The day of the draft...
1) At least 25% of teams don't subscribe to the late round quarterback strategy.
2) No one is afraid of Arian Foster's injuries or lack of a preseason.
3) You can buy a kicker in the first round.
4) Mock auctions are kinda boring and not that useful.
5) There are still people that love Darren McFadden.
6) There are a lot of guys I just don't want on my fantasy teams.
Those are a few things I learned by mock drafting auction style over the past couple days. See, I have my first ever real auction draft tonight (Friday Aug 23). I don't play in a ton of leagues, but I am passionate and competitive about the few I have, so obviously I want to draft well tonight. If you find yourself in a similar spot I cannot recommend enough the RotoViz Guide to Value Based Auctions. Thus armed with some strategies to test, I started mock drafting and well, stopped. I shouldn't say they're totally useless, it's good to get a handle on the format of the site you're using. The problem is that some guys only stay in for the first few rounds, blow their budget on 3-4 guys and leave. It doesn't give you an accurate picture of current value or allow you to fully play through a strategy. It's perfectly understandable, because this type of auction takes a LONG time to get through, but still.
I have, however, managed to figure a few things out. My draft tonight is a 12 team PPR league (otherwise standard) that starts QB, 2RB, 3WR, TE, RB/WR/TE, and D/ST, with 7 bench players on a $200 budget. I am all in on LRQB, so I'll be passing on the top 5 (Rodgers, Brees, Peyton, Cam, and Brady) for sure and maybe more. I'd love to land Wilson, but I'd be ok with Ryan, Stafford, or Vick or some kind of Bradford/Smith/Weeden tandem. My budget is $15 or less at QB, regardless of whether I take one or two. I'm willing to spend $100 on RB and I want 6 of them. I'll go pretty high for McCoy or Rice and hold off on the other top 10 guys. I'm interested in Forte, Bush, Sproles in PPR of course, and am finding that you can get a pretty good deal on Lamar Miller or Daryl Richardson. I like Danny Woodhead for a super cheap RB5. For my WR I'd obviously love to land the PPR studs: Amendola and Welker lead the list. I figure to spend about $70 on 6 WR. At TE, another position riddled with question marks, inconsistency, and more so this year, newness in the form of rookies or new situations--I'm also willing to be patient. While in PPR it'd be great to get Graham or even Witten, I'm not going to spend the money. Guys like Myers, Bennett, Sudfeld, and Cameron are on my radar and I'll probably take two TE for $12 or less if I can swing it. This league has no kicker, leaving me with up to $3 for a D/ST.
The reason I wanted to get this whole strategy down before the draft is that we, as humans, are famous for a bias that might be called outcome bias, or framing bias, in some cases. What it means if we employ outcome bias is that we judge things by the way they turn out, rather than by how we intended, or expected them to turn out. I could write this after somehow drafting Philip Rivers and Joe Flacco and tell you that I meant to do it and explain how it would be good for my fantasy season. We do this kind of re-interpretation of our actions all the time to protect our self-identity. It's advantageous for us to think highly of ourselves, so we find a way to re-work events in such a way that we feel good about them. Framing is just a variation where I present the facts in a partial or biased way so that you end up believing what I'm trying to tell you. Either of these biases might make me look better amongst my friends and followers, but neither really serves me or them. See, another reason we employ cognitive biases, unconsciously of course, is that our brains our designed for congruity. We want to see and believe the same things. Incongruity distresses us. Drafting a player we hate simply because he's next in line on some site's ADP or our own projections can cause that kind of distress. So can missing out on good value due to our own preconceived notions of what value is this year. What it comes down to is simple. I want you to like and respect what I say here, so one the one hand, if I write everything after I draft, I can make myself seem smart and savvy. But if I write down my pre-draft thoughts and compare to my actual draft, you might learn something that can help you with your own drafts this week.
6 hours later...
Well, surprise! I chose the latter, and my draft is done now. Here's how it went down. In an auction, you end up waiting a lot. I finally jumped in for keeps at QB. Russell Wilson fell to me at $15 as the 19th player nominated. I know above I said that was my total QB budget, but I love Wilson, so I was happy to blow it early. In a 4 pt per passing TD league, I like to get one of the dual threat QBs. I then passed on another slew of RB1's, until Ray Rice came up. I was bidding heavy until about $50, when I dropped out and he ended up going for $53. Then I knew I wanted McCoy at basically all costs. In my mind they are the most consistent PPR RB1's out there. I ended up getting McCoy for $49. Now, I have mixed feelings about this as I have owned McCoy a LOT in his career, including last year. But I'm an eternal optimist, so let's go Chip Kelly running game! Speaking of, on the heels of that pick up, I was able to snag Michael Vick for $9. Now, I didn't intend to draft a QB2, since I had spent the whole budget on Wilson, but Vick at $9 was too much upside to resist for me. Now I've got McCoy, R. Wilson, and Vick, and $127 left to spend.
A number of other RB1s and WR1s went off the board in the next few minutes. Calvin and Dez went for over $50, and Marshall, Green, and Julio went $41-42-43 respectively. TRich and Forte were both mid-$40s. Foster, in contrast to what I had seen earlier, was the 10th RB taken at $37. I jumped in and perhaps overpaid for Reggie Bush at $40. But he fit my budget, was on my target list, and I have a hard time finding anyone else with that kind of PPR strength at RB. I'm happy with the expenditure. I thought there might be a little more value for Sproles, but he was off the board at $34, way too rich for my budget at this point. There were a lot of guys I bid on in the ensuing rounds, but most went quickly out of range for me: Amendola ($28), Lamar Miller ($20), Gronk ($17) and many others. Having passed on the top WRs I was able to stack a few mid-range guys with upside pretty quickly. I got Welker ($13), James Jones ($12), Bowe ($16), and Givens ($11) with little competition while many teams seemed intent on drafting QBs. All in all, I was able to target some of the guys I wanted at each position and stuck to my budget pretty closely: QB $24, RB $108, WR $62, TE $4, and D/ST $2.
My biggest questions going in were about the value of QB, rookie RB/WR, and injured/suspended players. There were some great values at QB: Cam $20, Peyton $17, Brady $16, Luck $15, RGIII $14, to name a few. Although my own rankings have Wilson at QB6, I think I'd rather have paid $1 more for Brady. I hope the rushing yards and TD's pay off. The rookies flew off the board. Kembrell Thompkins and Giovanni Bernard went for $15 and $14 respectively, around the same time. Cordarelle Patterson went for $8 (too many people read this Auction Value piece), Tavon Austin and DeAndre Hopkins were $11 each, Eddie Lacy went up to $20. Josh Gordon and Justin Blackmon were slightly discounted, with Gordon at $17 and Blackmon at $9. Someone took a $5 flier on LeVeon Bell's foot, and Jordy Nelson seemed a bargain at $18. The Foster-Tate combo went for a combined $42, which should turn in great value either way. You can see the full results of the draft here.
Ultimately, I loved the auction format. I write a lot about Cognitive Bias and how your brain can negatively impact your decision making in fantasy sports, but going into an auction draft with a solid plan allows you to avoid a lot of those biases. Although it's a lot more interactions with leaguemates, I found my decisions were not pressured by what other people were doing as much as they are in a snake draft. And with a list of guys in front of me to target, I didn't worry about any position shortages. Everyone loves their team on draft day, and with an auction you really can build your dream team. I'll definitely be doing more of them.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
The Pseudocertainty Effect and Why I Changed a Tire
It was 1:00pm on a perfect, sunny, 78 degree Saturday afternoon. We were halfway to my friend's cottage on Chautauqua Lake, humming along the NYS thruway with another friend following behind. All of a sudden we see smoke followed by the left rear tire of our friend's car rolling off the road. We pull over to check out the damage--not good. Friend 1 asks Friend 2 if he has AAA. He does. Now, I'm kind of a fanatic about sunshine and water, and spending time in both, so I'm starting to panic a little bit. If we wait for AAA to come change the tire, we might make it to the lake in time for this (actual sunset Saturday):
but I'm a pretty big fan of this too (actual beer drank at the lakeside restaurant):
So what to do? I've never changed a tire before. They apparently hadn't either. So waiting for AAA was the safe, reasonable choice. But waiting for AAA was going to SUCK. We'd miss the best part of the day. Keeping these thoughts to myself, I announced that I would just change the tire. They didn't know I had never done it, and it honestly didn't seem too hard. Turns out, it was really easy. We got it done in about 10 minutes and were back on the road. It was a great day at the lake!
Draft day is the first time you'll be faced with risk-reward vs safe choices in your fantasy leagues this year. The first of many. You probably know how you and at least some of your league mates approach these kinds of choices because risk taking is a major personality trait. Men are greater risk takers than women in general, and risk taking decreases with age. We now understand some of the neurochemical and genetic causes of high risk taking behavior and why it differs among people. For instance, high levels of testosterone in young men helps explain why they typically take more chances than women or older men. There are also inherited variations in a gene that encodes a certain type of dopamine receptor (D4R) that account for about 10% of the risk taking personality. Another gene that encodes a protein that degrades dopamine (monamine oxidase B, or MAO-B) is also a factor, and is found at lower levels in men and risk takers of either gender. You may recall from previous posts that dopamine is the main neurotransmitter that signals reward and pleasure in our brain. Some psychologists argue that risk taking behavior stems from the brain's inability to generate enough pleasure sensations from ordinary behavior. An extra thrill is required in such individuals for the dopamine reward system to be activated and give us pleasure. So having a variant of a gene that affects dopamine levels or the ability to respond to dopamine signals can make one innately more of a risk taker. Other studies show that about 40% of risk taking can be accounted for by interactions with peers (but not immediate family). Therefore, by the time you started playing fantasy sports, your risk taking personality had pretty much been formed by genetic and social interactions.
A lot of excellent fantasy analysis centers around who is safe and who is a risky pick. Injury risk, job security risk, risk of being a good real football player but a lousy player for fantasy, etc. This analysis is crucial to making sense of your draft board when it is supported by solid facts and reasoning. However, the advice of the analyst is probably biased by their own risk taking personality. Ultimately, you have to be comfortable with your team. If you like to play it safe and every fantasy advice/analysis column you read is written by a risk-reward player, following their advice might cause you more than a little anxiety. The reverse is also true, you might read someone who tries to warn you about Arian Foster's calf turned back turned leg off-season/pre-season injury saga while you still think he's worth the risk. He was worth it in 2011, when he faced a similarly rough pre-season, after all. A high risk taker is going to be comfortable drafting Arian Foster #3 overall this weekend. A risk-averse guy is going to recommend taking Rice, McCoy, maybe even Lynch, Morris, and Forte ahead of him this year. Your personality will dictate your draft to a great extent, but there is another element to the draft and to the season that interacts with your guts, and that is context.
The Pseudocertainty Effect is the phenomenon whereby you make safe, risk-aversive moves and decisions when things are going smoothly (outcomes more certain), but risky choices when things are going poorly (outcomes uncertain). In other words, you either "don't rock the boat" or "go for broke" depending on what's going on for you. When you feel really good about your draft, you're more likely to play it safe. For example, if you start off with generally healthy, solid guys like Martin, CJ?K, Brees, Brady, Marshall, Witten, VJax, Colston, etc. you can keep taking proven commodities on into the late rounds. Maybe it's not the flashiest team, but certainly productive. On the other hand, you might find yourself in a position where you take on a few high risk players early on. Maybe you're compelled by the flow of the draft to take Foster, Amendola, and RG3. The Pseudocertainty Effect will tell you to keep going with the risk reward plays. Go ahead, take a chance on unproven but potential goldmines like Cordarelle Patterson, Jordan Cameron, and Gio Bernard. Desperate times call for desperate measures, right?
However, there is one more angle to consider. The brain, well the whole body, really, is also set up to achieve homeostasis and balance. Physiological, chemical, hormonal, and ion balances are critical for survival and function, but we strive for behavioral homeostasis too. We pick fights, we apologize. We party hard, we stay in for a week. We pull an all-nighter studying, we sleep for the next two days. We chow down at In-N-Out, then eat salad for a week. We find balance. This homeostatic force might try to sway you to go super safe with your mid-late round picks if you are in situation #2 above. It might cause you to think hard about the Fred Jacksons, DeAngelo Williams', and Anquan Boldins. You know what those guys are. But, come on, you know what those guys are. If your early round risk reward guys flop, this batch is not going to make up the slack. Therefore, in this situation, the balanced approach can shoot you right in the tight end. But at the same time, I'll grant you that if you can go super safe but stud nonetheless in the early rounds, you may want to take a few late fliers. I certainly like to add a chance element of promise and excitement to my teams, and this is a way to achieve balance too.
The Pseudocertainty Effect is officially considered a cognitive bias, meaning it's something that we are predisposed to do without necessarily being conscious of it. But the extent to which any individual person embraces it certainly interacts with their risk taking, thrill seeking personality, or lack of it. If you're willing to take a chance in the face of adversity, you give yourself a better chance to win. If you take needless chances when things are going well, you risk losing what you've gained. It's no surprise that one of the most studied arenas in which cognitive biases affect human behavior is the stock market. When the stock you just bought tons of shares of drops in value, but you had good reason and research to support buying it, the right decision is to buy more. If you bought RG3, buy Vick too. You know what Joe Flacco's gonna do. Joe Flacco's season is going to feel a lot like sitting on the side of the highway waiting for AAA. Take a chance and you could be sipping beers lakeside in the sunshine. In December, when you win your league.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Salmon fishing and how your brain gets biased
Last night I had a friend over for dinner. I made salmon (caught by me!) with a mango jalopeno salsa. It turned out a little spicier than I thought, for her taste anyway, which reminded me of an important lesson. What do you do when you eat something that sets your mouth on fire?
Everyone has their favorite remedy if they accidentally eat the hot pepper in the Chinese food. The scientific solution is to eat sugar. Sugar from the packet works fine, anything sweetened with actual glucose or even lactose works though (milk, ice cream, cheese). The reason is that on your tongue you have taste receptors that can detect 5 "flavors"-sweet, salt, bitter, sour, and umami (MSG, basically). Spiciness is not one of the cardinal flavors sensed by the taste buds, but is detected by the tongue. We can counteract spiciness with sweetness because the two tastes share a common co-receptor. By forcing the co-receptor to be used to taste something sweet, the painful, hot sensations can be diverted into pleasant, delicious sensations in the part of the brain that processes taste (the gustatory cortex). This is one of my favorite examples of why understanding how the brain works can improve your life. But I know you're all interested in how understanding your brain can improve your fantasy team, so let's get to it.
Should you draft Russell Wilson or Tom Brady? Should you drop a consistently low production Fred Jackson or a roller coaster Chris Givens to pick up the hot waiver wire option? Start Mark Ingram or Chris Ivory as your bye week fill in? Accept that unconventional trade offer? From draft day to championship victory your fantasy season comes down to decision after decision. Some you'll agonize over, some you'll barely think twice about. Some are routine, other quandaries arise only after adversity strikes your squad. Ultimately it's just the series of choices you make that determine whether you finish at the top or not and unfortunately, many of the decisions we make are inherently biased.
What is bias? It can be defined as a prejudice for or against something or someone, an inclination or leaning toward something, and a tendency or predilection toward or against something. We are presented with biased arguments and pitches all the time. It's usually willful--a salesperson who tells you only the positive features of the product and raves about the positive reviews it receives but neglects to point out customer complaints and clumsy design issues wants you to buy the thing. Presenting all the facts in an unbiased manner would compromise her sale. In the case of cognitive bias, your brain is doing a version of the slick sales pitch...but most of the time you're not even aware of it. You can read a lot more about cognitive biases in my book on the subject, and I'll cover them one by one throughout the season, as the opportunities for biased decision making present themselves. For today, I'll discuss how the brain is set up for cognitive biases to take root, grow, and sometimes cloud your seemingly logical judgment.
Your brain is composed of trillions of neurons that talk to each other via electrical and chemical signals at synapses. The pattern of which neurons are talking to which other neurons at any given millisecond determines what the output of the brain is. A certain pattern may lead to walking, another to smiling, yet another to grasping your coffee cup. Still other patterns, using different populations of neurons, signify emotions, memories, and ideas...essentially, all of your thoughts. The mammalian brain is set up in a very organized manner, so that there are very consistent connections between certain brain regions in everybody. But the brain is also very flexible, or plastic, allowing it to modify those connections based on our experiences. There are two main classes of neural activity patterns that could underlie and perpetuate cognitive biases. The first is a very strong connection, one where minimal activation yields maximal response. The second is a connection that directly activates the brain's reward circuitry.
First case: a very strong connection is established when the same neurons signal to each other over and over. Rehearsal leads to strong connections, repetition leads to strong connections, having the same thought over and over allows it to become ingrained. Once such a connection is established, the thought (or action-think about driving a car or typing) becomes automatic, effortless, almost without conscious awareness and intent. Some scientists think of it in terms of "new brain, old brain". The oldest, most evolutionarily conserved parts of our brains that are shared with birds, snakes, mice, etc. are often considered instinctual, emotional, reflexive, while the newest on the evolutionary scale, the neocortex, is responsible for our attention, memories, planning, strategizing, self-control, logic, and rational decisions. When we encounter something new, our "new" brain is dominant, paying attention, learning and practicing the new thought, idea, or activity. Gradually, as the same patterns of activity occur over and over, neurons comprising the "old" brain become involved, and the thought, feeling, or action becomes habit. We no longer need to think, concentrate, or try to do the task or think the thought. The response stems automatically from the stimulus.
Second case: if a stimulus triggers a neuronal activity pattern that ends up activating the reward circuit in the brain--triggering an area called the ventral tegmental area (VTA) to release more dopamine neurotransmitter--that stimulus may gain more traction in the brain than a neutral stimulus. The same is true for ideas, actions, thoughts that for some reason activate negative, pain processing areas of the brain. Rewards and punishments trigger mechanisms that allow the events that induce the pleasure or pain to be recalled and repeated or avoided, this is a major mechanism of learning and training as any parent or pet owner knows well. Once a thought or action triggers the reward centers, it's very hard to let go of it. When something has led to pleasure in the past, we are literally hard wired to expect it to bring pleasure in the future.
Getting back to sports, let's take an example from last night. Let's say you drafted Jordan Cameron as your back-up TE/Flex, in a league you care about. Personally, I don't draft leagues I care about until the last week; it's one of the few areas where I show restraint. If you did, drafting Cameron was in all likelihood a neutral decision. There were a lot of TE's in that range, he's one of them. Last nights 3/42/2 performance was outstanding, exceeding everyone's expectations, even those that were higher than average on him a month ago. You Cameron owners are thrilled-you got a gem late, everyone's biggest draft day wish. That makes you feel good about yourself, for picking him, as you absolutely should. Last week I told you that the pleasure you get from being right comes from the same place (the VTA) as the joys of food, sex, and alcohol. Now you've permanently connected Jordan Cameron and pleasure in your brain. You'll be tempted to start him week 1, particularly if Vernon Davis or Jason Witten (or whoever your TE1 is) are limited or average in their pre-season appearances. He will be linked to success in your mind all season because of last nights performance, although there probably won't be a lot of games where he scores 2 TDs. This is no knock on Cameron either, I hope he's effective and exciting to watch all year, I do. I just use him as an example of how your brain takes a fact-Jordan Cameron scored twice, links it to the pride and pleasure you feel for having selected him in your draft, and establishes the pattern of neural activity that allows you, even forces you, to believe that it is repeatable. In contrast, someone that didn't draft Cameron (yet) is super-impressed with the performance, but it carried no reward, so the brain merely filed it away as another fact of preseason. We're watching to see what happens, but we're open to the possibility of a zero catch outing next week. That's what bias does, it takes the neutral, impartial, rational thinking out of a decision. That is what we're going to try to avoid this year.
Should you draft Russell Wilson or Tom Brady? Should you drop a consistently low production Fred Jackson or a roller coaster Chris Givens to pick up the hot waiver wire option? Start Mark Ingram or Chris Ivory as your bye week fill in? Accept that unconventional trade offer? From draft day to championship victory your fantasy season comes down to decision after decision. Some you'll agonize over, some you'll barely think twice about. Some are routine, other quandaries arise only after adversity strikes your squad. Ultimately it's just the series of choices you make that determine whether you finish at the top or not and unfortunately, many of the decisions we make are inherently biased.
What is bias? It can be defined as a prejudice for or against something or someone, an inclination or leaning toward something, and a tendency or predilection toward or against something. We are presented with biased arguments and pitches all the time. It's usually willful--a salesperson who tells you only the positive features of the product and raves about the positive reviews it receives but neglects to point out customer complaints and clumsy design issues wants you to buy the thing. Presenting all the facts in an unbiased manner would compromise her sale. In the case of cognitive bias, your brain is doing a version of the slick sales pitch...but most of the time you're not even aware of it. You can read a lot more about cognitive biases in my book on the subject, and I'll cover them one by one throughout the season, as the opportunities for biased decision making present themselves. For today, I'll discuss how the brain is set up for cognitive biases to take root, grow, and sometimes cloud your seemingly logical judgment.
Your brain is composed of trillions of neurons that talk to each other via electrical and chemical signals at synapses. The pattern of which neurons are talking to which other neurons at any given millisecond determines what the output of the brain is. A certain pattern may lead to walking, another to smiling, yet another to grasping your coffee cup. Still other patterns, using different populations of neurons, signify emotions, memories, and ideas...essentially, all of your thoughts. The mammalian brain is set up in a very organized manner, so that there are very consistent connections between certain brain regions in everybody. But the brain is also very flexible, or plastic, allowing it to modify those connections based on our experiences. There are two main classes of neural activity patterns that could underlie and perpetuate cognitive biases. The first is a very strong connection, one where minimal activation yields maximal response. The second is a connection that directly activates the brain's reward circuitry.
First case: a very strong connection is established when the same neurons signal to each other over and over. Rehearsal leads to strong connections, repetition leads to strong connections, having the same thought over and over allows it to become ingrained. Once such a connection is established, the thought (or action-think about driving a car or typing) becomes automatic, effortless, almost without conscious awareness and intent. Some scientists think of it in terms of "new brain, old brain". The oldest, most evolutionarily conserved parts of our brains that are shared with birds, snakes, mice, etc. are often considered instinctual, emotional, reflexive, while the newest on the evolutionary scale, the neocortex, is responsible for our attention, memories, planning, strategizing, self-control, logic, and rational decisions. When we encounter something new, our "new" brain is dominant, paying attention, learning and practicing the new thought, idea, or activity. Gradually, as the same patterns of activity occur over and over, neurons comprising the "old" brain become involved, and the thought, feeling, or action becomes habit. We no longer need to think, concentrate, or try to do the task or think the thought. The response stems automatically from the stimulus.
Second case: if a stimulus triggers a neuronal activity pattern that ends up activating the reward circuit in the brain--triggering an area called the ventral tegmental area (VTA) to release more dopamine neurotransmitter--that stimulus may gain more traction in the brain than a neutral stimulus. The same is true for ideas, actions, thoughts that for some reason activate negative, pain processing areas of the brain. Rewards and punishments trigger mechanisms that allow the events that induce the pleasure or pain to be recalled and repeated or avoided, this is a major mechanism of learning and training as any parent or pet owner knows well. Once a thought or action triggers the reward centers, it's very hard to let go of it. When something has led to pleasure in the past, we are literally hard wired to expect it to bring pleasure in the future.
Getting back to sports, let's take an example from last night. Let's say you drafted Jordan Cameron as your back-up TE/Flex, in a league you care about. Personally, I don't draft leagues I care about until the last week; it's one of the few areas where I show restraint. If you did, drafting Cameron was in all likelihood a neutral decision. There were a lot of TE's in that range, he's one of them. Last nights 3/42/2 performance was outstanding, exceeding everyone's expectations, even those that were higher than average on him a month ago. You Cameron owners are thrilled-you got a gem late, everyone's biggest draft day wish. That makes you feel good about yourself, for picking him, as you absolutely should. Last week I told you that the pleasure you get from being right comes from the same place (the VTA) as the joys of food, sex, and alcohol. Now you've permanently connected Jordan Cameron and pleasure in your brain. You'll be tempted to start him week 1, particularly if Vernon Davis or Jason Witten (or whoever your TE1 is) are limited or average in their pre-season appearances. He will be linked to success in your mind all season because of last nights performance, although there probably won't be a lot of games where he scores 2 TDs. This is no knock on Cameron either, I hope he's effective and exciting to watch all year, I do. I just use him as an example of how your brain takes a fact-Jordan Cameron scored twice, links it to the pride and pleasure you feel for having selected him in your draft, and establishes the pattern of neural activity that allows you, even forces you, to believe that it is repeatable. In contrast, someone that didn't draft Cameron (yet) is super-impressed with the performance, but it carried no reward, so the brain merely filed it away as another fact of preseason. We're watching to see what happens, but we're open to the possibility of a zero catch outing next week. That's what bias does, it takes the neutral, impartial, rational thinking out of a decision. That is what we're going to try to avoid this year.
Friday, August 9, 2013
Understanding the preseason hype train. It's ok...You can keep your seat.
Lamar Miller fumbled. Joe Flacco threw an interception. Brandon Weeden did not. Chris Johnson and Shonn Greene both ran for long Titans touchdowns. All true statements, but what do any of them mean for you, the fantasy football player? These observations and others were the impetus for millions of tweets over the first couple nights of preseason football attempting to answer that question. Many interesting and entertaining tweets, too. What seemed new to me this year was that for every hyperbolic tweet concerning a preseason play there were two making fun of preseason hyperbole. These were even more interesting and entertaining. It's very hard to figure out which are the important takeaways from the preseason's first games. That's not my job, thank god. I watch, I take notes, I have ideas, but I don't share them. It's the scientist in me. I don't like to speak up until I know all the facts--and week one of the preseason is quite far from all the facts. But preseason hype is fascinating to me, so I wanted to see how neuroscience might be able to explain its existence.
First off, let's take the hype generators, the hype train engineers. I'm talking about the analysts, from armchair to ESPN, who live tweet the games, who seemingly write blog posts faster than I can sip my beer, analyzing the fantasy implications of each game on a play by play basis. A staggering amount of "knowledge" is generated. This is amazing. Having access to the interpretations and opinions of all the best minds in football at once is what makes Twitter the best thing to ever happen to fantasy sports. In order for hype to be generated, people need to take a stand, stake out an opinion and prediction based on what they've seen on the field. Because so many people analyze football for fantasy purposes, there are a ton of opinions and predictions on any given player or system. The whole purpose of putting your opinion out there is so you can show later on that you were right. If you're right, then more people will pay attention to your future opinions, and pretty soon you have a nice following. As I wrote about last time, being right stimulates the reward circuitry in our brain, leading to that pleasurable release of dopamine that makes us feel so good. It's the same pathway that drugs or sex take advantage of to get you to do them more. So you try to find a different take than anyone else, and you try to be first with your opinion. You might even go out on a limb with your prediction. Studies show that making a riskier move that pays off is more rewarding than a less risky move yielding the same result. I mean, if you tell me on August 9, 2013 that Brandon Weeden will be a top 5 fantasy QB this year, and he IS a top 5 QB come December, I'll swoon, I promise. And I won't be alone.
Which brings me to the audience. Not that there isn't a significant overlap, there definitely is. You can ride the hype train and take a turn as conductor. Why are we so receptive to the hype? Some part of us knows that it's only early preseason, a million things can happen, and there are a hundred reasons we might see what we see on any given play. But still, we buy in for the most part. The first thing is, we have waited FOREVER for this preseason. We are not blessed with a 9 month season (ahem, NHL--still not worth it). We are starved for *real* football data and game analysis. We had the combine, we had the draft, but for most of us, those were like the raw veggies of the appetizer course. We're now on to the stuffed mushrooms and bruschetta, aka week 1 of the preseason games. It's better than raw cauliflower, but what is yet to come in weeks 3 and 4...bacon wrapped shrimp, spanakopita, pigs in a blanket...will be a lot more satisfying. The regular season will be the filet and lobster tails if you're not following here. Anyway, it's week 1 and we're hungry, so we eat up all the analysis and opinion we can.
That hunger, the craving we have for NFL football, the anticipation, it all leads to heady excitation, especially on game days. The way the brain signals excitation is through changing its levels of certain neurochemicals. The one to focus on here is norepinephrine (NE), which is closely related to adrenaline. The job of NE in the brain is to set the responsiveness of neurons, individual brain cells, to stimuli. When there is more NE, neurons react more quickly and more strongly to incoming information. Not surprisingly, levels of NE change throughout the day, going essentially to zero while we sleep. One of the indirect effects of caffeine is to increase NE, thereby making you more alert and ready to deal with whatever comes your way. NE can also be increased by internal states. As football approaches, football related memories become activated, you plan games you might attend, dream about your team winning the superbowl, your fantasy team winning the league, and you are feeling happy. The combination of these states-positive emotion, memory, and looking ahead--stimulate various populations of neurons that can lead to the release of more NE. Think of NE as the fuel that the hype train runs on.
So watching or reading about your team's RB running hard, breaking tackles, and generally looking like a stud out there for 3 or 4 plays is more than enough to fill the NE tank. You're primed and ready to roll when the analysis starts flying, the predictions get crazy, and the hope springs eternal. Except for Joe Flacco fans. Sorry guys, not looking good for y'all. OK, there, I did it too. Enjoy the ride.
First off, let's take the hype generators, the hype train engineers. I'm talking about the analysts, from armchair to ESPN, who live tweet the games, who seemingly write blog posts faster than I can sip my beer, analyzing the fantasy implications of each game on a play by play basis. A staggering amount of "knowledge" is generated. This is amazing. Having access to the interpretations and opinions of all the best minds in football at once is what makes Twitter the best thing to ever happen to fantasy sports. In order for hype to be generated, people need to take a stand, stake out an opinion and prediction based on what they've seen on the field. Because so many people analyze football for fantasy purposes, there are a ton of opinions and predictions on any given player or system. The whole purpose of putting your opinion out there is so you can show later on that you were right. If you're right, then more people will pay attention to your future opinions, and pretty soon you have a nice following. As I wrote about last time, being right stimulates the reward circuitry in our brain, leading to that pleasurable release of dopamine that makes us feel so good. It's the same pathway that drugs or sex take advantage of to get you to do them more. So you try to find a different take than anyone else, and you try to be first with your opinion. You might even go out on a limb with your prediction. Studies show that making a riskier move that pays off is more rewarding than a less risky move yielding the same result. I mean, if you tell me on August 9, 2013 that Brandon Weeden will be a top 5 fantasy QB this year, and he IS a top 5 QB come December, I'll swoon, I promise. And I won't be alone.
Which brings me to the audience. Not that there isn't a significant overlap, there definitely is. You can ride the hype train and take a turn as conductor. Why are we so receptive to the hype? Some part of us knows that it's only early preseason, a million things can happen, and there are a hundred reasons we might see what we see on any given play. But still, we buy in for the most part. The first thing is, we have waited FOREVER for this preseason. We are not blessed with a 9 month season (ahem, NHL--still not worth it). We are starved for *real* football data and game analysis. We had the combine, we had the draft, but for most of us, those were like the raw veggies of the appetizer course. We're now on to the stuffed mushrooms and bruschetta, aka week 1 of the preseason games. It's better than raw cauliflower, but what is yet to come in weeks 3 and 4...bacon wrapped shrimp, spanakopita, pigs in a blanket...will be a lot more satisfying. The regular season will be the filet and lobster tails if you're not following here. Anyway, it's week 1 and we're hungry, so we eat up all the analysis and opinion we can.
That hunger, the craving we have for NFL football, the anticipation, it all leads to heady excitation, especially on game days. The way the brain signals excitation is through changing its levels of certain neurochemicals. The one to focus on here is norepinephrine (NE), which is closely related to adrenaline. The job of NE in the brain is to set the responsiveness of neurons, individual brain cells, to stimuli. When there is more NE, neurons react more quickly and more strongly to incoming information. Not surprisingly, levels of NE change throughout the day, going essentially to zero while we sleep. One of the indirect effects of caffeine is to increase NE, thereby making you more alert and ready to deal with whatever comes your way. NE can also be increased by internal states. As football approaches, football related memories become activated, you plan games you might attend, dream about your team winning the superbowl, your fantasy team winning the league, and you are feeling happy. The combination of these states-positive emotion, memory, and looking ahead--stimulate various populations of neurons that can lead to the release of more NE. Think of NE as the fuel that the hype train runs on.
So watching or reading about your team's RB running hard, breaking tackles, and generally looking like a stud out there for 3 or 4 plays is more than enough to fill the NE tank. You're primed and ready to roll when the analysis starts flying, the predictions get crazy, and the hope springs eternal. Except for Joe Flacco fans. Sorry guys, not looking good for y'all. OK, there, I did it too. Enjoy the ride.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
What's your favorite team?
It happens all the time. I meet someone, we talk, the conversation turns to sports (as most of my conversations eventually do), the other person's eyes light up, "Oh really? You like sports?" Yes. "You play fantasy?" Yes. "You do projections for fantasy football?" Yes. "You joined a fantasy baseball league so you could support your son who wanted to play fantasy baseball for the first time?" Yes. "You wrote a book about fantasy sports?" Yes again. "So, what's your favorite football team?" I dread this question. Ummmmm. Wellllllll. Hmmmmmm. See, I really just love football. I don't have a favorite team. "You must have a favorite team". No, I really don't. I love this game, I'll watch anyone play any time, and sometimes cheer for both sides. It's like a dark confession. I know I'm letting this person down. "No, it's impossible. You can't really be a sports fan if you don't have a favorite team." Sometimes the person will make me offers. "What about the Bills? Buffalo isn't so far from Rochester (my hometown). Or the Giants? New York is New York." Oh well, I hadn't considered that, there you go. Problem solved, I'll be a Giants fan. Thanks so much, dude, is what I might think at this point. But I nod, smile, and say out loud, Yeah, maybe. So the other person can at least feel hopeful that my poor little sports soul may yet be saved.
I teach about favoritism in one of my classes on animal behavior. It's seen all the time in nature, one or both parents single out and give special treatment to one of their offspring. Most species "favorite" the strongest child, the one most likely to survive, attract a high quality mate, and pass on the family genes to another generation. Infrequently, the weakest sibling is favored and perhaps the extra attention boosts the survival probability, thus providing the parents with several offspring capable of extending the lineage. Time Magazine did a big story on favoritism in our species, arguing that all parents have a favorite child, differing only in the extent to which they showed it. A strong case was made that no matter how well the parents thought they were doing at hiding their favoritism, the children all knew the score. From birds to baboons, rodents to humans, it seems like picking a favorite is part of life.
Why, I wonder. Why champion one over all others? Why is this behavior so pervasive? Think about how often you get asked about your favorite things. In my profile I've answered the questions about favorite band, movie, etc. but I've been a bit disingenuous. These are my current favorites. They are subject to change. I don't have an all time favorite movie, book, band, or even color. And I don't have a favorite football team. There are teams I like more than others, but again, it changes from year to year. It would seem that people pick a favorite to champion because when that selection succeeds, there is a rush of positive reinforcement. I mean, this is why gambling is so popular-the mental reward equals the monetary reward when you win. As you'll see if you read me often enough, the answer to why do we do something usually comes back to the reward circuitry in our brains. When this circuitry is activated, by drugs, sex, food, and even winning, a chemical called dopamine is released and we experience pleasure. But picking a favorite team FOR LIFE is quite a different matter. The reward is still there, if you picked wisely, although it is often delayed. You willingly take on years of disappointment and dashed hopes when you pick a favorite team. The rewards of loyal fandom must go beyond winning championships then, because most teams lose. You have memories of winning seasons, you have hope for the future. There was a study from a few years ago about the happiest people in the world. It found that they are those who have things to look forward to, who anticipate and plan for future good times. I think a lot of them must be Bills fans... Loyal fans also have companionship. They have other passionate people that feel the same way about a team with whom they celebrate victories large and small, or commiserate losses and hardships. Most cities have bars that collect fans of certain teams, particularly when there isn't a "home team". Fans can come together from all walks of life and face the Sunday battlefields shoulder to shoulder as allies vs a common foe. Geography is probably the number one reason people have a favorite team. Here's a really fun look at the role of geography in fan loyalty from Deadspin: http://deadspin.com/5980852/who-is-americas-favorite-nfl-team-facebook-data-offer-a-clear-winner. Cheering for the home team makes finding allies easy, feeding into some of the reinforcement I mentioned above.
I like to gamble. I like to win. I like to be right as much as the next guy. You could say that by not having a favorite team I have the chance to reap those feel good moments more often than most fans, since I care about every game (though I have to say Thursday Night Football did a pretty good job of trying to prove me wrong on this point last year). I'm just not putting all my eggs in one basket. Trust me, some baskets are empty and will stay empty. I have a few least favorite teams, but even those are not totally set in stone. The Oakland Raiders came off the hate list, for example. Some baskets will be more full than others this year too. By the end of the preseason I'll have my 2013 "Favorite Teams" in mind. Two years ago I picked Detroit, last year Seattle was my team to watch. This year I'll be checking out Tampa Bay, Kansas City, and the Bills very closely. I try to pick teams that have done interesting things in the past year and are poised to break out of the rut they've been in. Because my favorite thing is when football succeeds. When coaching and skilled players come together to execute game plans and injuries don't get in the way, it doesn't matter the color of the uniform or the name of the city, that's a win.
I teach about favoritism in one of my classes on animal behavior. It's seen all the time in nature, one or both parents single out and give special treatment to one of their offspring. Most species "favorite" the strongest child, the one most likely to survive, attract a high quality mate, and pass on the family genes to another generation. Infrequently, the weakest sibling is favored and perhaps the extra attention boosts the survival probability, thus providing the parents with several offspring capable of extending the lineage. Time Magazine did a big story on favoritism in our species, arguing that all parents have a favorite child, differing only in the extent to which they showed it. A strong case was made that no matter how well the parents thought they were doing at hiding their favoritism, the children all knew the score. From birds to baboons, rodents to humans, it seems like picking a favorite is part of life.
Why, I wonder. Why champion one over all others? Why is this behavior so pervasive? Think about how often you get asked about your favorite things. In my profile I've answered the questions about favorite band, movie, etc. but I've been a bit disingenuous. These are my current favorites. They are subject to change. I don't have an all time favorite movie, book, band, or even color. And I don't have a favorite football team. There are teams I like more than others, but again, it changes from year to year. It would seem that people pick a favorite to champion because when that selection succeeds, there is a rush of positive reinforcement. I mean, this is why gambling is so popular-the mental reward equals the monetary reward when you win. As you'll see if you read me often enough, the answer to why do we do something usually comes back to the reward circuitry in our brains. When this circuitry is activated, by drugs, sex, food, and even winning, a chemical called dopamine is released and we experience pleasure. But picking a favorite team FOR LIFE is quite a different matter. The reward is still there, if you picked wisely, although it is often delayed. You willingly take on years of disappointment and dashed hopes when you pick a favorite team. The rewards of loyal fandom must go beyond winning championships then, because most teams lose. You have memories of winning seasons, you have hope for the future. There was a study from a few years ago about the happiest people in the world. It found that they are those who have things to look forward to, who anticipate and plan for future good times. I think a lot of them must be Bills fans... Loyal fans also have companionship. They have other passionate people that feel the same way about a team with whom they celebrate victories large and small, or commiserate losses and hardships. Most cities have bars that collect fans of certain teams, particularly when there isn't a "home team". Fans can come together from all walks of life and face the Sunday battlefields shoulder to shoulder as allies vs a common foe. Geography is probably the number one reason people have a favorite team. Here's a really fun look at the role of geography in fan loyalty from Deadspin: http://deadspin.com/5980852/who-is-americas-favorite-nfl-team-facebook-data-offer-a-clear-winner. Cheering for the home team makes finding allies easy, feeding into some of the reinforcement I mentioned above.
I like to gamble. I like to win. I like to be right as much as the next guy. You could say that by not having a favorite team I have the chance to reap those feel good moments more often than most fans, since I care about every game (though I have to say Thursday Night Football did a pretty good job of trying to prove me wrong on this point last year). I'm just not putting all my eggs in one basket. Trust me, some baskets are empty and will stay empty. I have a few least favorite teams, but even those are not totally set in stone. The Oakland Raiders came off the hate list, for example. Some baskets will be more full than others this year too. By the end of the preseason I'll have my 2013 "Favorite Teams" in mind. Two years ago I picked Detroit, last year Seattle was my team to watch. This year I'll be checking out Tampa Bay, Kansas City, and the Bills very closely. I try to pick teams that have done interesting things in the past year and are poised to break out of the rut they've been in. Because my favorite thing is when football succeeds. When coaching and skilled players come together to execute game plans and injuries don't get in the way, it doesn't matter the color of the uniform or the name of the city, that's a win.
Friday, August 2, 2013
Debut
I was at my gym late last summer, grabbing a bite to eat after my workout when I overheard a group of middle aged parents having a heated discussion at the table next to mine. I quickly gleaned that one of the couples had a 13 year old son who played football. The child had suffered a concussion several days prior. The heated discussion was about how the coaching staff was not going to allow this child to start the upcoming season opener. Notice that I didn't say "heated argument". There was no debate, all four of these health conscious adults were outraged by the benching. Sitting nearby as a neuroscientist and mother of two boys aged 8 and 10 at the time, I was stunned, literally speechless, as I listened to them.
Concussions are the one aspect of sports in which Neuroscience has not only had a lot to say, but where players, coaches, and administrators have listened. Or so I thought. It's disappointing when you realize that the strong body of work your field has produced has failed to reach what may be its most important audience, the parents of future star players. The fact is that most scientific studies published in reputable, even world class journals are never seen by the average person. The popularity of contact sports like football has allowed concussion research to eek into the spotlight to some degree, though clearly not enough.
My own research concerns how the brain controls behavior. In particular we are interested in how the brain takes account of external stimuli and sensations, combines these with internal states such as age, gender, nutritional status, memories stored, etc., to arrive at a decision about what behavior to execute in a given situation. Believe it or not, evidence suggests that much of the analysis is done without conscious thought. Such computations allow us to prioritize certain behaviors that are particularly advantageous at certain times. It is with this backdrop that I started to wonder about the role of these computational processes in thinking about sports, particularly fantasy sports. See, if many of the computations that our brains perform are automatic, how much of the thinking and researching and fiddling with our fantasy lineups is genuine, or even advantageous? I've decided to take a more in-depth look at some of the inherent biases our brains exhibit, and how they might affect decisions you make (or think you make) about your fantasy teams.
As a lifelong football fan, I've considered the impact of understanding the brain on many, many more aspects of the sport, from the value of a 'smart' quarterback to fan loyalty. I've given a lot of thought to the situation I began this post with, and how cognitive science can explain the hierarchy of emotional and logical decision making. Most importantly, I've thought long and hard about what my profession can offer the millions of fantasy football players out there. How can Neuroscience help you win your fantasy league? Stay tuned!
Concussions are the one aspect of sports in which Neuroscience has not only had a lot to say, but where players, coaches, and administrators have listened. Or so I thought. It's disappointing when you realize that the strong body of work your field has produced has failed to reach what may be its most important audience, the parents of future star players. The fact is that most scientific studies published in reputable, even world class journals are never seen by the average person. The popularity of contact sports like football has allowed concussion research to eek into the spotlight to some degree, though clearly not enough.
My own research concerns how the brain controls behavior. In particular we are interested in how the brain takes account of external stimuli and sensations, combines these with internal states such as age, gender, nutritional status, memories stored, etc., to arrive at a decision about what behavior to execute in a given situation. Believe it or not, evidence suggests that much of the analysis is done without conscious thought. Such computations allow us to prioritize certain behaviors that are particularly advantageous at certain times. It is with this backdrop that I started to wonder about the role of these computational processes in thinking about sports, particularly fantasy sports. See, if many of the computations that our brains perform are automatic, how much of the thinking and researching and fiddling with our fantasy lineups is genuine, or even advantageous? I've decided to take a more in-depth look at some of the inherent biases our brains exhibit, and how they might affect decisions you make (or think you make) about your fantasy teams.
As a lifelong football fan, I've considered the impact of understanding the brain on many, many more aspects of the sport, from the value of a 'smart' quarterback to fan loyalty. I've given a lot of thought to the situation I began this post with, and how cognitive science can explain the hierarchy of emotional and logical decision making. Most importantly, I've thought long and hard about what my profession can offer the millions of fantasy football players out there. How can Neuroscience help you win your fantasy league? Stay tuned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)