Cancelling out

[jgcrawfish 232]

Yes, another one of these stupid threads.

 

Here's my dilemma: I've got Schaub going in the championship, and it's pretty obvious that his primary target is AJ, who my opponent has and would obviously be ridiculously stupid to bench. My opponent has Rodgers going at the QB spot. He also has Driver, however, I have Jennings. Aside from the obvious that Jennings has a good matchup vs Seattle, would you start him just to try and cancel out some Rodgers points? It's different, because Rodgers spreads the ball around a lot more, but I'm not liking the fact he's gonna grab some of my Schaub pts.

 

(i know, i know...start the players you think will score the most points...i just don't like him dipping into my pts and not being able to dip back!)

[cyclone24 1,816]

Hmmm...i had to write that out on a sticky note at work to see how that looks......

 

 

Im not really sure what choice you have other than to hope they cancel out...but considering you have lesser players at both the qb and #1 wr spot....you probably should hope to god they cancel out and its even.

 

Who else do you have?

I dont like Jennings going up agaist Trufant...but do you have a better choice?

 

I think id play him and just hope for some cancel points. Your best scenario is to hope for a huge game from Jennings and not much of one from AJ....but id definitely start your guys.

[Law 220]

There never is an option of "canceling out" your opponent. It's simple misguided and unfounded logic. You PLAY THE PLAYERS THAT WILL SCORE YOU THE MOST POINTS. PERIOD.

 

I know this sounds crazy, but you score more points than your opponent and win. Your best chance to do that is by playing your best players. Your "team" doesn't know they're playing his team. There is NO CANCELING OUT!

[cyclone24 1,816]

There never is an option of "canceling out" your opponent. It's simple misguided and unfounded logic. You PLAY THE PLAYERS THAT WILL SCORE YOU THE MOST POINTS. PERIOD.

 

I know this sounds crazy, but you score more points than your opponent and win. Your best chance to do that is by playing your best players. Your "team" doesn't know they're playing his team. There is NO CANCELING OUT!

 

 

Well yes and no.....you can start a running back against your own defense....thus cancelling out all "POSSIBLE" points.

 

And i certainly make roster moves to make sure i dont do that....and if im on the fence on someone but they play against my opponents defense...i might start them instead to gain points whem my guy does something.

 

Like for instance...i have kicker Garrett Hartley...my opponent has Drew Brees. I may grab a different kicker because theoretically....if Brees is throwin a lot of tds this week...Hartley isnt kicking field goals. Therefore im not getting as many points as i could. And since i have a feeling hes going to light up TB like a christmas tree....im leaning towards doing that and going with a kicker who maye get more opportunities. Thats not quite cancelling out....but you can possibly grab some points you otherwise wouldnt get.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

There never is an option of "canceling out" your opponent. It's simple misguided and unfounded logic. You PLAY THE PLAYERS THAT WILL SCORE YOU THE MOST POINTS. PERIOD.

 

I know this sounds crazy, but you score more points than your opponent and win. Your best chance to do that is by playing your best players. Your "team" doesn't know they're playing his team. There is NO CANCELING OUT!

 

 

Listen to the Law!

 

 

Seriously jg; you're overthinking it. Who are your receiver options? Jennings has had some bad games but they're playing Seattle AND the Pack will throw a lot. Unless you've got someone else with a good matchup, I'd roll with Jennings.

[davidbostonisgood 2]

Well yes and no.....you can start a running back against your own defense....thus cancelling out all "POSSIBLE" points.

 

And i certainly make roster moves to make sure i dont do that....and if im on the fence on someone but they play against my opponents defense...i might start them instead to gain points whem my guy does something.

 

Like for instance...i have kicker Garrett Hartley...my opponent has Drew Brees. I may grab a different kicker because theoretically....if Brees is throwin a lot of tds this week...Hartley isnt kicking field goals. Therefore im not getting as many points as i could. And since i have a feeling hes going to light up TB like a christmas tree....im leaning towards doing that and going with a kicker who maye get more opportunities. Thats not quite cancelling out....but you can possibly grab some points you otherwise wouldnt get.

You have a lot to learn my friend. But that's the fun part. So much room for growth. It's an adventure.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Well yes and no.....you can start a running back against your own defense....thus cancelling out all "POSSIBLE" points.

 

And i certainly make roster moves to make sure i dont do that....and if im on the fence on someone but they play against my opponents defense...i might start them instead to gain points whem my guy does something.

 

Like for instance...i have kicker Garrett Hartley...my opponent has Drew Brees. I may grab a different kicker because theoretically....if Brees is throwin a lot of tds this week...Hartley isnt kicking field goals. Therefore im not getting as many points as i could. And since i have a feeling hes going to light up TB like a christmas tree....im leaning towards doing that and going with a kicker who maye get more opportunities. Thats not quite cancelling out....but you can possibly grab some points you otherwise wouldnt get.

 

That is definitely not cancelling out. You are considering another kicker because you think that another kicker is going to get you more points.

 

You don't play "against" another team. You play against yourself to maximize the number of points that you could get. Then you hope that you had a better score than your opponent.

 

Think of it as golf in stroke play (i.e. fantasy points). You are not playing against the other guys, you are playing against the course to see if you can get the lowest possible score. In the end, you hope that your score is better than everyone else who was playing.

 

Is there some strategy? Sure, but it has nothing to do with cancelling out. If you have the great fortune to be finishing up last (i.e. Monday night) and you just need to squeak by with nothing bad happening, then you might put in a less risky player. Or if you need to get something big (i.e. need to birdie the last hole), you might put in the guy that has the highest potential, but is more risky.

[FlaHawker 24]

Yes, another one of these stupid threads.

 

Here's my dilemma: I've got Schaub going in the championship, and it's pretty obvious that his primary target is AJ, who my opponent has and would obviously be ridiculously stupid to bench. My opponent has Rodgers going at the QB spot. He also has Driver, however, I have Jennings. Aside from the obvious that Jennings has a good matchup vs Seattle, would you start him just to try and cancel out some Rodgers points? It's different, because Rodgers spreads the ball around a lot more, but I'm not liking the fact he's gonna grab some of my Schaub pts.

 

(i know, i know...start the players you think will score the most points...i just don't like him dipping into my pts and not being able to dip back!)

Unless you have a MUCH better option than Jennings I think, despite his somewhat down year, that he would be a must start, especially against Seattle. The Hawks have quit; I don't see them offering up much resistance in the cold. Don't overthink it now.

[cyclone24 1,816]

That is definitely not cancelling out. You are considering another kicker because you think that another kicker is going to get you more points.

 

You don't play "against" another team. You play against yourself to maximize the number of points that you could get. Then you hope that you had a better score than your opponent.

 

Think of it as golf in stroke play (i.e. fantasy points). You are not playing against the other guys, you are playing against the course to see if you can get the lowest possible score. In the end, you hope that your score is better than everyone else who was playing.

 

Is there some strategy? Sure, but it has nothing to do with cancelling out. If you have the great fortune to be finishing up last (i.e. Monday night) and you just need to squeak by with nothing bad happening, then you might put in a less risky player. Or if you need to get something big (i.e. need to birdie the last hole), you might put in the guy that has the highest potential, but is more risky.

 

 

No its not canceling out....but for instance...if you have Ray Rice and Baltimore ir playing the Colts. Your opponent starts the Colts defense.

 

When Ray Rice scores or gains yardage...the Colts defense point total goes down...thus you are gaining more of a margin in scoring than you would if he would have started any other defense. Its not cancelling out....but its gaining a few points based on who your opponent has

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

No its not canceling out....but for instance...if you have Ray Rice and Baltimore ir playing the Colts. Your opponent starts the Colts defense.

 

When Ray Rice scores or gains yardage...the Colts defense point total goes down...thus you are gaining more of a margin in scoring than you would if he would have started any other defense. Its not cancelling out....but its gaining a few points based on who your opponent has

 

The premise around this "theory" is that you would make lineup decisions for your team based on who your opponent is putting in their lineup. It is seriously flawed.

 

You are describing a dynamic of the games. Player A puts up points and the defense that they are playing could lose points. If you are deciding that you will play Player B over Player A based on that info, when it is more likely that Player A will score more, then you are making a poor decision.

 

There are many factors that go into choosing particular players, including:

- Weather

- Offensive game plan for that particular game

- The defensive skills (or lack thereof) of the opponent for that player

- Injuries

- Trends

- Has the team clinched their playoff position and may be sitting players

 

One thing that you will note is NOT on that list is "who your opponent is playing in their lineup". Got it?

[Phurfur 70]

Yes, another one of these stupid threads.

 

Here's my dilemma: I've got Schaub going in the championship, and it's pretty obvious that his primary target is AJ, who my opponent has and would obviously be ridiculously stupid to bench. My opponent has Rodgers going at the QB spot. He also has Driver, however, I have Jennings. Aside from the obvious that Jennings has a good matchup vs Seattle, would you start him just to try and cancel out some Rodgers points? It's different, because Rodgers spreads the ball around a lot more, but I'm not liking the fact he's gonna grab some of my Schaub pts.

 

(i know, i know...start the players you think will score the most points...i just don't like him dipping into my pts and not being able to dip back!)

 

I never considered you a rookie.

[cyclone24 1,816]

The premise around this "theory" is that you would make lineup decisions for your team based on who your opponent is putting in their lineup. It is seriously flawed.

 

You are describing a dynamic of the games. Player A puts up points and the defense that they are playing could lose points. If you are deciding that you will play Player B over Player A based on that info, when it is more likely that Player A will score more, then you are making a poor decision.

 

There are many factors that go into choosing particular players, including:

- Weather

- Offensive game plan for that particular game

- The defensive skills (or lack thereof) of the opponent for that player

- Injuries

- Trends

- Has the team clinched their playoff position and may be sitting players

 

One thing that you will note is NOT on that list is "who your opponent is playing in their lineup". Got it?

 

I understand what you are saying. Im not implying you start a much worse person because they play against your opponents defense.

 

But if my guy is going against your defense and my guy is good. My player scoring hurts almost twice as bad...because im increasing my score as yours is going down. Got it?

 

I mean we are not talking a ton of points here either way.....but its not a terrible thing to look at on occassion given the matchups.

 

Ive seen more occassions where trying to start a WR because he has the qb or vice versa has burned that person more than helped. One guy tried to start Williams and Witten against my romo a couple weeks ago......Romo had 2 tds and neither were to RW or Witten.

 

You cant "cancel" out points....but like in my Brees/ Hartley example....you can play the odds a little more to where you might start a kicker that may get more opportunities.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I understand what you are saying. Im not implying you start a much worse person because they play against your opponents defense.

 

But if my guy is going against your defense and my guy is good. My player scoring hurts almost twice as bad...because im increasing my score as yours is going down. Got it?

 

I mean we are not talking a ton of points here either way.....but its not a terrible thing to look at on occassion given the matchups.

 

Ive seen more occassions where trying to start a WR because he has the qb or vice versa has burned that person more than helped. One guy tried to start Williams and Witten against my romo a couple weeks ago......Romo had 2 tds and neither were to RW or Witten.

 

You cant "cancel" out points....but like in my Brees/ Hartley example....you can play the odds a little more to where you might start a kicker that may get more opportunities.

 

You are in the wrong thread then. This is the cancelling out theory thread. It is about choosing players to start based on who your opponent is starting. If you are not advocating that, then I am not sure what we are disagreeing on.

 

BTW - In your example, if your guy is good and my defense is bad, then I play another defense.

[Walter34 3]

Cancelling has lead me to 37 championships across 5 leagues over the past 10 years. Jump all over it whenever the opportunity presents itself

[jgcrawfish 232]

I never considered you a rookie.

 

i'm not. i'm just pissed he's gonna get a ton of pts for AJ off my Schaub and there's not a damned thing I can do about it. We were also overdue for another stupid cancel out thread.

[Walter34 3]

After re-reading the opening post, the correct path became crystal clear. You start Schaub and jennings, You then email your opponent and tell him "Gppd luck now dipsh!t - you have officially been cancelled. Rodgers and AJ are essentially neutralized. Better luck next year".

 

You see, you will get in his head and he will stew on this for a day or two. It may even ruin his Christmas. Then, before you know it, he will bench the two and start his backups to avoid the cancel.

 

Collect riches

[Wheaties 0]

After re-reading the opening post, the correct path became crystal clear. You start Schaub and jennings, You then email your opponent and tell him "Gppd luck now dipsh!t - you have officially been cancelled. Rodgers and AJ are essentially neutralized. Better luck next year".

 

You see, you will get in his head and he will stew on this for a day or two. It may even ruin his Christmas. Then, before you know it, he will bench the two and start his backups to avoid the cancel.

 

Collect riches

 

That reminds me of the Underpants Gnomes on South Park.

 

Phase 1 - Cancel out opponents lineup choices

Phase 2 - ???

Phase 3 - Profit

[Stewburtx8 67]

I agree that the cancelling out theory does not work.

 

BUT I somewhat disagree that you should never look at your opponents lineup in determining how to set your lineup. I agree, before Sunday (or Thursday or whenever the week starts) you should set your lineup with the guys on your team that you think will score you the most points. BUT as the matchup unwinds, if you have a fringe decision, your opponents lineup could change a decision for you. An example of this occurred this past weekend in the first round of our playoffs.

 

Going in to the 4 o'clock games on Sunday, I was up 30 points or so with Jason Campbell, Antonio Gates, Hakeem Nicks, and Lance Briggs remaining and he had Vincent Jackson, Quinton Ganther, FRED DAVIS, and Barrett Ruud left. I was the huge favorite at this point...

 

BUT he had the opportunity to put Jermichael Finley in at TE instead of Fred Davis. In my opinion, this would of been a better decision for him because I have Jason Campbell. If Fred Davis has a 2 or 3 TD game, it is very likely that Jason Campbell threw those TD passes. With TD passes being worth 6 points for ALL TD's, Fred Davis did not have very much upside for him gaining points on me, which is what he needed in this case. Likewise if Campbell has a terrible game, its unlikely Fred Davis is going to get him the points he is looking for to close the gap. In an instance like this, I think looking at your opponents lineup does have "some" value. I'm still starting who i think will score the most points, but if I have a fringe decision later in the week as the matchup plays out, knowing who your opponent has left can be beneficial. Same can be said on whether to go with the high risk/high reward guy or the consistent guy late in the week.

[cyclone24 1,816]

I agree that the cancelling out theory does not work.

 

BUT I somewhat disagree that you should never look at your opponents lineup in determining how to set your lineup. I agree, before Sunday (or Thursday or whenever the week starts) you should set your lineup with the guys on your team that you think will score you the most points. BUT as the matchup unwinds, if you have a fringe decision, your opponents lineup could change a decision for you. An example of this occurred this past weekend in the first round of our playoffs.

 

Going in to the 4 o'clock games on Sunday, I was up 30 points or so with Jason Campbell, Antonio Gates, Hakeem Nicks, and Lance Briggs remaining and he had Vincent Jackson, Quinton Ganther, FRED DAVIS, and Barrett Ruud left. I was the huge favorite at this point...

 

BUT he had the opportunity to put Jermichael Finley in at TE instead of Fred Davis. In my opinion, this would of been a better decision for him because I have Jason Campbell. If Fred Davis has a 2 or 3 TD game, it is very likely that Jason Campbell threw those TD passes. With TD passes being worth 6 points for ALL TD's, Fred Davis did not have very much upside for him gaining points on me, which is what he needed in this case. Likewise if Campbell has a terrible game, its unlikely Fred Davis is going to get him the points he is looking for to close the gap. In an instance like this, I think looking at your opponents lineup does have "some" value. I'm still starting who i think will score the most points, but if I have a fringe decision later in the week as the matchup plays out, knowing who your opponent has left can be beneficial. Same can be said on whether to go with the high risk/high reward guy or the consistent guy late in the week.

 

Oh definitely....i love having guys play the late games just for that reason. Couple weeks ago i was down big after the early games....so i decided that Alex Smith, my backup qb, had a better chance of having a "Go off" game than romo did.....and he did and i won because of it

 

Have the same thing this week. My opponent will have played 7 of his 9 guys by 3pm sunday....where i will have 5 remaining....if i need a big game...i may plug Smith in again. If i just need a solid 14-18 points...ill leave Romo in.

[jgcrawfish 232]

After re-reading the opening post, the correct path became crystal clear. You start Schaub and jennings, You then email your opponent and tell him "Gppd luck now dipsh!t - you have officially been cancelled. Rodgers and AJ are essentially neutralized. Better luck next year".

 

You see, you will get in his head and he will stew on this for a day or two. It may even ruin his Christmas. Then, before you know it, he will bench the two and start his backups to avoid the cancel.

 

Collect riches

 

this is sound advice, i may try it.

 

I may, more than likely, play Jennings anyway. After watching what AJ did to Seattle (where was Trufant then?) and the lack of pass rush the Seahawks generate, I'm thinking Jennings may have a good day anyway. I'm not really doing it because of Rodgers, although that would work as a bonus. Jennings and Marshall are my top WR anyway, dance with who brung ya.

 

Honestly, I'm more worried about about who to start at RB and my flex: Jones-Drew (@ NE), Gore (vs Det - this one is in), Ray Rice (@ Pit) or Jerome Harrison (vs Oak). Normally I'd start the 3 studs and not think twice, but the matchups @ NE and @ Pitt concern me, and Harrison had a HUGE week last week.

[Wheaties 0]

this is sound advice, i may try it.

 

I may, more than likely, play Jennings anyway. After watching what AJ did to Seattle (where was Trufant then?) and the lack of pass rush the Seahawks generate, I'm thinking Jennings may have a good day anyway. I'm not really doing it because of Rodgers, although that would work as a bonus. Jennings and Marshall are my top WR anyway, dance with who brung ya.

 

Honestly, I'm more worried about about who to start at RB and my flex: Jones-Drew (@ NE), Gore (vs Det - this one is in), Ray Rice (@ Pit) or Jerome Harrison (vs Oak). Normally I'd start the 3 studs and not think twice, but the matchups @ NE and @ Pitt concern me, and Harrison had a HUGE week last week.

 

In the first matchup with Pittsburgh, Ray Rice put up: 19-88 and 5-67

 

That's 14 points in standard scoring... and more in PPR. Of course, McGahee poached the TD run in that game too.

 

I would go with MJD/Gore/Rice and not even think twice. No way I put my FF champioship in the playcalling hands of Mangini (with Derek Anderson at the helm).

[swashbuckler 0]

Got to agree w/ some of the others. The cancelling out theory is just that...theory. Especially in our league. some guys actually believe in it.

 

At least in some leagues where the QB and the WR would get relatively the same amount of points with say a 65 yd TD. As I understand thats a 12 pt play each for most td/non-ppr leagues, assuming 1 pt/10 yds for each position.

 

Our rules aren't set up that way. A QB gets 1 pt/30 tds passing while a WR or RB gets 1 pt for every 10 yds from scrimmage.

 

That Manning to Wayne 65 yd TD pass got me 9 points for Manning, my opponent got 14 points for Wayne.

 

For Manning:

0 for completion

7 for TD (TD points depend on length of TD)

2 for yards (of course points for yards are cumulative but for the sake of argument points are for this play only)

 

For Wayne:

1 for the catch

7 for the TD (TD points depend on length of TD)

6 for the yards (again...for the sake of argument points are for this play only)

 

QB pts do not equal WR pts.

 

Cancelling certainly does not work out here.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

this is sound advice, i may try it.

 

I may, more than likely, play Jennings anyway. After watching what AJ did to Seattle (where was Trufant then?) and the lack of pass rush the Seahawks generate, I'm thinking Jennings may have a good day anyway. I'm not really doing it because of Rodgers, although that would work as a bonus. Jennings and Marshall are my top WR anyway, dance with who brung ya.

 

Honestly, I'm more worried about about who to start at RB and my flex: Jones-Drew (@ NE), Gore (vs Det - this one is in), Ray Rice (@ Pit) or Jerome Harrison (vs Oak). Normally I'd start the 3 studs and not think twice, but the matchups @ NE and @ Pitt concern me, and Harrison had a HUGE week last week.

 

The Patriots could be without Vince Wilfork and Ty Warren again. Jacksonville should be able to run the ball. The Bills should have stuck with the ground game last week. The Patriots at one point had 5 LB's and 6 DB's in on defense at the same time. I would not even think twice about playing MJD.

[cyclone24 1,816]

The Patriots could be without Vince Wilfork and Ty Warren again. Jacksonville should be able to run the ball. The Bills should have stuck with the ground game last week. The Patriots at one point had 5 LB's and 6 DB's in on defense at the same time. I would not even think twice about playing MJD.

 

 

Oooh...got anything solid on that? I got MJD too and hate my matchups this week (Rice vs Pitt, Barber vs Wash).....would be nice if NE defense was banged up a little.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Oooh...got anything solid on that? I got MJD too and hate my matchups this week (Rice vs Pitt, Barber vs Wash).....would be nice if NE defense was banged up a little.

 

Both did not practice at all last week and were listed as Questionable. Neither made the trip to Buffalo. Given that it is a 1PM game here in NE, you will likely not know for sure until around noon on Sunday.

 

However, if you are really interested, check the participation reports during the week. I think that you would be better off waiting.

[cyclone24 1,816]

Both did not practice at all last week and were listed as Questionable. Neither made the trip to Buffalo. Given that it is a 1PM game here in NE, you will likely not know for sure until around noon on Sunday.

 

However, if you are really interested, check the participation reports during the week. I think that you would be better off waiting.

 

 

Awesome....thanks man.

[jgcrawfish 232]

Both did not practice at all last week and were listed as Questionable. Neither made the trip to Buffalo. Given that it is a 1PM game here in NE, you will likely not know for sure until around noon on Sunday.

 

However, if you are really interested, check the participation reports during the week. I think that you would be better off waiting.

 

thanks for the update, big time! i grabbed Harrison more to keep my opponent from getting him (I had the WW priority). I've ridden Jones-Drew/Rice/Gore to this point and figured I wouldn't stop now. Pittsburghs defense is notably less potent now than it was then, and the news on the New England Defense is good, so to speak. Thanks.

[Chronic Husker 85]

cyclone24 won this thread.

[jaxjag 43]

You cant "cancel" out points....but like in my Brees/ Hartley example....you can play the odds a little more to where you might start a kicker that may get more opportunities.

 

If you have a kicker that may get more FG opportunities than Hartley, by all means, play him.

 

But to consider the switch (at kicker no less) because your opponent has Brees is warped.

[flyjam 1]

BUT he had the opportunity to put Jermichael Finley in at TE instead of Fred Davis. In my opinion, this would of been a better decision for him because I have Jason Campbell. If Fred Davis has a 2 or 3 TD game, it is very likely that Jason Campbell threw those TD passes. With TD passes being worth 6 points for ALL TD's, Fred Davis did not have very much upside for him gaining points on me, which is what he needed in this case. Likewise if Campbell has a terrible game, its unlikely Fred Davis is going to get him the points he is looking for to close the gap. In an instance like this, I think looking at your opponents lineup does have "some" value. I'm still starting who i think will score the most points, but if I have a fringe decision later in the week as the matchup plays out, knowing who your opponent has left can be beneficial. Same can be said on whether to go with the high risk/high reward guy or the consistent guy late in the week.

for all those saying there's no such thing as the cancel out theory, you just play who you think will get the most points... this is a good example of why there are situations when it can be applied, particularly after the early games have finished.

 

for a simple theoretical example, say you lead by 10 points. you can choose between mcnabb (who you project for 20 points) and favre (who you project for 17 points) at qb, your last open lineup spot. your opponent only has one player left -- visanthe schiancoe at TE.

 

in this case, playing the player you project to score the lesser amount of points greatly increases your chances of winning. eventhough mcnabb is likely to outscore favre, schiancoe outscoring mcnabb by 10 will happen much more often than schiancoe outscoring favre by 10 just because the latter events are dependent upon each other.

[jgcrawfish 232]

for all those saying there's no such thing as the cancel out theory, you just play who you think will get the most points... this is a good example of why there are situations when it can be applied, particularly after the early games have finished.

 

for a simple theoretical example, say you lead by 10 points. you can choose between mcnabb (who you project for 20 points) and favre (who you project for 17 points) at qb, your last open lineup spot. your opponent only has one player left -- visanthe schiancoe at TE.

 

in this case, playing the player you project to score the lesser amount of points greatly increases your chances of winning. eventhough mcnabb is likely to outscore favre, schiancoe outscoring mcnabb by 10 will happen much more often than schiancoe outscoring favre by 10 just because the latter events are dependent upon each other.

 

Not entirely true. In week 14 vs Seattle Schaub put up 27 pts in my league, a good outing by a QB under any standards. Same week Andre Johnson put up 34 pts. Bottom line is your players are going to score pts, and your opponents players are going to score pts, just pick the right ones.

[flyjam 1]

and even in the extremely unlikely example where something like that happens, you'll note that the team winning by 10 still would have held on. that should tell you something.

[Stewburtx8 67]

Not entirely true. In week 14 vs Seattle Schaub put up 27 pts in my league, a good outing by a QB under any standards. Same week Andre Johnson put up 34 pts. Bottom line is your players are going to score pts, and your opponents players are going to score pts, just pick the right ones.

 

 

He said it "increases your chances of winning." He didn't say you will win every time this way. Its just starting Favre over McNabb in that example, gives your opponent less opportunity to make up the 10 point lead you currently have, because most likely almost any production by Shiancoe will be at least somewhat offset by Favre. In standard scoring leagues this is definitely true, in point per reception leagues in doesn't hold as much weight.

 

I'm only saying this works in late week situations like this when your decisions come down to your last few active players and you have more information on what kind of lead you may or may not have.

[Quickolas1 80]

if you traditionally set your championship game lineup based on cancelling out, please join my leagues

[flyjam 1]

right. say all we know is that schiancoe finishes with, say, 5 catches, 80 yards and 2 td's for 25 points. barring injury, we can deduce that favre has at least 80 yards and 2 td passes for 12 points. all favre has to do is find 3.1 points elsewhere, which will almost certainly happen, and the guy with schiancoe still loses despite him having a tremendous day.

 

if you have mcnabb going against schiancoe, however, we don't know what donovan's doing. he may have 0 points, or, 5, or 30. what we do know is that there is at least a reasonable chance that he has less than 15 fantasy points, while there is almost no chance that favre has less than 15 fantasy points.

 

in any event, variance is the friend of the team that is losing going into the final game here. that variance exists at a much higher level with mcnabb vs. schiancoe rather than favre vs. schiancoe.

[enoto 0]

For sure cancel out Rodgers, it is always better to have bigger amount of points sitting the bench allowing yourself to lose points and NOT shrink the total amount of points his QB gets....because his points don't actually go away with every TD/points Jennings gets.

 

(yes, that was some sarcasm in there)