Well, it's pretty brilliant if you ask me... Secondly, as far as odds go, it's better to "give up" the game you had a greater chance of losing in the first place.
From a statistical perspective this is not quite right.
It's better to sit them in the game where their absence increases the chances of losing by the least.
This may or may not be the game against the better opponent.
Sounds like the exact same thing to me, just worded differently.
Let me give an example.
Suppose if you don't sit anyone, you have a 70% chance of losing to the good team, and a 30% chance of losing to the bad team.
And, suppose if you sit players against the good team your chance of losing only goes to 80%, while if you sit players against the bad team your chance of losing goes up to 60%.
Better to sit players against the good team. You only increase your chance of losing by 10% instead of 30%.
What the numbers look like will depend on the actual games, and how much the percentages change will depend on a lot of things (like match ups at each position).
But the principle should be based on the change
in the chances of losing.