Strategy: Cancelling out your Oppenents Player (1 Viewer)

[RamMan]

I know this topic was covered earlier in the season in a thread but I couldn't find it. Appolgies in advance if this is an iritating topic for some of you...

I know it's normally the best strategy to start the players you believe will score the most points. However, if your options are basically equal, doesn't it make sense to try and cancel out the production of one of your oppenent's best players? Say Team A has 2 QB's with equal projections for the week. Team B's WR#1 is the primary receiver of one of Team A's QB's. In this specific case, doesn't it make sense for Team A to plug in that QB to cancel out Team B's WR#1?

 

[Bayhawks]

I know this topic was covered earlier in the season in a thread but I couldn't find it. Appolgies in advance if this is an iritating topic for some of you...

I know it's normally the best strategy to start the players you believe will score the most points. However, if your options are basically equal, doesn't it make sense to try and cancel out the production of one of your oppenent's best players? Say Team A has 2 QB's with equal projections for the week. Team B's WR#1 is the primary receiver of one of Team A's QB's. In this specific case, doesn't it make sense for Team A to plug in that QB to cancel out Team B's WR#1?

If you predict QB1 will put up the same points as QB2, and QB2 throws to the #1WR of your opponent for the week, then it's not a bad idea. If, however, you project QB1 to put up more points, then you should start him, regardless of who your opponent is starting.

 

[p00h]

this thread is fresh and exciting!

 

[CalBear]

I know this topic was covered earlier in the season in a thread but I couldn't find it. Appolgies in advance if this is an iritating topic for some of you...

I know it's normally the best strategy to start the players you believe will score the most points. However, if your options are basically equal, doesn't it make sense to try and cancel out the production of one of your oppenent's best players? Say Team A has 2 QB's with equal projections for the week. Team B's WR#1 is the primary receiver of one of Team A's QB's. In this specific case, doesn't it make sense for Team A to plug in that QB to cancel out Team B's WR#1?

It depends on the rest of your roster; his WR is cancelling out your QB as much as your QB is cancelling his WR. If you think the rest of your roster is better, it's a good move to reduce the game's variance by starting his WR's QB. If you think his roster is better, you want to increase the variance by starting the other QB.

 

[p00h]

I know this topic was covered earlier in the season in a thread but I couldn't find it. Appolgies in advance if this is an iritating topic for some of you...

I know it's normally the best strategy to start the players you believe will score the most points. However, if your options are basically equal, doesn't it make sense to try and cancel out the production of one of your oppenent's best players? Say Team A has 2 QB's with equal projections for the week. Team B's WR#1 is the primary receiver of one of Team A's QB's. In this specific case, doesn't it make sense for Team A to plug in that QB to cancel out Team B's WR#1?

It depends on the rest of your roster; his WR is cancelling out your QB as much as your QB is cancelling his WR. If you think the rest of your roster is better, it's a good move to reduce the game's variance by starting his WR's QB. If you think his roster is better, you want to increase the variance by starting the other QB.

I'm not going to get deeply involved in this discussion because it is a yearly discussion, and most points made are assinine. However, you are not cancelling out a qb by starting a wr fromt eh same team teh same as starting a qb against a wr from teh same team cancels him out. Why you ask?!? Because the qb can throw 4 tds to players other than that wr you are starting....Moral of the story, start your best players, and let the chips ahoys fall as they may...

 

[paydrt]

I know this topic was covered earlier in the season in a thread but I couldn't find it. Appolgies in advance if this is an iritating topic for some of you...

I know it's normally the best strategy to start the players you believe will score the most points. However, if your options are basically equal, doesn't it make sense to try and cancel out the production of one of your oppenent's best players? Say Team A has 2 QB's with equal projections for the week. Team B's WR#1 is the primary receiver of one of Team A's QB's. In this specific case, doesn't it make sense for Team A to plug in that QB to cancel out Team B's WR#1?

here Just for something to do in this particular week my opponent and myself matched up our WRs, made the games involving these players somewhat interesting. I managed to win two of the three WR matchups as well as my match. You'll see it in the thread as well as some other disscusion

 

[RamMan]

I know this topic was covered earlier in the season in a thread but I couldn't find it. Appolgies in advance if this is an iritating topic for some of you...

I know it's normally the best strategy to start the players you believe will score the most points. However, if your options are basically equal, doesn't it make sense to try and cancel out the production of one of your oppenent's best players? Say Team A has 2 QB's with equal projections for the week. Team B's WR#1 is the primary receiver of one of Team A's QB's. In this specific case, doesn't it make sense for Team A to plug in that QB to cancel out Team B's WR#1?

It depends on the rest of your roster; his WR is cancelling out your QB as much as your QB is cancelling his WR. If you think the rest of your roster is better, it's a good move to reduce the game's variance by starting his WR's QB. If you think his roster is better, you want to increase the variance by starting the other QB.

I'm not going to get deeply involved in this discussion because it is a yearly discussion, and most points made are assinine. However, you are not cancelling out a qb by starting a wr fromt eh same team teh same as starting a qb against a wr from teh same team cancels him out. Why you ask?!? Because the qb can throw 4 tds to players other than that wr you are starting....Moral of the story, start your best players, and let the chips ahoys fall as they may...

While I appreciate you responding to my post, your understanding of the question is completely bass ackwards. And we're assinine?

 

[CalBear]

I know this topic was covered earlier in the season in a thread but I couldn't find it. Appolgies in advance if this is an iritating topic for some of you...

I know it's normally the best strategy to start the players you believe will score the most points. However, if your options are basically equal, doesn't it make sense to try and cancel out the production of one of your oppenent's best players? Say Team A has 2 QB's with equal projections for the week. Team B's WR#1 is the primary receiver of one of Team A's QB's. In this specific case, doesn't it make sense for Team A to plug in that QB to cancel out Team B's WR#1?

It depends on the rest of your roster; his WR is cancelling out your QB as much as your QB is cancelling his WR. If you think the rest of your roster is better, it's a good move to reduce the game's variance by starting his WR's QB. If you think his roster is better, you want to increase the variance by starting the other QB.

I'm not going to get deeply involved in this discussion because it is a yearly discussion, and most points made are assinine. However, you are not cancelling out a qb by starting a wr fromt eh same team teh same as starting a qb against a wr from teh same team cancels him out. Why you ask?!? Because the qb can throw 4 tds to players other than that wr you are starting....Moral of the story, start your best players, and let the chips ahoys fall as they may...

It is well understood that having a QB-WR pair on your own team will increase your variance. There is a positive correlation between big games between an NFL team's #1 WR and their starting QB. So, if you have a QB-WR pair on your own team, they will increase your variance, which means you should be biased towards starting the pair when you are otherwise at a disadvantage, and towards breaking up the pair when you are otherwise at an advantage.If this is true when the QB and WR are on your own team, it is obvious that the opposite must be true if the QB and WR are on opposite teams.

 

[FantasyMan]

I know this topic was covered earlier in the season in a thread but I couldn't find it. Appolgies in advance if this is an iritating topic for some of you...

I know it's normally the best strategy to start the players you believe will score the most points. However, if your options are basically equal, doesn't it make sense to try and cancel out the production of one of your oppenent's best players? Say Team A has 2 QB's with equal projections for the week. Team B's WR#1 is the primary receiver of one of Team A's QB's. In this specific case, doesn't it make sense for Team A to plug in that QB to cancel out Team B's WR#1?

It depends on the rest of your roster; his WR is cancelling out your QB as much as your QB is cancelling his WR. If you think the rest of your roster is better, it's a good move to reduce the game's variance by starting his WR's QB. If you think his roster is better, you want to increase the variance by starting the other QB.

I'm not going to get deeply involved in this discussion because it is a yearly discussion, and most points made are assinine. However, you are not cancelling out a qb by starting a wr fromt eh same team teh same as starting a qb against a wr from teh same team cancels him out. Why you ask?!? Because the qb can throw 4 tds to players other than that wr you are starting....Moral of the story, start your best players, and let the chips ahoys fall as they may...

While I appreciate you responding to my post, your understanding of the question is completely bass ackwards. And we're assinine?

maybe.Looks like p00h was making a point back to CalBear and not the op.

 

[RamMan]

I know this topic was covered earlier in the season in a thread but I couldn't find it. Appolgies in advance if this is an iritating topic for some of you...

I know it's normally the best strategy to start the players you believe will score the most points. However, if your options are basically equal, doesn't it make sense to try and cancel out the production of one of your oppenent's best players? Say Team A has 2 QB's with equal projections for the week. Team B's WR#1 is the primary receiver of one of Team A's QB's. In this specific case, doesn't it make sense for Team A to plug in that QB to cancel out Team B's WR#1?

It depends on the rest of your roster; his WR is cancelling out your QB as much as your QB is cancelling his WR. If you think the rest of your roster is better, it's a good move to reduce the game's variance by starting his WR's QB. If you think his roster is better, you want to increase the variance by starting the other QB.

I'm not going to get deeply involved in this discussion because it is a yearly discussion, and most points made are assinine. However, you are not cancelling out a qb by starting a wr fromt eh same team teh same as starting a qb against a wr from teh same team cancels him out. Why you ask?!? Because the qb can throw 4 tds to players other than that wr you are starting....Moral of the story, start your best players, and let the chips ahoys fall as they may...

While I appreciate you responding to my post, your understanding of the question is completely bass ackwards. And we're assinine?

maybe.Looks like p00h was making a point back to CalBear and not the op.

Noted...and sincerest appologies to p00h.

 

[RamMan]

I know this topic was covered earlier in the season in a thread but I couldn't find it. Appolgies in advance if this is an iritating topic for some of you...

I know it's normally the best strategy to start the players you believe will score the most points. However, if your options are basically equal, doesn't it make sense to try and cancel out the production of one of your oppenent's best players? Say Team A has 2 QB's with equal projections for the week. Team B's WR#1 is the primary receiver of one of Team A's QB's. In this specific case, doesn't it make sense for Team A to plug in that QB to cancel out Team B's WR#1?

It depends on the rest of your roster; his WR is cancelling out your QB as much as your QB is cancelling his WR. If you think the rest of your roster is better, it's a good move to reduce the game's variance by starting his WR's QB. If you think his roster is better, you want to increase the variance by starting the other QB.

I'm not going to get deeply involved in this discussion because it is a yearly discussion, and most points made are assinine. However, you are not cancelling out a qb by starting a wr fromt eh same team teh same as starting a qb against a wr from teh same team cancels him out. Why you ask?!? Because the qb can throw 4 tds to players other than that wr you are starting....Moral of the story, start your best players, and let the chips ahoys fall as they may...

It is well understood that having a QB-WR pair on your own team will increase your variance. There is a positive correlation between big games between an NFL team's #1 WR and their starting QB. So, if you have a QB-WR pair on your own team, they will increase your variance, which means you be biased towards starting the pair when you are otherwise at a disadvantage, and towards breaking up the pair when you are otherwise at an advantage.If this is true when the QB and WR are on your own team, it is obvious that the opposite must be true if the QB and WR are on opposite teams.

This makes sense to me....thank you.

 

[Sarnoff]

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread this week. Has anyone got dibs on asking this exact same question next week yet? Is there a sign-up sheet somewhere? I'd like to ask this sometime after Thanksgiving if there's a slot available.

 

[p00h]

per the OPs question, if both qbs are equal in essence, I would start the qb that will cancel out the WR on the other team, ONLY if that WR is a stud. I'm not going to start Vyoung because the other team has Nate washington starting. And that also ties into the point I made earlier. A qb can cancel out a wr, because that wr can only score via the qb(outside of a rushing td or punt return) however, doing the opposite is not always advisable. A WR can't always cancel out a qb. That qb can throw tds to 4 other WRs...

START YOUR BEST PLAYERS!

 

[radballs]

I know this topic was covered earlier in the season in a thread but I couldn't find it. Appolgies in advance if this is an iritating topic for some of you...

I know it's normally the best strategy to start the players you believe will score the most points. However, if your options are basically equal, doesn't it make sense to try and cancel out the production of one of your oppenent's best players? Say Team A has 2 QB's with equal projections for the week. Team B's WR#1 is the primary receiver of one of Team A's QB's. In this specific case, doesn't it make sense for Team A to plug in that QB to cancel out Team B's WR#1?

It depends on the rest of your roster; his WR is cancelling out your QB as much as your QB is cancelling his WR. If you think the rest of your roster is better, it's a good move to reduce the game's variance by starting his WR's QB. If you think his roster is better, you want to increase the variance by starting the other QB.

I'm not going to get deeply involved in this discussion because it is a yearly discussion, and most points made are assinine. However, you are not cancelling out a qb by starting a wr fromt eh same team teh same as starting a qb against a wr from teh same team cancels him out. Why you ask?!? Because the qb can throw 4 tds to players other than that wr you are starting....Moral of the story, start your best players, and let the chips ahoys fall as they may...

It is well understood that having a QB-WR pair on your own team will increase your variance. There is a positive correlation between big games between an NFL team's #1 WR and their starting QB. So, if you have a QB-WR pair on your own team, they will increase your variance, which means you be biased towards starting the pair when you are otherwise at a disadvantage, and towards breaking up the pair when you are otherwise at an advantage.If this is true when the QB and WR are on your own team, it is obvious that the opposite must be true if the QB and WR are on opposite teams.

CalBear knows his stuff. Good points all around.

 

[EdwardCat]

This, and all threads like it, should be banned from the Shark Pool forever.

 

[grateful zed]

worst thread ever.

 

[DoubleG]

I know this topic was covered earlier in the season in a thread but I couldn't find it. Appolgies in advance if this is an iritating topic for some of you...

I know it's normally the best strategy to start the players you believe will score the most points. However, if your options are basically equal, doesn't it make sense to try and cancel out the production of one of your oppenent's best players? Say Team A has 2 QB's with equal projections for the week. Team B's WR#1 is the primary receiver of one of Team A's QB's. In this specific case, doesn't it make sense for Team A to plug in that QB to cancel out Team B's WR#1?

The only way this truly makes sense is if the scoring for WRs and QBs is exactly the same. As many have pointed out, the QB could throw 4 TDs to other receivers (Indy, NO, etc.) If TEAM B's WR is truly TEAM A's primary and virtually only WR (Jac, Det, Hou, etc) then it still could be losing proposition depending on scoring. If the WR gets 1 point for every 10 yards receving and 6 points per TD, but the QB gets 1/20 and 4 points for a TD. If the QB throws for 225 yards and 1 TD - he gets 15 points - but if 140 of the yards and the TD were to the WR, he just put up 20. Now obviously your QB could have a better day, but if most of it is to that WR, the situation worsens, as the spread between the two increases...Which leads us back to "start your best players, regardless as to what your opponent is doing".

 

[RamMan]

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread this week. Has anyone got dibs on asking this exact same question next week yet? Is there a sign-up sheet somewhere? I'd like to ask this sometime after Thanksgiving if there's a slot available.

This, and all threads like it, should be banned from the Shark Pool forever.

worst thread ever.

You guys kill me. You actually take time out of your "busy" lives to open, read, and reply to a thread that you complain is essentially wasting your time? Do you also consume an entire meal before complaining how bad the food was? I simply don't get this behavior....it would make an interesting lab rat study however. Flame on guys!

 

[FUBAR]

Unless you're able to start the same guy - say both teams can start Philip Rivers, it's a non-factor to me.

 

[Maroney=Sped]

Unless you're able to start the same guy - say both teams can start Philip Rivers, it's a non-factor to me.

both teams can start Philip Rivers

 

[DoubleG]

Unless you're able to start the same guy - say both teams can start Philip Rivers, it's a non-factor to me.

both teams can start Philip Rivers

You typed it, you didn't say it.Unless you typed it as you said it.

 

[tonka]

I don't think the thread is that bad, but the fact that it comes up time and time again (and that people still argue about it) sucks. Why doesn't someone write the definitive answer for this and then it can be pinned to the top or something?

 

[grateful zed]

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread this week. Has anyone got dibs on asking this exact same question next week yet? Is there a sign-up sheet somewhere? I'd like to ask this sometime after Thanksgiving if there's a slot available.

This, and all threads like it, should be banned from the Shark Pool forever.

worst thread ever.

You guys kill me. You actually take time out of your "busy" lives to open, read, and reply to a thread that you complain is essentially wasting your time? Do you also consume an entire meal before complaining how bad the food was? I simply don't get this behavior....it would make an interesting lab rat study however. Flame on guys!

worst post ever.