"Information overload" and it's potential implications (1 Viewer)

[KCC]

If you're a fantasy football information-junkie (as many of us on these boards are) than you should know something: It's entirely possible that being the most researched guy in your league's draft might actually work against you. I was reading some material for an unrelated work project, when I came across an article that said that people who have a lot of information when they are making decisions may make poorer decisions, even though they may be more confident about those poorer choices. There are tons of articles on this (just google "information overload" and "decision making" and you'll see), many come from the world of business and economics and involve various investment strategies, but some are geared so that even non-business types can appreciate them. Here's one example:

Link

Jacoby, Speller, and Kohn, (1974) examined these information overload implications in a consumer context and found linear relationships between amount of product information and subjective feelings of satisfaction, certainty, confusion, and a curvilinear (information overload) relationship between amount of information and the accuracy or the "correctness" of the purchase decision. As amount of information increased, feelings of satisfaction with the decision and certainty that one had made the correct decision also increased, while feelings of confusion decreased. However, the ability to correctly select the "best" brand was demonstratably poorer at both low and high information load levels, compared to intermediate levels. Thus, while the 153 student subjects felt better at higher levels of information load, they actually made poorer purchase decisions.

The bottom line? People with lots of information tend to feel more confident about the decisions they make (i.e. draft picks), but they also tend to be less accurate in those decisions. There are a number of factors to account for why people with information overload may make poorer choices: They expose themselves to so much data from so many variables that they might end up weighting the pieces of information wrong. So if you're doing RB rankings for your draft and look at 10 different variables (YPC, schedule, injury risk, etc. etc.) you will probably incorrectly overvalue the influence of some of those variable and undervalue the influence of some of the more important ones. Also, people experiencing information overload may selectively filter the information they are exposed to in order to justify their pre-existing biases. So, if you're a huge Indy fan, you might be more influenced by any information that suggests Addai will have a bigger year than ADP and, correspondingly, you might tend to discount any data suggesting ADP will have a better year than Addai. I would love to hear people's thoughts on this (especially anyone familiar with "information overload" effects) and what it might mean in terms of preparing for fantasy football drafts.

 

[ALF]

There are other studies in the investment field that come to the same conclusion. For instance 90% of investment managers believe they are above average stock pickers but 85% fail to consistently beat thier benchmark!

Speaking from experience it seems similar for Fantasy Football.

 

[perry147]

If you're a fantasy football information-junkie (as many of us on these boards are) than you should know something: It's entirely possible that being the most researched guy in your league's draft might actually work against you. I was reading some material for an unrelated work project, when I came across an article that said that people who have a lot of information when they are making decisions may make poorer decisions, even though they may be more confident about those poorer choices. There are tons of articles on this (just google "information overload" and "decision making" and you'll see), many come from the world of business and economics and involve various investment strategies, but some are geared so that even non-business types can appreciate them. Here's one example:

Link

Jacoby, Speller, and Kohn, (1974) examined these information overload implications in a consumer context and found linear relationships between amount of product information and subjective feelings of satisfaction, certainty, confusion, and a curvilinear (information overload) relationship between amount of information and the accuracy or the "correctness" of the purchase decision. As amount of information increased, feelings of satisfaction with the decision and certainty that one had made the correct decision also increased, while feelings of confusion decreased. However, the ability to correctly select the "best" brand was demonstratably poorer at both low and high information load levels, compared to intermediate levels. Thus, while the 153 student subjects felt better at higher levels of information load, they actually made poorer purchase decisions.

The bottom line? People with lots of information tend to feel more confident about the decisions they make (i.e. draft picks), but they also tend to be less accurate in those decisions. There are a number of factors to account for why people with information overload may make poorer choices: They expose themselves to so much data from so many variables that they might end up weighting the pieces of information wrong. So if you're doing RB rankings for your draft and look at 10 different variables (YPC, schedule, injury risk, etc. etc.) you will probably incorrectly overvalue the influence of some of those variable and undervalue the influence of some of the more important ones. Also, people experiencing information overload may selectively filter the information they are exposed to in order to justify their pre-existing biases. So, if you're a huge Indy fan, you might be more influenced by any information that suggests Addai will have a bigger year than ADP and, correspondingly, you might tend to discount any data suggesting ADP will have a better year than Addai. I would love to hear people's thoughts on this (especially anyone familiar with "information overload" effects) and what it might mean in terms of preparing for fantasy football drafts.

That article totally overloaded me and don;t worry I blame entropy not you.

 

[kerpow]

I would agree that over-analyzing can be counter productive. For the draft I think a healthy amount of information is good, you've got to know about a players supporting cast. But what can get you is picking your starters each week. Someone not privy to all the detail on FBGs would probably plug in their studs on a weekly basis and hope for a steady performance. The supposed shark move is to weigh up every aspect of each players matchup and go with the player who has the most upside. Many FBGs will pat themselves on the back when they pull off a move of such genius, but I've read the weekly venting threads enough to know that I'm often to good company when it spectacularly backfires.

 

[TheFanatic]

In my main FFB league which is a dynasty/contract league I Waaaaaayyyyyy over researched prior to the initial draft. This was back in the magazine days. I probably read 10-15 magazines cover to cover. That first season I won 4 games. I overloaded on RB's and didn't have a legit #1 WR till probably the 3rd year in the league.

My best pick was McNabb in like the 12th round. He was on my team all the way through 2006 and I didn't really pay attention to him when I was doing research. He was probably the guy I was least informed about....

 

[Bob Wiley]

Dude, that's way too much information for me.

 

[Couch Potato]

The first thing I try to do is keep an open mind on things and realize that even having perfect knowledge of all available information today doesn't keep something from happening tomorrow that will throw all that out the window. The information is still valuable, though, because most times the surprises don't happen, and because with an open mind you can be ready to adjust if you have a strong frame of reference.

The second thing is to learn to separate the news from the noise. That's hard to do, and hard to explain how to do. It's mostly a matter of experience in reading and then evaluating what you've read, seeing how it turned out later and then re-evaluating. Learning who the writers are, how connected they are, how reliable they've been in the past in their opinions (and believe me, in sports news articles, everything is flavored by the writer's opinion). Just because a writer writes something doesn't make it information. You have to sort that out. And that's tough.

As the Boy Scouts say, be prepared. To me that doesn't mean knowing and relying on a mountain of stats and numbers. It means having all the numbers, the news, your past knowledge and experience, and somehow boiling it down to a gut feeling. You know whether something feels right, or meets your smell test, or however you want to describe it. You make your own decision because you are prepared to do so, not because someone else's list or projections or opinion tells you what you are supposed to do or think. Information overload is not a problem because you've filtered and distilled it all down to a legitimate opinion of your own.

That doesn't mean you won't be wrong a good part of the time. Surprises happen, and we don't have perfect knowledge. That's life. Part of being prepared is being ready with contingencies if this or that happens. You may have made the right decision and it still went wrong. The result doesn't mean the decision was wrong. That's just the way it goes, you live with it and do your best to adjust based on the new circumstances.

 

[gheemony]

I agree with CP that you need to start by identifying the resources that you can trust. Don't believe everything. For example, there are SP posters that I read carefuly and trust, and those that I put on ignore. I listen to the Audible podcast, but don't listen to the ESPN Fantasy Football Focus crap. I read Pro Football Prospectus, but ignore Pro Football Talk.

Second, sometimes I read and listen to information without judging. For example, I try to read the Player Spotlight threads without coming to my own conclusion (i.e., my own set of projections). My hope is that as I read many counter-arguments (some good, some bad) about Eli Manning and his future prospects, my subconscious is evaluating the arguments and storing away the useful information. Then, when I do make my projections or have to make a "gut" call in a draft, my subconscious will help me make a informed decision based on this data.

I don't think it makes sense to rearrange projections and tiers based on every bit of news. If you did, you'd end up over-reacting to puff pieces about how writer X thinks coach y likes rookie receiver Z in voluntary OTAs in May. Instead, keep up on the info and assume that your brain will sort it out for you.

 

[FantasyTrader]

The first thing I try to do is keep an open mind on things and realize that even having perfect knowledge of all available information today doesn't keep something from happening tomorrow that will throw all that out the window. The information is still valuable, though, because most times the surprises don't happen, and because with an open mind you can be ready to adjust if you have a strong frame of reference.

The second thing is to learn to separate the news from the noise. That's hard to do, and hard to explain how to do. It's mostly a matter of experience in reading and then evaluating what you've read, seeing how it turned out later and then re-evaluating. Learning who the writers are, how connected they are, how reliable they've been in the past in their opinions (and believe me, in sports news articles, everything is flavored by the writer's opinion). Just because a writer writes something doesn't make it information. You have to sort that out. And that's tough.

As the Boy Scouts say, be prepared. To me that doesn't mean knowing and relying on a mountain of stats and numbers. It means having all the numbers, the news, your past knowledge and experience, and somehow boiling it down to a gut feeling. You know whether something feels right, or meets your smell test, or however you want to describe it. You make your own decision because you are prepared to do so, not because someone else's list or projections or opinion tells you what you are supposed to do or think. Information overload is not a problem because you've filtered and distilled it all down to a legitimate opinion of your own.

That doesn't mean you won't be wrong a good part of the time. Surprises happen, and we don't have perfect knowledge. That's life. Part of being prepared is being ready with contingencies if this or that happens. You may have made the right decision and it still went wrong. The result doesn't mean the decision was wrong. That's just the way it goes, you live with it and do your best to adjust based on the new circumstances.

But really, what is your gut feeling? Well, it's culmination of everything you've read and heard about a subject (with your brain having subconsciously weighted everything you've read and heard). Maybe, just maybe, having an open mind is part of the problem here. The thing I try to remember in regards to everything FF is that I bring my own set of biases to the table. I own MJD in a dynasty league. I love MJD's explosiveness and upside. I DON'T love his inconsistency and downside. I (mostly subconsciously) try to avoid information exposing me to facts about MJD that I don't want to hear. And maybe that's okay. Maybe offering myself up to every whimsical thought and judgement against MJD, only leaves me more "wishy-washy" on the matter.

"You make your own decision because you are prepared to do so, not because someone else's list or projections or opinion tells you what you are supposed to do or think."

I would disagree. I think simply being exposed to that opinion and how that opinion was presented, has now changed your thinking on the subject. Maybe only a click or two one way or the other, but still affected.

Interesting subject.

 

[Couch Potato]

The first thing I try to do is keep an open mind on things and realize that even having perfect knowledge of all available information today doesn't keep something from happening tomorrow that will throw all that out the window. The information is still valuable, though, because most times the surprises don't happen, and because with an open mind you can be ready to adjust if you have a strong frame of reference.

The second thing is to learn to separate the news from the noise. That's hard to do, and hard to explain how to do. It's mostly a matter of experience in reading and then evaluating what you've read, seeing how it turned out later and then re-evaluating. Learning who the writers are, how connected they are, how reliable they've been in the past in their opinions (and believe me, in sports news articles, everything is flavored by the writer's opinion). Just because a writer writes something doesn't make it information. You have to sort that out. And that's tough.

As the Boy Scouts say, be prepared. To me that doesn't mean knowing and relying on a mountain of stats and numbers. It means having all the numbers, the news, your past knowledge and experience, and somehow boiling it down to a gut feeling. You know whether something feels right, or meets your smell test, or however you want to describe it. You make your own decision because you are prepared to do so, not because someone else's list or projections or opinion tells you what you are supposed to do or think. Information overload is not a problem because you've filtered and distilled it all down to a legitimate opinion of your own.

That doesn't mean you won't be wrong a good part of the time. Surprises happen, and we don't have perfect knowledge. That's life. Part of being prepared is being ready with contingencies if this or that happens. You may have made the right decision and it still went wrong. The result doesn't mean the decision was wrong. That's just the way it goes, you live with it and do your best to adjust based on the new circumstances.

But really, what is your gut feeling? Well, it's culmination of everything you've read and heard about a subject (with your brain having subconsciously weighted everything you've read and heard). Maybe, just maybe, having an open mind is part of the problem here. The thing I try to remember in regards to everything FF is that I bring my own set of biases to the table. I own MJD in a dynasty league. I love MJD's explosiveness and upside. I DON'T love his inconsistency and downside. I (mostly subconsciously) try to avoid information exposing me to facts about MJD that I don't want to hear. And maybe that's okay. Maybe offering myself up to every whimsical thought and judgement against MJD, only leaves me more "wishy-washy" on the matter.

"You make your own decision because you are prepared to do so, not because someone else's list or projections or opinion tells you what you are supposed to do or think."

I would disagree. I think simply being exposed to that opinion and how that opinion was presented, has now changed your thinking on the subject. Maybe only a click or two one way or the other, but still affected.

Interesting subject.

I don't think you disagree with my meaning; maybe you disagree with what you thought I meant. Yes, what we read is added as a piece of the picture, and I am affected in that I evaluate and file it away in some manner or other, but how I digest and include that info is up to me, not the writer. Who I draft is still my choice, not a blind following of the next name on the list provided by Dodds. And that's because I have enough preparedness to do my own thinking and can feel secure disagreeing with Dodds (or whoever). I am still doing my own thinking and deciding, not merely carrying out the decision or opinion of others.

 

[MAC_32]

Basics - Read info/news daily (or take extra time if you miss a day) - 10 mins/day offseason 20 mins/day in season, formulate opinions now and create a rough cheat sheet, let it simmer for a few weeks and revisit later to create a more stable version, be prepared to make daily adjustments during camp and weekly adjustments leading up to camp, in the meantime - mock, and see where your perceived values are falling, create rough draft strategy which is also flexible for draft day because the unexpected will happen. I like to read other opinions too (why I'm a message boarder) but you have to know who's opinion is legit and who's to ignore. All in all, this can take as little as a lunch break if you wanted.

In due time - study your opponents tendencies and exploit them in the draft, if they're a famous RB whore and they have an elbow pick (you're in front of them) and you're looking at RB and another position with your next two picks take the RB first because you know he's taking two with his picks and you'll likely be happy with what falls behind. Trust your instincts/scouting, but do not go over board, in a sport in which so many players are of similar caliber opportunity means a lot more than most give credit for.

When I was first transitioning from a casual ffb'er to a more serious player I incurred bouts of info overload, but not anymore.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

My name is Dirty Weasel, and I am an overloader. I tend to do my research alone, and sometimes even before noon. Many times I have been late for work trying to read one more thread. I've alienated some friends who do not share my passion for FF. I know I suffer this disorder, but all of you are my enablers.

 

[coolnerd]

 

[barista]

The quote you have is for brand communication. If you have a toothpaste you have an ability to roughly tout 3 attributes at shelf in a store: Cavity protection, fresh breath and taste... more than that you have clutter and an eye will move to something else– the brand next to you on the shelf. Fant Foot is totally different.

Though every year I overthink it.

(i am in advertising - thus low karma, maybe that's the problem)

 

[renesauz]

My name is Dirty Weasel, and I am an overloader. I tend to do my research alone, and sometimes even before noon. Many times I have been late for work trying to read one more thread. I've alienated some friends who do not share my passion for FF. I know I suffer this disorder, but all of you are my enablers.

 

[Sabertooth]

I actually did very little (for me) research last season. I ended up being a top team in one league and a wildcard in another. I lost in both championship games. There really is a lot left to chance. I mean Ryan Grant outperformed Laurence Maroney and Larry Johnson. I lost to Adrian Peterson in the finale. Not that Adrian Peterson, the other one. I had the "supposed" good Adrian Peterson and he got smoked by the third stringer for Chicago.

Lots and lots to chance. I mean look at how ADP did vs. Chicago.

20 carries for 224

20 carries for 78

Same teams playing two different times. There is a lot to chance. No amount of preperation is going to take that away.

 

[KCC]

Well, Summer has arrived, the FF mags are hitting the newstands and fantasy information is spiking all over the internet. Normally by this time, I would be intensely study every aspect of various statistics (most of which would account for little variance or worse, lend itself to a confirmation effect), but this year, based on the studies I mentioned earlier, I'm streamlining my approach to information. So far, I've just been studying last year's fantasy numbers from my league and reviewing players on new teams and rookies. I'm trying to stay objective, consider the potential impact of the numbers I review, and limit the information overload effect. We'll see how it goes.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Also, people experiencing information overload may selectively filter the information they are exposed to in order to justify their pre-existing biases. So, if you're a huge Indy fan, you might be more influenced by any information that suggests Addai will have a bigger year than ADP and, correspondingly, you might tend to discount any data suggesting ADP will have a better year than Addai.

I'm unfamiliar with any of the literature on information overload. But I'm a bit familiar with some of the work done on confirmation bias, and I can see how it would cause someone to become less accurate if he had more information.In one experiment, a group of people were asked their positions on a variety of controversial topics (e.g., whether gun control reduces violent crime rates, whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent, and so on). The mere fact that so many smart and well-informed people reach opposite conclusions on these topics suggests that nobody should be more than 55% to 60% sure that his own position is right (and that all the smart, well-informed people on the other side are wrong).

After the subjects stated their positions on the controversial topics, they were given short arguments to read for each opposing viewpoint. The arguments on each side were of similar quality. But confirmation bias causes people to embrace arguments they already agree with while discounting arguments they disagree with. So if a person who is against the death penalty reads one argument containing evidence that it's an effective deterrent and a second argument containing evidence that it's not an effective deterrent, he's likely to take the first argument to heart while largely disregarding the second argument. The effect is similar to showing a neutral person a strong argument favoring the death penalty and then a weak argument against it (since that's how the two equal arguments will be viewed by a biased subject), and the result is to strengthen his pro-death penalty feelings.

So the overall effect is this. If you have two people, and one says he's 55% sure that the death penalty is an effective deterrent, and the other says he's 55% sure that it's not an effective deterrent, and then you show each of them the exact same arguments pro and con, the first will then be 70% sure that the death penalty is an effective deterrent while the other will become 70% sure that it isn't.

The exact same evidence has moved the two people in opposite directions, causing them each to move further from the 50-50 mark. At least one of them is moving away from the right answer as he gets more information, and it's somewhat likely that they both are moving away from a more reasonable probability estimate to a less reasonable one.

The remedy, I would think, is not to avoid getting more information, but to be aware of your own biases, to be aware of how those biases might be affecting your interpretation of any information you come across, and to actively seek to minimize any distorting effects of those biases. The opposite strategy of sticking one's head in the sand to avoid learning new information seems like a bad idea in a great many areas of life, not just FF.

Thanks to KCC for posting the interesting topic.

 

[Gatorman]

Sometimes we get too much information, but more likely, we just interpret the information incorrectly, or we are so overwhelmed that we miss things.

Case in point: D ward of the giants. Some people picked him in WCOFF last year, while others never heard of him. Information overload occurred in the Droughns/Jacobs debate so much that it was easy to miss that this other guy was the backup.

The main thing is to not change your reactions based on minor things, only major ones, and use the minor things to clarify backup and the like. (Sammy Morris was like that to me. there was nothing out of patriots camp last eyar suggesting that maroney was going to get the ball all the time, just messae board hypebole. Sammy was a nice find for me for the first 6 weeks or so)

Gator

 

[softball]

I have no doubts about the overlaod.

But I chose to do it anyway, I just like it.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Also, people experiencing information overload may selectively filter the information they are exposed to in order to justify their pre-existing biases. So, if you're a huge Indy fan, you might be more influenced by any information that suggests Addai will have a bigger year than ADP and, correspondingly, you might tend to discount any data suggesting ADP will have a better year than Addai.

I'm unfamiliar with any of the literature on information overload. But I'm a bit familiar with some of the work done on confirmation bias, and I can see how it would cause someone to become less accurate if he had more information.In one experiment, a group of people were asked their positions on a variety of controversial topics (e.g., whether gun control reduces violent crime rates, whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent, and so on). The mere fact that so many smart and well-informed people reach opposite conclusions on these topics suggests that nobody should be more than 55% to 60% sure that his own position is right (and that all the smart, well-informed people on the other side are wrong).

After the subjects stated their positions on the controversial topics, they were given short arguments to read for each opposing viewpoint. The arguments on each side were of similar quality. But confirmation bias causes people to embrace arguments they already agree with while discounting arguments they disagree with. So if a person who is against the death penalty reads one argument containing evidence that it's an effective deterrent and a second argument containing evidence that it's not an effective deterrent, he's likely to take the first argument to heart while largely disregarding the second argument. The effect is similar to showing a neutral person a strong argument favoring the death penalty and then a weak argument against it (since that's how the two equal arguments will be viewed by a biased subject), and the result is to strengthen his pro-death penalty feelings.

So the overall effect is this. If you have two people, and one says he's 55% sure that the death penalty is an effective deterrent, and the other says he's 55% sure that it's not an effective deterrent, and then you show each of them the exact same arguments pro and con, the first will then be 70% sure that the death penalty is an effective deterrent while the other will become 70% sure that it isn't.

The exact same evidence has moved the two people in opposite directions, causing them each to move further from the 50-50 mark. At least one of them is moving away from the right answer as he gets more information, and it's somewhat likely that they both are moving away from a more reasonable probability estimate to a less reasonable one.

The remedy, I would think, is not to avoid getting more information, but to be aware of your own biases, to be aware of how those biases might be affecting your interpretation of any information you come across, and to actively seek to minimize any distorting effects of those biases. The opposite strategy of sticking one's head in the sand to avoid learning new information seems like a bad idea in a great many areas of life, not just FF.

Thanks to KCC for posting the interesting topic.

Tremblay outlined (much more eloquently) what I was getting at in my earlier post. When we're doing player research we don't HAVE to be exposed to arguments, both for and against. If I already believe Roddy White is going to pick up where he left off in December, I can simply goolgle "Roddy White + sleeper 2008" and I'm well on my way from moving myself from 65% sure to 85% sure. And I think that's very common. Seeking out like-minded opinion.

 

[KCC]

I'm bumping this as a cautionary tale for all fantasy info junkies - and yes, that's most of us on these boards.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Extensive information is a problem if you lack the ability to properly process it.

 

[Routilla]

You have to have balance in the information intake and your alcohol intake. Compile your info and go over it sober in a normal and rational state. Then take down a few brewskies and go over your info in more of a "swing for the fences" state. During each process come up with a mock for your draft spots. Compare the two and evaluate. Your optimum strategy likely lies somewhere in between the two studies.

Cheers!

 

[TheWheel]

TLR thread

There is no such thing as information overload. There is only an incorrect interpretation of information. Reading a lot of magazines is not reading information. It is reading interpretation and then reinterpreting it. Unless you look at current players overall basic statistic history and the trends that are developing, you cannot suffer from information overload. Even with the infinite possibility of advanced statistics, you find yourself with wrongful interpretation rather than information overload.

This is not even factor in the complete lack of overall consistency by the human. If robots were playing, you would have accurate projections. With the relative randomness of performance that comes from humans it is very difficult to be 100% sure about anything. Considering how each player on a offensive group is not entirely consistent, a player who loses his consistency will drag the entire team down. Ex) An entire offensive group is consistent enough to do well. The next year a guard's consistency falls. On more plays, the tackle and center have to work harder and more pressure is applied to the QB, a running back has to block more (and he will be tackled for shorter gains on runs), the TE will have to block more, the WRs won't have as much time to get open, et al. Just think of the fantasy implications.

You simply cannot accurately interpret any statistics without looking at the future of the entire unit. This is even greater complicated by defensive consistency.