This week’s edition of The Price is Right is brought to you by hindsight bias. The lesser-known cousin of recency bias, hindsight bias is when our brain tells us that the outcome of certain events was predictable only after information becomes available after the event. I few weeks ago, I fell victim to this. I root for the Houston Texans and in week two, they traveled to play the Titans. The day before the game, it was announced that Marcus Mariota would not play and that Blaine Gabbert would be the starting QB. This news got me excited enough to, shall we say, make a financial investment in the game and the prospect of the Texans covering the three-point spread. Well, a few hours later, the Texans had been Gabberted into a three-point loss.
I spent the next day mentally uncovering all the reasons why it should have been clear that the Texans would lose that game. Their ultra-penetrable offensive line too frequently leaves Deshaun Watson exposed. The Titans’ new coach, Mike Vrabel, spent the last several years with the Texans and knows the playbook. The Titans’ young, speedy receivers were mismatches for the slow, aging secondary of the Texans.
In reality, the available evidence led me to the right decision. Blaine Gabbert has enough game film that we know who he is. The Texans pass rush is back to its dominant form. There was a reason the Texans were favored, even on the road.
Hindsight bias and recency bias are EVERYWHERE and are prominent factors in all aspects of our lives. But is there, you may ask, a connection to The Price is Right with hindsight bias? Brothers and sisters, of course there is.
On The Price is Right, there is a game called Punch-A-Bunch. Essentially, there is a board with slots filled with cards that have dollar amounts on them. The contestant can win punches on the board and after each card is pulled, they must determine if they want to keep the cash amount on the card or press their luck with the next one. A typical Punch-A-Bunch board looks like this:
Five rows, 10 columns, 50 total spaces that can be punched. You can see beneath the board the breakdown of the odds of winning each amount. Chances are slim that you will win some of the big cash, so contestants will almost always stop when they reach something that gets into the four figures. So with the stage set, take a look at this jamoke:
OK. I mean, where to start? A contestant has a 5/50 – 10% – chance of winning between 5K and 25K (and this guy may have had a max of 10K since it was clearly from several years ago). Somehow, even with those slim odds, he pulls $5,000 on this first card. Way to go, leather Kangol hat guy.
Now if you were to find this guy and ask him if he feels like he made the right decision in throwing that card out and moving on, I am sure he would say he did. But he would certainly not have rationality on his side. He actually decreased his chances of winning at least $5,000 by 20% when he decided not to take it. He already found one of the cards out of 50 spots, which had a 10% chance of happening. Now, he has four cards left of at least $5,000 with 49 cards remaining. His odds are now 8% that he will find another one of equal value and only a 4% chance of finding one of greater value. And he does. I hope he bought some lottery tickets with that cash.
In the end the results worked out for him despite the bad process. How many times can we think back to when we have been on opposing sides of variance? Some decisions work out when they shouldn’t (such as when I played Tevin Coleman in my week six cash lineup – he scored!) and some don’t when they should (like when I played the Bears DST – they sucked!). Trust the process. Trust the Process.
Crap. Except forget about two of those guys.
Each of our players highlighted this week will have some element of hindsight attached to them. We must decipher how we view past performances, and not let hindsight cloud our judgment.
Quarterback – C.J. Beathard ($6,400)
Depending on how you view Derek Anderson (I view him like I view these kids who make a fortune opening up toys on Youtube videos), there is not a starting QB cheaper on the main slate than Beathard. Not Osweiler, not Bortles, not Sam Darnold. On the other hand, Beathard is top 12 in QB points over the past two weeks, scoring more than Rivers, Bortles, Cousins, Dalton, and others. Beathard has multiple passing touchdowns in each of the past three weeks and has even averaged over 15 rushing yards during that time. How do we balance these opposing forces?
The matchup in week seven, I believe, can help tip the scales. The Los Angeles Rams have given up the following QB lines the past three weeks:
Case Keenum – 322 yards, 2 TDs
Russell Wilson – 198 yards, 3 TDs
Kirk Cousins – 422 Yards, 3 TDs
They are clearly struggling to contain the pass while missing Aqib Talib and Marcus Peters. In fact, Football Outsiders has them pegged as only the 14th strongest pass defense by DVOA, a very average number. As a 9.5-point underdog, game flow will dictate the 49ers to pass. Look for George Kittle and Marquise Goodwin to draw significant targets.
Running Back – Tarik Cohen ($6,600)
The 49.5 total in this Bears/Patriots matchup is the fourth highest on the slate and a game in which we should have some exposure. Highlighted in my Take It or Leave It column on October 15, Cohen’s usage and value of touches are on the way up. To recap, Cohen’s snaps, targets, and receptions have risen four straight weeks, and his target market share has been at least 30% the past two games. With a team total projected over 23 points, the Bears must deploy their most lethal weapons to go head to head with the Patriots.
The matchup, on paper and in the eye test, don’t seem terribly daunting either. The Patriots give up the fifth most passing yards to running backs in 2018 at over 60 per game. Combined with the fact that the Bears have risen up to #8 on Pro Football Focus’ offensive line rankings and the makings of a perfect storm of open space may present itself for the much more dynamic Bears’ running back.
Running Back – Frank Gore ($5,600)
Do you have any idea what kind of creepy shit you get when do a Google image search for “Gore”? There’s something wrong with you people. I implore you to add “Frank” to your search if you are looking for the Dolphins’ 223-year old running back.
This play is purely about matchup for me and how opportunistic it might be for FRANK Gore. Detroit is rated presently as the 27th worst run defense by Football Outsiders. They have, in fact, given up the 4th most Fanduel points per game to running backs through the first six weeks, and the three teams that have given up more (Chiefs, Cardinals, and Falcons) are not on the main slate.
Gore’s usage appears solid, despite Miami unleashing Drake more in the passing game. In the last four weeks, Gore has seen his carries increase in each contest and he finally crossed the 100-yard threshold in week six. He also is still averaging 4.9 yards per carry and will continue to do so until the end of time.
Wide Receiver – Willie Snead ($5,400)
The Saints against #1 wide receivers when Marshon Lattimore plays? Very good. Against all other receivers whether on the outside or in the slot? Not so good. In fact, I would like to highlight (or rather lowlight) some pertinent ratings for Ken Crawley, the Saints defensive back who will likely cover Snead in the slot on Sunday. On Crawley’s assignments:
Passer Rating Allowed – 158.3 – #76 at his position
Fantasy Points Allowed Per Snap – 0.62 – #73
Fantasy Points Allowed Per Target – 2.9 – #74
Fantasy Points Allowed Per Game – 18.3 – #75
(all from Player Profiler)
Snead saw season highs in targets, receptions, average depth of target, and target share in week six. For as good as he was, those numbers all have room for improvement this week in a prime matchup.
Tight End – David Njoku ($5,700)
Let’s not get cute and overthink this. I will give you one chart.
Tampa Bay gives up more than two more Fanduel points per game to tights ends than any other team. Giddy up.