Challenge Contests — by Justin Eleff
How to set a lineup, from Ian down to the everloving coinflip
Posted Dec. 02 at 01:39 AM
The one and only thing I hate about fantasy football is that it's impossible to remove all luck from the game. Sometimes your analysis is spot-on, you find an edge, much of your plan works ... and you still lose.
Happened to me this week with one decision in particular. I decided to sit Maurice Jones-Drew at the 49ers in Fanball's $50K points game.
I've been struggling for weeks to find just the right mix of starters; been hanging around 15th overall but trying to make one last push toward the top of the standings. It just hasn't happened.
But this week I had an edge. I knew it. I would've bet a good part of my net worth -- granted, it ain't much -- that J-D wasn't going off in San Fran. He'd started the season too hot, the 49ers' D was too good (especially at home) despite a few hiccups -- and yet virtually everyone ahead of me in the standings figured to start him.
I was right, too. He scored a total of 11 points Sunday, all with his yards. He didn't find the end zone; the Jags scored 3 points all day and lost big. I was absolutely right, without question or qualification, and it should have given me a 10- or 20-point boost in the standings, depending on how big a game my sub had.
The problem?
Both of my possible subs crapped out as well.
One, Frank Gore, finished the day with 13.7 points against J-D's Jags. He scored a touchdown (6 pts.), his team won (3 pts.), but he combined for 47 yards (4.7 pts.) on 23 touches. Useless.
The other, Michael Turner -- the one I went with, naturally -- finished with 6.3 points at home against the oh-so-lowly Bucs. His team won (3 pts.), but he turned 12 rushes into just 33 yards (3.3 pts.) before aggravating his ankle sprain and leaving. I knew that was a risk, but I also knew I had a free swing with J-D likely to struggle, and I swung for the fences.
You can't win.
At least, I can't.
On further review, though, I think I've spent the last two days moping because I've focused on the wrong part of the story. No, Turner didn't get me back in the race for the $50K grand prize. No, Larry Fitzgerald hasn't done so, either.
But I did sit J-D, and I flat-out knew I could do that, and it could have bitten me but it didn't. I do get some things right. My teams have been excellent all season, and it's largely because I'm getting a lot more start-or-sit decisions right than wrong.
And since the most common questions I get from you guys are exactly that sort -- which guy do I start, for which other guy? -- here, here's the whole process I use:
1. I read Fantasy Index Weekly.
Maybe this makes me a kind of shill, but the very best thing to do is read Ian Allan's breakdown of each game each week. You won't agree with everything Ian writes, but I guarantee that (a) he'll give you a dozen nuggets a week you wouldn't have found without him, and (b) when you do disagree with him, it won't always be because he's wrong.
I won't say the Weekly is indispensable, but that's only because in addition to appreciating your loyalty, dear readers, I want to beat you.
2. In categories games, I check the standings closely.
Too much of a good thing can definitely be a problem in these games. If your three quarterbacks throw for 1,000 yards per week you're only helping yourself in three categories, and one of those -- total scoring -- is hard to move much at 3 points per TD pass.
And if those quarterbacks throw for 1,000 yards several weeks in a row, after a while you'll be wasting salary if you continue to spend much at the position. You can only win each category; there are no bonus points for dominating.
So be mindful of which categories you need to improve. Duh. That's the first key to deciding where to spend whatever salary you have available.
3. I emphasize matchups at QB and RB.
There's no more basic approach than to check the opposing defenses' rankings in passing yards per game and rushing yards per game, and just start whichever players are going against the worst-on-paper Ds. There's no more basic approach, that is, and there are few better ones. So long as nothing further down this list jumps out as contradicting the basic approach, just play the numbers every week.
(And the flipside to this consideration, as I've written before: I deemphasize matchups at WR. Absent a date with Darrelle Revis, apparently, I just don't think what the numbers say a defense will do against the pass matters much when it comes to picking WRs. I'll go with the hotter hand(s) over the better matchup every time.)
4. I check the matchups for more than opposing defenses.
The New Orleans Saints are a terrible opponent for your running backs, and I can say that with full confidence without checking the Saints' defensive rankings. When they go up 20 points -- and it often happens in the second quarter -- your backs ain't getting the ball anymore. The clock runs faster than they do.
So sometimes I don't care about the opposing D. If you own an RB on a team with a mediocre or worse defense, you ought to be nervous about using him against a team with a better than mediocre OFFENSE.
5. I check the injury report, then sit in front of my TV from 11:00 AM to 12:30 PM on Sundays, just in case.
The trick with this, of course, is that by this time of year, almost everyone is listed on the injury report. For the most part "probable" means "as good as it's gonna get," and "doubtful" means "you won't like what happens even if he plays."
It's the "questionable" guys who count, and those guys (like Cedric Benson and, yes, Turner this past week) often come down to the wire on Sunday. For the record, I'm not so worried about repeating the mistake I made with Turner, playing an iffy guy because his team is playing him. That happens. He could have sprained his ankle Sunday even if he'd started the day healthy.
But what you can't afford -- and this is the sole reason this part of the process ranks so high -- is to take a surprise zero that could have been avoided. If a kicker pulls his groin during warm-ups, you have to know it with enough time left to make a change. That can win or lose a challenge league.
6. I think in pairs of players, not individuals.
This probably ranks higher, objectively speaking, but I've written about it at length before. It's not Drew Brees or Peyton Manning. It's Brees plus whichever RB (or WR, or even TE) I can start with him or Manning plus whichever slightly more expensive RB (or WR, or TE) I can start with him instead.
That said, there is sometimes cause to sell out to get one guy in particular into your lineup, most often in conjunction with your consideration of which categories you need to improve. Brees or Manning could be an at-all-costs guy for your team. Adrian Peterson could be. Perhaps an expensive kicker with a favorable matchup if you need kicking points.
When you need to sell out, the one best place to sacrifice salary (and even take an oh-for if need be, eating a bye or an injury absence) is TE, and the only other place you can do it is WR. Receiving yards come from too many places to worry too much about one slot.
7a. I pay attention to where each game will be played.
The most commonsensical factors you can think of do come into play in these games:
Kickers do have an easier time of it indoors.
Running backs, who get far more second-half carries when their teams are winning (or at least not playing the Saints), do have an easier time of it at home. The league as a whole has won 59-percent of its home games in 2009, which of course means that ...
... the league as a whole has won just 41-percent of its road games in 2009. Which may mean that quarterbacks and receivers, who do far more second-half throwing and catching when their teams are losing, are actually better off on the road.
7b. I feel silly doing it, but I do check the weather.
Mostly I'm looking for snow, heavy rain or freakish wind or fog. Nothing shy of really extreme conditions ever deters me, but I won't be owning too many QBs in games at Buffalo the rest of the year.
And it's not just that I feel silly, either. Sometimes I come very near to feeling ashamed. There are only so many websites you can check on a Sunday morning -- and weather.com is pretty much at the bottom of the list -- before you start to feel like you're wasting some vital part of your life. These are games. Chance is involved. Last-minute weather checks are invitations to the gods to melt our wax wings.
Which brings us to:
8. When I can't decide between two players, I ask my girlfriend what she thinks.
Some people pray. I don't want to use too much credit with the Lord too quickly, so I leave the really tough fantasy decisions to chance.
The girl answers my questions according to sound, I'm convinced. One week she likes the name Mike Sims-Walker, the next week she doesn't. And she's decidedly two-for-two this season, by the way:
In Week 9 she liked Sims-Walker (6-for-147, 1 TD) more than Steve Smith (8-for-57, 1 TD).
In Week 10 she liked Sims-Walker (3-for-49, 1 TD) less than Sidney Rice (7-for-201).
I didn't feel it so much this past Sunday, but I'm a lucky guy.
- Comments [12]
Readers' Comments
Add a Comment
Already a registered user? Please sign in to add comments.
To add comments, you must become a registered user of our site. To register, please click here.
Posted by Richard Weber | Dec. 02 at 10:02 PM
Justin, you write, "The New Orleans Saints are a terrible opponent for your running backs, and I can say that with full confidence without checking the Saints' defensive rankings." Maybe you should actually check the rankings. It's a good thing for writers to do. The Saints are ranked 24th against fantasy RBs -- giving up 18.6 ppg. Meaning they are the 9th-worst D. One spot better than the Lions.
Posted by PETER DEBIASE | Dec. 02 at 10:55 PM
Justin: I bit on the Turner vs. TB juicy matchup right before kickoff on Sunday also and it didn't help me either, so you're not alone. For this week (POINTS LEAGUE) I'm starting MJD, CJ, Rice and Mendy @ RB. I need 2 more out of Forte (vs. STL), Grant (vs. BAL), Ricky (vs. NE) and Slaton (vs. JAX). I doubt ATL will be stupid enough to play Turner this week. At WR, I'm starting Andre, Moss, V-Jax (numbers haven't been good lately, but gotta start him vs. CLE) and M S-W. I normally start Fitz but I have serious hesitation with Leinart @ QB. Since they play on Sunday night, I may not have the luxury of waiting to see if Warner is starting. AZ will also be missing their starting LT against Jared Allen. It looks like I'll also be without D-Jax. If I don't start Fitz, I need 2 more out of Colston (vs. WAS), R. White (vs. PHI) and Holmes (vs. OAK). I know you don't consider matchups for WR's, but Holmes may draw Nnamdi in coverage based on where he lines up. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Posted by JUSTIN ELEFF | Dec. 03 at 08:55 AM
Richard: My sentence was admittedly not specific enough, but I'll stand by the notion that the Saints are a terrible matchup. Here's why: There are only so many things you know going into a game. You know what the stats are. You know what the records are. You know what the teams' tendencies are. You know where the game is. You know what you need points- or categories-wise. Like that. You may also know a lot about who the key players are, and let's say I agree with you that the Saints have subpar players on D. But one thing we know with that team that we don't know with many, many others is that they're likely to score a huge number of points against any defense in any situation. It doesn't happen every week, but it's close. So with the Saints you pretty much know your RBs are going to have to go off before the fourth quarter - and often before the third - to go off at all. They won't usually get the ball much in the second half. The reason I hate the Saints as a matchup indeed has nothing to do with their D or their D's rankings; it's that I just don't like having my players limited to part-time chances to have big games. Granted, the Saints had three really awful games in a row earlier against great RBs - in Weeks 8 through 10, Michael Turner AND DeAngelo Williams AND Steven Jackson had huge games against them. But check the play-by-play logs on those games. All three guys went off in the first half. The top rushing total in the second half - among three guys who all exceeded 130 yards for the full games - was right around 50 yards from Turner. Williams had 115 of his 149 yards and both TDs in the first half. Jackson had 100 of his 131 yards and his TD in the first half. Those big games can happen, and I can miss out on them, and of course they're reflected in the rankings, but the fact remains: The same RBs going against the Lions have four quarters almost always to get their yards. Against the Saints, depending on which version of the offense shows up, they have two or three quarters. So making these decisions coming into a week, yes, I'm taking my chances on four quarters vs. two or three, and I'm going against the Saints almost every time. And I hope - I really do - there are good challenge players who start their backs against the Saints BEFORE they start them against the Lions. Whatever the numbers say today, long-term I believe that's a winning proposition for me.
Posted by JUSTIN ELEFF | Dec. 03 at 09:10 AM
Peter: It hasn't happened quite the way I expected, but it has happened that V.Jackson is hemorrhaging numbers. That said, I agree that you stick with him against that bad a team. At least you're virtually guaranteed three points for the win. I'm also going to stick with Fitz, because dude owes me a huge game and as soon as I sit him he'll have it for my bench. Not thrilled about the Leinart possibility, but he has to be better than Chris Redman, right? Which pretty much eliminates White from consideration. I wouldn't go against Colston if I owned him, so you're going to be spending a bunch on WRs ... which means you make the tough RB calls partly by salary. Ricky for sure, probably Forte with him and hold your nose, I guess. And if you can't use Forte / Ricky / Fitz / Colston for salary reasons, I guess sit Fitz for Holmes on the same theory as V.Jackson - 3 pts. more or less assured.
Posted by Richard Weber | Dec. 03 at 10:06 PM
Justin: I understand what you're theorizing: You're afraid that when teams get behind against the Saints, they won't run the ball. But the numbers are what they are. It doesn't matter whether RBs get their points in the first half or second half. Fact is, the Saints' D has been exploited by RBs to the point where there are only eight other Ds that have given up more fantasy points to RBs.
Posted by PETER DEBIASE | Dec. 04 at 03:08 AM
Justin: One more on a purchase. I know you mentioned in a previous column that Vernon Davis was one player who would not be able to sustain his numbers over the remainder of the season. Since that time, your prediction has not come true (no offense, most of your predictions are spot on). I'm thinking of picking him up. I'm currently in 3rd place in my points league, 9 points out of 1st and 6 points out of 2nd, with 4 purchases remaining. I've been starting Clark and Olsen. I don't expect Clark to play much (if at all) after week 15. Davis has out-pointed Olsen by 43 y-t-d and he's also cheaper. Looking at his remaining schedule (@ SEA, AZ, @ PHI, DET, @ STL) and considering that the 49ers now have become more of a passing team with the spread offense, I see no reason why he can't continue to put up excellent numbers. I would drop Carlson who's not worth a roster spot anyhow. Any thoughts on this move? Thanks.
Posted by JUSTIN ELEFF | Dec. 04 at 07:22 AM
Richard: Agreed that the numbers are what they are, but those are dead numbers, from games we can't do anything about. What I'm saying is, from the perspective of 1:00 PM and not 4:05 PM on a Sunday, I have one more thing to worry about with the Saints than I do almost any other matchup. For prediction purposes, I will let that one extra thing sway me very often - not just will; I DO let it sway me - and while that means I miss a few big first halves, I'm as confident as I can be at 1:00 PM that I'm making the right move. I'll say this, too: It's not just that I'm afraid that when teams fall behind the Saints they won't run the ball - it's that teams are CONSISTENTLY not running the ball in the second half because they HAVE fallen behind the Saints. If not for their own O, that is, the Saints' D would likely be utterly atrocious against the run. It's a lack of third- and fourth-quarter volume that's keeping them from being even lower in the rankings ...
Posted by JUSTIN ELEFF | Dec. 04 at 07:40 AM
Peter: I've been dead wrong about Davis every time I've written that I expect him to tail off, and I've written it more than once, so take the following with a whole shaker of salt ... but here goes again: I still believe he won't keep this up. Say we were talking about a more established superstar - say Larry Fitzgerald. We might have agreed before the season that he was going to score 16 TDs this year; maybe one higher, maybe two lower, but that was our best guess: 16. And he might have opened with 2 TDs in Week 1 and another 2 in Week 2, and now he'd be on pace for 32. Would we still expect just 16? Probably not. But would we expect 32? Absolutely no way, right? So we'd know his pace had been better in the now-past than it was likely to be in the still-future, even if we now adjusted our expectations and said we'd been wrong; 20 was the right prediction, not 16. Look, Davis has blown everything I've said out of the water, and even though (irony of ironies) I cited him as an FC sleeper in the preseason, he keeps moving the target on me. I thought 6 TDs would be a nice season. Then I thought 8. Then I thought 10 would be just terrific. But he's still on pace for 13, and I still think he's already played his best football, and though I'll go ahead and say 11 was the right number all along - again: I was wrong at 6, wrong at 8, wrong again at 10 - I still say 13 is too high. If I'm still wrong he'll be one of the reasons I don't win some of my leagues; he probably already is one of the reasons I won't. But I believe in my brain and gut, both, that buying Davis for his PACE (i.e., because he's outpointed Olsen by 43 so far) is the wrong move. Maybe he finishes with an even bigger edge than he has now, but it'll be that he outpoints Olsen by 50 for the full year, not 60. The one move I can see making is buying a cheapo TE - perhaps even Davis - specifically for SALARY reasons (and not for his pace specifically). Is Davis my favorite price point below Olsen? Nope, still Celek, and I might even look at Jermichael Finley again given how dirt cheap he is. But - and I hope this is the last time I'll have to write this, not because I'm sensitive but because I'm tired of getting the VD treatment every weekend (nasty pun most definitely intended) - I have indeed been wrong before.
Posted by JUSTIN ELEFF | Dec. 04 at 07:50 AM
Everyone: By no means should you shy away from telling me when you think I'm wrong. If I haven't already explicitly encouraged you to do so, please understand that my view of the usefulness of this add-a-comment feature is that it works best (by far) when we're engaged in debate. Don't get me wrong, I like thinking of myself as an expert - but I also like thinking of myself as a reasonable human being who's always looking for reasons why he may have goofed. I believe I'll be better at playing these games in 2010 than I am now, and in 2011 after that. That's because I'm always trying to figure out where I went wrong, and you guys can only help get that process kickstarted. Don't worry about hurting my feelings; it's probably impossible - my worth as a challenge player is in no way definitional to my sense of my worth in general. I WANT YOU TO TELL ME I'M AN IDIOT WHEN YOU THINK I'M AN IDIOT. It's productive, and if anything I find it amusing. So fire away; let's all get better at these games together.
Posted by James Baker | Dec. 05 at 05:56 PM
Do I go with Aaron Rodgers and both Moss and Andre Johnson or do I start Brady and bench Moss or Andre Johnson for Santana Holmes???
Posted by JUSTIN ELEFF | Dec. 05 at 11:28 PM
James: I'm not sure there is a right answer. The question probably comes down to how you think Rodgers does at home vs. BAL, and that may be more controlled by fate than anything else. The Ravens have been just OK vs. the pass - they're 12th, but there's less than 5 yards per game separating them and No. 17 Oakland - but I note that Rodgers has been much better away than home this year. Biggest factor can't be predicted: With all of the sacks, eventually one is going to hit Rodgers the wrong way and knock him out of a game. Does that happen Monday night? Couldn't it happen just as easily to Brady today? I personally would go with Rodgers and the higher-end WRs, but that's not the iright/i answer; if you go with Brady, maybe hedge the bet by using A.J. instead of Moss with Holmes.
Posted by Richard Weber | Dec. 07 at 05:45 AM
Justin: I have no idea what your last post was supposed to mean regarding the Saints. But I do know this: The Saints have given up 13 rushing TDs, and only 2 Ds have given up more. They just aren't a very good run D. Period.