I read an interesting article today that dealt with forums bashing expert selections.
Here is an interesting article appropriately entitled “LMAO, He Took Santana #1 Overall.” The article points out that there is a lot of bashing of experts who publish their mock draft lists etc. On the radio show on Sunday, Todd “The True Guru” Farino aptly opened the show with discussion about how anyone can say another expert is “wrong” so early in the season, and this discussion, though brief, was directly on point.
As usual, I have a historical anecdote that illustrates the perils. When the Prussians were preparing for battle against Napoleon, they were led by the Prince of Hohenlohe. He despised Napoleon and thought that the war against France would be the culmination of his military career. The Prussians were at the time perhaps the most powerful army in Europe.
Though he was part of a great military family, and though the Prussians had great success, they were ill-prepared for battle with an expert like Napoleon. The Prussians still conducted warfare in a traditional manner: marching in formations, moving slowly on horseback and maintaining supply lines. When analyzing Napoleon’s victories they merely thought him lucky. In their minds he flouted the traditional methods of warfare, had faced timid opponents and had been “lucky” in battle.
Of course when the key battle ensued Napoleon routed the Prussians. Robert Greene’s book The 33 Strategies of War has some great discussion of what happened, and the book in general (forgive the pun) is absolutely essential reading. Napoleon was conducting a completely new manner of warfare, emphasizing speed, mobility and independence of action that routed the Prussians in a matter of days. Greene describes it as perhaps the greatest defeat in history.
The Prussians simply did not understand what happened. It was only in retrospect that thinkers like Clausewitz recognized their flaws. As much as they thought they knew about Napoleon (and Hohenlohe studied him for years) they simply did not grasp how his mind worked and how novel and formidable Napoleon’s thought process and strategy was.
The posters in forums to whom the linked article refers would do well to heed the lessons of Hohenlohe. Of course critiquing experts is not only interesting but if done in the manner of Clausewitz it can be a tremendous learning experience. Why? Because the way to do it is to try to get into their heads and examine what they are thinking. The way you end up like Hohenlohe is to examine the experts picks in the same framework that one always used, without trying to expand one’s thoughts to understand what the expert is thinking.
Instead of lashing out the effort should be made to understand what the expert was thinking and why. It may be, in fact, that the person is not a true expert and the pick deserves to be criticized. But one cannot know unless one understands what the thought process was.
6 responses so far ↓
1 BCBarney // Feb 26, 2008 at 7:22 pm
The point of this post is exactly why I enjoy this site. It doesn’t jsut espouse the hot/hyped rookie of the day. This site trys to take a different approach than the norm. The emphasis is on the thought process and the strategy rather than on the run of the mill projections/rankings. Greatly enjoyed!
2 Patrick DiCaprio // Feb 26, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Thanks BC. I do think that what you read here is far different than almost any other fantasy site, so its great to know that it is recognized.
3 digglahhh // Feb 27, 2008 at 12:45 am
I harbor a little beef with the “experts.” All things considered, one of my main problems is simply with the (often,self-given)tag of being an “expert.” Fantasy sports, even isolating baseball isn’t a monolith. I’m not going to get into this in depth, but it is largely a meaningless distinction to call oneself an expert. Suffice to say that the baseball-related component of being a true expert is only a part of the battle - as you guys clearly know.
I have a guy in my oldest high stakes league who is probably a little behind me in terms of the ps and qs, but is just fabulous (and shameless) about fleecing people in trades. I have to outdraft him big time because he has negotiating skills (and charm) that I lack, and therefore he always improves his team more than I do throughout the season. How do you quantify that?
If I had to criticize experts in a more tangible way, I would offer that they often out-think themselves. Not to use the dreaded v-word, but you only profit on your knowledge if you extract surplus value from it. Experts are often so hellbent on identifying the sleepers they pay a price for them that dictates they can only bust or provide equal value. A player is only a sleeper if you draft/purchase him as such. Truthfully, football and basketball are fantasy sports in which you see this behavior exhibited more egregiously by “experts.”
4 Patrick DiCaprio // Feb 27, 2008 at 1:06 am
digglahhh,
I agree that there are many “self proclaimed” experts. I have written quite a few articles critiquing stuff I read from guys that claim to be experts but are not. One way you can at least have a good idea is here:
http://www.fantasybaseballgenerals.com/2007/05/what-is-expert.html
Nice to see you call it “the dreaded v-word…” I guess you really are reading the articles here
Just remember that value is key in the middle but not at the top or bottom of the player pyramid!
5 digglahhh // Feb 28, 2008 at 3:46 am
Yeah. I read that piece, and I agree. The thing so many people miss is that what confers expert status on a person is the method, the rigor, the adaptability - all skills/traits that exist outside the realm of knowing thing one about baseball. Honestly, I don’t care how much you know about baseball and numbers, most of those in-the-know can tell if you’re an expert or not by the way you write and present your case. The opinion itself is largely gravy.
Coincidentally, I was reading “God Save the Fan” on my way home from work this evening and (Deadspin’s) Will Leitch basically went on the same rant about the mainstream sports media in general. Having a soapbox is apparently all that’s needed for one to claim to be an expert (and apparently for the public to buy it).
6 Patrick DiCaprio // Feb 29, 2008 at 3:12 pm
digglahhh, I think you nailed it. The traits aside from the mere knowledge of the basics are what confer expert status. FWIW I don’t really like the term “expert” but it gets bandied about in the industry. I am not sure that I consider myself an expert, though I do try to expand my thinking to exactly the traits I mentioned.
Leave a Comment