Follow up to Grits' matchup poll

[Balzac]

 

617089[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

yeah - I could barely follow it myself after writing it.

[Grits and Shins]

Are any of those factors directly related to the # of points scored by the opposing QB?  Again - not a perfect correlation, but the relationship is certainly there.  If you're going to sit there and argue that the hedging factor simply doesn't exist, I'd love to hear how you've arrived at that conclusion. 

 

617044[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

2hedge vb hedged; hedg•ing 1 : encircle 2 : hinder 3 : to protect oneself financially by a counterbalancing action 4 : to evade the risk of commitment — hedg•er n

©2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved

 

So when you "hedge" something you are attempting to "counterbalance" something:

 

1coun•ter•bal•ance \"kaun-ter-'ba-lens\ n : a weight or influence that balances another

©2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved

 

Guess what if you start Walker it does NOT counterbalance or hedge anything.

 

This "strategy" would ONLY make sense if when a WR got a point his QB had points deducted. But the points scored by one WR are no different than the points scored by any other WR.

Edited December 17, 2004 by Grits and Shins

[NSab]

Keep this stuff over there It has spread now.

[Grits and Shins]

It can work both ways ... his QB can have a bad day causing your WR to suck.

[Balzac]

2hedge vb hedged; hedg•ing 1 : encircle 2 : hinder 3 : to protect oneself financially by a counterbalancing action 4 : to evade the risk of commitment — hedg•er n 

©2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.  All rights reserved

 

So when you "hedge" something you are attempting to "counterbalance" something:

 

1coun•ter•bal•ance \"kaun-ter-'ba-lens\ n : a weight or influence that balances another 

©2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.  All rights reserved

 

Guess what if you start Walker it does NOT counterbalance or hedge anything.

 

This "strategy" would ONLY make sense if when Walker got a point Favre had points deducted ... a counterbalance effect.

 

617122[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't come up with the word "hedge" to describe this - if you'd like to debate whether that's correct usage, you're barking up the wrong tree. The more accurate word is "insulate," which I have used a number of times.

 

Again, you're missing the point - will it DEFINITELY counterbalance anything? No, but it certainly has the chance to. Let's say Favre throws for 270 Yds and 2 TDs, with Walker catching 100 yards worth and a TD - that's not a counterbalance? In my league, Walker would effectively cancel out all of Favre's points, thereby insulating me against the relatively big game that the opposing QB just had. If you go with the other WR option, you run the chance of missing out on this option (and ensuring that your opponent doesn't get a leg up on you here). Of course it's posible that the other WR will score more points, but that's not anything that can be controlled.

[Easy n Dirty]

Ok, so all the geniuses have decided that JRick is definitely wrong and Grits is definitely right. So now, answer me this: when you have 2 WRs and aboslutely cannot establish a preference for one over the other based on matchups, current trends, etc...then what is the "right" way to choose one over the other? As Grits points out, flipping a coin might be just as valid, and just as invalid as well. There is no correct way to do it here. I tried to make this point in the other thread as well - I have in this situation at times chosen the guy who was on national TV so I could enjoy watching him. Is this right? According to Blitz it's probably downright immoral and right up there with homosexuality, but my contention is that in this situation, it's neither wrong or right. If it's a coin flip decision, then essentially you're going to be able to criticize whatever basis the guy chooses, but unless you can offer up a failsafe alternative method...

 

What's more, I suspect you could probably come up with an extreme scenario where your team is loaded and the other guy's team is not loaded, and his only chance of beating you is if his quarterback absolutely goes off, and what's more his QB is heavily dependent on one receiver who happens to reside on your roster - I'm not gonna' take this any further, but I think there's probably an extreme scenario in there where hedging is actually sound FF strategy.

Edited December 17, 2004 by Easy n Dirty

[Balzac]

It can work both ways ... his QB can have a bad day causing your WR to suck.

 

617134[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I'm aware of that. So what? Anything "can" happen, but at least this introduces a modicum of control and insulation.

[Balzac]

Ok, so all the geniuses have decided that JRick is definitely wrong and Grits is definitely right.  So now, answer me this:  when you have 2 WRs and aboslutely cannot establish a preference for one over the other based on matchups, current trends, etc...then what is the "right" way to choose one over the other?  As Grits points out, flipping a coin might be just as valid, and just as invalid as well.  There is no correct way to do it here.  I tried to make this point in the other thread as well - I have in this situation at times chosen the guy who was on national TV so I could enjoy watching him.  Is this right?  According to Blitz it's probably downright immoral and right up there with homosexuality, but my contention is that in this situation, it's neither wrong or right.  If it's a coin flip decision, then essentially you're going to be able to criticize whatever basis the guy chooses, but unless you can offer up a failsafe alternative method...

 

What's more, I suspect you could probably come up with an extreme scenario where your team is loaded and the other guy's team is not loaded, and his only chance of beating you is if his quarterback absolutely goes off, and what's more his QB is heavily dependent on one receiver who happens to reside on your roster - I'm not gonna' take this any further, but I think there's probably an extreme scenario in there where hedging is actually sound FF strategy.

 

617147[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

This is all I've been trying to say - it's not a great idea in most cases, but it's something. Way I see it, something is better than a coin flip.

 

I prefer to go with the "who's on TV" route when all else is equal . . . I like my chair.

[Grits and Shins]

I didn't come up with the word "hedge" to describe this - if you'd like to debate whether that's correct usage, you're barking up the wrong tree.  The more accurate word is "insulate," which I have used a number of times. 

 

Again, you're missing the point - will it DEFINITELY counterbalance anything?  No, but it certainly has the chance to.  Let's say Favre throws for 270 Yds and 2 TDs, with Walker catching 100 yards worth and a TD - that's not a counterbalance?  In my league, Walker would effectively cancel out all of Favre's points, thereby insulating me against the relatively big game that the opposing QB just had.  If you go with the other WR option, you run the chance of missing out on this option (and ensuring that your opponent doesn't get a leg up on you here).  Of course it's posible that the other WR will score more points, but that's not anything that can be controlled.

 

617144[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Please tell me how Walker's 100 yards and 1 TD are any different than Mason's 100 yards and 1 TD?

[Grits and Shins]

Ok, so all the geniuses have decided that JRick is definitely wrong and Grits is definitely right.  So now, answer me this:  when you have 2 WRs and aboslutely cannot establish a preference for one over the other based on matchups, current trends, etc...then what is the "right" way to choose one over the other?  As Grits points out, flipping a coin might be just as valid, and just as invalid as well.  There is no correct way to do it here.  I tried to make this point in the other thread as well - I have in this situation at times chosen the guy who was on national TV so I could enjoy watching him.  Is this right?  According to Blitz it's probably downright immoral and right up there with homosexuality, but my contention is that in this situation, it's neither wrong or right.  If it's a coin flip decision, then essentially you're going to be able to criticize whatever basis the guy chooses, but unless you can offer up a failsafe alternative method...

 

What's more, I suspect you could probably come up with an extreme scenario where your team is loaded and the other guy's team is not loaded, and his only chance of beating you is if his quarterback absolutely goes off, and what's more his QB is heavily dependent on one receiver who happens to reside on your roster - I'm not gonna' take this any further, but I think there's probably an extreme scenario in there where hedging is actually sound FF strategy.

 

617147[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I have no problem with you choosing the guy you want to watch on TV when you can't choose between 2 otherwise equal WR.

 

The problem is that some feel like when you choose to start the WR that corresponds to your opponent's QB you have gained an advantage over your opponent because your WR will "nullify" his QBs pionts. That is ludicrous because his QB is going to score what he scores even if your WR does or does not benefit. Seems to me like the sounder strategy would be to bench the matched WR in the hopes that his QB has a down day and your other WR has a good day.

 

If you want to choose a WR to start because your opponent has his QB then by all means do so ... but you are fooling yourself if you believe you have hedged or insulated anything ... you didn't gain any advantage.

[Balzac]

Please tell me how Walker's 100 yards and 1 TD are any different than Mason's 100 yards and 1 TD?

 

617167[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Wow - you reading my responses or not (see my response to this question by jgsomething above)? If they both net 100 yards and a TD, there is no difference - any idiot can see that. When you're deciding who to play, however, you can't assume that the 2 WRs will score the same amount - that would be ridiculous.

[Balzac]

  Seems to me like the sounder strategy would be to bench the matched WR in the hopes that his QB has a down day and your other WR has a good day.

 

617179[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

The remainder of your post isn't worth responding to b/c you're not listening again (and saying that people here are arguing things that they are not arguing).

 

With respect to the above, please explain how that would be any less of a ridiculous strategy than the "hedging." Just to clarify - you're basing your decision on "hopes" in that situation. You could just as easily "hope" that the QB throws for 150 and a TD, with 100 yards and the TD going to your WR - thereby ensuring that you're up in points when those 2 players are done.

[Men In Tights]

I have used this strategy sparingly in 2 of my 4 leagues and I'll be ***ed made the playoffs in both of them. While I never think about playing an A$$ Clown like Tai Streets over Marvin Harrison, I did post my position and how I used it in another thread.

 

I am playing against Culpepper, and I have Wayne, Burleson, David Givens, and Roy Williams. I am deciding between Williams and Burleson (this is also when Moss was out-so that might make it easier). But I started Burleson and Wayne.

 

Now I know this doesn't affect his QB's score, but when your WR gets 6-pts for a TD and 2-pts for 25 yards (plus 1-pt per catch) and his QB gets 4-pts for a TD and 2-pts for 50 yards it seems logical to me to start the WR playing against your opponents QB. Once you analyze the match-ups and realize the two WR's are picking from are exaclty the same and you are down to throwing darts, why not pick the WR playing against his QB.

 

I know I am in the minority here but felt I needed to state my case even though it won't work or make a bit of difference. And no, I am not mesmerized enough by Jricks avatar to think this way.

[Grits and Shins]

In the example jrick provided .. choosing between Walker and Mason ... let's assume for the moment that those are equal WRs in all ways. So now it comes down to starting Walker if your opponent has Favre or starting Mason if your opponent has McNair. I believe when I checked this out earlier today there were only 5 weeks out of 14 week in my local league that you could have played the Favre owner and came out on top.

[jgcoach]

I have used this strategy sparingly in 2 of my 4 leagues and I'll be ***ed made the playoffs in both of them.  While I never think about playing an A$$ Clown like Tai Streets over Marvin Harrison, I did post my position and how I used it in another thread.

 

I am playing against Culpepper, and I have Wayne, Burleson, David Givens, and Roy Williams.  I am deciding between Williams and Burleson (this is also when Moss was out-so that might make it easier). But I started Burleson and Wayne. 

 

Now I know this doesn't affect his QB's score, but when your WR gets 6-pts for a TD and 2-pts for 25 yards (plus 1-pt per catch) and his QB gets 4-pts for a TD and 2-pts for 50 yards it seems logical to me to start the WR playing against your opponents QB. Once you analyze the match-ups and realize the two WR's are picking from are exaclty the same and you are down to throwing darts, why not pick the WR playing against his QB. 

 

I know I am in the minority here but felt I needed to state my case even though it won't work or make a bit of difference. And no, I am not mesmerized enough by Jricks avatar to think this way.

 

617216[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I think your post says it all. You won not because you played a w/r from your opponents q/b team but, you played the w/r that scored better. It had nothing to do with your opponent playing Culpepper. Williams hasn't scored diddly since week 3 or should I say wk 7 he also had a decent game.

[Gunther]

What is utterly amazing to me ... is that 15 people supported his position (out of 100). 

 

616930[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Just remember to subtract one from jrick's side to yours, Grits. One of the voters was a drunken, sleep-deprived, idiot when I ... errrrr ... they voted.

[Jrick35]

Semantics: se·man·tics

Pronunciation: si-'man-tiks

Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction

1 : the study of meanings: a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development b (1) : SEMIOTIC (2) : a branch of semiotic dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth

2 : GENERAL SEMANTICS

3 a : the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially : connotative meaning b : the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings

 

Semantics is what you are playing Grits.

The line below that you posted is the scenario in which I use the QB matchup strategy, and you know it because I have explained it to you.

 

I have no problem with you choosing the guy you want to watch on TV when you can't choose between 2 otherwise equal WR.

 

You have simply latched onto the Walker/Mason issue and are intentionally ignoring the rest in order to have a reason to argue.

 

I'm not sure what it is I did to deserve your wrath but my God man grow up.

 

You have no problem picking the guy you want to watch on TV when the players are otherwise equal but you have instigated a day long debate over my choice of using the QB matchup under the same scenario? You must be kidding.

 

You even went to the trouble to put your spin on what I said and start a poll about it, intentionally leaving out parts of what I said that would have made your argument pointless and even changing what I said to weaken my position. Do you do this as an effort to substantiate yourself as some FF Guru because if so I already acquiesced to your greatness hours ago.

 

And as to Walker & Mason, I called Mason a very proven WR, I never said stud, those were your words.

 

And I said that in wk 3 Walker was as yet, unproven. I never said that he was a scrub, just unproven.

 

So a very proven WR against a good defense is similar to an as yet unproven WR against a weak defense. You may not agree but that is where I believe you are using hindsight in your judgement. It is very easy to sit here today and say that Walker was a no-brainer start against Indy but in week 3 I was still concerned with Driver stealing catches and TD's from Walker.

 

There was upside to starting Walker against Indy but there was also evidence that Mason could play well against JAX. Moulds had put up 75 yds and a TD against JAX in wk 1 and Rod Smith gained 83 yds against them in week2.

 

So the way I saw it, Mason could have a decent game against JAX and Walker could have a decent game against Indy.

 

As for the Projections other than the TD projected for Walker the yardage was very close between Walker and Mason. I love the predictions & Projections page but, and you might want to sit down for this next part, they are not 100% accurate.

 

I did however actually feel that the yardage projected for each was fairly close to what they would get. I just also figured that Mason had as much chance to score as did Walker.

 

So whether you agree or not, I saw the two of them as fairly equal for week 3. So, since it was a toss up, I went with Walker because my opponent had Favre.

 

Even if you have issues with the Walker/Mason issue there are still several other posts where I tried to explain that I only use this strategy when I feel that the players are otherwise equal and you ignored those posts.

 

Then you post this

I have no problem with you choosing the guy you want to watch on TV when you can't choose between 2 otherwise equal WR.

 

So I know that you understand what I was saying. I just wish I could understand this deep seated desire of yours to ignore it.

[Big Country]

He was bored.

 

You are catering to it with your constant replies.

 

He's like a pesky wife, just ignore him for a while and he will go away.

[Jrick35]

He was bored.

 

You are catering to it with your constant replies.

 

He's like a pesky wife, just ignore him for a while and he will go away.

 

618007[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Yeah I know, but I just can't stop myself.

[Grits and Shins]

Semantics: se·man·tics

Pronunciation: si-'man-tiks

Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction

1 : the study of meanings: a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development b (1) : SEMIOTIC (2) : a branch of semiotic dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth

2 : GENERAL SEMANTICS

3 a : the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially : connotative meaning b : the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings

 

Semantics is what you are playing Grits.

The line below that you posted is the scenario in which I use the QB matchup strategy, and you know it because I have explained it to you.

You have simply latched onto the Walker/Mason issue and are intentionally ignoring the rest in order to have a reason to argue.

 

I'm not sure what it is I did to deserve your wrath but my God man grow up.

 

You have no problem picking the guy you want to watch on TV when the players are otherwise equal but you have instigated a day long debate over my choice of using the QB matchup under the same scenario? You must be kidding.

 

You even went to the trouble to put your spin on what I said and start a poll about it, intentionally leaving out parts of what I said that would have made your argument pointless and even changing what I said to weaken my position. Do you do this as an effort to substantiate yourself as some FF Guru because if so I already acquiesced to your greatness hours ago.

 

And as to Walker & Mason, I called Mason a very proven WR, I never said stud, those were your words.

 

And I said that in wk 3 Walker was as yet, unproven. I never said that he was a scrub, just unproven.

 

So a very proven WR against a good defense is similar to an as yet unproven WR against a weak defense. You may not agree but that is where I believe you are using hindsight in your judgement. It is very easy to sit here today and say that Walker was a no-brainer start against Indy but in week 3 I was still concerned with Driver stealing catches and TD's from Walker.

 

There was upside to starting Walker against Indy but there was also evidence that Mason could play well against JAX. Moulds had put up 75 yds and a TD against JAX in wk 1 and Rod Smith gained 83 yds against them in week2.

 

So the way I saw it, Mason could have a decent game against JAX and Walker could have a decent game against Indy.

 

As for the Projections other than the TD projected for Walker the yardage was very close between Walker and Mason. I love the predictions & Projections page but, and you might want to sit down for this next part, they are not 100% accurate.

 

I did however actually feel that the yardage projected for each was fairly close to what they would get. I just also figured that Mason  had as much chance to score as did Walker.

 

So whether you agree or not, I saw the two of them as fairly equal for week 3. So, since it was a toss up, I went with Walker because my opponent had Favre.

 

Even if you have issues with the Walker/Mason issue there are still several other posts where I tried to explain that I only use this strategy when I feel that the  players are otherwise equal and you ignored those posts.

 

Then you post this

So I know that you understand what I was saying. I just wish I could understand this deep seated desire of yours to ignore it.

 

618005[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

The difference, jrick, is the guy that chooses the WR he can watch on tv doesn't erroneously believe he has gained an advantage over his opponent because he did so.

 

Can you pick your WRs any way you want, certainly. I'm just pointing out that you are dead wrong if you think that by picking the WR from your team because is the WR for your opponent's QB gains you an advantage. You gain no advantage. You aren't nullifying any more points than you would by picking any other WR and you are insuring yourself any more than had you picked a different WR.

 

So now Mason isn't a stud.

 

And the fact that you actually said "but in week 3 I was still concerned with Driver stealing catches and TD's from Walker" undermines your position even more ... that would be ANOTHER reason to start your stud Mason and not your unproven Walker.

 

So you just keep on picking your players based on who your opponent starts in the false believe you are pulling one over on him ... and while you are at keep on believing in the tooth fairy too.