Ownership biases

[bigcsr67]

I have been thinking about this for awhile, but seems that when you own a guy on your team, you tend to value the guy a little more than he is really worth. This goes for studs and duds. I am guilty of ownership bias, and it is hard for me to really get a grip on players true value at times. I know when it comes down to making a deal, you want to get as much back as possible, but sometimes we all go a little too far based on our perceived value of guys on our teams. This is typical human nature I suppose, but what is funny about it, is when you finally do trade a guy, you immediately take his value down a notch because he is no longer on your squad. For me, I think I value Roddy White higher than most, but I am pretty sure most Roddy owners are guilty of the same thing, while non Roddy owners will value differently. Do you guys experience this feeling as well? Do you agree or disagree that perceived value has a lot to do with whether or not you own a guy? What are your thoughts, I would love to hear some responses?

[seahawks506]

I tend to be very impartial with my players. I'll get attached to a few that I'm very high on, but beyond that I don't let personal biases towards my players get in the way. I think breakout players are the hardest to stay un-biased,

[joeday]

Im not biased about it in my mind. For example in my keeper league team I have Nicks and Wallace and I would love to trade wallace in a deal for Calvin, for example, because I know he is better. But when I am try and trade with another team I would talk about wallace like he is the next Jerry Rice. Its more about the perception I give people about a player than how I actually feel about them...if that makes sense.

[gunslinger]

I think it is more about fair market value. I pay attention to all of the different site rankings, and then I have my personal rankings. Based off that, I want fair compensation. If I have a stud you want, you are going to have to pay the same price that I have to pay for studs, and the same goes for duds.

If an owner doesn't want to pay the price, I will keep them, or look elsewhere.

[bigblue204]

I tend to value most of my players higher than other owners, but I think thats why I own them. I targeted these players in the draft or in a trade. I think this makes sense for most owners.

[tstafford]

I tend to value most of my players higher than other owners, but I think thats why I own them. I targeted these players in the draft or in a trade. I think this makes sense for most owners.

I think this is spot on. If you went and got the players, you did so with a purpose.

A common situation where I suppose I value my players "more than others", is when they are down. Two guys come to mind this off-season for very different reasons (Gore and Britt). If you follow the posts on the board, you'll see that people are moving them but getting relatively little in return (IMHO). I own Britt in one league and Gore in another and I'm holding both. Does that mean I value them differently than other people because I own them, I guess so. But to me, it just means I don't want to give up meaningful fantasy value at a time when the players are at historic lows in value.

[hosler427]

I tend to value most of my players higher than other owners, but I think thats why I own them. I targeted these players in the draft or in a trade. I think this makes sense for most owners.

I think this is spot on. If you went and got the players, you did so with a purpose.

A common situation where I suppose I value my players "more than others", is when they are down. Two guys come to mind this off-season for very different reasons (Gore and Britt). If you follow the posts on the board, you'll see that people are moving them but getting relatively little in return (IMHO). I own Britt in one league and Gore in another and I'm holding both. Does that mean I value them differently than other people because I own them, I guess so. But to me, it just means I don't want to give up meaningful fantasy value at a time when the players are at historic lows in value.

This is very true. If you target a player you will usually value them higher than their market value. I also value the "lows" more. It is all about buying high and selling low!! Personally I only value certain players too highly (probably about 20% of any given roster) but I always keep an open mind and keep tabs on perceived value in the FF community.

[bigcsr67]

I tend to value most of my players higher than other owners, but I think thats why I own them. I targeted these players in the draft or in a trade. I think this makes sense for most owners.

I think this is spot on. If you went and got the players, you did so with a purpose.

A common situation where I suppose I value my players "more than others", is when they are down. Two guys come to mind this off-season for very different reasons (Gore and Britt). If you follow the posts on the board, you'll see that people are moving them but getting relatively little in return (IMHO). I own Britt in one league and Gore in another and I'm holding both. Does that mean I value them differently than other people because I own them, I guess so. But to me, it just means I don't want to give up meaningful fantasy value at a time when the players are at historic lows in value.

Good points here. I too value guys more when they are down, but in part due to the fact that I originally got those down players when their value was high in all owners eyes, and don't want to give up on them too early. I have difficulty being patient with young guys sometimes, but I am getting better with that the more years I play this great game.

[melish1631]

I tend to value most of my players higher than other owners, but I think thats why I own them. I targeted these players in the draft or in a trade. I think this makes sense for most owners.

I think this is spot on. If you went and got the players, you did so with a purpose.

A common situation where I suppose I value my players "more than others", is when they are down. Two guys come to mind this off-season for very different reasons (Gore and Britt). If you follow the posts on the board, you'll see that people are moving them but getting relatively little in return (IMHO). I own Britt in one league and Gore in another and I'm holding both. Does that mean I value them differently than other people because I own them, I guess so. But to me, it just means I don't want to give up meaningful fantasy value at a time when the players are at historic lows in value.

This is very true. If you target a player you will usually value them higher than their market value. I also value the "lows" more. It is all about buying high and selling low!! Personally I only value certain players too highly (probably about 20% of any given roster) but I always keep an open mind and keep tabs on perceived value in the FF community.

Well said...I am sort of guilty of this

[DynastyKing]

I tend to value most of my players higher than other owners, but I think thats why I own them. I targeted these players in the draft or in a trade. I think this makes sense for most owners.

I think this is spot on. If you went and got the players, you did so with a purpose.

A common situation where I suppose I value my players "more than others", is when they are down. Two guys come to mind this off-season for very different reasons (Gore and Britt). If you follow the posts on the board, you'll see that people are moving them but getting relatively little in return (IMHO). I own Britt in one league and Gore in another and I'm holding both. Does that mean I value them differently than other people because I own them, I guess so. But to me, it just means I don't want to give up meaningful fantasy value at a time when the players are at historic lows in value.

This is very true. If you target a player you will usually value them higher than their market value. I also value the "lows" more.
It is all about buying high and selling low!! Personally I only value certain players too highly (probably about 20% of any given roster) but I always keep an open mind and keep tabs on perceived value in the FF community.

I think you mean buy low, sell high right?

[ConnSKINS26]

Fantasy does have a fair amount of ego attached to it. I know that if I own a player, it's because I specifically believe in their talent. So of course being higher on them than conventional wisdom would suggest goes with that territory. I don't think it's "ownership bias". I think it's the other way around. I own most players because I'm high on them...I'm not high on them because I own them. If that makes sense. Its just differences in talent evaluation, really.

[hosler427]

I think this is spot on. If you went and got the players, you did so with a purpose.

A common situation where I suppose I value my players "more than others", is when they are down. Two guys come to mind this off-season for very different reasons (Gore and Britt). If you follow the posts on the board, you'll see that people are moving them but getting relatively little in return (IMHO). I own Britt in one league and Gore in another and I'm holding both. Does that mean I value them differently than other people because I own them, I guess so. But to me, it just means I don't want to give up meaningful fantasy value at a time when the players are at historic lows in value.

This is very true. If you target a player you will usually value them higher than their market value. I also value the "lows" more.
It is all about buying high and selling low!! Personally I only value certain players too highly (probably about 20% of any given roster) but I always keep an open mind and keep tabs on perceived value in the FF community.

I think you mean buy low, sell high right?

LOL...nice catch.

[andy77725]

Fantasy does have a fair amount of ego attached to it. I know that if I own a player, it's because I specifically believe in their talent. So of course being higher on them than conventional wisdom would suggest goes with that territory. I don't think it's "ownership bias". I think it's the other way around. I own most players because I'm high on them...I'm not high on them because I own them. If that makes sense. Its just differences in talent evaluation, really.

I agree with this. I think that where the ownership bias tends to come into play for me is with the guys who have yet to reach their potential. I tend to view my prospects at a value nearer where I perceive their ceiling to be. For example: I own Jordy Nelson, and I value him as if he were the WR2 in Green Bay. Will he solidify that position this year or ever? I don't know, but that is how I value him right now.

[ekassor]

I tend to value most of my players higher than other owners, but I think thats why I own them. I targeted these players in the draft or in a trade. I think this makes sense for most owners.

I think this is spot on. If you went and got the players, you did so with a purpose.

A common situation where I suppose I value my players "more than others", is when they are down. Two guys come to mind this off-season for very different reasons (Gore and Britt). If you follow the posts on the board, you'll see that people are moving them but getting relatively little in return (IMHO). I own Britt in one league and Gore in another and I'm holding both. Does that mean I value them differently than other people because I own them, I guess so. But to me, it just means I don't want to give up meaningful fantasy value at a time when the players are at historic lows in value.

Good points here. I too value guys more when they are down, but in part due to the fact that I originally got those down players when their value was high in all owners eyes, and don't want to give up on them too early. I have difficulty being patient with young guys sometimes, but I am getting better with that the more years I play this great game.

I don't mind a bit when I;m much higher on a player than consensus. The bold is the thing I try to avoid. Tons of noise. Does he have talent and opportunity?

[Richman]

Fantasy does have a fair amount of ego attached to it. I know that if I own a player, it's because I specifically believe in their talent. So of course being higher on them than conventional wisdom would suggest goes with that territory. I don't think it's "ownership bias". I think it's the other way around. I own most players because I'm high on them...I'm not high on them because I own them. If that makes sense. Its just differences in talent evaluation, really.

I agree with this. There are reasons why I target certain players and nothing is better than when it pays off.