The first political debate of the election season (and "election season" is a generous term, since we have about 15 months to go before we vote) is Aug. 6. That might seem like a strange topic for this column, because politics and fantasy football don't normally go together. After all, why cheapen the fantasy experience with something as sordid and dirty as politics?
But the methodology used to rank the 10 GOP candidates who will be on the prime time debate stage is similar to the one fantasy owners use to rank players. That is to say, it's flawed and probably will hurt them in the end.
Bur first, a quick word about lists. We use them all the time in fantasy football. They let us see who we like and where we like them, which is valuable information to have when you're on the clock. They're not inherently bad. They're essential.
They also use list in politics. The first Republican debate, for example, is using a very specific list: Only the 10 most popular candidates according to the polls get a prime time spot.
Sounds fair, right? It is, until you get closer to the bottom. The candidate in the seventh spot (comfortably in the debate) and the one in the 14th spot (not even close) are usually separated by just fractions of a point. And these polls often have error margins of three or four percent. These folks are basically interchangeable, but because one candidate is ranked well above another, they get preferential treatment while the other is ignored. And that can affect the nomination process, and the presidential election.
Now, let's move on to something much more important: Your fantasy draft. You also use a list, and it's possible that the difference between seventh and 14th at a particular position is minuscule. So what happens? One guy gets picked and the other gets left for someone else, because the difference looks huge (seven whole spots). That kind of pick might not break your draft, but it can make someone else's, which is just as bad. And that owner could be the one raising the trophy while you send out another congratulatory e-mail. All because of a list and the way things looked at that moment.
The problem with lists is that it appears to be so cut and dried -- one name is literally several spots above or below the others -- that it doesn't reflect the true difference between players. Two spots could be huge, and five spots could be almost nothing. Just using a list can create unintentional bias when you need it the most. So instead of drafting Donald Trump, you're going with Rick Santorum. And who wants that?
(As an aside, Santorum is rumored to be an enthusiastic fantasy baseball guy. So maybe he's actually a worthy sleeper in this example).
So what's the solution? First, use your lists in a smarter way. You'll note that when Ian provides his rankings on this site, you also get a projected points per game number next to each guy. That's very valuable. Because you might find that those numbers are, like a political poll, just fractions of a point from each other in a particular part of the list. In fact, sometimes he moves guys up and down based on factors other than that specific number. So pay close attention to the variance (or lack thereof) in projections when comparing players. Even if one looks like he's "way down the list," he might actually be right up there with everyone else.
Second, consider making tiers out of the lists and using that instead. That way you'll literally see them as being closer together instead of separated. And as you make your own tiers and write or type out the names, you'll have a chance to think about each one, and whether they really belong together in your mind. Maybe you're down on someone for whatever reason. Don't put them in that tier. Bump someone up or down based on how you feel about them. But when you select your players, you'll have everyone who belongs together in one group, instead of listing similar guys far apart. And when you use the rankings, look at the points-per-game number to show you just how close these guys really are to each other. Ian puts them there for a reason.
The GOP could learn that same lesson. Three guys -- Donald Trump, Scott Walker and Jeb Bush -- are the only ones consistently polling above 10 percent. They should be in a tier (and a debate) together. The next half-dozen candidates are a couple of points above the rest, so put them in a tier. Then let the waiver wire -- sorry, final group of presidential candidates -- debate together. That would be smarter.
But really, I don't care if they're smart. This is fantasy football. I only care if you're smart. Don't let a ranking fool you into thinking one players is heads and shoulders above another. Use the numbers behind them, and organize them in a way that won't create bias over fractions of a point. Then things might go better for you this December than some political folks next November.
How do you use your lists? Do you use tiers? Think my analogy is crazy? Share your thoughts below.
Follow Michael Murillo on Twitter: