As I've written before, regret is the worst fantasy football emotion. Choosing to start the wrong player and losing--where starting the other guy would have led to a win--can stay with some people for hours, if not days. It leads some to question their instincts and decision-making skills.
It almost happened to me this weekend, when I threw research to the wind. In my 20-team league, I opted to start Kirk Cousins at QB over Matt Cassel. Based purely on stats, it was the right call. I argued to myself that the Patriots' D was beatable, and that Cassel--even with the return of Dez Bryant--had a very low ceiling.
I beat my opponent by less than three points, thanks to some unexpected Jeremy Langford heroics. But the win would have come much easier if I'd gone back to the basics. My research for the book FF4W showed that QBs fared better after a loss than after a win, and that QBs' advantage when playing at home was even more pronounced.
In a "toss-up" selection of Cousins or Cassel, historical trends can break the tie. Historically, with all else being equal, Cassel had a multi-point advantage vs. normality, while Cousins had a multi-point disadvantage vs. normality. If I'd made the smart call, I could have gone to sleep at halftime last night, confident in victory. But more than getting enough sleep, decisions based on probabilities based on historical evidence--on balance--will lead to more success than decisions based purely on hunches and, yes, even otherwise favorable matchups.
It almost happened to me this weekend, when I threw research to the wind. In my 20-team league, I opted to start Kirk Cousins at QB over Matt Cassel. Based purely on stats, it was the right call. I argued to myself that the Patriots' D was beatable, and that Cassel--even with the return of Dez Bryant--had a very low ceiling.
I beat my opponent by less than three points, thanks to some unexpected Jeremy Langford heroics. But the win would have come much easier if I'd gone back to the basics. My research for the book FF4W showed that QBs fared better after a loss than after a win, and that QBs' advantage when playing at home was even more pronounced.
In a "toss-up" selection of Cousins or Cassel, historical trends can break the tie. Historically, with all else being equal, Cassel had a multi-point advantage vs. normality, while Cousins had a multi-point disadvantage vs. normality. If I'd made the smart call, I could have gone to sleep at halftime last night, confident in victory. But more than getting enough sleep, decisions based on probabilities based on historical evidence--on balance--will lead to more success than decisions based purely on hunches and, yes, even otherwise favorable matchups.