Overconfidence at guessing (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

This is the sort of thing that would normally be posted in May or June rather than in November. But here it is.

(1) You know that there's a 50% turnover rate among top ten fantasy RBs from year to year. (I.e., half of the top ten RBs in 2008 will also be top ten RBs in 2009.) Does that mean your projected top ten RBs for 2009 should have five RBs in it who were top ten in 2008?

(2) In any given week, you think that Vincent Jackson is 75% likely to outscore Ted Ginn in your fantasy league. Does that mean you should start Vincent Jackson 75% of the time and Ted Ginn 25% of the time?

Here's a relevant passage from Robyn Dawes, Rational Choice in an Uncertain World:

"Many psychological experiments were conducted in the late 1950s and early 1960s in which subjects were asked to predict the outcome of an event that had a random component but yet had base-rate predictability - for example, subjects were asked to predict whether the next card the experiment turned over would be red or blue in a context in which 70% of the cards were blue, but in which the sequence of red and blue cards was totally random.

In such a situation, the strategy that will yield the highest proportion of success is to predict the more common event. For example, if 70% of the cards are blue, then predicting blue on every trial yields a 70% success rate.

What subjects tended to do instead, however, was match probabilities - that is, predict the more probable event with the relative frequency with which it occurred. For example, subjects tended to predict 70% of the time that the blue card would occur and 30% of the time that the red card would occur. Such a strategy yields a 58% success rate, because the subjects are correct 70% of the time when the blue card occurs (which happens with probability .70) and 30% of the time when the red card occurs (which happens with probability .30); .70 * .70 + .30 * .30 = .58.

In fact, subjects predict the more frequent event with a slightly higher probability than that with which it occurs, but do not come close to predicting its occurrence 100% of the time, even when they are paid for the accuracy of their predictions... For example, subjects who were paid a nickel for each correct prediction over a thousand trials... predicted [the more common event] 76% of the time."

It's a human tendency to think we're better guessers than we really are."Always start your studs" is better advice than we often think it is. Sure, we might sit LT and feel like geniuses if he is held in check that week. But more often than not, we'll make the wrong decision by outguessing ourselves.

 

[renesauz]

This is the sort of thing that would normally be posted in May or June rather than in November. But here it is.

(1) You know that there's a 50% turnover rate among top ten fantasy RBs from year to year. (I.e., half of the top ten RBs in 2008 will also be top ten RBs in 2009.) Does that mean your projected top ten RBs for 2009 should have five RBs in it who were top ten in 2008?

(2) In any given week, you think that Vincent Jackson is 75% likely to outscore Ted Ginn in your fantasy league. Does that mean you should start Vincent Jackson 75% of the time and Ted Ginn 25% of the time?

Here's a relevant passage from Robyn Dawes, Rational Choice in an Uncertain World:

"Many psychological experiments were conducted in the late 1950s and early 1960s in which subjects were asked to predict the outcome of an event that had a random component but yet had base-rate predictability - for example, subjects were asked to predict whether the next card the experiment turned over would be red or blue in a context in which 70% of the cards were blue, but in which the sequence of red and blue cards was totally random.

In such a situation, the strategy that will yield the highest proportion of success is to predict the more common event. For example, if 70% of the cards are blue, then predicting blue on every trial yields a 70% success rate.

What subjects tended to do instead, however, was match probabilities - that is, predict the more probable event with the relative frequency with which it occurred. For example, subjects tended to predict 70% of the time that the blue card would occur and 30% of the time that the red card would occur. Such a strategy yields a 58% success rate, because the subjects are correct 70% of the time when the blue card occurs (which happens with probability .70) and 30% of the time when the red card occurs (which happens with probability .30); .70 * .70 + .30 * .30 = .58.

In fact, subjects predict the more frequent event with a slightly higher probability than that with which it occurs, but do not come close to predicting its occurrence 100% of the time, even when they are paid for the accuracy of their predictions... For example, subjects who were paid a nickel for each correct prediction over a thousand trials... predicted [the more common event] 76% of the time."

It's a human tendency to think we're better guessers than we really are."Always start your studs" is better advice than we often think it is. Sure, we might sit LT and feel like geniuses if he is held in check that week. But more often than not, we'll make the wrong decision by outguessing ourselves.

Nice writeup, but we don't deal with known probabilities. EG: Asomugha has shut down every WR he's faced. Had you started Roddy White a couple weeks ago, you got squat. While this article clearly shows the problem with over-thinking things, it does not solve many of our personal WDIS dilemmas.

 

[-baller]

I think this would be a little more interesting if football and fantasy football were entirely random.

something to think about, though....

 

[piratemike]

Wow, I was just about to post a question about this. Synchronicity!

 

[tombonneau]

I decide on my "starting roster" early in the season, which usually consists of studs (or at least better than baseline players) at most positions, and just keep them in whenever they are playing. I try to never get cute and play matchups; yeah, you might kick yourself that one time you didn't spot start Derrick Mason and he blows up, but you don't remember the other 20 times when keeping your stud in was the right call.

In fact, my worse loss of the year is when I spot-started Greg Olsen the other week vs. the Lions and missed out on Owen Daniels career game. Start your studs indeed.

 

[Ozymandias]

Wow, I was just about to post a question about this. Synchronicity!

I thought there was a 70% chance that someone would be synchronous.

 

[Chase Stuart]

This is the sort of thing that would normally be posted in May or June rather than in November. But here it is.

(1) You know that there's a 50% turnover rate among top ten fantasy RBs from year to year. (I.e., half of the top ten RBs in 2008 will also be top ten RBs in 2009.) Does that mean your projected top ten RBs for 2009 should have five RBs in it who were top ten in 2008?

(2) In any given week, you think that Vincent Jackson is 75% likely to outscore Ted Ginn in your fantasy league. Does that mean you should start Vincent Jackson 75% of the time and Ted Ginn 25% of the time?

Here's a relevant passage from Robyn Dawes, Rational Choice in an Uncertain World:

"Many psychological experiments were conducted in the late 1950s and early 1960s in which subjects were asked to predict the outcome of an event that had a random component but yet had base-rate predictability - for example, subjects were asked to predict whether the next card the experiment turned over would be red or blue in a context in which 70% of the cards were blue, but in which the sequence of red and blue cards was totally random.

In such a situation, the strategy that will yield the highest proportion of success is to predict the more common event. For example, if 70% of the cards are blue, then predicting blue on every trial yields a 70% success rate.

What subjects tended to do instead, however, was match probabilities - that is, predict the more probable event with the relative frequency with which it occurred. For example, subjects tended to predict 70% of the time that the blue card would occur and 30% of the time that the red card would occur. Such a strategy yields a 58% success rate, because the subjects are correct 70% of the time when the blue card occurs (which happens with probability .70) and 30% of the time when the red card occurs (which happens with probability .30); .70 * .70 + .30 * .30 = .58.

In fact, subjects predict the more frequent event with a slightly higher probability than that with which it occurs, but do not come close to predicting its occurrence 100% of the time, even when they are paid for the accuracy of their predictions... For example, subjects who were paid a nickel for each correct prediction over a thousand trials... predicted [the more common event] 76% of the time."

It's a human tendency to think we're better guessers than we really are."Always start your studs" is better advice than we often think it is. Sure, we might sit LT and feel like geniuses if he is held in check that week. But more often than not, we'll make the wrong decision by outguessing ourselves.

Yes, I think people are overconfident about their ability to predict.I don't think you're example is a fair one, though. For example, if we predict Stud RB to average 20 FP/G and he plays a defense that allows 6 fewer FP/G to RBs than average defenses, and Okay RB averages 10 FP/G but plays a defense that allows 6 more FP/G to RBs than average defenses, then we shouldn't start our stud. But that's got nothing to do with guessing.

I think the 'start your studs' mantra has more to do with thinking my analysis in the preceding paragraph is wrong than thinking "my stud will outscore my backup in 13 of 16 games this year, this is a really tough matchup for my stud, let's bench him since this is probably one of those three weeks."

 

[Black]

I think in terms of probabilities.

If you believe that a player's chances to move the ball and score are a function of opportunity, you have to take into consideration weather, whether a team will fall behind. All of these things can directly impact the number of carries an RB will get or the number of throws a QB makes (and therefore the number of catches a WR might make). ie, bad wind/rain might turn the game into a battle of RBs.

The Asomugha Effect is simply this: he was so effective, I think he had something like 8 balls thrown towards him ALL SEASON just prior to the game vs. ATL.

I started Roddy anyways, thinking that even with a few chances, the talent would overcome and possibly get me a score. The smart money would have been on Jenkins, and even smarter money on Turner, since you don't need to throw on Oakland to win --> more likely for alot of carries for the RB.

On start your studs, my feeling is just that teams will often turn to their most respected players when they want to win. Therefore, more chances for those players to make plays.

You can also throw in stuff like "Brady Quinn's first start, higher likelihood to keep him on a leash and for more short passes to the TE...hmm, Winslow might be a very, very good start." Or, this new QB played alot with this particular WR on the scout team...they might have some chemistry already. I think there are very human factors you can put in there...like Fitzpatrick seems to love Chad Johnson in the redzone.

 

[Chase Stuart]

You can also throw in stuff like "Brady Quinn's first start, higher likelihood to keep him on a leash and for more short passes to the TE...hmm, Winslow might be a very, very good start."

This is the type of overconfidence that MT was talking about.For example, in Flacco's first start, Todd Heap had one catch for five yards. In John Beck's first start, David Martin had one catch for seven yards. In Jay Cutler's first start, Tony Scheffler had one catch for fifteen yards.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

33% of the first 6 replies quoted the entire first post. That's what I don't get.

 

[Chase Stuart]

33% of the first 6 replies quoted the entire first post. That's what I don't get.

But 0% of the four replies following the first reply.

 

[treat88]

Great write-up.

Occasionally match-ups and extracurricular analysis might change the WDIS question, but in a very high percentage of the cases I'll take a proven track record of production over a great match-up.

 

[rzrback77]

33% of the first 6 replies quoted the entire first post. That's what I don't get.

VERY and even worse, the back and forth conversations which keep on quoting the entire thing. Those threads just drive me over the edge, especially when reading on a phone.

 

[-baller]

especially when reading on a phone.

lol

 

[Chase Stuart]

Great write-up.

Occasionally match-ups and extracurricular analysis might change the WDIS question, but in a very high percentage of the cases I'll take a proven track record of production over a great match-up.

A great match-up is a proven track record of production.

 

[piratemike]

Great write-up.

Occasionally match-ups and extracurricular analysis might change the WDIS question, but in a very high percentage of the cases I'll take a proven track record of production over a great match-up.

A great match-up is a proven track record of production.

Oooooooooooooooooh.

 

[treat88]

Great write-up.

Occasionally match-ups and extracurricular analysis might change the WDIS question, but in a very high percentage of the cases I'll take a proven track record of production over a great match-up.

A great match-up is a proven track record of production.

I'll agree if one's decision is amongst comparable talents.

 

[datonn]

Great, GREAT posting, Maurile!

Two thoughts I have with this, as it relates to fantasy football:

1. Random vs. non-random. FFL has its share of randomness and dumb/blind luck every week. However, with a lot of my own WDIS dilemmas, I look at it like this:

- Adrian Peterson, Vikings = $0.20 for heads on the coin flip, $0.10 for a tails

- LaDainian Tomlinson, Chargers = $0.15 for heads, $0.05 for tails

- Mewelde Moore, Steelers = $0.10 for heads, $0.00 for tails

50/50 coin flip after evaluating health, match-ups, coaching, supporting cast, etc., right (the "coin" values)?

That means if I start ADP I should, on average, have $15.00 after 100 coin flips (50 heads, 50 tails, minus the fractional advantage to heads). Tomlinson? $10.00. Moore? $5.00. If I'm starting two of the three, there's a chance that Moore outperforms LT, but LT has a higher probability of producing superior results in my estimation. So, rather than rolling the dice on Moore MAYBE having a big game, I play the probability. ADP all the way, then Tomlinson over Moore. It only works though if I've been smart in determining the odds.

2. Floors and Ceilings. Injuries or ejections aside, I also like to look at floors and ceilings. #1 above is "most likely case" for upside and downside...while "floors and ceilings" would basically be a very-best and very-worst case scenario that I could envision happening for each player.

ADP's weekly ceiling is in the stratosphere most weeks, while his floor is higher than many RBs ceilings! LT's floor has been falling in 2008, but I still believe his ceiling is very high as well! Guys are losing confidence in him though because of that sinking floor. Mewelde has a good, STRONG ceiling, but not as high as the other two. His floor though, IMHO, is the lowest of the three.

So, it hopefully isn't just guessing....it is EDUCATED guessing. That's not to say that Moore won't go off for 100 yards and 2 TDs while ADP is held out of the end zone and Tomlinson goes for 80 yards, 0 TDs too! That's just to say that, all things being equal, it won't happen as often as the occurrence of Moore being outscored by both other players.

My own craziness though, so take it FWIW.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Great write-up.

Occasionally match-ups and extracurricular analysis might change the WDIS question, but in a very high percentage of the cases I'll take a proven track record of production over a great match-up.

A great match-up is a proven track record of production.

Oooooooooooooooooh.

:X

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

33% of the first 6 replies quoted the entire first post. That's what I don't get.

VERY :X

and even worse, the back and forth conversations which keep on quoting the entire thing. Those threads just drive me over the edge, especially when reading on a phone.

I know. I usually just quit reading them. Last post, don't mean to hijack.

 

[renesauz]

I guess what I was really suggesting is that the article Maurile posted has a lesson in it, but it's fantasy implications/usefullness are limited.

We don't have simple, exact probabilities as illustrated in the article.

RB A averages 15 ppg.

RB B averages 12 ppg.

The article would suggest that RB A is always the better play, and if that were the only data point you had, the article would be correct.

What if in the example you knew there were only ten cards, and the first 6 were ALL blue? Is blue still the right guess????????

But RB A is playing Team C, who typically alows only 10 ppg to opposing RB1's.

While RB B is playing team D, allowing 16 ppg to RB1's.

RB A is at home though, while RB B is on the road and his team just lost it's best OT to a season ending injury.

Bu then again RB A's QB is hurt, so they will probably lean on him a little bit more heavily.

See where I'm going? We don't have simple probabilities to go off of!!! We have complex theoreticals and dozens of random data points/factors to account for.

The lesson is you don't sit a true stud (18 ppg) for a true dud (6 ppg), but most of us already know that. We don't always do that, but we know that.

But that's where the lesson ends, because most of our "gut calls" are between RB A and B above, and the real % play is NOT always clear.

And that's a good thing...because if it WERE always clear, this hobby/game/whatever you want to call it would be a heck of a lot less fun.

 

[UTLonghorn31]

I always look at my matchup... if I am playing against the weaker team, I will play a safer play as I don't want to lose to a team that I should beat... now, if I have a very difficult matchup (let's say, not favored), then I will roll the dice more.... so I don't just look at RB A vs RB B... I look at my opponent and estimate what I need to win and what RBs will safely get me enough points to victory.... sure, I could leave a lot of points on the board (did this weekend), but I get the W

always look at average ppg and standard deviation... I am the only team not to break 100 this season, but I own the best record because if your team has an off weak, you will not beat me... I score between 98-80 every week.... in a season, that is wins... in the postseason, then I will be forced into higher risk/reward plays if matchups dictate.... but at least I am there with that opportunity

 

[Eminence]

I just start who I think is going to play some good football.

 

[AB in DC]

Good descripion, MT. This is the same reason I pick all favorites in any March Madness pool I join -- I know that everyone else will be guessing which upsets to pick, just because there always are upsets, but almost everyone will pick the wrong ones.

 

[LondonGold]

When all of the variables are known AND consistent, then yes, the laws of probability do apply. However, the more the variables change, the less accurate one can predict outcomes. As it has already been noted, the simple fact that the team that player A plays against may be better or worse than the week before affects his potential for fantasy points and thereby alters the variables. Weather, game planning by the opposing team, other players around him, etc make for a very dynamic environment that lessens the degree of accuracy with which one can predict a potential outcome.

For whatever it's worth however, I do believe that you are generally better off by playing your studs as opposed to some scrap-heap player just because he has a good matchup.

 

[footballsavvy]

I think it has more to do with the game plan than opposing defensive rankings. Granted, most of the time these go hand in hand. The thing is, NFL coaches are pretty good at what they do. They put together a game plan that hopefully the opposing coach won't know is coming. If they did, then they would game plan against it, right?

Anyway, my point is that we never truly know what a team will bring to the table with regards to their offense. I have put up some really big dud games when my QB's team came out with an all out "pound the ball" game plan. There's not much to hope for when your team passes the ball only 20% of the total plays.

The Titan's vs. Bears game last week was a good example. While it's easy to say, "well everyone attacks the Bears through the air - that was easy to predict", though in my mind I had guessed the opposite. I looked at it a little closer and thought that the Bears run defense ranks high because no one really tries to run on them, thus their YPG stay low. I thought that the Titan's would use their all pro offensive line and pound it down the Bear's throat. In fact, I think that the Bears thought this too and rolled up to stop the run at all costs. The Titan's pulled a Princess Bride style I-knew-that-you-knew-that-I-knew game plan and passed the ball all day long. The end result just so happened to be what many thought it would be... without getting too deep into it. But I digress.

Anyway, give me the coaches game plan each week and I will give you an easy fantasy football championship - regardless of how the opposing defense ranks. The fact is that opportunity = fantasy points. If I know the gameplan is to throw the ball 70 times, I'm starting their 1st and 2nd WR and their TE and I'm benching their RB - even if its the Ravens or the Titans.

Another example is the Rams vs Jets last week. Sure they have a terrible pass defense. But they also have a bad run defense so the Jets planned on a run-based game plan. I think the same thing will happen this week with the SF vs St. Louis game. Mike likes to pound the ball. The Rams can't stop the run (or the pass). I look for SF to pound the ball all day long and limit Hill's opportunity to score passing TD's. I could be wrong though to the tune of 320 passing yds and 3 passing TD's. It just all depends on the game plan.

Thursday night, New England ranks about midway against the pass and the run. What will the Jets bring to the table? The safe guess is that they will bring a balanced attack, but that may not help you. In my mind, unless they plan on beating the Pats through the air specifically, I have to bench Favre. But I have no way of predicting this to any reasonable degreee of certainty.

 

[JayMan]

It's a mix between what Maurile and Chase mentioned... that would read: 'Always start your studs based on their matchups'

By that, I mean... you adjust your RBs Fpts/wk by the opposing Def Fpts/wk they are allowing... and this establish your weekly 'rankings'... and you systematically start your best lineup based on this.

... Thus, this eliminate the 'overconfidence of randomness prediction' Maurile was talking about and adds the 'matchup theory' Chase was eluding to... which results in an objective way of choosing your optimal lineup...

 

[Lash]

here in the last few years it seems opposing defenses matter more than they used to as far as WDIS

thus not really random but ...

in the case of WDIS between positions, i usually always nail my RBs and usually miss my WR choices each week so the randomness may be more of a factor at WR

example in one 16-teamer my 3 RBs are ADP, Portis, and CJohnson, not counting the three bye weeks, i started the right 2 RBs 6 out of 7 weeks and the one week I "missed" they all three had great days

conversely in that same league I have started the right WR crew once

 

[BigJim®]

As was no doubt mentioned by others (didn't read all responses), the difference in FF is there is not certainty that studs will outperform 70% of the time. If that certainty existed, then yes, always start your studs is the logical approach. Unfortunately, our "studs" have a 50% turnover from year to year, and are susceptible to both exploitable and avoidable matchups. This unpredictable reality seems analogus to a blue card having the capability of turning into a red card during the test.

I do agree that FFers can and do overthink things on occasion trying to avoid unfavorablee matchups, or exploit favorable ones. That said, as a 10th ranked coach out of 12 teams (according to Sportsline), I can attest that starting the "studs" generally identified at the outset of a FF season doesn't mean you will more often than not play the right guys. Far from it, really.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This is the sort of thing that would normally be posted in May or June rather than in November. But here it is.

(1) You know that there's a 50% turnover rate among top ten fantasy RBs from year to year. (I.e., half of the top ten RBs in 2008 will also be top ten RBs in 2009.) Does that mean your projected top ten RBs for 2009 should have five RBs in it who were top ten in 2008?

(2) In any given week, you think that Vincent Jackson is 75% likely to outscore Ted Ginn in your fantasy league. Does that mean you should start Vincent Jackson 75% of the time and Ted Ginn 25% of the time?

Here's a relevant passage from Robyn Dawes, Rational Choice in an Uncertain World:

"Many psychological experiments were conducted in the late 1950s and early 1960s in which subjects were asked to predict the outcome of an event that had a random component but yet had base-rate predictability - for example, subjects were asked to predict whether the next card the experiment turned over would be red or blue in a context in which 70% of the cards were blue, but in which the sequence of red and blue cards was totally random.

In such a situation, the strategy that will yield the highest proportion of success is to predict the more common event. For example, if 70% of the cards are blue, then predicting blue on every trial yields a 70% success rate.

What subjects tended to do instead, however, was match probabilities - that is, predict the more probable event with the relative frequency with which it occurred. For example, subjects tended to predict 70% of the time that the blue card would occur and 30% of the time that the red card would occur. Such a strategy yields a 58% success rate, because the subjects are correct 70% of the time when the blue card occurs (which happens with probability .70) and 30% of the time when the red card occurs (which happens with probability .30); .70 * .70 + .30 * .30 = .58.

In fact, subjects predict the more frequent event with a slightly higher probability than that with which it occurs, but do not come close to predicting its occurrence 100% of the time, even when they are paid for the accuracy of their predictions... For example, subjects who were paid a nickel for each correct prediction over a thousand trials... predicted [the more common event] 76% of the time."

It's a human tendency to think we're better guessers than we really are."Always start your studs" is better advice than we often think it is. Sure, we might sit LT and feel like geniuses if he is held in check that week. But more often than not, we'll make the wrong decision by outguessing ourselves.

Yes, I think people are overconfident about their ability to predict.I don't think you're example is a fair one, though. For example, if we predict Stud RB to average 20 FP/G and he plays a defense that allows 6 fewer FP/G to RBs than average defenses, and Okay RB averages 10 FP/G but plays a defense that allows 6 more FP/G to RBs than average defenses, then we shouldn't start our stud. But that's got nothing to do with guessing.

I think the 'start your studs' mantra has more to do with thinking my analysis in the preceding paragraph is wrong than thinking "my stud will outscore my backup in 13 of 16 games this year, this is a really tough matchup for my stud, let's bench him since this is probably one of those three weeks."

FF is more complicated than dice (or cards or any other example with easily calculable probabilities).The point is just to be aware that the following erroneous thinking is a normal human tendency:

Based on their matchups and everything else I can think of, I believe Thomas Jones is 60% likely to outperform Ricky Williams this week (and has a higher expected point total). On the other hand, I realize that I pretty much always think Jones is going to outperform Williams, and I also realize that I'm wrong almost half the time. If I start Jones every week in which I think Jones will outscore Williams, I will sometimes be wrong. In order to never be wrong, I should start Williams a few times against my better judgment just to change things up.

That thought process very likely occurs subconsciously. If it occurred consciously, in those explicit terms, we'd realize the error and correct it. So the fact that the error is common suggests that it is subconscious.

If we are consciously aware of this normal human bias, we have a better chance of preventing it from affecting our subconscious thought.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This result reported by Dawes is also quite interesting.

In fact, subjects predict the more frequent event with a slightly higher probability than that with which it occurs, but do not come close to predicting its occurrence 100% of the time, even when they are paid for the accuracy of their predictions... For example, subjects who were paid a nickel for each correct prediction over a thousand trials... predicted [the more common event] 76% of the time."

So people are less likely to make the error (or will make it to a lesser extent) when getting the right answer makes a monetary difference.That goes along with my thinking, as I've stated in the FFA, that people's analytical skills and objectivity are typically at their worst when it comes to politics, religion, and sports fandom. In each of those cases, there's no (earthly) penalty for getting the wrong answer (as long as one is not a sports bettor).(The examples I have in mind regarding sports fandom include the people who think every penalty should be called on the other team. If you're not the ref, there's no penalty for thinking your team never holds but the opposing team always does; so some people think along those lines.)

 

[coolnerd]

This is the sort of thing that would normally be posted in May or June rather than in November. But here it is.

to revisit in the off-season

 

[Rockchild]

I think it has more to do with the game plan than opposing defensive rankings. Granted, most of the time these go hand in hand. The thing is, NFL coaches are pretty good at what they do. They put together a game plan that hopefully the opposing coach won't know is coming. If they did, then they would game plan against it, right?

Anyway, my point is that we never truly know what a team will bring to the table with regards to their offense. I have put up some really big dud games when my QB's team came out with an all out "pound the ball" game plan. There's not much to hope for when your team passes the ball only 20% of the total plays.

The Titan's vs. Bears game last week was a good example. While it's easy to say, "well everyone attacks the Bears through the air - that was easy to predict", though in my mind I had guessed the opposite. I looked at it a little closer and thought that the Bears run defense ranks high because no one really tries to run on them, thus their YPG stay low. I thought that the Titan's would use their all pro offensive line and pound it down the Bear's throat. In fact, I think that the Bears thought this too and rolled up to stop the run at all costs. The Titan's pulled a Princess Bride style I-knew-that-you-knew-that-I-knew game plan and passed the ball all day long. The end result just so happened to be what many thought it would be... without getting too deep into it. But I digress.

Anyway, give me the coaches game plan each week and I will give you an easy fantasy football championship - regardless of how the opposing defense ranks. The fact is that opportunity = fantasy points. If I know the gameplan is to throw the ball 70 times, I'm starting their 1st and 2nd WR and their TE and I'm benching their RB - even if its the Ravens or the Titans.

Another example is the Rams vs Jets last week. Sure they have a terrible pass defense. But they also have a bad run defense so the Jets planned on a run-based game plan. I think the same thing will happen this week with the SF vs St. Louis game. Mike likes to pound the ball. The Rams can't stop the run (or the pass). I look for SF to pound the ball all day long and limit Hill's opportunity to score passing TD's. I could be wrong though to the tune of 320 passing yds and 3 passing TD's. It just all depends on the game plan.

Thursday night, New England ranks about midway against the pass and the run. What will the Jets bring to the table? The safe guess is that they will bring a balanced attack, but that may not help you. In my mind, unless they plan on beating the Pats through the air specifically, I have to bench Favre. But I have no way of predicting this to any reasonable degreee of certainty.

The 49ers may actaully pound the ball this weekend but saying Mike likes to pound the ball is not accurate. He's been decried for NOT running the ball and relying on the pass in the past.

 

[swirvenirvin]

In fact, my worse loss of the year is when I spot-started Greg Olsen the other week vs. the Lions and missed out on Owen Daniels career game. Start your studs indeed.

He had his career game two weeks before that when he played the Lions also

 

[footballsavvy]

I think it has more to do with the game plan than opposing defensive rankings. Granted, most of the time these go hand in hand. The thing is, NFL coaches are pretty good at what they do. They put together a game plan that hopefully the opposing coach won't know is coming. If they did, then they would game plan against it, right?

Anyway, my point is that we never truly know what a team will bring to the table with regards to their offense. I have put up some really big dud games when my QB's team came out with an all out "pound the ball" game plan. There's not much to hope for when your team passes the ball only 20% of the total plays.

The Titan's vs. Bears game last week was a good example. While it's easy to say, "well everyone attacks the Bears through the air - that was easy to predict", though in my mind I had guessed the opposite. I looked at it a little closer and thought that the Bears run defense ranks high because no one really tries to run on them, thus their YPG stay low. I thought that the Titan's would use their all pro offensive line and pound it down the Bear's throat. In fact, I think that the Bears thought this too and rolled up to stop the run at all costs. The Titan's pulled a Princess Bride style I-knew-that-you-knew-that-I-knew game plan and passed the ball all day long. The end result just so happened to be what many thought it would be... without getting too deep into it. But I digress.

Anyway, give me the coaches game plan each week and I will give you an easy fantasy football championship - regardless of how the opposing defense ranks. The fact is that opportunity = fantasy points. If I know the gameplan is to throw the ball 70 times, I'm starting their 1st and 2nd WR and their TE and I'm benching their RB - even if its the Ravens or the Titans.

Another example is the Rams vs Jets last week. Sure they have a terrible pass defense. But they also have a bad run defense so the Jets planned on a run-based game plan. I think the same thing will happen this week with the SF vs St. Louis game. Mike likes to pound the ball. The Rams can't stop the run (or the pass). I look for SF to pound the ball all day long and limit Hill's opportunity to score passing TD's. I could be wrong though to the tune of 320 passing yds and 3 passing TD's. It just all depends on the game plan.

Thursday night, New England ranks about midway against the pass and the run. What will the Jets bring to the table? The safe guess is that they will bring a balanced attack, but that may not help you. In my mind, unless they plan on beating the Pats through the air specifically, I have to bench Favre. But I have no way of predicting this to any reasonable degreee of certainty.

The 49ers may actaully pound the ball this weekend but saying Mike likes to pound the ball is not accurate. He's been decried for NOT running the ball and relying on the pass in the past.

I didn't mean Mike Martz. I mean the other Mike. The one who forced Martz to actually run the ball last Monday.

 

[Rockchild]

I didn't mean Mike Martz. I mean the other Mike. The one who forced Martz to actually run the ball last Monday.

Sorry, misunderstood.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here's a fascinating article in The New Yorker that's relevant to this issue (and to the subject of "expert predictions" in general).

An excerpt:

Tetlock describes an experiment that he witnessed thirty years ago in a Yale classroom. A rat was put in a T-shaped maze. Food was placed in either the right or the left transept of the T in a random sequence such that, over the long run, the food was on the left sixty per cent of the time and on the right forty per cent. Neither the students nor (needless to say) the rat was told these frequencies. The students were asked to predict on which side of the T the food would appear each time. The rat eventually figured out that the food was on the left side more often than the right, and it therefore nearly always went to the left, scoring roughly sixty per cent—D, but a passing grade. The students looked for patterns of left-right placement, and ended up scoring only fifty-two per cent, an F. The rat, having no reputation to begin with, was not embarrassed about being wrong two out of every five tries. But Yale students, who do have reputations, searched for a hidden order in the sequence. They couldn’t deal with forty-per-cent error, so they ended up with almost fifty-per-cent error.

There's a lot more in the article.

 

[Rovers]

Fatally flawed premise. Line up decisions, and drafting decisions are not so easilly defined as any of these overly simplistic studies are. The variables in FF are so much greater that they become almost impossible to quantify. A player is hurt...an RB's O line is missing 3 starters. A QB is facing a tough pass defense without his best WR.

If it were only so easy... the cheese is to the left 60% of the time. FF certainly involves stats and probabilities. But it is not a predictable science, with simplistic probability outcomes. I believe people who don't ahve faith in their ability to make informed decisions are always looking for some majical mathmatical formula to dictate what they should do. Like the people who cry about how a player was ranked by a pay site for a given week, and failed to get many FF points.

There is no majic formula. Sure, you never bench a P Manning. Duh. Never bench your studs. Even if it's Andre Johnson against Revis. But number crunching doesn't win FF prizes. Playing the players who get the most points does. That means projections, matchups and not just historical points production. If this hobby was nothing more than doing mathmatics, I'd quit. Fortunately, it isn't.

 

[CaptainHook]

one important consideration is where your edge comes from. what is it that wins fantasy leagues?

it probably doesn't come from meticulously figuring out every little variable every single week and figuring out which of your two guys has a .1 point edge.

In the first 5 rounds, the value of players is not very far off. People dissect the first 5 rounds unceasingly and ADP gives a very clear picture of true value. (ADP predicts value much more accurately than any of these FF websites would care to admit) Winning comes from rounds 5-15. Getting the boring old guys with extremely high floors (Thomas Jones, Donald Driver) or the young guys with extremely high ceilings. A healthy mix of these two player types is what gives you the points that others are not getting. Not the agonizing last minute decisions that are effectively break-even which people spend hours agonizing over even though if you took a step back there is probably no material difference between the two.

 

[LTsharks]

Fatally flawed premise. Line up decisions, and drafting decisions are not so easilly defined as any of these overly simplistic studies are. The variables in FF are so much greater that they become almost impossible to quantify. A player is hurt...an RB's O line is missing 3 starters. A QB is facing a tough pass defense without his best WR. If it were only so easy... the cheese is to the left 60% of the time. FF certainly involves stats and probabilities. But it is not a predictable science, with simplistic probability outcomes. I believe people who don't ahve faith in their ability to make informed decisions are always looking for some majical mathmatical formula to dictate what they should do. Like the people who cry about how a player was ranked by a pay site for a given week, and failed to get many FF points. There is no majic formula. Sure, you never bench a P Manning. Duh. Never bench your studs. Even if it's Andre Johnson against Revis. But number crunching doesn't win FF prizes. Playing the players who get the most points does. That means projections, matchups and not just historical points production. If this hobby was nothing more than doing mathmatics, I'd quit. Fortunately, it isn't.

Exactly.Suppose you were in a contest with 11 other people. The winner would be the person who predicted the color of the card with the highest percentage. Do you just sit back, do what statistics say, and always call blue? Sure, you should get 70% correct. But don't you have to think that the other 11 guys know that too? And won't one of them get lucky and beat the 70%? If you are playing to win you need to take some chances.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Fatally flawed premise.

Which premise is that?

 

[kaa]

I have some pretty smart friends, and sometimes before I make a decision, I ask myself what they would likely decide. It really seems to help a lot at certain times. I've prevented myself from making bad decisions on occasion doing this.

The best thing for me when I try to predict games is to determine what my "rooting interest" is in the outcome. Then I try to make a strong case for the other team winning. That seems to help a lot.

We all can be affected by biases, even without our knowledge. We have to be humble enough to accept that before we can overcome it.

 

[gorf]

Fatally flawed premise. Line up decisions, and drafting decisions are not so easilly defined as any of these overly simplistic studies are. The variables in FF are so much greater that they become almost impossible to quantify. A player is hurt...an RB's O line is missing 3 starters. A QB is facing a tough pass defense without his best WR. If it were only so easy... the cheese is to the left 60% of the time. FF certainly involves stats and probabilities. But it is not a predictable science, with simplistic probability outcomes. I believe people who don't ahve faith in their ability to make informed decisions are always looking for some majical mathmatical formula to dictate what they should do. Like the people who cry about how a player was ranked by a pay site for a given week, and failed to get many FF points. There is no majic formula. Sure, you never bench a P Manning. Duh. Never bench your studs. Even if it's Andre Johnson against Revis. But number crunching doesn't win FF prizes. Playing the players who get the most points does. That means projections, matchups and not just historical points production. If this hobby was nothing more than doing mathmatics, I'd quit. Fortunately, it isn't.

Exactly.Suppose you were in a contest with 11 other people. The winner would be the person who predicted the color of the card with the highest percentage. Do you just sit back, do what statistics say, and always call blue? Sure, you should get 70% correct. But don't you have to think that the other 11 guys know that too? And won't one of them get lucky and beat the 70%? If you are playing to win you need to take some chances.

yeah, that's not really true. if i'm in that kind of contest, i'd probably call blue all the time and wait for the other guys to screw up.

 

[smashingsilver]

Fatally flawed premise. Line up decisions, and drafting decisions are not so easilly defined as any of these overly simplistic studies are. The variables in FF are so much greater that they become almost impossible to quantify. A player is hurt...an RB's O line is missing 3 starters. A QB is facing a tough pass defense without his best WR. If it were only so easy... the cheese is to the left 60% of the time. FF certainly involves stats and probabilities. But it is not a predictable science, with simplistic probability outcomes. I believe people who don't ahve faith in their ability to make informed decisions are always looking for some majical mathmatical formula to dictate what they should do. Like the people who cry about how a player was ranked by a pay site for a given week, and failed to get many FF points. There is no majic formula. Sure, you never bench a P Manning. Duh. Never bench your studs. Even if it's Andre Johnson against Revis. But number crunching doesn't win FF prizes. Playing the players who get the most points does. That means projections, matchups and not just historical points production. If this hobby was nothing more than doing mathmatics, I'd quit. Fortunately, it isn't.

Exactly.Suppose you were in a contest with 11 other people. The winner would be the person who predicted the color of the card with the highest percentage. Do you just sit back, do what statistics say, and always call blue? Sure, you should get 70% correct. But don't you have to think that the other 11 guys know that too? And won't one of them get lucky and beat the 70%? If you are playing to win you need to take some chanc

yeah, that's not really true. if i'm in that kind of contest, i'd probably call blue all the time and wait for the other guys to screw up.

You should test that out. Find 11 other guys who all understand the point of the challenge and see how long it takes before you start itching to pick red.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

We all can be affected by biases, even without our knowledge. We have to be humble enough to accept that before we can overcome it.

PRECISELY.Know that you don't know it all.

These articles were very interesting. Any of us should see something of ourselves in them and gain some perspective from that.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Fatally flawed premise. Line up decisions, and drafting decisions are not so easilly defined as any of these overly simplistic studies are. The variables in FF are so much greater that they become almost impossible to quantify. A player is hurt...an RB's O line is missing 3 starters. A QB is facing a tough pass defense without his best WR. If it were only so easy... the cheese is to the left 60% of the time. FF certainly involves stats and probabilities. But it is not a predictable science, with simplistic probability outcomes. I believe people who don't ahve faith in their ability to make informed decisions are always looking for some majical mathmatical formula to dictate what they should do. Like the people who cry about how a player was ranked by a pay site for a given week, and failed to get many FF points. There is no majic formula. Sure, you never bench a P Manning. Duh. Never bench your studs. Even if it's Andre Johnson against Revis. But number crunching doesn't win FF prizes. Playing the players who get the most points does. That means projections, matchups and not just historical points production. If this hobby was nothing more than doing mathmatics, I'd quit. Fortunately, it isn't.

It doesn't happen often, but I completly agree with Rovers on this. What's not being taken into account with all of this is that, to use the analogy above, the size of the cheese changes as well. Let's say Andre Johnson is matched up against Revis and I decide to plug in Jerricho Cotchery instead. And I end up being wrong. Chanes are better than average that I'll only be wrong by a very small piece of cheese. Sitting a guy that that scored 4 pts. more than the guy you plugged in isn't the same kinda wrong as sitting a guy that notched 3 scores and 170 yards on your bench. In this study, we're treating right as right and wrong as wrong, when in FF there's degrees of everything.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Fatally flawed premise. Line up decisions, and drafting decisions are not so easilly defined as any of these overly simplistic studies are. The variables in FF are so much greater that they become almost impossible to quantify. A player is hurt...an RB's O line is missing 3 starters. A QB is facing a tough pass defense without his best WR. If it were only so easy... the cheese is to the left 60% of the time. FF certainly involves stats and probabilities. But it is not a predictable science, with simplistic probability outcomes. I believe people who don't ahve faith in their ability to make informed decisions are always looking for some majical mathmatical formula to dictate what they should do. Like the people who cry about how a player was ranked by a pay site for a given week, and failed to get many FF points. There is no majic formula. Sure, you never bench a P Manning. Duh. Never bench your studs. Even if it's Andre Johnson against Revis. But number crunching doesn't win FF prizes. Playing the players who get the most points does. That means projections, matchups and not just historical points production. If this hobby was nothing more than doing mathmatics, I'd quit. Fortunately, it isn't.

It doesn't happen often, but I completly agree with Rovers on this. What's not being taken into account with all of this is that, to use the analogy above, the size of the cheese changes as well. Let's say Andre Johnson is matched up against Revis and I decide to plug in Jerricho Cotchery instead. And I end up being wrong. Chanes are better than average that I'll only be wrong by a very small piece of cheese. Sitting a guy that that scored 4 pts. more than the guy you plugged in isn't the same kinda wrong as sitting a guy that notched 3 scores and 170 yards on your bench. In this study, we're treating right as right and wrong as wrong, when in FF there's degrees of everything.

I think you and Rovers have missed the point.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Fatally flawed premise. Line up decisions, and drafting decisions are not so easilly defined as any of these overly simplistic studies are. The variables in FF are so much greater that they become almost impossible to quantify. A player is hurt...an RB's O line is missing 3 starters. A QB is facing a tough pass defense without his best WR. If it were only so easy... the cheese is to the left 60% of the time. FF certainly involves stats and probabilities. But it is not a predictable science, with simplistic probability outcomes. I believe people who don't ahve faith in their ability to make informed decisions are always looking for some majical mathmatical formula to dictate what they should do. Like the people who cry about how a player was ranked by a pay site for a given week, and failed to get many FF points. There is no majic formula. Sure, you never bench a P Manning. Duh. Never bench your studs. Even if it's Andre Johnson against Revis. But number crunching doesn't win FF prizes. Playing the players who get the most points does. That means projections, matchups and not just historical points production. If this hobby was nothing more than doing mathmatics, I'd quit. Fortunately, it isn't.

It doesn't happen often, but I completly agree with Rovers on this. What's not being taken into account with all of this is that, to use the analogy above, the size of the cheese changes as well. Let's say Andre Johnson is matched up against Revis and I decide to plug in Jerricho Cotchery instead. And I end up being wrong. Chanes are better than average that I'll only be wrong by a very small piece of cheese. Sitting a guy that that scored 4 pts. more than the guy you plugged in isn't the same kinda wrong as sitting a guy that notched 3 scores and 170 yards on your bench. In this study, we're treating right as right and wrong as wrong, when in FF there's degrees of everything.

I think you and Rovers have missed the point.

Maybe I have. What was it?

 

[gorf]

Fatally flawed premise. Line up decisions, and drafting decisions are not so easilly defined as any of these overly simplistic studies are. The variables in FF are so much greater that they become almost impossible to quantify. A player is hurt...an RB's O line is missing 3 starters. A QB is facing a tough pass defense without his best WR. If it were only so easy... the cheese is to the left 60% of the time. FF certainly involves stats and probabilities. But it is not a predictable science, with simplistic probability outcomes. I believe people who don't ahve faith in their ability to make informed decisions are always looking for some majical mathmatical formula to dictate what they should do. Like the people who cry about how a player was ranked by a pay site for a given week, and failed to get many FF points. There is no majic formula. Sure, you never bench a P Manning. Duh. Never bench your studs. Even if it's Andre Johnson against Revis. But number crunching doesn't win FF prizes. Playing the players who get the most points does. That means projections, matchups and not just historical points production. If this hobby was nothing more than doing mathmatics, I'd quit. Fortunately, it isn't.

Exactly.Suppose you were in a contest with 11 other people. The winner would be the person who predicted the color of the card with the highest percentage. Do you just sit back, do what statistics say, and always call blue? Sure, you should get 70% correct. But don't you have to think that the other 11 guys know that too? And won't one of them get lucky and beat the 70%? If you are playing to win you need to take some chanc

yeah, that's not really true. if i'm in that kind of contest, i'd probably call blue all the time and wait for the other guys to screw up.

You should test that out. Find 11 other guys who all understand the point of the challenge and see how long it takes before you start itching to pick red.

i could be wrong, but i don't think i'd lose that often. the premise is that we have 12 guys playing in this contest, and that i'm the only one picking blue all the time. (if someone else is playing blue all the time, we'd be tied until someone took a chance on red -- but if you're smart, you're not the guy taking that chance.) it obviously depends on how many cards we're flipping over, but let's say we have 100 cards, 70 of which are blue, and 30 of which are blue. if we're flipping through the cards, i keep picking blue, and the other guys throw in a red here and there to try to beat the game, i think the odds of any of them beating my 70% are pretty low.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Fatally flawed premise. Line up decisions, and drafting decisions are not so easilly defined as any of these overly simplistic studies are. The variables in FF are so much greater that they become almost impossible to quantify. A player is hurt...an RB's O line is missing 3 starters. A QB is facing a tough pass defense without his best WR. If it were only so easy... the cheese is to the left 60% of the time. FF certainly involves stats and probabilities. But it is not a predictable science, with simplistic probability outcomes. I believe people who don't ahve faith in their ability to make informed decisions are always looking for some majical mathmatical formula to dictate what they should do. Like the people who cry about how a player was ranked by a pay site for a given week, and failed to get many FF points. There is no majic formula. Sure, you never bench a P Manning. Duh. Never bench your studs. Even if it's Andre Johnson against Revis. But number crunching doesn't win FF prizes. Playing the players who get the most points does. That means projections, matchups and not just historical points production. If this hobby was nothing more than doing mathmatics, I'd quit. Fortunately, it isn't.

Exactly.Suppose you were in a contest with 11 other people. The winner would be the person who predicted the color of the card with the highest percentage. Do you just sit back, do what statistics say, and always call blue? Sure, you should get 70% correct. But don't you have to think that the other 11 guys know that too? And won't one of them get lucky and beat the 70%? If you are playing to win you need to take some chanc

yeah, that's not really true. if i'm in that kind of contest, i'd probably call blue all the time and wait for the other guys to screw up.

You should test that out. Find 11 other guys who all understand the point of the challenge and see how long it takes before you start itching to pick red.

i could be wrong, but i don't think i'd lose that often. the premise is that we have 12 guys playing in this contest, and that i'm the only one picking blue all the time. (if someone else is playing blue all the time, we'd be tied until someone took a chance on red -- but if you're smart, you're not the guy taking that chance.) it obviously depends on how many cards we're flipping over, but let's say we have 100 cards, 70 of which are blue, and 30 of which are blue. if we're flipping through the cards, i keep picking blue, and the other guys throw in a red here and there to try to beat the game, i think the odds of any of them beating my 70% are pretty low.

I don't argue what you're saying. But do you really believe this is what you're doing when you never sit your studs in fantasy football?