I wrote Draft Kings and asked them a question about position eligibility and the availability of players on an given day. In the third week of the season there was a lot of changes in positional eligibility, most noticeably at two under performing spots: Catcher and Shortstop.
During that week, Victor Martinez and Joe Mauer lost Catcher eligibility, while Brian Dozier, Dee Gordon, and Billy Hamilton had their SS designation removed. So I asked them, what triggers these decisions because there are still a lot of players who are "incorrectly" labelled as compared to the reality of MLB (Most Notably Jimmy Paredes at 3B/OF and Alex Guerrero at 2B/3B). This is what they replied.
There are myriad variations in rules governing fantasy baseball. Some leagues use OBP over AVG, some use 5 OF instead of 3, etc. The generally accepted principle that denotes fairness in this is that the rule itself is of minimal import, as long as it's (1) upfront, and (2) applied to all teams identically.
However, in DFS, the arbitrariness of deciding positional and player availability fails this test, at least in part. Daily Fantasy wants to be considered a game of skill, which it is only considered so because of a legal exception, against common sense. And I'm OK with that. But what other "game of skill" has the fundamental parameters of the game fluctuate without warning? How would you feel if you showed up at a baseball game and found that the bases were now 105 feet apart because the league felt that scoring was too high? If the parameters of the game change, day to day, and game to game, it makes it impossible to develop one's "skills."
The problem I see, and why I think this needs to be pointed out is what this says about your daily strategy when attacking this game. The players who got their eligibility curtailed were all well known players, the kind of player someone who is new to DFS would be comfortable rostering. I know I played Dee Gordon and Joe Mauer a lot in the first three weeks. The players who didn't change, were lesser known players, the types that only someone who understands the role star power plays in this game, which is mostly to distract you from fielding the best possible lineup. The pros, the guys and girls who play every day and have for years, really don't pay too much attention to "Superstar" status. They are completely comfortable fielding a Danny Espinosa at SS (who really isn't a shortstop) over a Jose Reyes. The application of this arbitrary feature is meant to give the established players an advantage, which helps the game appear to be a skill game. You need to learn from this to think like they do and jettison your preconceived notions of who is great and who is not.
I didn't know what to make of this reply from DK at first. Every player is in the same boat, so it does have some semblance of fairness. But then something happened, which clarified what needs to learned from the arbitrariness of positional designations. A nobody of a player on the Texas Rangers, who was priced at the very minimum, a 2B named Thomas Field suddenly gained SS eligibility (and had his name changed to Tommy). Why was this quirky change made? Because the typical baseball fan would never dream of choosing Tommy Field at 2B over Jose Altuve or Robinson Cano, but the season DFS'er would no that value can be found in any hitter who actually will be facing a pitcher with bat in hand that day.
In all honesty, every site uses the same tactics when deciding on position eligibility. Draft Kings policy is more infuriating because of the flexibility they allow at position gives them more opportunity for what appears to be very arbitrary changes.
During that week, Victor Martinez and Joe Mauer lost Catcher eligibility, while Brian Dozier, Dee Gordon, and Billy Hamilton had their SS designation removed. So I asked them, what triggers these decisions because there are still a lot of players who are "incorrectly" labelled as compared to the reality of MLB (Most Notably Jimmy Paredes at 3B/OF and Alex Guerrero at 2B/3B). This is what they replied.
There are myriad variations in rules governing fantasy baseball. Some leagues use OBP over AVG, some use 5 OF instead of 3, etc. The generally accepted principle that denotes fairness in this is that the rule itself is of minimal import, as long as it's (1) upfront, and (2) applied to all teams identically.
However, in DFS, the arbitrariness of deciding positional and player availability fails this test, at least in part. Daily Fantasy wants to be considered a game of skill, which it is only considered so because of a legal exception, against common sense. And I'm OK with that. But what other "game of skill" has the fundamental parameters of the game fluctuate without warning? How would you feel if you showed up at a baseball game and found that the bases were now 105 feet apart because the league felt that scoring was too high? If the parameters of the game change, day to day, and game to game, it makes it impossible to develop one's "skills."
The problem I see, and why I think this needs to be pointed out is what this says about your daily strategy when attacking this game. The players who got their eligibility curtailed were all well known players, the kind of player someone who is new to DFS would be comfortable rostering. I know I played Dee Gordon and Joe Mauer a lot in the first three weeks. The players who didn't change, were lesser known players, the types that only someone who understands the role star power plays in this game, which is mostly to distract you from fielding the best possible lineup. The pros, the guys and girls who play every day and have for years, really don't pay too much attention to "Superstar" status. They are completely comfortable fielding a Danny Espinosa at SS (who really isn't a shortstop) over a Jose Reyes. The application of this arbitrary feature is meant to give the established players an advantage, which helps the game appear to be a skill game. You need to learn from this to think like they do and jettison your preconceived notions of who is great and who is not.
I didn't know what to make of this reply from DK at first. Every player is in the same boat, so it does have some semblance of fairness. But then something happened, which clarified what needs to learned from the arbitrariness of positional designations. A nobody of a player on the Texas Rangers, who was priced at the very minimum, a 2B named Thomas Field suddenly gained SS eligibility (and had his name changed to Tommy). Why was this quirky change made? Because the typical baseball fan would never dream of choosing Tommy Field at 2B over Jose Altuve or Robinson Cano, but the season DFS'er would no that value can be found in any hitter who actually will be facing a pitcher with bat in hand that day.
In all honesty, every site uses the same tactics when deciding on position eligibility. Draft Kings policy is more infuriating because of the flexibility they allow at position gives them more opportunity for what appears to be very arbitrary changes.
No comments:
Post a Comment