Welcome to the "Original" Dynasty Rankings Fantasy Football Blog

This blog was born out of a Dynasty Rankings thread originally begun in October, 2006 at the Footballguys.com message boards. The rankings in that thread and the ensuing wall-to-wall discussion of player values and dynasty league strategy took on a life of its own at over 275 pages and 700,000 page views. The result is what you see in the sidebar under "Updated Positional Rankings": a comprehensive ranking of dynasty league fantasy football players by position on a tiered, weighted scale. In the tradition of the original footballguys.com Dynasty Rankings thread, intelligent debate is welcome and encouraged.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Quote of the Day | March 11, 2009: Hot Streaks

From Bill James' 2005 SABR article, "Underestimating the Fog":

Most baseball fans believe that players get “hot” and “cold.” Many analysts believe (and a popular web site is devoted to proving) that this is nonsense, that hot streaks and cold streaks are just random clusters.

Everyone agrees that a hot streak is a transient phenomenon. Therefore, why doesn’t everyone agree that it is a non-real phenomenon—a random sequence?

Because people believe that there is some persistence to the transient phenomenon—in other words, that the persistence is not zero.

My opinion is that, at this point, no one has made a compelling argument either in favor of or against the hot-hand phenomenon. The methods that are used to prove that a hot hitter is not really hot, in my opinion, would reach this conclusion whether hot hitters in fact existed or whether they did not.

Stated another way, the hot-hand opponents are arguing—or seem to me to be arguing—that the absence of proof is proof. The absence of clear proof that hot hands exist is proof that they don’t. I am arguing that it is not. The argument against hot streaks is based on the assumption that this analysis would detect hot streaks if they existed, rather than on the proven fact. Whether hot streaks exist or do not I do not know—but I think the assumption is false.

Tags: Bill James, baseball, Moneyball

No comments: