cmh6476 755 Posted September 17, 2008 I'm starting cassel this week because my opponent has Moss Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
South Beach 0 Posted September 17, 2008 I'm starting anyone playing the Chiefs becuase Herm's playcalling will cancel out anything thier defense could do to stop an avalanche of fantasy points | | | | | |J kidding... here we go again! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,172 Posted September 17, 2008 never really been a big fan of the cancel out theory but the only time it does indeed work is when you start the QB of one of your opponents WR's.... starting the WR of an opponents QB does not work contrary to some belief because there is nothing saying all the looks have to go to that WR and you could end up screwing yourself. if you have someone decidedly better than Cassel to go with I would. What happens if both moss and cassel blow but you needed a big game from a QB on your bench in order to win? you will feel like ######. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
South Beach 0 Posted September 17, 2008 Does anyone have the post from some time ago that supports "Cancel Out" with sound logic and math? That was one of the best explnantions for this theory ever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgcrawfish 232 Posted September 17, 2008 it's dumb...if you have Cassel in and he throws 200/1 TD, of which 80/1TD is to Moss, yeah you're even. But winning the matchup is more important. If you have some other QB sitting on your bench who throws 300/3TD the only thing you've cancelled out is a bunch of your points. He also is likely to have WR that may get nearly what Moss gets and QB that far exceeds what Cassel does. Play your best players, the players you believe will get you the most points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zefram0911 0 Posted September 17, 2008 Cancel Out Theory is dumb... Always put who you think will perform best. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmh6476 755 Posted September 17, 2008 i guess I should have stated im starting him over rodgers, favre and schaub. I drafted 3 QBs, then added Cassel just cause our linesups look like: Cassel Portis Lynch S Smith (Car) Houshmandzadeh Chambers (could go Gates) Gostkowski Buffalo Palmer Grant Mcgahee (or k smith) R Moss S Moss T Gonzalez Graham Minnesota I dont like the matchups of any of my QBs, yet if he seems to have a player that could post big numbers, it would be Moss so i am definitely leaning going this way... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surferskin 30 Posted September 17, 2008 My good looks cancels out your busted grill on this message bored. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Electric Uncle Sam 0 Posted September 17, 2008 The guy I am playing has Brandon Marshall. I have Eddie Royal. I am playing Jay Cutler over Romo cause of Brandon Marshall. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,172 Posted September 17, 2008 The guy I am playing has Brandon Marshall. I have Eddie Royal. I am playing Jay Cutler over Romo cause of Brandon Marshall. decisions like that are smart and sound logically... but starting a cassel over a brees or someone simply because your opponent has randy moss is dumb.. i know he said he has rodgers but id say that this is also borderline dumb.. rodgers could very well be in a shootout against dallas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
South Beach 0 Posted September 17, 2008 Too bad you don't have Welker or you could pull the "Cancel Out" combined with "The Hook Up" for double bonus points Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thornton Melon 544 Posted September 17, 2008 My gut feelings cancel out my better judgment most weeks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgcrawfish 232 Posted September 17, 2008 i guess I should have stated im starting him over rodgers, favre and schaub. I drafted 3 QBs, then added Cassel just cause our linesups look like: Cassel Portis Lynch S Smith (Car) Houshmandzadeh Chambers (could go Gates) Gostkowski Buffalo Palmer Grant Mcgahee (or k smith) R Moss S Moss T Gonzalez Graham Minnesota I dont like the matchups of any of my QBs, yet if he seems to have a player that could post big numbers, it would be Moss so i am definitely leaning going this way... I disagree. I think Rodgers v Dallas is the way to go on this. I think Green Bay has every bit the weapons that Philly has, maybe more, and I think guys like Jennings and Jones are gonna shake loose versus a very suspect (and injured) Dallas secondary. I think if you start Cassel to "cancel out" Moss you're leaving points on the bench. It's one thing when your two QB's are fairly even and the matchups are as well, but as pointed out, dropping your quality of QB down to counteract someone's WR and leaving a better player on the bench isn't the way to go. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AnaheimRams 28 Posted September 17, 2008 Does anyone have the post from some time ago that supports "Cancel Out" with sound logic and math? That was one of the best explnantions for this theory ever. Pssst... It doesn't matter... they won't listen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,542 Posted September 17, 2008 People are dumb. Hungry lil fishes. l l l l l l J Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
J.E.T.S.JetsJetsJets 0 Posted September 17, 2008 cancel out theory is only a contributing bonus. Had ARE vs NO or Mush vs Chi. choice for a flex. Pretty even. Went with Mush since my opp started Delhomo. Think I did better by a point or so. Cutler over Romo, kind of even, Cassel over Rogers... c'mon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
schmitty34 2 Posted September 17, 2008 Does anyone have the post from some time ago that supports "Cancel Out" with sound logic and math? That was one of the best explnantions for this theory ever. I'd love to see it becaue I can't imagine this theory could be supported with sound logic or math. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
schmitty34 2 Posted September 17, 2008 cancel out theory is only a contributing bonus. Had ARE vs NO or Mush vs Chi. choice for a flex. Pretty even. Went with Mush since my opp started Delhomo. Think I did better by a point or so. Cutler over Romo, kind of even, Cassel over Rogers... c'mon This only makes sense if you are afraid that Delhomo is going to have a big game and you need to capitalize on that by starting Mush. The only reason you ended up better by a point or so is because Mush outperformed ARE (whoever that is) not becuse you "canceled" out your opponents QB. The ONLY smart play is to start the players YOU think will score the most points. If I had two WR that were even I'd go with the player not catching passes from my opponent's QB and hope my WR puts up huge numbers and his QB stinks...you can't hope for that if you use the cancel out theory. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
J.E.T.S.JetsJetsJets 0 Posted September 17, 2008 This only makes sense if you are afraid that Delhomo is going to have a big game and you need to capitalize on that by starting Mush. The only reason you ended up better by a point or so is because Mush outperformed ARE (whoever that is) not becuse you "canceled" out your opponents QB. The ONLY smart play is to start the players YOU think will score the most points. If I had two WR that were even I'd go with the player not catching passes from my opponent's QB and hope my WR puts up huge numbers and his QB stinks...you can't hope for that if you use the cancel out theory. ARE is Antoine Randel El he is the #2 WR for the Washington Redskins. Although Mush is the soon to be #2 WR for the Panthers I think he was the better pick (and will continue to be after Smith comes back) so valid point. My point was that the matchups in this case were pretty even and so the fact that (w. ppr) every time delHomme completes a pass to MM he'l gain a point on the QB. & every time delhome completes 20 yds worth of passes to MM he'll get 2pts to the QBs 1. Of course all kinds of bad things could happen, but then, that's why they play the game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SUXBNME 1,337 Posted September 17, 2008 You guys are all racist Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted September 17, 2008 Cancel out theory Say my opponent has Cutler and I have a choice between playing Royal or Andre Johnson. Now are you guys really under the impression that if I start Royal over AJ. that somehow I've made a better choice? Let's say Royal gets 15 points and AJ gets 20; do you honestly believe that Royal's 15points are somehow more valuable than AJ's 20? I swear every focking year someone rolls out this 'sage' advice only to have it debunked time and time again. Play the guy who will most likely score the most points and that's the best you can do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AnaheimRams 28 Posted September 17, 2008 Cancel out theory Say my opponent has Cutler and I have a choice between playing Royal or Andre Johnson. Now are you guys really under the impression that if I start Royal over AJ. that somehow I've made a better choice? Let's say Royal gets 15 points and AJ gets 20; do you honestly believe that Royal's 15points are somehow more valuable than AJ's 20? I swear every focking year someone rolls out this 'sage' advice only to have it debunked time and time again. Play the guy who will most likely score the most points and that's the best you can do. Actually... it's proven valid every year. 'Cept ya'll come up with these stupid strawman scenarios where it's not applicable... then put your fingers in your ears and scream like 6 year olds. Although the cancel out theory... which is a horrible name because it's NOT a theory and you don't actually cancel anything out... is horribly overused... it's statistical validity is perfectly sound. Anyone with the most basic understanding of statistics would understand it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AnaheimRams 28 Posted September 17, 2008 I'd love to see it becaue I can't imagine this theory could be supported with sound logic or math. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/articles/corrgaus.htm ask and ye shall receive. Hope you studied math or at least statistics in college. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
schmitty34 2 Posted September 17, 2008 http://www.pro-football-reference.com/articles/corrgaus.htm ask and ye shall receive. Hope you studied math or at least statistics in college. Hmmm...interesting stuff. Well I skimmed about half of it but without digging into the math and statistics (I may do this later if I'm bored) I'm pretty sure I understand the argument being made. Although it may provide logic for using the "hook-up" if you are an underdog needing a miracle, or a favorite just taking a conservative approach, I don't think it actually supports the theory, just makes a case that their MAY be some validity to it. Read it yourself in #3 at the bottom of the article: "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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 5,206 Posted September 17, 2008 http://www.pro-football-reference.com/articles/corrgaus.htm ask and ye shall receive. Hope you studied math or at least statistics in college. Luckily I did study statistics in college. While an interesting read, what this article basically says is that given the choice between two comparable players, if the rest of your team is statistically better, play the hookup to cancel out the opposing team, and if the rest of your team is not statistically better, play the other guy. If somebody is better, play him independent of this analysis, because the goal is to score more points than your opponent. While not necessarily rocket science, it is worth noting so I appreciate the link. But it in no way concludes that you should always play the hookup. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,172 Posted September 17, 2008 Actually... it's proven valid every year. 'Cept ya'll come up with these stupid strawman scenarios where it's not applicable... then put your fingers in your ears and scream like 6 year olds. Although the cancel out theory... which is a horrible name because it's NOT a theory and you don't actually cancel anything out... is horribly overused... it's statistical validity is perfectly sound. Anyone with the most basic understanding of statistics would understand it. actually its proven valid in certain scenarios. you say the people against it come up with stupid strawman scenarios but the people for it are doing the exact same thing. also it is a fine name for it because technically it is the theory that you can start a player who would share points scored with an opponents player therefore canceling out any positive gain your opponent has against your team... what i find funny is that people can even make a valid argument for starting the WR of your opponents starting QB. a QB has several targets to pass to. There is no garuntee that your WR see's a majority of those targets or that he will score the same as their QB when you include the stats their QB accumulates with the other WR's, TE's, RB's on the team. now on the flip side, yes, if your opponent has a big time WR and you happen to have the QB from the same team on your roster then in theory you can cancel his WR out by starting that QB. You can do this because every time his WR scores points your QB also scores points (probably a bit less but your also most likely getting points from plays not directed to that specific WR). but again this only works in certain situations. The WR you want to cancel out has to be a pretty prime time WR for it to even be worth it and if you have a normally better QB on your roster then you would be a bonehead to sit him just for this theory. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted September 17, 2008 Actually... it's proven valid every year. 'Cept ya'll come up with these stupid strawman scenarios where it's not applicable... then put your fingers in your ears and scream like 6 year olds. Although the cancel out theory... which is a horrible name because it's NOT a theory and you don't actually cancel anything out... is horribly overused... it's statistical validity is perfectly sound. Anyone with the most basic understanding of statistics would understand it. Statistically, the chances of you coming down to a choice between two equally talented players on equally talented teams in equally matched games AND one of the two players just happens to benifit if your opponent does well are so small as to be non existant. That seems like a basic understanding of statistics huh? Sooooooooooo....... FF matchups are based on points........... most points wins........... play those players who you think will get you the most points.............. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AnaheimRams 28 Posted September 18, 2008 actually its proven valid in certain scenarios. you say the people against it come up with stupid strawman scenarios but the people for it are doing the exact same thing. That's not true. If someone arguing against the COT lays out some inane scenario where it doesn't even apply... and then claims the COT is a failure... that is NOT the same thing as a proponent of the COT laying out some far fetched scenario where it DOES work... thereby claiming it's valid. The proponent only has to put up ONE situation where the COT, properly applied, works in order to demonstrate its validity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,172 Posted September 18, 2008 That's not true. If someone arguing against the COT lays out some inane scenario where it doesn't even apply... and then claims the COT is a failure... that is NOT the same thing as a proponent of the COT laying out some far fetched scenario where it DOES work... thereby claiming it's valid. The proponent only has to put up ONE situation where the COT, properly applied, works in order to demonstrate its validity. every scenario i have seen laid out by those arguing against it, it has applied... moving along... ok so if it only has to be proven once (ill ignore the weakness of that statement) then lets agree to call it valid but not practical. i will also say that in any scenario other than starting the QB of your opponents WR, it is never valid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AnaheimRams 28 Posted September 18, 2008 Statistically, the chances of you coming down to a choice between two equally talented players on equally talented teams in equally matched games AND one of the two players just happens to benifit if your opponent does well are so small as to be non existant. That seems like a basic understanding of statistics huh? Ummm... not hardly. A basic understanding of statistics doesn't mean you throw out data 'cause the chances of them occuring are "too small". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,172 Posted September 18, 2008 Ummm... not hardly. A basic understanding of statistics doesn't mean you throw out data 'cause the chances of them occuring are "too small". but you can conclude them as statistically significant or insignificant Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bno70_1 0 Posted September 18, 2008 Here, this thread explains it: http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...p;hl=cancel+out Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,172 Posted September 18, 2008 Here, this thread explains it: http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...p;hl=cancel+out good stuff Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted September 18, 2008 Ummm... not hardly. A basic understanding of statistics doesn't mean you throw out data 'cause the chances of them occuring are "too small". No, but when the stats show that there is little chance of that 'scenario' occurring why would you waste your time or effort with that theory? That's the crux of the argument; MAYBE once in several seasons would you come down to a true 'coin toss' decision on which two players to play based on the fact that everything is in fact equal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AnaheimRams 28 Posted September 18, 2008 every scenario i have seen laid out by those arguing against it, it has applied... moving along... ok so if it only has to be proven once (ill ignore the weakness of that statement) then lets agree to call it valid but not practical. i will also say that in any scenario other than starting the QB of your opponents WR, it is never valid. Okay... point one: That's not possible. Because it WORKS in every scenario where it is PROPERLY applied. For instance... starting Matt Schaub because your opponent has Andre Johnson when you have Manning... Warner... Cutler... Romo... McNabb etc on your bench is stupid. Although it's an application of the COT... it is not applied properly. Point two: Agree completely. However... as I've said... morons throwing the COT around on this board like halloween candy doesn't mean that it is not a viable strategy in RARE situations. I've played FF for almost 20 years... multiple leagues every year... and I've used it ONCE... Championship game... 2006. Basically... the stars have to align perfectly to set up a scenario for the COT. However... that STILL doesn't make it invalid. Third... absolutely. It simply doesn't work that way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted September 18, 2008 Agree completely. However... as I've said... morons throwing the COT around on this board like halloween candy doesn't mean that it is not a viable strategy in RARE situations. I've played FF for almost 20 years... multiple leagues every year... and I've used it ONCE... Championship game... 2006. Basically... the stars have to align perfectly to set up a scenario for the COT. However... that STILL doesn't make it invalid. Once in twenty years in multiple leagues......................sounds pretty much like I was saying. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AnaheimRams 28 Posted September 18, 2008 Once in twenty years in multiple leagues......................sounds pretty much like I was saying. Ummm... not exactly. You were saying it's a pointless waste of energy because it hardly ever happens. If that's your opinion... more power to you. However... the ONE time I chose to implement the COT was to guarantee myself a 5 figure championship prize... so... not so pointless to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,172 Posted September 18, 2008 Okay... point one: That's not possible. Because it WORKS in every scenario where it is PROPERLY applied. For instance... starting Matt Schaub because your opponent has Andre Johnson when you have Manning... Warner... Cutler... Romo... McNabb etc on your bench is stupid. Although it's an application of the COT... it is not applied properly. Point two: Agree completely. However... as I've said... morons throwing the COT around on this board like halloween candy doesn't mean that it is not a viable strategy in RARE situations. I've played FF for almost 20 years... multiple leagues every year... and I've used it ONCE... Championship game... 2006. Basically... the stars have to align perfectly to set up a scenario for the COT. However... that STILL doesn't make it invalid. Third... absolutely. It simply doesn't work that way. ok the second two points we agree on the first still a little iffy. your agreeing its an application of the COT so right there i would think that ends any point you have. im not trying to attack you specifically but alot of people in this thread who are arguing FOR the COT are saying it is good to use ANYTIME you can start the QB of your opponents (stud) WR. showing examples of how this would not be good (especially when your other options are vastly better) is not an inane scenario... all you have to do is read the OP. he wants to cancel out his opponent by starting an inferior QB.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AnaheimRams 28 Posted September 18, 2008 ok the second two points we agree on the first still a little iffy. your agreeing its an application of the COT so right there i would think that ends any point you have. im not trying to attack you specifically but alot of people in this thread who are arguing FOR the COT are saying it is good to use ANYTIME you can start the QB of your opponents (stud) WR. showing examples of how this would not be good (especially when your other options are vastly better) is not an inane scenario... all you have to do is read the OP. he wants to cancel out his opponent by starting an inferior QB.... I think I might go with you on that one. When morons here advocate the COT be used every time you're playing an opponent with a WR on your QB's team.... it does become ridiculously easy to refute their position. I'll go with that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eddie George 0 Posted September 18, 2008 Last week I started Rodgers TO Creighton Barber Witten He started Romo Jennings Driver B Jackson Lee The game completely canceled out. We each ended with 0 points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
