"Cheap Move" or Nah? (3 Viewers)

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I have witnessed somebody LOSING after being ahead MNF with their QB laying a TO day. Being up and having the starting lineup flexibility is your control, not cheap or lame. Simple roster and game management to control the outcome in your favor like all of us are trying to do.

I once lost a week when I was up 1.7, and my QB was sacked and fumbled (-2) got hurt and was out for the game.

Lost by .3

It was on my mind when swapping out ZW for TC.

 

[Joe Bryant]

For the same reason Ted Williams didn't quit early and take the win without playing as I wrote above.

Big TW fan so a quick sidebar; sacrifice flies were counted as at bats under the scoring rules in 1941. In todays world, Ted hits .419

That's even better.

 

[JohnnyU]

Someone, anyone, please explain to me what I'm missing since Joe won't. How is it unethical to start a non-QB at the Flex position in SuperFlex? I thought flex positions were for multiple different positions.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I fell for it thinking you really wanted people's opinions.

There's no "falling for anything" Joe. I did genuinely want people's opinions. This wasn't a troll at all.

But I would have expected you to be able to defend your disagreement. The Ted Williams story is fun, but it's irrelevant to this topic and fails to justify why you believe this is a cheap move.

But by all means, please do elaborate - I, and clearly several others here, would love to better understand your dissenting opinion.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Someone, anyone, please explain to me what I'm missing since Joe won't. How is it unethical to start a non-QB at the Flex position in SuperFlex? I thought flex positions were for multiple different positions.

I can't figure it out at all. Still hoping Joe will explain. Based on the TW story, it sounds like by not fielding my potentially best player, that's a cheap move.

My position is that I'm fielding the player I feel is the least likely to cause me to lose. Which technically speaking makes him my best player (to win the week)

It's a SF spot. I can by league rules start a RB, TE, WR, or QB there. I must be missing something.

 

[jobarules]

Is Joe the guy in your league?

 

[FairWarning]

The smart move by the OP was using ZW in the flex spot and not Minchew. it’s amazing how many lineups I see tie up their flex with a thursday night or Sunday afternoon game. You never know what happens going into a Monday night game, so it’s an advantage to keep as many options open as possible.

if it were leaving a spot blank, I would understand the problem, and side with the opponent.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Is Joe the guy in your league?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

if it were leaving a spot blank, I would understand the problem, and side with the opponent.

Again, it's not my opponent who's busting my chops. It's a friend in the league who likes busting balls.

 

[MCFootball123]

I fell for it thinking you really wanted people's opinions.

You have failed to make one logical point backing up your statement when several have asked you to. It's almost trolling at this point. I personally think it's because you know there isn't logic to be found.

 

[The Gator]

Is Joe the guy in your league?

 

[B Maverick]

This will be fun when Salah gets cute and Conklin throws 2 ints while ZW has a CJ Stroud type game.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This will be fun when Salah gets cute and Conklin throws 2 ints while ZW has a CJ Stroud type game.

I would bet substantial amounts against this happening if anyone is taking odds.

 

[MCFootball123]

This will be fun when Salah gets cute and Conklin throws 2 ints while ZW has a CJ Stroud type game.

Nah that's something only the great Arthur Smith could pull off..

PS: It would obviously be multiple passes from Jonnu Smith to Tyler Allgeier

 

[FairWarning]

if it were leaving a spot blank, I would understand the problem, and side with the opponent.

Again, it's not my opponent who's busting my chops. It's a friend in the league who likes busting balls.

Correct. He probably gets it.

i won a league title the same way. it was the year when Minn was playing at U of Minn. they had a MNF game vs Chicago, and Minn was out of it. I was up by a point and had a spot left in the flex, he had AP. Local radio announced that AP was going to sit it out. I dropped someone on my bench that was eligible to play, and snagged AP’s backup. Since he had AP as a RB, there was no one to pickup.

 

[belljr]

nope - having an emtpy slot is cheap (and illegal in my old leagues) - this is no different than swapping out one starting spot for another

If you were down a bunch of points would it be cheap to switch to a different guy that was boom or bust? *assuming all rosters are legal

This is also why some leagues have rosters locked at 1pm Sunday

 

[5-ish Finkle]

Not cheap by any definition. Youre starting a flex-eligible player in a flex spot.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I fell for it thinking you really wanted people's opinions.

There's no "falling for anything" Joe. I did genuinely want people's opinions. This wasn't a troll at all.

But I would have expected you to be able to defend your disagreement. The Ted Williams story is fun, but it's irrelevant to this topic and fails to justify why you believe this is a cheap move.

But by all means, please do elaborate - I, and clearly several others here, would love to better understand your dissenting opinion.

It's Ted Williams. Not sure how I can be more clear. I can't help it you don't like the point or you think it's not Ted Williams.

I was also extremely clear on the front end to say what you're doing is the smart move. It's just not what I'd do.

With 23 years of posting here and never trolling once, that's discouraging to hear people accuse me of maybe trolling but whatever. Not much surprises me these days. Oh well.

 

[eighsse2]

I assume the issue -- for Joe and anyone else who has an issue with it -- is starting player B over player A when "everyone knows" you would start player A over player B if you were going for points. Sure, you could choose to start Conklin over Wilson in a vacuum, and it could be your honest opinion that Conklin would score more points. But if you were 2-6 and "fighting for" the #1 pick and did that, everyone would know why. If someone has an issue, it's because they assume (likely correctly) that you are starting a guy that you believe will score significantly fewer points than the guy you're leaving on the bench.

 

[jumper]

Someone, anyone, please explain to me what I'm missing since Joe won't. How is it unethical to start a non-QB at the Flex position in SuperFlex? I thought flex positions were for multiple different positions.

I can't figure it out at all. Still hoping Joe will explain. Based on the TW story, it sounds like by not fielding my potentially best player, that's a cheap move.

My position is that I'm fielding the player I feel is the least likely to cause me to lose. Which technically speaking makes him my best player (to win the week)

It's a SF spot. I can by league rules start a RB, TE, WR, or QB there. I must be missing something.

LOL, talking about benching your "best player" when that player is Zach Wilson. Anyone pushing that line of crap just wants you to lose because they're the type who just wants to watch the world burn.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Is Joe the guy in your league?

No, but if this were happening in our league, the group chat would be blowing up like this.

 

[Joe Bryant]

For all the handwringing, it actually does bring up some fun points.

Playing to score the most points vs playing not to lose is a huge and fascinating area.

 

[belljr]

Is Joe the guy in your league?

No, but if this were happening in our league, the group chat would be blowing up like this.

Again why?

I know you made the Ted Williams analogy...... but in your opinion how is this like Williams "sitting out" - he switched his flex position from a QB to a valid TE..... I hate bush league crap more than most but I don't see how this is it....

 

[belljr]

For all the handwringing, it actually does bring up some fun points.

Playing to score the most points vs playing not to lose is a huge and fascinating area.

Thats easy - is my league H2h or Total points.......

 

[JohnnyU]

Is Zach Wilson Ted Williams caliber? I know many other players that outscore low end QBs.

 

[need2know]

its your team. manage it like you want. nothing cheap about it.

 

[jumper]

This will be fun when Salah gets cute and Conklin throws 2 ints while ZW has a CJ Stroud type game.

I would bet substantial amounts against this happening if anyone is taking odds.

I'm honestly having trouble deciding which is less likely, Conklin throwing 2 picks or Zach Wilson having a blowup game. That would be like predicting that random 7 TD game from Nick Foles that one time.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Is Zach Wilson Ted Williams caliber? I know many other players that outscore low end QBs.

I don’t think that’s his point. I guess his point is that you should not shy away from doing the work because you are trying to prevent something from happening and that any “achievements” that result from such a strategy are not worthwhile.

I still don’t understand how that is analogous to this situation, but I assume that is the point.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

For the same reason Ted Williams didn't quit early and take the win without playing as I wrote above.

Big TW fan so a quick sidebar; sacrifice flies were counted as at bats under the scoring rules in 1941. In todays world, Ted hits .419

So ted Williams sometimes did something with a lower variance and lower ceiling because he and the team thought that it might lead to a team win?

Interesting…

 

[JohnnyU]

Is Zach Wilson Ted Williams caliber? I know many other players that outscore low end QBs.

I don’t think that’s his point. I guess his point is that you should not shy away from doing the work because you are trying to prevent something from happening and that any “achievements” that result from such a strategy are not worthwhile.

I still don’t understand how that is analogous to this situation, but I assume that is the point.

Ok, I'll excuse myself from this thread because my head officially hurts. I think it's complete BS to think playing someone other than a low-end QB at the flex position in SF is somehow unethical. Just wow.

 

[Spartans Rule]

This is veering off topic, but I always thought the Ted Williams story was weird because if you hit .39955, you didn't hit .400. There's no rounding when you're talking about a milestone. A flyball to the warning track doesn't round up to a home run and getting tackled two inches short of the goal line doesn't round up to a touchdown. So in my mind, if Ted wanted to hit .400, he had to play anyway.

 

[PIK95]

Great move imo. I would have even said good move if you picked up a bench player to insert in the spot fwiw.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Another one, not related to this, is playing players you can't stand.

Deshaun Watson was on zero of my personal draft boards. At any spot.

Because I don't draft players I can't stand.

I don't play defensive and play "not to lose" at the end of games.

Because for me, fantasy football is fun, and I play the way that feels right to me.

Fully understanding that might sometimes be the suboptimal way to play from a game theory perspective.

And fully understanding this is me personally.

For my Footballguys customers, I completely separate my personal way of playing from what gives them the best chance to win.

For instance, while I'd never draft him, we ranked Deshaun Watson QB10 this summer. https://www.footballguys.com/rankings/duration/preseason?pos=qb

Because that's where we truly thought he'd wind up.

If @Hot Sauce Guy had asked me who to start tonight, of course I'd say Conklin gives him the best chance to win. Just like I thought drafting Deshaun Watson as a starter this summer did.

It's just not how I'd do it.

I love the Ted Williams story of putting your best shot out there every game. I don't like playing not to lose. I don't draft players I don't like.

Because I play Fantasy Football the way I want to play it. And I'd rather lose knowing I played the way I wanted to than win another way.

You can call that trolling or indefensible if you like. It's how I see the game and how I've played it for 30+ years.

 

[titusbramble]

Surely the better analogy would be whether Bradman should have retired hurt in his final innings rather than get out for a duck and end on a career 99.94 average

 

[Joe Bryant]

Is Zach Wilson Ted Williams caliber? I know many other players that outscore low end QBs.

I don’t think that’s his point. I guess his point is that you should not shy away from doing the work because you are trying to prevent something from happening and that any “achievements” that result from such a strategy are not worthwhile.

I still don’t understand how that is analogous to this situation, but I assume that is the point.

Ok, I'll excuse myself from this thread because my head officially hurts. I think it's complete BS to think playing someone other than a low-end QB at the flex position in SF is somehow unethical. Just wow.

Don't make the mistake of confusing saying something is "somehow unethical" with "that's not how I'd do it.".

 

[FairWarning]

For all the handwringing, it actually does bring up some fun points.

Playing to score the most points vs playing not to lose is a huge and fascinating area.

That possibility is always there when you run the risk of starters losing points.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This is veering off topic, but I always thought the Ted Williams story was weird because if you hit .39955, you didn't hit .400. There's no rounding when you're talking about a milestone. A flyball to the warning track doesn't round up to a home run and getting tackled two inches short of the goal line doesn't round up to a touchdown. So in my mind, if Ted wanted to hit .400, he had to play anyway.

That's what makes is so great. "Technically" it would have rounded to 400. But Williams knew that wasn't reality. So he went out and delivered. It was a stupendously "dumb" thing to do from a game theory angle.

 

[eighsse2]

Is Zach Wilson Ted Williams caliber? I know many other players that outscore low end QBs.

I don’t think that’s his point. I guess his point is that you should not shy away from doing the work because you are trying to prevent something from happening and that any “achievements” that result from such a strategy are not worthwhile.

I still don’t understand how that is analogous to this situation, but I assume that is the point.

Ok, I'll excuse myself from this thread because my head officially hurts. I think it's complete BS to think playing someone other than a low-end QB at the flex position in SF is somehow unethical. Just wow.

I don't think the position of the players is the point. I think some people just think it's "not trying" if you take the more guaranteed win in the form of a player that you expect to score fewer points. It's completely analagous, to me at least, to saying an NFL team is cheap for doing kneeldowns to run out the clock. "You're not even trying to score!!"

 

[Dickies]

From an old Random Shots. https://www.footballguys.com/article/2017bryant_random13

(Story about Eli Manning)

Eli Manning is no comparison to Ted Williams but this made me think of one of my favorite sports stories. And one I tell here often.

History lesson time. Heading into the last day, a doubleheader, of the 1941 season, 23-year-old Ted Williams' batting average was .39955. He could have sat out the meaningless last two games of the last day and his average would have rounded to the hallowed .400 mark.

From the sabr.org article: "In his autobiography, My Turn At Bat, Williams recalls Joe Cronin telling him, 'You don’t have to be put in if you don’t want to. You’re officially .400.' Ted reports his reaction: 'Well, God, that hit me like a lightning bolt! What do you mean I don’t have to play today?'"

But you probably know the story. Williams put his .400 mark at risk and played. Both games. And went 6 for 8, finishing the year at .406.

That's rad.

How that applies to you and me is simple. I feel pretty safe in saying we're not going to hit .400 in the majors. But we all get to walk to the plate every day and take some swings. Take yours.

I know the Splendid Splinter story well. I don't see how it is analogous to my situation.

Teddy Ballgame wasn't putting his team at a risk of a loss if he went out there and went 0-4. It was chasing personal glory.

I'm trying to win a game.

You play to win the game.

 

[MCFootball123]

I love the Ted Williams story of putting your best shot out there every game. I don't like playing not to lose. I don't draft players I don't like.

Playing Conklin is categorically putting his best shot out there to win this game. We are playing fantasy football.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

It's Ted Williams. Not sure how I can be more clear. I can't help it you don't like the point or you think it's not Ted Williams.

It's unclear because it's apples and oranges, and seems obviously so.

Respectfully, the Ted Williams story is one of a personal achievement, and Ted being willing to risk his personal failure by going out and taking his ABs that day. Bravo, Ted. I'm all for it. It's one of my favorite sports anecdotes as a long time baseball geek.

But his story has exactly zero to do with my swapping out ZW for TC in a SF spot to avoid the potential of negative scoring losing my team the week. So you could be more clear by saying why you believe in this particular circumstance, it is poor form to swap Zach for Tyler in a SF spot. It's a legal roster move. I can't wrap my head around that. Saying "it's Ted Williams" actually doesn't explain that at all.

I was also extremely clear on the front end to say what you're doing is the smart move. It's just not what I'd do.

I appreciate that, thank you.

With 23 years of posting here and never trolling once, that's discouraging to hear people accuse me of maybe trolling but whatever. Not much surprises me these days. Oh well.

Didn't you just say: "And to be fair, part of it's giving the OP a hard time"

That sure sounds like the definition of trolling, but if you say you weren't, I won't argue.

 

[belljr]

Is Zach Wilson Ted Williams caliber? I know many other players that outscore low end QBs.

I don’t think that’s his point. I guess his point is that you should not shy away from doing the work because you are trying to prevent something from happening and that any “achievements” that result from such a strategy are not worthwhile.

I still don’t understand how that is analogous to this situation, but I assume that is the point.

Ok, I'll excuse myself from this thread because my head officially hurts. I think it's complete BS to think playing someone other than a low-end QB at the flex position in SF is somehow unethical. Just wow.

I don't think the position of the players is the point. I think some people just think it's "not trying" if you take the more guaranteed win in the form of a player that you expect to score fewer points. It's completely analagous, to me at least, to saying an NFL team is cheap for doing kneeldowns to run out the clock. "You're not even trying to score!!"

I like it..... no more kneeldowns!!!!

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This will be fun when Salah gets cute and Conklin throws 2 ints while ZW has a CJ Stroud type game.

I would bet substantial amounts against this happening if anyone is taking odds.

I'm honestly having trouble deciding which is less likely, Conklin throwing 2 picks or Zach Wilson having a blowup game. That would be like predicting that random 7 TD game from Nick Foles that one time.

Not to mention in this hypothetical, if ZW is having that epic game, why on Earth would they have Conklin throwing the ball? Make it make sense!

 

[Joe Bryant]

Is Zach Wilson Ted Williams caliber? I know many other players that outscore low end QBs.

I don’t think that’s his point. I guess his point is that you should not shy away from doing the work because you are trying to prevent something from happening and that any “achievements” that result from such a strategy are not worthwhile.

I still don’t understand how that is analogous to this situation, but I assume that is the point.

Ok, I'll excuse myself from this thread because my head officially hurts. I think it's complete BS to think playing someone other than a low-end QB at the flex position in SF is somehow unethical. Just wow.

I don't think the position of the players is the point. I think some people just think it's "not trying" if you take the more guaranteed win in the form of a player that you expect to score fewer points. It's completely analagous, to me at least, to saying an NFL team is cheap for doing kneeldowns to run out the clock. "You're not even trying to score!!"

One can make the kneeldown argument for sure. It's different with the spotlight on one or two players on Monday night standing alone. But I can see that.

 

[JoeKappBudGrant]

From an old Random Shots. https://www.footballguys.com/article/2017bryant_random13

(Story about Eli Manning)

Eli Manning is no comparison to Ted Williams but this made me think of one of my favorite sports stories. And one I tell here often.

History lesson time. Heading into the last day, a doubleheader, of the 1941 season, 23-year-old Ted Williams' batting average was .39955. He could have sat out the meaningless last two games of the last day and his average would have rounded to the hallowed .400 mark.

From the sabr.org article: "In his autobiography, My Turn At Bat, Williams recalls Joe Cronin telling him, 'You don’t have to be put in if you don’t want to. You’re officially .400.' Ted reports his reaction: 'Well, God, that hit me like a lightning bolt! What do you mean I don’t have to play today?'"

But you probably know the story. Williams put his .400 mark at risk and played. Both games. And went 6 for 8, finishing the year at .406.

That's rad.

How that applies to you and me is simple. I feel pretty safe in saying we're not going to hit .400 in the majors. But we all get to walk to the plate every day and take some swings. Take yours.

Ted Williams was 4 for 4 in the first game when he came up to hit in the 9th. He hit a hard ground ball that was booted by the 2nd baseman. That player was the real life Crash Davis. In the second game of the double header, Ted got a hit as the first player to bat after Lefty Grove had thrown his last Major League pitch.

 

[belljr]

This will be fun when Salah gets cute and Conklin throws 2 ints while ZW has a CJ Stroud type game.

I would bet substantial amounts against this happening if anyone is taking odds.

I'm honestly having trouble deciding which is less likely, Conklin throwing 2 picks or Zach Wilson having a blowup game. That would be like predicting that random 7 TD game from Nick Foles that one time.

Not to mention in this hypothetical, if ZW is having that epic game, why on Earth would they have Conklin throwing the ball? Make it make sense!

I can't wait for the Conklin throwback pass INT for TD loss of points!!!!!

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I assume the issue -- for Joe and anyone else who has an issue with it -- is starting player B over player A when "everyone knows" you would start player A over player B if you were going for points. Sure, you could choose to start Conklin over Wilson in a vacuum, and it could be your honest opinion that Conklin would score more points. But if you were 2-6 and "fighting for" the #1 pick and did that, everyone would know why. If someone has an issue, it's because they assume (likely correctly) that you are starting a guy that you believe will score significantly fewer points than the guy you're leaving on the bench.

I get that, which is why in the OP I laid out the scenario. I am the 3-seed, and current points leader. I am very much competing for a ship this year, with the goal of this move being to *win* the week, making this the opposite of tanking.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Didn't you just say: "And to be fair, part of it's giving the OP a hard time"

That sure sounds like the definition of trolling, but if you say you weren't, I won't argue.

In no universe is that me trolling. It sucks to have someone I've never heard of accuse me of that but for someone that's been around like you, that's a bummer. Super sorry to hear you think that.

 

[The Gator]

I love the Ted Williams story of putting your best shot out there every game.

Yet Conklin is literally HSG's "best shot" at winning.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

For the same reason Ted Williams didn't quit early and take the win without playing as I wrote above.

Big TW fan so a quick sidebar; sacrifice flies were counted as at bats under the scoring rules in 1941. In todays world, Ted hits .419

So ted Williams sometimes did something with a lower variance and lower ceiling because he and the team thought that it might lead to a team win?

Interesting…