theory (which is what we're really doing here) argues in favor of diversifying and hedging.

 

[richn]

What if anything has been talked about playing MY PLAYER VS MY DEF (This week Gado and Balt). Any thoughts??

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

I just had the same situation.I started Favre (my QB) vs. the Lions (my DEF) this past weekend. Again, I was much superior to my opponent. My alternatives weren't great - they were pretty much washes - but I kind of thought McNair would outdo Favre (he did, barely) and the Bills would out do the Lions (they didn't).Thinking was: Favre makes tons of mistakes, which the Lions would capitalize on, and in so doing they would absorb the cost By playing Favre and the Lions, I get to eliminate Favre's mistakes as a factor (they zero out), and realize Favre's great TD potential than McNair. My downside is that, playing McNair and the Lions, I would have gotten Favre's mistakes PLUS McNair's scoring. However, I thought Favre would outscore McNair, excluding mistakes. So I gave up some upside to eliminate some downside. Since I should have beaten my opponent anyway, this was advantageous. This hedges against volatility in my own scoring, rather than my opponent's. I would definitely make sure you are confident you can afford to do this.Add to that the fact that my opponent started Driver, I also got the advantage of the "anti-hookup" hedge. It was great to see my 12 point lead anchored in place watching the game Sunday night. Everytime Driver did something, I saw the same exact thing happen to Favre's stats. And every time Favre threw an INT, I saw -2 hit his score and +2 hit the Lions. So, worked out well. I would think through all the implications of this. In fact, you might want to start another thread; otherwise, you may won't get a lot of response, given that this thread already has a storyline that addresses a different situation, which has been investigated. (Yours may have been as well, but I don't think I've seen it.) And what's your scoring system? I don't know if RBs make the same costly, predictable mistakes QBs do. And if yards aren't a factor in DT scoring, I think the hedge may be pretty imperfect.

 

[Marc Levin]

I've been playing fantasy football for 10 years now. I have NEVER considered my opponents lineup in determining my lineup, even to break a tie between players. I hope to play this game another 50 years, God willing, and I will NEVER consider my opponents lineup in determining my lineup. NEVER.

Hopefully guys like you continue to play this way in h2h leagues and I can continue to use advanced strategies to manufacture an extra win each year.

ZING!

I'm with the zinger here.Only a novice fails to consider all possible avenues to beat an opponent.

It's fine to reject a strategy, but to not even consider a strategy is not using your noodle.

 

[cstu]

This strategy makes no sense. You start the guys you think will score the most points. That's what will negate your opponent's lineup. If Keyshawn gets you 20 points and Housh gets you 17 and you are playing against Palmer, Keyshawn's 20 points are still worth more. A higher number is always higher than a lower number.

And if Carson Palmer goes for 35?

Carson getting 35 changes nothing. Key still got 20 and Housh still got 17. The guy who hedged is down 3 more points than the guy who thought Key would score more and decided not to hedge.

That's not correct because you don't know what the actual scores will be unless you can foresee the future. Key could have a range of points from (for example) 10-30 while Housh could be from 7-27. So before they play you may think they will get 20 and 17, but that's not exactly what will happen. If Palmer goes off for 35 then there a good chance that Housh will be closer to 27 than 7. Like I said before, if you are playing someone whose strength is their QB, starting that team's WR gives you an edge statistically.

It's not by your opponent's QB that you choose to start the WR that's likely to do better. You simply choose to start that WR because the WR's QB does well and as a consequence, so does that player. It doesn't matter if your opponent is starting him or someone else is...you start the better player.

Ok, let me give you an example that would be easier to understand (assume average matchups across the board):His team:

P. Manning

Kevin Jones

Jamal Lewis / Taylor

Branch

Stallworth

Your team:

Palmer

Portis

Dunn

Harrison

Holt

Fitzgerald

In this case you have to choose 2 WR's out of the 3. You clearly have the better team and should win barring a huge day from Manning and/or a complete collapse from your team. Harrison is the primary target for Manning and for Manning to have a huge day many of his passes will have to go to Harrison.

You could start Fitz and Holt, but you would be subject to bad days from them costing you the game. However, by starting Harrison you are limiting the relative damage that Manning can do and ensuring that a loss would be due to his other players doing much better than expected.

You almost couldn't have scripted a better example as to how hedging works. Going to the scoreboard (do note that I'm subbing Chester Taylor for Lewis as most competent owners wouldn't start a guy not playing).P. Manning 24.8

Kevin Jones 7.2

Jamal Lewis / Taylor 7.3

Branch 8.3

Stallworth 4.3

Your team:

Palmer 7.8

Portis 18.1

Dunn 10.2

Harrison 25.7

Holt 9.5

Fitzgerald 2.3

His team posted 51.9 points. If you had started the two highest rated WRs per FBG, your team would have scored 47.9 and would be out of the playoffs. If you hedged with Harrison and still started Fitz over Holt you would be moving on with a total of 64.1.

At the outset, your team's RB advantage was almost a certainty. The only way his team competes against your's is if Manning his a big day. Even with a clunker from Palmer and Fitz, the hedge gives you an easy victory.

Once again, the start your best player theory is exposed as flawwed. I do wish my earlier thread had taken off and we could have had numerous examples of this theory being successfully applied.

 

[BassNBrew]

I just had the same situation.

I started Favre (my QB) vs. the Lions (my DEF) this past weekend. Again, I was much superior to my opponent. My alternatives weren't great - they were pretty much washes - but I kind of thought McNair would outdo Favre (he did, barely) and the Bills would out do the Lions (they didn't).

Thinking was: Favre makes tons of mistakes, which the Lions would capitalize on, and in so doing they would absorb the cost

By playing Favre and the Lions, I get to eliminate Favre's mistakes as a factor (they zero out), and realize Favre's great TD potential than McNair. My downside is that, playing McNair and the Lions, I would have gotten Favre's mistakes PLUS McNair's scoring. However, I thought Favre would outscore McNair, excluding mistakes. So I gave up some upside to eliminate some downside. Since I should have beaten my opponent anyway, this was advantageous. This hedges against volatility in my own scoring, rather than my opponent's. I would definitely make sure you are confident you can afford to do this.

Add to that the fact that my opponent started Driver, I also got the advantage of the "anti-hookup" hedge. It was great to see my 12 point lead anchored in place watching the game Sunday night. Everytime Driver did something, I saw the same exact thing happen to Favre's stats. And every time Favre threw an INT, I saw -2 hit his score and +2 hit the Lions.

So, worked out well. I would think through all the implications of this. In fact, you might want to start another thread; otherwise, you may won't get a lot of response, given that this thread already has a storyline that addresses a different situation, which has been investigated. (Yours may have been as well, but I don't think I've seen it.) And what's your scoring system? I don't know if RBs make the same costly, predictable mistakes QBs do. And if yards aren't a factor in DT scoring, I think the hedge may be pretty imperfect.

Great post. Hedging can get quite complicated and goes well beyond the usual QB/WR hookup. Kickers and defense are great hedge tools also.

 

[Crazy 88]

Are there any circumstances where you would consider a hedge play when you do not have the clear advantage? For example, the team I play this week starts both Chris Chambers and Randy McMichael. His other WR's are Holt and Chad Johnson in a start 3 WR league. I have both P. Manning and Ferotte. Overall when looking at players and matchups, I'd rate my team at a disadvantage or an even matchup at best. Definetely not the favorite. Under normal circumstances I would never sit Manning for Ferotte, plus the idea of hedging that I picked up from this thread states that it is not the best idea as the underdog. But, if you can hedge two of the opponents players is it a better idea?