I love and hate fantasy sports. I love them, because they provide me with hours of self-absorbed entertainment, where one gets to crunch numbers, make decisions about professional athletes, all with the underlying (although unfounded) belief that somehow your informed decisions actually make a difference in the “real” world of sports.
Last night was such an example...
I knew earlier in the day that I would be going to the Cubs/Braves game at Wrigley Field. I have two Braves on my NL-only fantasy baseball team (which, by the way, is in first place--the polar opposite of my last place AL-only team…but I digress). Anyway, I saw that my two Braves, Chipper Jones and Andruw Jones, were going up against a very hot Carlos Zambrano, pitcher for the loveable losers of the Northside.
There were at least four competing philosophies operative in my fantasy decision-making prior to the “actual” game. The first has been called the “always start your studs” philosophy. This line of thought says that you always start your best players regardless of matchup. Both Jones’ would qualify in some fantasy players’ minds as studs. So I should have started them. The second philosophy is the “crunch the numbers” philosophy. In this way of thinking, the statistician is the master. I found out that both Jones’ have a dismal time hitting Zambrano. Chipper Jones, for example, had one hit and no HRs in ten at bats against Carlos. So I should have sat them. The third philosophy is “the pleasure principle.” In this philosophy, one starts or benches players in such a way to optimize one’s pleasure or minimize one’s pain. Hence, if you are a Cubs fan (which I was last night), you should start both Jones’ knowing that 1) if Zambrano shuts the Braves out, then you will be happy because the Cubs will likely win; and 2) if the Cubs lose and Zambrano gets lit up by the Jones, well at least you have the pleasure of knowing that you started the sluggers on your fantasy team. Of course, you may shy away from starting both Jones’ in hopes that you don’t jinx Zambrano and the Cubs. The last philosophy is what my friend Matt has called the “Doh!” factor. That is, start those players whom you are less likely to say, “Doh!” after having benched them.
Last night, I should have listened to any of the above philosophies that had me start Chipper Jones, who went 2 for 4 with 2 HRs and 4 RBIs, including the game winning HR in the 9th inning. So I guess that means that Chipper is now 2 for 12 off Zambrano with 1 HR. DOH! Like I said, “I love and hate fantasy sports.”
Posted by Frank Yamada at August 23, 2005 04:16 PMFrank is too modest--he is at least a co-author of the "D'oh Theory." At the risk of sounding pedantic, it should probably be stated as "start the player about whom you are MOST likely to say 'D'oh!' if you bench him." It works about as often as most fantasy sports theories--which is to say, not as often as you might like.
Posted by: Matt at August 24, 2005 04:41 PMYes, Matt's comments, as always, are more clear in terms of grammar. My last statement on the D'OH factor actually does not make sense--how do you start a player that you bench? I guess I was acting out the authentic Homer spirit...OR WAS I?
Posted by: Frank at August 24, 2005 05:44 PM