Think about a time in school when you did really well on a test.
What would you say was the reason you did well on that test?
Now, conversely, recall a time when you
did poorly on a test (I can recall a few of those). What was the reason for
that performance?
My Example: In Biochemistry we had four
units essentially. One professor taught the first and fourth units and the
other professor taught the second and third. The 2-3 professor was noticeably
worse than 1-4. Although knowledgeable, she was sporadic, incoherent,
tangential, and pitifully organized. Her exams reflected the lectures, and on
the Unit 3 exam, I received a 77%. I'll give you one guess as to what (whom) I
immediately laid the blame on.
Sitting here I can almost guarantee all of
you have had a similar experience. Whenever you do well on something academic,
it's because you worked hard, did your research, studied the material
diligently, left no stone unturned and subsequently reaped the rewards of
"A+ -- GREAT JOB!" Subpar performance, on the other hand, is due to
the professor's "terrible" exams, poorly worded questions, ambiguous
instructions, harsh grading style, nitpicky nature, or because of the simple
fact that "My professor just doesn't like me lol."
 |
| Though I'll admit, some professors are just plain awful. |
In all likelihood this kind of justifying
behavior could be extended to, say, ANY successes and failures in life, like
running a 10K ("I trained so hard!" v. "It was really windy and
hot and hilly and--"), getting a job ("I have a great resume and
interviewed really well!" v. "They were looking for a really specific
type of experience and they asked some curveball questions.") or even...like...fantasy
football? (Hey! I be that's what this blog is going to be about!)
Indeed just about every week wannabe GM's
will justify their losses due to "poor matchups" or unexpected,
freakish factors, while attributing their wins to their "insight" and
"hunches". Classic human behavior...
In psychology, an external attribution is when one blames (attributes)
the outcome of an event on some outside (external) factor.
As you've probably guessed then, an internal attribution is
when one blames the outcome of an event on a factor that was under his/her
control.
When I lose my mathcup with another leaguer (an unofficial but necessary term to distinguish between actual football players and fantasy footballers), I will, invariably, put a large chunk of the blame on external factors. Like if I started Brandon Marshall and he had a poor game, I might say, "Jay Cutler played terrible." But when I win, it will be because of my sage wisdom, "I KNEW Dez Bryant would have a big game!" We are all of us leaguers guilty of this phenomenon. But that's fine, it's human nature.
 |
| If only more people... |
A more inclusive term to describe this
kind of behavior is the fundamental
attribution error. When someone commits the FAE, they overestimate the
influence of one’s internal characteristics on an outcome and underestimate the
influence that situational factors had on said outcome. This FAE and the attributions we talked of earlier can also be used in a different facet to describe the player selection process, like drafting and picking up "waiver" players.
Ken and I have put our heads together and come up with some
educated hypotheses on these different tendencies, how experienced fantasy football leaguers pick players versus how novices do. Keep in mind these hypotheses are pure speculation not
backed by research…yet…
Experienced fantasy football leaguers are much more likely to do research on matchups, a player's current and past
injuries, off the field character and suspension potential, and probability of
success on his current team. These veterans will scour websites for any kind of
inside information regarding a player's training camp performance, expected
workload in the coming season, and overall role in the offense. That is, we
think veterans are much more likely to consider external factors that could
lead to a certain player's success than inexperienced players. Based on this
acquired mass of knowledge, veterans are much less likely to commit the FAE.
Novice leaguers on the other hand, due to
their lack of football understanding or shallow awareness of players in the
league, have a higher probability of
selecting players based on those players' internal characteristics and commit
the FAE ("Larry Fitzgerald has amazing hands!"). They are also more
likely than veterans to select players based on familiarity ("I always see
RG3 on Sportscenter”), or that novice's favoritism to a certain player
("Well, I don't know who this guy is, but he plays for the Dolphins, and I
really like the Dolphins, so I'll pick him.").
A classic example of a veteran’s advantage over a novice during
the drafts is when popular, talented NFL players sustain injuries prior to the
start of the season and/or violate league policy in such a way that results in
suspension. These players will be rated lower by analysts despite their
enormous talent. Veterans will undoubtedly learn of this deprecating
information; novices probably will not. Come draft day this year, I guarantee a
fair amount of novice players will inevitably draft Rob Gronkowski much higher
than he should be; they know Gronk is supremely talented but remain oblivious
to the fact that his forearm is still healing and he is expected to miss at
least four games this year.
But do veterans have an invariable advantage over novices? Will a
fantasy football leaguer always have a better team than a novice? My
understanding of the nature of football inclines me to say no to both of those
questions.
For example, last year Minnesota running
back Adrian Peterson was coming off of a torn ACL (anterior cruciate ligament)
-- one of the most grievous of football injuries and one that sets players back
a long time. Now, "experts" on ESPN and NFL Network and everywhere
else devalued the usually unstoppable AP because they figured his newly
rehabbed ACL would prevent him from being what he was.
Using this information, veteran leaguers
around the nation adhered to the advice of the analysts and similarly
underrated AP. But I'm sure some novice leaugers -- who probably didn't realize
how hard it was to come back from an ACL tear or knew from Sportscenter that AP
is a "beast" or maybe they were just overly optimistic Viking fans --
didn't underrate AP (i.e. committed the FAE) and selected him in the first
round of their drafts.
Adrian Peterson had an MVP season last
year and came just 9 yards shy of breaking the single-season rushing record.
The novices reaped the benefits of their
ignorance, whereas the veterans were left kicking themselves for not picking AP
2nd overall when they had the chance.
 |
| There's a reason he's dubbed "Purple Jesus". |
