Missouri/Missouri and BIWH

[DOUGHBOYS]

We are an odd sort, aren't we?
Last year, there were questions as to whether Jose Bautista had a 'lucky' 54 home run campaign. There were over/unders of whether he would even hit 35 home runs the next year. There were charges of using performance enhancing drugs. We could not grasp the fact that a utility player could come out of nowhere and hit 54 home runs. Some, pointed to the last months of the 2009 season. Some, to advice he had gotten from a batting coach. There had to be an explanation.
I remember cussing at Bautista in 2005. Long before he was the Jose Bautista that we know today. I had a team that was doing well in the overall. It was September when every stat is magnified. Roger Clemens was throwing against Pittsburgh and came unglued after giving up a home run to this pipsqueak of a hitter.
No, it doesn't make me feel any better today that Bautista is now more than a pipsqueak.
Bautista started his 54 homer season by batting in the leadoff spot. Not only did fantasy folks miss out on what was to come, his own team didn't know what they had.
Like us fantasy players, the Blue Jays would later say that they saw the power coming.
Blah, blah, blah.
Truth be told, he shocked everybody. Nobody knew nuttin'. The Blue Jays were as clueless as we were.

Fast forward to this off season.
Jose Bautista is the number one 3b on most every board. No questions.
In fact, he may be one of the few players who hits 11 less home runs in a season, while rising from the second round to top five picks in some drafts.
Why? Because now, he is trusted. Missouri/Missouri is in effect. He has shown us twice.
In fantasy it is, what have you done for me lately?....twice.

In the meantime, Adam Dunn hits 40 home runs every year as consistently as one can hit 40 home runs a year. Last year the wheels fell off...along with the frame, suspension, and spokes. Dunn was a complete mess.
Was it the American League?
Was it the DH?
Was it playing or being around Ozzie Guillen?
Was it a new, big contract?
It doesn't matter. Dunn has lost the trust of all drafters. Sure, he'll be taken in all of our drafts. And the guy that drafts him will speak of the potential. The years before last year.
The problem for some of us is that Missouri/Missouri works in reverse as well. Dunn will be taken above last years stat line because he has only shown us that he was awful once. Some have to be shown twice.

There are players that do not adhere to Missouri/Missouri at all. Guys like Alex Rios and Vernon Wells and Jason Bay. These guys are coin flips. We can pick out the 'best of Rios' stats to explain drafting him, but we have no clue how he'll perform this season. He has a big contract in his back pocket. Like Wells. And like Bay.
Players like these do not seem motivated. They're seemingly content hitting .230 or .280
If taking Rios this year, we can rationale that a new Manager may get him motivated. Same with Wells, we can rationale that he'll be energized by Pujols being in the lineup or that Bay will be given a break by the fences being moved in.
We're clutching at straws. Sometimes, we just draft a player and hope for the best. We won't admit it. We can't. We have to have a reason for everything. Sometimes during a draft though, we take a player because of the BIWH factor.
It's a factor that nobody talks about. A factor that led some Bautista led teams to Championships last year and some Adam Dunn teams to dismal finishes.
The BIWH factor is used in probably every draft by every drafter. Yet, we never admit it and would rather use numbers or theory to back up our choices. In the end, BIWH overrides any statisic known to fantasy play. It also overrides any strategy or theory.
So, what is the BIWH factor?
It's the one factor we've kept in our arsenal since we were Yahoo Kids and the one factor we will have when we play our last fantasy game.
BIWH is, 'Because I Wanted Him'.

[OaktownSteve]

Reading this post made me think of something called "the argumentative theory of reason." You can check it out for yourself here: http://edge.org/conversation/the-argumentative-theory. The argumentative theory suggests that reason isn't particularly reasonable; reason's main function is actually to win arguments (with other people and with yourself).

There's a great Foster Brooks joke that goes, "I got a great reason for showin' up here drunk this evening folks. (Pause) Been drinkin' all day." Reason has several shades; we think of it as the cause of something, but there's also a slightly different nuance where it means the explanation for something...perhaps even the excuse. Maybe lining up our excuses is also how we decide things.

Consider the "argument": Player X is in a walk year, therefore he will play harder, therefore he will play better. It takes 9 seconds of googling to turn up an article called "The Myth Of The Contract Year Slugger". Still, even when you're faced with numbers that say there's no contract year bump, it's hard not to want to use it as a reason to draft a guy. We need reasons for things, even when those reasons don't make sense.

It's how our brain works. We make up these little stories in our heads, "well he had a low BABIP and he got married last year plus he plays in a great park." Kind of a lot of hooey. If there were a formula, somebody would have found it. But the reasons sure are comforting. Heck, if your reasons turn up being wrong, the first thing you do is go find more reasons to square up to reality. "Oh yeah, now I see he has a history of low BABIP back in the minors and he's got a low line drive rate, plus marriage ain't for everyone."

I like your BIWH. It's a hunch rather than a reason. There's a lot of research out there that says sometimes hunches are better than reasons. But even with hunches, you have reasons. What makes them hunches is that you don't know what your reasons are. They're subconscious, but they're there. You don't just pull this stuff out of thin air.

Sometimes reasons are better than hunches, and sometimes hunches are better than reasons. What I like best are truths, but those are few, far between, and sometimes tough to spot.

[OaktownSteve]

"Because its sense of self is only ever garnered from identifying with the images of these others (or itself in the mirror, as a kind of other), Lacan argues that it demonstrably belongs to humans to desire—directly—as or through another or others. We get a sense of his meaning when we consider such social phenomena as fashion. As the squabbling of children more readily testifies, it is fully possible for an object to become desirable for individuals because they perceive that others desire it, such that when these others’ desire is withdrawn, the object also loses its allure."

This is a quote about the philosophy of a guy name Jacques Lacan. You can read more about Lacan here:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/lacweb/

Your thoughts here have me thinking more about why we want players. BIWH, like I said, doesn't come from thin air.

Lacan is right in that all of us feel that primal tug of wanting something that others want. That's why we look at ADP. But we, some of us anyway, are a bit more sophisticated than children. After we look at ADP, we immediately look for the guy the other guy won't want. These days, we're so immersed in economic theory, we all want to go looking for value.

But looking for value and being slave to ADP are just flip sides of the same coin.

Of course what's toughest is to say, "I think this, regardless of what anybody else thinks." And to really mean it. And more importantly to know why you mean it. We all recognize that it takes a kind of courage to go against the crowd, but there's another kind of courage to be entirely removed from the crowd doing your own thing.

I think that, as with a lot of things in life, the best players I've seen in fantasy are nonconformists or outright iconoclasts. In any baseball season, there are so many players that nobody saw coming (even with the vast amount of touting going around the internet). Not that they were the subject of sleeper posts, but that nobody said a word about them. By and large you look at the best players teams and you see a couple of those guys. And not just once. Season after season. I think in order to find these guys, you have to know how to look (through your own eyes). It's harder than you think.

The problem is, only history will show you if you were an iconoclast or a crackpot.

[KJ Duke]

Oaktown - where have you been hiding? Great commentary; always intrigued by discussions about how and why we make the decisions we make.

And Dan, the catalyst. One way or another, baseball teaches every lesson you need to learn in life.

[Edwards Kings]

Lacan is right in that all of us feel that primal tug of wanting something that others want. That's why we look at ADP. But we, some of us anyway, are a bit more sophisticated than children. After we look at ADP, we immediately look for the guy the other guy won't want. These days, we're so immersed in economic theory, we all want to go looking for value.

But looking for value and being slave to ADP are just flip sides of the same coin.

Great post.

But there is another set of "desires" to consider. Risk of loss.

My desire is not so much wanting what others want though with a small, finite pool of options, desires conflict and intersect. I know what I want and mostly do not care what others do. With a background in finance, I use ADP to help me determine opportunity cost. Call it value if you must because the goal is always to accumulate (at least perceived) requisite stats to win. But opportunity cost is more about not losing value by sacrificing what could have been gained (i.e. why take one of two skill sets, when by managing opportunity cost you could get both). "Risk" means it does not always work, but it is less coveting what others want and more about not leaving "value" on the table.

[OaktownSteve]

But there is another set of "desires" to consider. Risk of loss.

My desire is not so much wanting what others want though with a small, finite pool of options, desires conflict and intersect. I know what I want and mostly do not care what others do. With a background in finance, I use ADP to help me determine opportunity cost. Call it value if you must because the goal is always to accumulate (at least perceived) requisite stats to win. But opportunity cost is more about not losing value by sacrificing what could have been gained (i.e. why take one of two skill sets, when by managing opportunity cost you could get both). "Risk" means it does not always work, but it is less coveting what others want and more about not leaving "value" on the table.

Risk is such an amazing topic. Risk tolerance versus loss aversion. I'll probably be thinking about it all day now.

I understand what you're saying and don't entirely disagree. On the one hand, we are able to use the information to anticipate how others will apply their resources (draft picks or auction dollars) so that we can formulate a rough plan for how we will proceed. However, knowing the ADP colors our perception of players whether we like it or not.

A good fantasy player is not going to be analgous to the squabbling children in the quote about Lacan. I kind of just used that as a way into my idea, but in grown ups the principle opperates more subtly. It is just important to know that that squabbling child exists within us. In other words, wanting what others want is a default setting, psychologically speaking. We are biologically programed to place value on what others value. It takes psychological effort to move away from that perception of value. That's why I go back to the notion that paying as little attention to ADP as possible perhaps gives you a clearer view of each player for what he is, helping to spot hidden flaws or talents. In my observation, often times those that show true mastery seem to do this distancing from the populuar view rather easily. Then we'll sit back after the fact and say, "how did he see that guy coming when nobody else did?"

[DOUGHBOYS]

I'm not usually a 'I told you so' type guy, Steve, but Dude, you gotta post more!
Piggyback my stuff all you want!
Great stuff!

I've got a story too.
Five years ago at a live draft for the NFBC, we wrapped it up and I headed to a fella in our draft who was talking to some folks who were also in our same draft. This guy was telling everybody about how the players he had picked had perfectly matched all of his projected goals.
Now, I am a 'feel out' sorta drafter. I just think I know the right kind of players to mix and match, so projections are worthless to me. This fella was clearly a guy who thought had not only a chance to win league, but the Overall, simply because he had reached his projected goals in every category. He was a happy camper. Almost ecstatic.

On the way home from the draft, I started doubting myself and choices for my team. This guy was sooo confident in his selections and I did the usual for me, glass half empty routine.
To make a longer story shorter, I won that league and finished high in the Overall, while his team finished in the middle of the pack.
It taught me a lesson. Actually, more than one.
The most important of which is that NOBODY, not Lindy, not Jupinka, not even this fella I drafted with, wins their league or the Overall on Draft Day.
Projections, well, they're just projections. Most are made without thoughts of injury or failure.
I'm also happier being pessimistic than optimistic. That sentence sounds awkward, but I like the feeling of painting myself in a corner and trying to get out, rather than thinking I can have my choice between three doors to riches.

I also learned that even though some boast on these Boards (although not this year) that they know who is going to be great next year, I know that's bunk. Nobody 'knows'. Some project with confidence that they have the answers. A little like the candidates running for President. As long as they look confident in stating certain goals or objectives, some folks are drawn to them and will believe in them. But, whether it's a broken leg for our first rounder in our game or a foreign country bombing Hawaii for the politicians, a lot of occurrences in the future cannot be accounted for. And it is only then that we learn the true mettle of the drafter or leaders in Government.

Well, isn't that the longest 'I told you so' in history!
Sorry, got off to a jag.
Steve, keep posting.
These Boards need more good posters and you're certainly off to a great start.
Keep up the good work!

[Edwards Kings]

But there is another set of "desires" to consider. Risk of loss.

My desire is not so much wanting what others want though with a small, finite pool of options, desires conflict and intersect. I know what I want and mostly do not care what others do. With a background in finance, I use ADP to help me determine opportunity cost. Call it value if you must because the goal is always to accumulate (at least perceived) requisite stats to win. But opportunity cost is more about not losing value by sacrificing what could have been gained (i.e. why take one of two skill sets, when by managing opportunity cost you could get both). "Risk" means it does not always work, but it is less coveting what others want and more about not leaving "value" on the table.

Risk is such an amazing topic. Risk tolerance versus loss aversion. I'll probably be thinking about it all day now.

I understand what you're saying and don't entirely disagree. On the one hand, we are able to use the information to anticipate how others will apply their resources (draft picks or auction dollars) so that we can formulate a rough plan for how we will proceed. However, knowing the ADP colors our perception of players whether we like it or not.

A good fantasy player is not going to be analgous to the squabbling children in the quote about Lacan. I kind of just used that as a way into my idea, but in grown ups the principle opperates more subtly. It is just important to know that that squabbling child exists within us. In other words, wanting what others want is a default setting, psychologically speaking. We are biologically programed to place value on what others value. It takes psychological effort to move away from that perception of value. That's why I go back to the notion that paying as little attention to ADP as possible perhaps gives you a clearer view of each player for what he is, helping to spot hidden flaws or talents. In my observation, often times those that show true mastery seem to do this distancing from the populuar view rather easily. Then we'll sit back after the fact and say, "how did he see that guy coming when nobody else did?"

Nicely put. I will make one further point however. As you have rightly assessed, we should not want a player just because a player is wanted by someone else (funny how your post made me remember how my son always fought his older sister for possession of a baby doll, not because he liked baby dolls, but because his sister liked baby dolls!). However, once you have made your player assessments, I think ADP's are a great tool that can be used in your strategy...kind of a step two in the more mature process.

Great posts.

[OaktownSteve]

Dough your story is a good one. Lots of material in there. One thing that caught my eye was, "...(t)he most important of which is that NOBODY, not Lindy, not Jupinka, not even this fella I drafted with, wins their league or the Overall on Draft Day."

A lot of times I hear people say, "you can't win it in the auction, but you can lose it." Sounds good, but is it true and if it is, why is it true?

I thought about a guy named Richard Teichmann. Here he is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Teichmann. Teichmann was a chess grandmaster who kind of specialized in things that were sort of almost there. He was a very good chess player who beat many of his peers, but who never could quite beat the two top players. He only had one eye and was known to retire from chess tournaments because of the ailments. Wonder why a guy wouldn't be able to play chess because he was partially blind. He was even born on Dec. 24th, I just noticed. Not quite Christmas. The quote of his I like is "chess is 99% tactics." Not quite all tactics.

The words tactics and strategy sometimes get used interchangably. When Teichmann is talking about tactics in chess, he means going, "if I go there then he goes there then I go there then he goes there..." over and over in your head before you move. It's the details. In fantasy, the tactical is steering your ship all year. That's how you win it. Keeping your eye on the other guy and playing smart with the resources you have. Waivers but also not cutting guys too soon. Course adjustment in the categories early rather than too late. That kind of thing.

Strategy means, your battle plan. Roster construction. High level stuff. What are you going to emphasize and what's your style? Balanced or trying to game the system with a punt or something. I tend to think of the auction as the place you define your strategy.

What maybe Teichmann was missing was his 1% percent strategy. Maybe that's what kept him from being really great.

What I mean to say is that when people say that you can't win it, but you can lose it in the auction, I think the way that you lose is if you have no strategy for how to get the points you'll need in the categories to win the game. If you look at the roster at the end and say, "uh oh...I can't get there from here." But in reality, strategic errors are not always fatal. I don't think you can lose on draft day without being a dunce with some bright idea like "The 9 Closer Plan."

But you can put yourself in good position or dig yourself a hole depending on how well your draft goes strategically. Great tactical playing can save you. But what I think great strategic play gives you is the ability to always be in the game and be consistent. Give yourself a chance by virtue of your understanding of how the game works and how you want to approach it.

[OaktownSteve]

Oaktown - where have you been hiding? Great commentary; always intrigued by discussions about how and why we make the decisions we make.

And Dan, the catalyst. One way or another, baseball teaches every lesson you need to learn in life.

Thanks for the nice words. I'm also interested in why we make the decisions we make. One of the thinkers I'm into right now is a guy named Daniel Kahneman. Like you said, baseball teaches all lessons. When I read what he's talking about, I use fantasy baseball to make myself an analogy.

He's got this concept called "Prospect Theory." Right away, I'm interested because "prospect" is a loaded word in fantasy baseball. Here's Prospect Theory explained: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/prospect.htm.

It says, how you view risk depends on your frame of reference:

"For example, when given a choice between getting $1000 with certainty or having a 50% chance of getting $2500 they may well choose the certain $1000 in preference to the uncertain chance of getting $2500 even though the mathematical expectation of the uncertain option is $1250. This is a perfectly reasonable attitude that is described as risk-aversion. But Kahneman and Tversky found that the same people when confronted with a certain loss of $1000 versus a 50% chance of no loss or a $2500 loss do often choose the risky alternative. This is called risk-seeking behavior. This is not necessarily irrational but it is important for analysts to recognize the asymmetry of human choices."

One of my favorite quotes is from Anais Nin: "we do not see the world as it is, we see it as we are."

In fantasy baseball we all know that there are players who love prospects and those who hate them. The one's that hate them are like the one's that take the sure $1000 in the first example above. Classic risk aversion. The prospect lovers ae the one's who are the risk seekers.

You seek risk when you are fundamentally an optimist or deluded: "This will work out, you'll see!" You avoid risk when you are fundamentally a pessimist or resigned: "Let's plan for the worst!" Both can work. We see risk as we are; our perception of risk is clouded by our personalities. You need to know yourself well enough to know how you are framing things and to use the numbers to check your biases.

[OaktownSteve]

I stumbled into this today:

player A, ADP 152 (2b eligible): less than 1 year MLB experience. 162 game mlb averages: 84 runs/3 hr/60 rbi/37 sb/.303 avg

player B, ADP 461(3b eligible): 10 years mlb experience. 162 game avg over 10 seasons: 94/5/54/46!/.280


I'll add that both may bat lead off for a so-so line up in the AL West in a bad ball park and you can figure out who I mean.

There's a really interesting thing called "recency bias". Here's a nice write up:

http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/ ... ike-today/

It's a fancy way of saying, "what have you done for me lately?"