Why does owning a player make one's opinion suspect? (1 Viewer)

[NeilC]

It seems to be a common practice on fantasy forums to disregard someone's evaluation of a player they own, or to insult an evaluation on the basis of ownership. Why is this the case?

Do we not form our opinions before acquiring players? We are not all assigned players randomly and then form opinions to pump up the players on our roster.

Sure, mistakes are made and there can be a tendency to defend questionable calls we've made in the past. But I would think, predominantly, someone owns a player because they feel strongly the player has positive attributes – not the other way around.

Owning a player should show someone to be a person of conviction. Bias will exist, but putting your money where your mouth is should at the very least serve to balance that bias.

What do others think?

(Sorry if this has been discussed before)

 

[Tom Servo]

IMO, it's because you're perceived as having an interest in the players success much like the guys and gals on stock shows who pimp stocks. In the latter case, they have to disclose if they own the stock they're promoting. Some FBG do disclaim if they own a certain player they're discussing.

My

 

[Jason Wood]

The simple answer is: It doesn't. I think if you're an active participant on this forum, your analysis and biases are out there for everyone to see. I DO think there are inherent biases but as long as people own up to them, more power to them. For example, I'm an Eagles fan, but if anything that leads me to UNDERvaluing Eagles fantasy players. But as long as I'm aware of that, it can not get in the way of any type of conversation.

I think the issue comes into play moreso when someone discusses the outlook for a player and rather than citing fundamental reasons for their outlook, they proclaim something based on 'feeling' or 'instinct' or 'using their eyes' which, in turn, invites the questions about their bias.

 

[NeilC]

The simple answer is: It doesn't. I think if you're an active participant on this forum, your analysis and biases are out there for everyone to see. I DO think there are inherent biases but as long as people own up to them, more power to them. For example, I'm an Eagles fan, but if anything that leads me to UNDERvaluing Eagles fantasy players. But as long as I'm aware of that, it can not get in the way of any type of conversation.I think the issue comes into play moreso when someone discusses the outlook for a player and rather than citing fundamental reasons for their outlook, they proclaim something based on 'feeling' or 'instinct' or 'using their eyes' which, in turn, invites the questions about their bias.

I agree, especially if there is a lack of rationale presented. It just seems to be a blanket statement that is used too often to dismiss evaluation of all kinds.

 

[sholditch]

bias

 

[chris1969]

I disagree respectfully with most of whats been posted so far. I believe that if you made a conscience choice to draft 1 guy over another, you already have a bias. People tend to be a little slow in changing a bias. So when that guy you passed by outperforms your guy, you start looking for what are reasons in your mind and excuses in everyone elses. The next step is when you except maybe, just maybe what you think might be wrong. You then make a post looking for analysis from others in the shark pool. You either compare him to someone else or ask others for reasons why he's underperformed your expectations. You then finally trade your pick away and admit your mistakes and then proceed to trash your genius pick every chance you get by telling everyone how he screwed up your team, but you made a great choice, you just didn't anticipate that injury, or up-and-coming player, ect...

As far as the homerism thing Jason brought up, I think most homers hype their team on the boards, but undervalue them at their draft. At least the ones that I pay attention to. Homers are a great source of info, for the unknown sleeper or camp news, but stay away from homer projections, they usually don't go by their own projections on the home team. I'd rather listen to the reasons for their projections, and come up with my own conclusions. I'll pay a little more attention to the guy that admits he's a homer as a disclaimer in the beginning than a homer that doesn't admit it. Also if the homer is from an opposing team in your division, your obligated to go as much as possible.

Sorry Steeler fans

 

[SSOG]

I disagree respectfully with most of whats been posted so far. I believe that if you made a conscience choice to draft 1 guy over another, you already have a bias. People tend to be a little slow in changing a bias. So when that guy you passed by outperforms your guy, you start looking for what are reasons in your mind and excuses in everyone elses. The next step is when you except maybe, just maybe what you think might be wrong. You then make a post looking for analysis from others in the shark pool. You either compare him to someone else or ask others for reasons why he's underperformed your expectations. You then finally trade your pick away and admit your mistakes and then proceed to trash your genius pick every chance you get by telling everyone how he screwed up your team, but you made a great choice, you just didn't anticipate that injury, or up-and-coming player, ect...

So what are you saying? Are you saying that you'd rather listen to someone who thinks a player is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but who hasn't acquired that player? If the owner himself isn't buying what he's selling, you bet your butt that I'm not going to.Playing the "You're obviously a ______ owner" card is just a tactic that people use when they're way out of their league in a discussion. Rather than debating the merits of a player, they resort to ad hominem attacks to try to discredit the other party. It's a logical fallacy, it's ridiculously annoying, it adds nothing to the discussion, and it's generally the last resort of people who are merely parroting what they've heard others say rather than genuinely thinking for themselves. If they were real sharks, they'd start backing up their side of the argument and let the other owner worry about his side.Here's a novel concept- how about we all just evaluate everyone else's points based on THE MERITS OF THE POINTS THEMSELVES rather than worrying about pointless peripherals like who I happen to end up with on one of my half dozen fantasy squads. I mean, if I'm unfit to objectively discuss any player that I own in any of my leagues, I guess that means I'm pretty much supposed to limit my discussion to Chris Chambers.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Generally it's mudslinging your opponent when you have nothing else to debate with.

Judge by the merit of their argument, not the makeup of their roster.

 

[BGP]

It seems to be a common practice on fantasy forums to disregard someone's evaluation of a player they own, or to insult an evaluation on the basis of ownership. Why is this the case?

Do we not form our opinions before acquiring players? We are not all assigned players randomly and then form opinions to pump up the players on our roster.

Sure, mistakes are made and there can be a tendency to defend questionable calls we've made in the past. But I would think, predominantly, someone owns a player because they feel strongly the player has positive attributes – not the other way around.

Owning a player should show someone to be a person of conviction. Bias will exist, but putting your money where your mouth is should at the very least serve to balance that bias.

What do others think?

(Sorry if this has been discussed before)

I think its natural for a lot of people to hold strong biases. People are naturally judgmental, even before learning all the facts. Look at how so many are ready to either condemn or absolve Michael Vick. A rational mind is going to only say, "Well, let the trial happen first". So few do. I think that's a very fair litmus test. I know I cannot trust the opinions of anyone who has already decided that Vick is either guilty or innocent right now. Such a person lets their biases cloud their reason.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

I disagree respectfully with most of whats been posted so far. I believe that if you made a conscience choice to draft 1 guy over another, you already have a bias. People tend to be a little slow in changing a bias. So when that guy you passed by outperforms your guy, you start looking for what are reasons in your mind and excuses in everyone elses. The next step is when you except maybe, just maybe what you think might be wrong. You then make a post looking for analysis from others in the shark pool. You either compare him to someone else or ask others for reasons why he's underperformed your expectations. You then finally trade your pick away and admit your mistakes and then proceed to trash your genius pick every chance you get by telling everyone how he screwed up your team, but you made a great choice, you just didn't anticipate that injury, or up-and-coming player, ect...

So what are you saying? Are you saying that you'd rather listen to someone who thinks a player is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but who hasn't acquired that player? If the owner himself isn't buying what he's selling, you bet your butt that I'm not going to.Playing the "You're obviously a ______ owner" card is just a tactic that people use when they're way out of their league in a discussion. Rather than debating the merits of a player, they resort to ad hominem attacks to try to discredit the other party. It's a logical fallacy, it's ridiculously annoying, it adds nothing to the discussion, and it's generally the last resort of people who are merely parroting what they've heard others say rather than genuinely thinking for themselves. If they were real sharks, they'd start backing up their side of the argument and let the other owner worry about his side.

Here's a novel concept- how about we all just evaluate everyone else's points based on THE MERITS OF THE POINTS THEMSELVES rather than worrying about pointless peripherals like who I happen to end up with on one of my half dozen fantasy squads. I mean, if I'm unfit to objectively discuss any player that I own in any of my leagues, I guess that means I'm pretty much supposed to limit my discussion to Chris Chambers.

You're obviously biased against Chris Chambers, seeing that he's the only player you don't own. Why would I want to hear what you have to say about him?!

 

[Domination]

I think that people overrate their respective players, because they think that they have assembled a good team and the only way for their team to succeed is if their players do. I try not to blame anyone for this, because I think that most of the time it is subconsciously that this is done. I do not think that this is draft related, but I do think that it comes into play when refering to projections. Just my .

 

[Tom Servo]

As far as the homerism thing Jason brought up, I think most homers hype their team on the boards, but undervalue them at their draft. At least the ones that I pay attention to. Homers are a great source of info, for the unknown sleeper or camp news, but stay away from homer projections, they usually don't go by their own projections on the home team. I'd rather listen to the reasons for their projections, and come up with my own conclusions. I'll pay a little more attention to the guy that admits he's a homer as a disclaimer in the beginning than a homer that doesn't admit it. Also if the homer is from an opposing team in your division, your obligated to go as much as possible.Sorry Steeler fans :X

Of course, the Browns would have to have someone worth drafting for you to be in this position...

 

[bostonfred]

I actively root against Frank Gore because my league rival has him. I never expected him to do that last year, and I think he's overrated this year. Am I biased? I don't know. I have no idea if I'm overestimating the impact of Norv Turner, or of the hand injury, or of the fact that I think Gore had an unusually high number of "lucky" runs last year, or the fact that he doesn't get TDs, but I wouldn't take Gore until well after some of the guys I like better. It's rare you'll find me posting about him.

Maybe my opinion should be suspect because I don't own him.

 

[Sidewinder16]

Maybe my opinion should be suspect because I don't own him.

This is a great point, BF.Bias can and does run both ways. Is it true that owners of certain players "overvalue" those players? Probably. But then it's also probably true that FFers who don't own certain players "undervalue" those players.

Everybody has some sort of bias on their view on any particular player. There is a reason, after all, why we choose to have on our teams the players we do.

 

[Kit Fisto]

Playing the "You're obviously a ______ owner" card is just a tactic that people use when they're way out of their league in a discussion. Rather than debating the merits of a player, they resort to ad hominem attacks to try to discredit the other party. It's a logical fallacy, it's ridiculously annoying, it adds nothing to the discussion, and it's generally the last resort of people who are merely parroting what they've heard others say rather than genuinely thinking for themselves. If they were real sharks, they'd start backing up their side of the argument and let the other owner worry about his side.

Or maybe people just don't have the time (or desire) to argue all day on an anonymous internet message board.

 

[Kit Fisto]

Maybe my opinion should be suspect because I don't own him.

This is a great point, BF.Bias can and does run both ways. Is it true that owners of certain players "overvalue" those players? Probably. But then it's also probably true that FFers who don't own certain players "undervalue" those players.

Everybody has some sort of bias on their view on any particular player. There is a reason, after all, why we choose to have on our teams the players we do.

Sidewinder.

BostonFred.

 

[SSOG]

Playing the "You're obviously a ______ owner" card is just a tactic that people use when they're way out of their league in a discussion. Rather than debating the merits of a player, they resort to ad hominem attacks to try to discredit the other party. It's a logical fallacy, it's ridiculously annoying, it adds nothing to the discussion, and it's generally the last resort of people who are merely parroting what they've heard others say rather than genuinely thinking for themselves. If they were real sharks, they'd start backing up their side of the argument and let the other owner worry about his side.

Or maybe people just don't have the time (or desire) to argue all day on an anonymous internet message board.

Spoken like a true __________ owner. I'm fine if people don't have the time (or desire) to argue about a player. I have nothing wrong with that. If you *DON'T* have the time or desire, though, then do us all a favor and STAY OUT OF THE DISCUSSION. Don't pop in, drop a quick personal attack, and then leave. That contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion, it's just pissing in the pool. I mean, imagine if I just popped into threads where you had posted and said "I really have nothing to say about what we're talking about except that Kit Fisto is wholly unqualified to say anything in this discussion, and you should all ignore anything that he might have already said". I imagine that would piss you off. That's essentially what people are doing when they play the "______ owner" card (and the "Gee, does your league have any openings?" card, too, for that matter).

 

[redman]

It's really dependent upon which owner you're talking about. It's worth knowing because some people will color their predictions/forecasts with their hopes which can lead to overly rosy predictions. Some others are near-worshipers of certain players and will always draft them (e.g. Vince Young), so their impressions are especially colored by personal bias.

OTOH, acquiring a player implies the owner put their money where their mouth is, and that they did so after having done some research into the matter. I know I certainly tend to follow more closely the players who are on my rosters, so hopefully my input into those players' circumstances is more knowledgeable for it.

 

[Kit Fisto]

I understand your arguement SSOG, but you can't expect the masses to conform to someone else's standards. It comes with the territory of posting on an anonymous board.

I have a buddy who won't post on message boards at all, because all he does is get enraged by flame-throwing, basement-dwellers looking to pick fights. Par for the course, I guess.

BTW, I enjoy reading your posts; even as long as they sometimes can be...

 

[Christo]

Generally it's mudslinging your opponent when you have nothing else to debate with.Judge by the merit of their argument, not the makeup of their roster.

Those claiming a bias on the part of owners are not really thinking this thing through. It is in my best interest as an owner to have an objective view of all of the players on my roster. Otherwise I'm doing myself a disservice.Besides, why do people think an owner has to automatically have a bias in favor of a player on their roster? (I assume people are mostly thinking owners will pump up players on their own roster) Maybe they are down on a player who's failed to life up to their expectations. And why shouldn't we assume the opposite? That a non-owner would have an automatic bias against a player that is not on their roster.

 

[bostonfred]

Generally it's mudslinging your opponent when you have nothing else to debate with.

Judge by the merit of their argument, not the makeup of their roster.

Those claiming a bias on the part of owners are not really thinking this thing through. It is in my best interest as an owner to have an objective view of all of the players on my roster. Otherwise I'm doing myself a disservice.Besides, why do people think an owner has to automatically have a bias in favor of a player on their roster? (I assume people are mostly thinking owners will pump up players on their own roster) Maybe they are down on a player who's failed to life up to their expectations. And why shouldn't we assume the opposite? That a non-owner would have an automatic bias against a player that is not on their roster.

Well, there's definitely some bias. Once you have a player on your roster, you're going to be less inclined to believe that you made a mistake than that the guy has just been unlucky so far. Last year, that inclination might have led you to start Dominic Rhodes for longer than you should have, or to be too optimistic about Eli Manning or Bernard Berrian in the second half of the season. You might also get too frustrated with Cadillac Williams or post-injury Clinton Portis to be able to make a rational decision. And even if you think you're good enough not to make that mistake, it doesn't mean others aren't. So it's reasonable to take the owners' opinions with a grain of salt. I think a lot of us overestimate how big a grain of salt, though, because we've seen what happens when we've tried to trade for a player. I might like Jones-Drew this year (I don't), but if I tried to trade for him right now, the Jones-Drew owner would probably want more than I'm willing to give. I look at him as a bottom of the second kind of player. I think that's where he belongs. But I also know that a lot of people see him as a top of the second, or even bottom of the first kind of player. Those people would never trade him to me for what I think is fair value. And if we talked trade about him, his owner would say, he did so well sharing time last year that he won me a championship, and he's going to do even better this year. Clearly we have a disconnect.

I also think you need to be careful with people who don't own him. If you want an objective opinion of Jones-Drew, I might not be the best person to give you that. I've already made up my mind - I think he's overrated. He had a great end to the season, he had an unusually high YPC that I doubt he will be able to repeat, and Jacksonville as a team rushed for about 30% higher total yards than they had done in the past five years. Their center is hurt, Taylor just got a big contract, the league is going to copycat what Reggie Bush and Deuce McAllister did together, and so on.

Does that invalidate the other owner's opinion? Not at all. He might point out something I hadn't considered, like the fact that while I perceive the Jaguars as a defensive team, they were actually the third best rushing team in the league last year, and that the reason was because they had quarterback problems last year. Since they're going to have QB problems again, you should expect them to run the ball just as much as they did two years ago. Or I might point out something he hadn't considered, like the fact that the Jaguars had 600 more yards last year than they did the two prior years under Del Rio, and ended up with their worst record of the three. Those are all facts, and they help us make valid, objective decisions.

I don't care if you root for the team, if you watch every game, if you just looked everything up on http://pro-football-reference.com , or if you own the player. I read posts that have facts. I watch the players, but I don't trust the opinions of other people who watch the players, even if they use fancy words and comparisons. Anyone who lived through the comparisons between Quentin Griffin and Barry Sanders, where people might not have pointed out that he was playing the anemic Chiefs defense, knows that the collective Shark Pool opinion on the player's running ability can be flawed. But if you can make a good case for why the player will do well in the future, I'll absolutely listen.

 

[SSOG]

I understand your arguement SSOG, but you can't expect the masses to conform to someone else's standards. It comes with the territory of posting on an anonymous board.

Expect? No, I don't expect the masses, especially the faceless masses of the internet, to play nice and show some class. I don't expect the average joe to know anything about logical fallacies and how to avoid them. I certainly don't expect any of the current users of the "you must be a _______ owner" tactic to read this post and re-evaluate their position as a result. Expect most definitely isn't the word I'd use there; I'd probably go for something more like "hope", or "dream". That's fine by me, though- there's nothing wrong with a little wishful thinking every now and again.

BTW, I enjoy reading your posts; even as long as they sometimes can be...

I must admit, you have me dead to rights. If brevity really is the soul of wit, then maybe all those who call me witless have more of a point than they realize.