Big Country Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 By now just about everyone has read the "discussion", now it's time to officially weigh in on the results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Time is something that you can't give back to someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSab Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 I don't really care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Either way you should NEVER decide who you are starting based on your opponent's starters ... that is very flawed logic. Always start the player you think will score the most points regardless of who your opponent starts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrick35 Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 I for one voted that we all lost. I am very sorry for having put you all through this. I felt a bizaar (sp) need to defend myself that I just could not shake. I will try harder in the future to refrain from contributing to the pointlessness of this type of argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzarvell Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Either way you should NEVER decide who you are starting based on your opponent's starters ... that is very flawed logic. Always start the player you think will score the most points regardless of who your opponent starts. 616851[/snapback] Unless of course you've made a financial deal with the other owner - possibly a relative - to throw the game and split the winnings... I'm just saying... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 I felt a bizaar (sp) need to defend myself that I just could not shake. 616852[/snapback] It was an undefensable position ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 this thread isn't helping, as Grits apparently still feels the need to profess that he was right . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midget Chain Gang Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 (edited) Either way you should NEVER decide who you are starting based on your opponent's starters ... that is very flawed logic. Always start the player you think will score the most points regardless of who your opponent starts. 616851[/snapback] I agree with that... always put your best guys on the field. The ONLY considerations should be matchups against the D (for non-studs, studs always start), and related injury. Who cares what the other guy has? Personally, I would never play the likes of Kaseem Osgood, Kelly Campbell, or Freddie Mitchell just because my opponent of the week has Brees, Culpepper, or McNabb. I also wouldn't avoid playing Gates, Moss, or Owens in the same scenario. Play your best, hope for the best... Edited December 17, 2004 by Midget Chain Gang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS Miscreant Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 We all may have lost due to this scintillating exchange but thanks to jrick's avatar I can be a winner over and over again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 We all may have lost due to this scintillating exchange but thanks to jrick's avatar I can be a winner over and over again. 616889[/snapback] You have a point sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 this thread isn't helping, as Grits apparently still feels the need to profess that he was right . . . 616879[/snapback] He IS! Jrick does have a sweet avatar though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 He IS! Jrick does have a sweet avatar though! 616892[/snapback] Says you . He THINKS he's right, as do many others - does that mean that he IS right? No - it's a question of opinion. Anyway, JRick just posted an apology to people saying he's sorry that he wasted their time and what does Grits do? He takes another jab at JRick - classy move and par for the course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Says you . He THINKS he's right, as do many others - does that mean that he IS right? No - it's a question of opinion. Anyway, JRick just posted an apology to people saying he's sorry that he wasted their time and what does Grits do? He takes another jab at JRick - classy move and par for the course. 616903[/snapback] It's not a matter of OPINION. Under NO circumstances does the WR you play have ANY impact on the number of points your opponent's QB scores. His QB is going to score his points no matter who you have in your lineup. Attempting to "nullify" his QB's points by starting the match WR is flawed logic. No points are nullified AND you are better served putting your best players on the field. Who your best players are has nothing to do with who your opponent has in or out of their starting lineup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Who won? Its depends what "won" means. I suppose that if you took the position that the sky is orange, and I took the position that the sky is blue, you could out-argue me and perhaps "win" the argument. However, if you are looking at whose position has more merit, I'd say that I'd win the argument. Blitz's position had merit. I didn't really pay attention as to who argued better, but jrick had an uphill battle given that his assertion was wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Who won? Its depends what "won" means. I suppose that if you took the position that the sky is orange, and I took the position that the sky is blue, you could out-argue me and perhaps "win" the argument. However, if you are looking at whose position has more merit, I'd say that I'd win the argument. Blitz's position had merit. I didn't really pay attention as to who argued better, but jrick had an uphill battle given that his assertion was wrong. 616921[/snapback] What is utterly amazing to me ... is that 15 people supported his position (out of 100). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 What is utterly amazing to me ... is that 15 people supported his position (out of 100). 616930[/snapback] I'm not surprised anymore. It seems that we go round and round on this at least once a year. And you see it mentioned quite a bit in the Advice Forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Under NO circumstances does the WR you play have ANY impact on the number of points your opponent's QB scores. 616918[/snapback] That's great. How you continue to dodge the fact that this entire theory is predicated on the assumption that the 2 WR are of similar or equal value (i.e. there is no true "best player") in a given week is beyond me. To me, taking 2 WRs of equal value in a given week and saying, "hey, I may as well hedge myself against some of his QB's points" is perfectly logical. I don't think I would do it (as I never have) but the strategy makes sense. You may want to read your above quote again b/c it's ridiculous. Is there a perfect correlation? Not even close, but there is a certain hedging factor that only a true idiot (or stubborn fool) would deny exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 (edited) That's great. How you continue to dodge the fact that this entire theory is predicated on the assumption that the 2 WR are of similar or equal value (i.e. there is no true "best player") in a given week is beyond me. To me, taking 2 WRs of equal value in a given week and saying, "hey, I may as well hedge myself against some of his QB's points" is perfectly logical. I don't think I would do it (as I never have) but the strategy makes sense. You may want to read your above quote again b/c it's ridiculous. Is there a perfect correlation? Not even close, but there is a certain hedging factor that only a true idiot (or stubborn fool) would deny exists. 616941[/snapback] It is JUST as logical, when you have 2 WR of similiar or equal value, as picking the one whose last name is the shortest, or the one with the longest hair, or the one that is the tallest, or the one that has the lowest number on his uniform, or the one who your wife thinks has the cutest ass. They are all equally valid methods of choosing which player to start. And please do tell how my statement "Under NO circumstances does the WR you play have ANY impact on the number of points your opponent's QB scores." is ridiculous. It is the utter truth ... or are you trying to say otherwise? Edited December 17, 2004 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgcoach Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 It is JUST as logical, when you have 2 WR of similiar or equal value, as picking the one whose last name is the shortest, or the one with the longest hair, or the one that is the tallest, or the one that has the lowest number on his uniform, or the one who your wife thinks has the cutest ass. They are all equally valid methods of choosing which player to start. And please do tell how my statement "Under NO circumstances does the WR you play have ANY impact on the number of points your opponent's QB scores." is ridiculous. It is the utter truth ... or are you trying to say otherwise? 616950[/snapback] Grits, you're relentless, right, but definitely relentless. And jrick you avatar is great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Grits, you're relentless, right, but definitely relentless. And jrick you avatar is great. 616982[/snapback] I believe relentless is a word that fits me .... ... especially when I am sooooooo clearly right like I am on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 (edited) It is JUST as logical, when you have 2 WR of similiar or equal value, as picking the one whose last name is the shortest, or the one with the longest hair, or the one that is the tallest, or the one that has the lowest number on his uniform, or the one who your wife thinks has the cutest ass. They are all equally valid methods of choosing which player to start. And please do tell how my statement "Under NO circumstances does the WR you play have ANY impact on the number of points your opponent's QB scores." is ridiculous. It is the utter truth ... or are you trying to say otherwise? 616950[/snapback] 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. Choosing between 2 similar players is a crapshoot - they could be of equal value when you plug one in, but could end up scoring 2 points and 20 points, respectively. It's complete chance and we have no control over that. What we can control, in some cases, is whether our players' points impact/are impacted by players on the other team. An example - I have WR1 and WR2, both of "equal value" but my opponent has QB1 (on the same team as WR1). While I would normally plug in 1 or 2 and hope for the best, in this case I can plug in WR1 and know that I am somehow insulated against the other team's QB. Could it turn out that WR2 has the 20 point day and WR1 has the 2 point day? Yep - but that's nothing we can control. AT LEAST, we know that those 2 points will take away from what the opposing QB got. On the flipside, let's say I played WR2 - if WR2 is the one who scores 20 points while WR1 scores 2, great - good move. Again - we can't control that. However, if it turns out that WR1 scores 20, not only do we lose out on those points, but we also miss out on the hedging factor - that's a lose/lose situation. My bad - the key word in your quote is "impact" - a WRs performance clearly has no impact on what a QB does . . . it does, however, bear an undeniable positive correlation. Edited December 17, 2004 by Balzac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Balzac, all you need to do is explain to us how 20 points from Moss "nullifies" Culpepper's points any more than Owen's 20 points. If you can't do that, you're sunk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgcoach Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 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. Choosing between 2 similar players is a crapshoot - they could be of equal value when you plug one in, but could end up scoring 2 points and 20 points, respectively. It's complete chance and we have no control over that. What we can control, in some cases, is whether our players' points impact/are impacted by players on the other team. An example - I have WR1 and WR2, both of "equal value" but my opponent has QB1 (on the same team as WR1). While I would normally plug in 1 or 2 and hope for the best, in this case I can plug in WR1 and know that I am somehow insulated against the other team's QB. Could it turn out that WR2 has the 20 point day and WR1 has the 2 point day? Yep - but that's nothing we can control. AT LEAST, we know that those 2 points will take away from what the opposing QB got. On the flipside, let's say I played WR2 - if WR2 is the one who scores 20 points while WR1 scores 2, great - good move. Again - we can't control that. However, if it turns out that WR1 scores 20, not only do we lose out on those points, but we also miss out on the hedging factor - that's a lose/lose situation. My bad - the key word in your quote is "impact" - a WRs performance clearly has no impact on what a QB does . . . it does, however, bear an undeniable positive correlation. 617044[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Balzac, all you need to do is explain to us how 20 points from Moss "nullifies" Culpepper's points any more than Owen's 20 points. If you can't do that, you're sunk. 617088[/snapback] I think I see the problem here - you're assuming that they both will get 20 points. Of course, if both score the same amount in the week at issue, then it's a wash. But saying WRs are of equal value and saying that they will score the same number of points are apples and oranges. As I stated above, you have no idea which WR will score 20 in that given week - or if both will. What you DO know is that no matter what happens (good or bad), your WR will be nullifying some of the opposing QB's points. If there's no opposing QB to hedge and you have the same WRs to choose from, you have nothing. While the hedge is not a substantial thing, it's something - and something is better than nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.