“baseball is all about streaks and fantasy baseball is about riding those streaks until they run out.”
Hasn’t the research in The Book and elsewhere pretty much put the lie to this notion? IIRC, The Book showed that player’s excellent results over a small number of PAs has little to no predictive value going forward. Am I incorrect about this, or is there other conflicting data out there?
There’s more than one aspect to the game. You’ve got your core players that you start day in and day out, but it’s difficult to fill a whole roster with players like that in all but the shallowest of leagues. At the tail end of your roster there’s room to pick up some hot players and just hope they do something for you, as their floors aren’t generally going to be that much lower than the people they’re replacing.
It’s more about hoping a hot week stretches into a hot two weeks than finding the next rags-to-all-stars story.
But yeah, I thought the same thing. I also remember reading it broken down in Gilovich’s How We Know What Isn’t So for basketball. For the most part, in sports streakiness is in the perception of the event, not the event itself. But it sure if fun to own a guy on a hot streak …
I believe it is debunked. It’s kinda the reverse of the Gambler’s or Monte Carlo fallacy (the idea that a guy is due and will make up for sub-par performance with a hot streak to get him back to his average performance). However, a hot streak may mean a player has truned a corner. Jose Bautista last year. Maybe Hanahan needed out of oakland, although his road numbers in his career are actually worse than his home numbers, but the sample size isn’t huge.
I am also a more traditional “gut-feel” fantasy guy who does not use just the numbers. I like the human element involved. After all…the players are not machines. I like collecting as much data as I can and then try to factor in the human side when I draft a player, especially if I am undecided about 2 or more similar players. Of course, this is easier to do with one’s local teams because the info is generally more accessible through the various local media outlets. Just one example… I live in the SF bay area and the talk about Pablo Sandoval’s divorce last year seemed to help explain one factor why he was struggling last year and I decided to pass on him. Obviously, it wasn’t the only thing that went wrong for him, but a player’s happiness, or lack of, has to have an effect on his performance. I realize this is quite a generalization, but I still to kind of joked about once it in a e-mail to Howard. I called it PCF…player comfort factor. It’s not something that can be measured by stats or numbers…just by gut feelings. (This just might be a sign of my age though…late fifties) Anyone agree? Appreciate any comments.