The so-called Verducci Effect has now effectively been repudiated. It is not a fact and not something you should think about anymore. A few sites have done this research and shown that it has no predictive value. But that begs the question of why did it develop, and are there other examples of this fallacious logic? There are, and these are examples of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

Last year I wrote about the Fallacy in a different context, but let’s look at it again. Imagine that you are out on a shooting range. You shoot a lot of bullets at the side of a barn. Then you go over, find a bunch that are grouped together, and draw a target around them, and then use it as evidence that you have good aim. This is the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

Essentially, it is the idea that you take a bunch of data, look at it after the fact and look for a pattern. Once you find a pattern, you then claim it is evidence of the matter asserted. You assign significance to something after the fact.

Richard Feynman, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist once addressed a crowd on the issue by point to what looked like a huge coincidence. He said “on the way here, I came across the most amazing coincidence. I saw a license plate with the letters XYZ 123. Can you imagine the odds of seeing that exact license plate on this day at this specific location?”

The license plate is a coincidence only after the fact. Had he predicted that he would see that exact license plate and then actually observed it before the fact, then there would be a notable coincidence. But it was after the fact so it had no value.

This is essentially the issue with the Verducci Effect, as well as many other items in life and fantasy baseball. The next time you hear about how cell phones cause cancer because there is a cancer cluster, think of this fallacy.

Verducci did not say “I have a hypothesis-pitchers that increase innings by 50 that are under 25 will get hurt the next season. Is it true?” He took a list of injured pitchers and looked for a pattern after the fact. Like taking a cancer cluster and assuming that there must be a cause, a reason for it to have occurred, and concocted one after the fact. He drew a target around data.

But not everything has a cause. The role of random processes that we do not understand in life is far, far greater than we realize. Things happen. Pitchers get hurt and we don’t know why. Chris Coghlan hits better than Matt Wieters, and we don’t know why. We can spend many hours and expend a lot of effort trying to figure out why, but we will not know.

What is worse is that we have no way of predicting these events. But we have to try, since it is hard-wired in us. We find some obscure stat that “explains” why Coghlan hit better than Wieters and we proffer it as an explanation. It takes hold and even more examples surface. Now we start to think that it has predictive value going forward rather than mere explanatory value in one individual case. And the battle is lost. That is what the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy is about.

Many analytical tools in fantasy baseball, science, life and virtually everything else exhibit this faulty logic. When you see it you can ignore it. Are there others in fantasy baseball?

Last year there was some evidence that players who slugged .200 points higher in the Spring had some correlation with improved performance in the season. We have the fallacy, since it was only after the fact that this principle was derived. 

The Age 25+2 angle is another. You can use it as a tiebreaker but it cannot be a realistic principle for predictive purposes. The problem here is that you cannot make any predictions as to which players will blossom and which will not. If you can figure out a way to say “this player will blossom because of the 25+2 angle,” then let me know because you will probably get published in a Mathematics journal.

It is not enough to say “Player X blossomed at had two full years of experience at Age 25.” What this theory did is look at a bunch of players that blossomed and drew a target around certain criteria. The fact that it has some correlation in terms of statistical prediction doesn’t matter. The mere existence of correlation is not enough to warrant use as a predictive measure.

How about “Don’t draft closers?” This is another. The idea here is that you can figure out which closers will flop and get their backups. But there is no real way to do this on anything approaching a reasonably precise measure. As a process it provides a good framework for decision making, since it outlines a process to be followed. But in terms of predictive accuracy it has little value.

It is not good enough to say “closers X,Y and Z flopped, so if I picked up their backups I would have won.” But it is enough to say “I think Closer X will flop so I am drafting his backup.”

Do you see the difference? In the case of these general strategies, and the Verducci Effect, a generalization is made after the fact. In the second case a prediction is made before the fact and acted upon to the profit of the owner.

In most cases, not all, you should ignore any and all generalizations in fantasy baseball since they are usually derived from fallacious logic.But if someone actually sets out to proved a hypotehsis before the fact then you can accept it as true.

For a recent position opening at BaseballHQ.com we were asked to write an article about changes to the fantasy baseball format. Below is the essay I wrote that won the position, with credit to Brian Joura for the last idea. These are some changes that would drastically improve the fantasy baseball experience for most players, and they approach a fundamental change in how we play the game. I would love to hear comments, since we have the most learned constituency in the industry here on our Premium Site.

This week I have finally gotten back into the swing of things in terms of podcasts. Generally I listen to a few hours of podcasts every day; naturally the first ones are Lenny’s daily podcasts and our shows on Blog Talk Radio! But, being the traitor that I am, I still listen to many other non-FantasyPros911.com shows. On one of the ESPN shows they were discussing draft strategy in mixed leagues and said that a “take pitching late” strategy was particularly good this year because of the depth in pitching this year. Is this true?

Over at our Facebook page I posed a question asking followers to rank a number of players who were drafted in the ESPN Staff League Mock Draft. Two of the players were Jonathan Sanchez drafted at 225 and Ian Kinsler at 21. My opinion was that Sanchez is a better value, but others disagree in no uncertain terms. In terms of auction theory, here is the rationale. Do you agree?

Let’s say you are looking to buy a stock as an investment. You go to your favorite research site and see that they have polled a number of analysts. In this case there are 20 analysts polled, and the average target price is $30, while the current stock price is at $15. What considerations do you use in making your decision as to whether to buy it or not?

Every year we get a lot of questions regarding the “no-closer” strategy. Lenny Melnick is a big believer in this strategy and routinely uses it with Paul in Tout Wars, where they finished a respectable fourth last year. Is the no-closer strategy one that you should pursue?

Fantasy owners know that they have to be wary of the sources from which they obtain information. There are many, many terrible sites and blogs out there. It is a topic we have discussed often enough that someone suggested to me that I should write this column on bad advice every week.

Here is a case in point; the so-called “rankings” from another baseball website. What is presented is a verbatim block of First Basemen that were ranked in the site’s Mixed League Rankings for 2010:

What is the most important skill for fantasy players on Draft Day? Whether you are in an auction or in a draft, it is the ability to be flexible. Yet, most fantasy writers say the opposite.

How many times have you heard that the key to success on Draft Day is to have a plan? You are told not to let what happens dissuade you from your plan, not to waver and to make sure that you pursue your objectives with something approaching single-mindedness of purpose. A Google search of “fantasy baseball stick to your plan” revealed the following tidbits, all on the first page and all emphasis in originals: