I dont understand how that could possibly be considered unethical. If you have the win locked up and its a close matchup I would definitely bench all my players. However, as some people said tiebreakers are usually total points so if you have a big lead I probably would have started him because no one is going to get >-10 pts, unless your name rhymes with bex hossman...
I've benched pitchers before in H2H fantasy baseball when I have a week wrapped up so that I wouldn't take a chance of them blowing up and costing me ERA or WHIP. That's not bad "etiquette", that's fantasy sports!
One thing to consider, points is usually used as a tie-breaker so if you do bench a player, you could possibly be hurting your team down the road. A couple years ago I missed the playoffs by 3 points.
your first duty is to play to win each week, so you owe it to yourself if that is your analyis of the situation. this game is predicated on YOUR analysis. I don't think you should have to play a guy if there is no rule that you need a full and complete roster. Besides, there is already a potential penalty factored in when you consider tiebreakers etc. I feel it's a legit move. I think with a 17 point lead though, it becomes a bit dicey, because the game would have to be spectacularly bad.
I don't get the "full lineup" argument unless there is a specific rule. A real team doesn't have to play any specific position if it doesn't want to, it can allocate its roster how it wants. So if it didn't want a tight end on the roster, it doesn't have to have one. If you don't plan on ever punting, and just going for it, you don't need to roster a punter, etc. I think you should be able to allocate your fantasy players as you see fit. You want to risk a blank score, that's your prerogative.
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
eaglesrule wrote:I don't get the "full lineup" argument unless there is a specific rule. A real team doesn't have to play any specific position if it doesn't want to, it can allocate its roster how it wants. So if it didn't want a tight end on the roster, it doesn't have to have one. If you don't plan on ever punting, and just going for it, you don't need to roster a punter, etc. I think you should be able to allocate your fantasy players as you see fit. You want to risk a blank score, that's your prerogative.
Wow, very bad analogy using real teams. A real team has to have 53 players on its roster and they have to start 11 players on offense/defense/special teams, if they start less.....they are penalized. They may not have to start a player in a particular position, but they need to have the full line-up out there.....anything less or more and it is penalized.
True, maybe it was a bad analogy in so far as I presented it, my bad. Wasn't really awake yet. Although I wasn't sure that there was a "too few men on the field" penalty, just too many men ON the field or in the huddle. But granted, I'm not a ref, so you are probably right. But as far as maximum/minimum roster size, that's kind of irrelevant, as this person isn't circumventing that anyway, he is using his roster size in the manner he wants, which is how real teams do it anyway.
That being said, regardless of my analogy and the rules, assuming too few is a penalty (which I am assuming you are right) real teams have a rule about it, not every fantasy league does. So if there is not a specific rule about it, your first duty is do what you can to win within the structure of the rules. So, I don't see a problem with benching your QB.
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
by buffalobillsrul2002 » Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:35 am
I think this is perfectly fine. Once you add in the fact that total points is a tiebreaker at some point in 99% of leagues, it's definitely a risk/reward deal. Go for it!
In our leauge we had a similar situation and the owner who started breese lost the game because he left him in.
The idea of sitting a player on MNF if you already have the win makes for a good debate. I personally would have a hard time benching my star QB thinking that he would just add points to the win... but there is a risk here. I've seen this case a few times where a win is in the bag and come MNF a player gets negative points and gives up a win.
Perhaps I'm getting old, but if you got the win, take a knee!! That is unless you think 'stat corrections' might change the outcome, or maybe you need more points for positioning!!?
But is this situation the same as taking a knee, or a lack of fantasy gamesmanship??
i guess my ultimate opinion is, that if there isn't a specific rule mandating a full starting lineup, you can't really ask someone to make a roster decision that is in their judgment, against his/her own best interests.
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
If there is big money at stake and it's not against the rules, by all means take your player out.
Otherwise, leave him in. It's no fun to shove someone's nose in a 0.8 point loss, especially if you turned into a female orifice and pulled your QB at the last second. Rub their nose in their loss while your player is putting up more points and digging them into a deeper hole on Monday Night Football. Isn't that a "man law"? The more you beat down on someone, the more you can rub it in. With a 0.8 point win, you almost have apologize for being such a wuss that you barely won against such a terrible terrible opponent. It's a hollow victory.
to me, benching a player with a clinched win is a slap in the face. You're insulting me while being a puss yourself therefore losing respect. By taking you're starter out you're saying " I beat you without my quarterback".
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by jake_harv88 » Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:32 am 
