(Finding An) NBA Edge - Week 3
I’m learning – I really am.
This last week marked my second profitable week in a row. The point of this article, of course, is for me to break down my lineups and the thought process behind them, in order to track my NBA journey and organically convey the things I am learning. Hopefully that means you have had back-to-back profitable weeks as well. If you haven’t, don’t worry. Today is as good a day as any to jump on board.
I played six slates this last week, which means we have more lineups than normal that we need to break down. As such, I am going to tighten up the intro section a bit, in order to keep this article to a manageable length.
Before we jump into my lineups from last week, however, there are three quick things I need to take care of.
1) Apparently, I am not writing a “strategy-specific article” every other Tuesday. I say “apparently” because I continue to not actually write it, in spite of my best intentions to do so, and in spite of telling you last week that you would be able to find that article on Tuesday. Maybe I’ll shape up in a couple weeks and finally write that article; I think it would be cool to put that out there for you, the day before the Game Theory show. But…yeah. Take that as an apology in case you happened to stop by on Tuesday in search of that article. I’m confident you found some other stuff on RotoGrinders that day that was well worth your visit.
2) Each week, I aim to organically mention my RotoAcademy course on Transitioning from NFL to NBA. As I talked about the last couple weeks: I mention that course because I truly feel it is an important, foundational piece if you are struggling to figure out where you can improve as an NBA DFS player. I’m still going to mention that course this week (I mean…I already have, right?), but screw trying to bring it up organically. Instead, I’m just going to drop the link below:
Also, I wanted to remind you that we have a new GrindersLive show called Game Theory that is airing every other Wednesday. This last week, the show featured Jeff Collins, HeadChopper, and me; I have already gone back and re-watched the show myself, as Jeff and Chop dropped some serious knowledge bombs in the show. If you find an hour at some point this week to sit down and watch the show, I encourage you to do so. You can find the link to that below as well:
3) Someone asked me on Twitter last week my thoughts on “game stacking.” It was interesting timing for that question, as Jeff and Chop ended up talking about “game stacking” in our Game Theory show.
Lately, I have found myself inadvertently stacking a game, simply because of instances of an expensive, high-usage guy being out and leaving lots of usage available for guys who are now priced far lower than they should be (I used three Pelicans when Anthony Davis was out; I used three Rockets when Dwight Howard was out; I used three Kings when DeMarcus Cousins was out). In each of those instances, I also used at least one or two guys on the other side, with the thinking being: If the guys I am using all have a good game, this likely means the game is staying close and the score is rising, which is good for the players on the other side as well.
After talking about (and actually thinking about) game stacking, I am now beginning to go out of my way a bit more to look for opportunities to do this. A couple opportunities I eyed on Wednesday night (after talking about “game stacking” on the Game Theory show) were:
Using Victor Oladipo on the same team as Russell Westbrook (with the thinking going like this: If you use Westbrook, you’re assuming the game stays close; if the game stays close – and we know OKC is going to put up a lot of points – that means someone on Orlando is going to be scoring a lot of points as well).
Using John Wall on the same team as Steph Curry (with the thinking going like this: If you use Steph at Washington, you’re assuming the game stays close; if the game stays close – and we know Golden State is going to put up a lot of points – that means Wall is also going to have to do a lot to keep the game close).
Ultimately, I did not use either stack, but it opened my eyes a bit to see the potential inherent in that type of thinking (on DraftKings, Oladipo put up over 50 to go with Westbrook’s 76; Wall put up over 60 to go with Curry’s 70). Undoubtedly, it’s worthwhile to keep an eye open for opportunities that will allow you to take advantage of close, high-scoring games.
One last note before we launch into my lineups from this last week:
Multiple people have asked if I use the same lineup in tourneys that I use in cash.
Yes, I do.
I might make a second tourney lineup some nights (I’ve rolled one or two extra lineups out there a couple times this season), but in all sports, my “cash game team” is also my “main tournament team.”
There is an important distinction for me to make here, however – and I hope you’re paying attention, because this is important:
I am not putting my “cash game team” in tourneys…
I am putting my “tournament team” in cash games.
This is something I am digging into in the “Single Entry” course I am working on for RotoAcademy, but to summarize (and simplify): I always try to build a team that I feel is good enough to finish in first, rather than aiming to build a team that is “good enough to finish inside the cash line in cash games.” This sometimes leads to lineups that take on more risk than the cash game lineups of most others…but I have also found in MLB and NFL (and am beginning to find in NBA as well) that when this approach is handled correctly, it can also lead to a higher cashing rate in cash games than most others are enjoying.
If you’re curious to know my in-depth thoughts on all this, I’ll let you know when the “Single Entry” course is completed and available on RotoAcademy. But until then, the simple answer is:
Yes, I use the same team in tourneys that I use in cash.
And now, after that intro that grew much longer than I wanted it to be, let’s take a look at my lineups from this last week.
How did I do?
Last week, I went 3-1 in cash games and cashed in tourneys on two of the four slates (with one tourney day bringing nice money off my investment).
This week, I went 4-2 in cash games and cashed in tourneys on three of six slates (with two tourney days bringing nice money off my investment).
I made fewer mistakes than last week, but there is still a lot of room for improvement.
Let’s take a look.
1/28/16
Score: 309.00
Result: Cashed in double-ups and had a nice return on my tourney investment
Team:
49.50 Rajon Rondo – $8400
24.00 Langston Galloway – $4000
17.25 Derrick Williams – $5500
55.25 Ryan Anderson – $6300
30.00 Myles Turner – $4600
43.75 Jrue Holiday – $6700
58.00 DeMarcus Cousins – $11,200
31.25 Omer Asik – $3200
There are a couple things that stand out to me from this team, this score (309), and this slate.
Firstly, I want to point out that only two players on this team were under 24% owned: Galloway (14.1% owned – which made no sense, as Jose Calderon was out, which enabled us to use our SG slot for a cheap guy playing point guard) and Omer Asik (1.4% owned). This provides a great opportunity to bring up the fact that “being contrarian” does not mean you have to be contrarian from top to bottom. If you build a strong team and have one or two guys everyone else is overlooking, this can be enough to shoot you past a large chunk of the field – especially in NBA, where production is more predictable than it is in other sports, and where it is therefore that much more difficult to unearth the high-scoring, low-owned guys who can win you a tourney.
Secondly, I want to talk about Omer Asik. I built this team after writing my “(Finding An) NBA Edge” article last Thursday…the article in which I had repeated, over and over again, “Trust your research.”
Yeah.
I liked Asik a lot. In the last three games that Anthony Davis had missed, Asik had scored in the mid-20s twice…and had put up a dud, on low minutes, against Houston, as the Pelicans (as teams often do against Houston) decided to go small that game, leaving Asik less involved. Because I could look at Asik’s game log, however, and see “six minutes and 5.5 fantasy points” against Houston in the last game the Brow had missed, I was scared of slotting Asik onto my roster. I also knew others would be scared to use him, which meant that if he had a big game, it wouldn’t kill me to miss out.
But I had just finished telling you (and myself) over and over again to “Trust. Your. Research!” So I trusted my research, for nearly 10x salary. I didn’t roster him to “be contrarian.” I rostered him because my research led me to believe he was a great play. I knew he would be contrarian, of course, but that was not my purpose in rostering him. I think that’s an important distinction to make.
1/29/16
Score: 297
Result: Cashed in double-ups and had a nice return on my tourney investment
Team:
10.75 Jerian Grant – $3100
36.25 Langston Galloway – $4000
57.00 Kevin Durant – $10,100
35.50 Thaddeus Young – $6300
40.50 Rudy Gobert – $6700
64.50 Russell Westbrook – $10,800
28.25 Aaron Gordon – $4900
24.25 J.J. Barea – $3900
One day after Derrick Williams had been my only player who failed to exceed value, Jerian Grant filled the role on my team of “Knicks bench player who should have been a great play because of injury and ended up being the only guy on my team who failed to exceed value.” The great thing about Grant, of course, was that he was 42% owned. And when a guy fails to hit value as a $3100 player, it doesn’t hurt you all that much, as long as you fill up the rest of your team with solid plays.
Galloway’s ownership jumped to 60% in cash games after being below 15% the night before, and I was able to find enough value to comfortably roster both Durant and Westbrook in what was expected to be a fast-paced, high-scoring affair against Houston. (Because both guys can exceed value in the same game when conditions are right, I love being able to use both of them when I can, rather than trying to decide between the two.)
Part of my ability to roster both Durant and Westbrook was due to rostering Barea, who had been seeing lots of minutes and lots of offensive responsibility in the absence of Devin Harris; somehow, Barea was only 11% owned on this night (I guess it was that whole “people don’t want to roster the guy who isn’t starting” thing), giving me a nice little edge on the field. And I jumped on the “Aaron Gordon as a cheap power forward who is listed as a small forward” train a bit earlier than anyone else on this night (14.7% ownership) – taking him against Boston in what turned out to be a solid showing.
My lowest-owned guys were Thaddeus and Gobert – at 8.8% and 3.4%, respectively. To be honest, there was no magic here that led to me making these picks. I liked the spot each guy was in (Thad in Dallas; Gobert vs Minnesota), and the salary worked perfectly to fit them. This was, essentially, an instance of “being lucky” over “being good.” I didn’t go out of my way to roster these guys; instead, they sort of fell into my lap as two guys I liked who fit perfectly, salary-wise, in the final two slots on my roster. It was a bit sloppy, and I would have been chastising myself for that fact if either of these guys had flopped that night, but I was happy that I was able to learn that lesson without having to take a painful loss as a result.
1/31/16
Score: 258.25
Result: Just missed the cut in double-ups
Team:
39.50 Damian Lillard – $9200
26.50 Langston Galloway – $4500
10.75 P.J. Tucker – $5300
27.25 Julius Randle – $6100
50.75 Karl-Anthony Towns – $7400
29.25 Kemba Walker – $8700
42.50 Michael Kidd-Gilchrist – $3700
31.50 Gorgui Dieng – $5000
I blame ‘Mad Dogs’ for this one.
If you haven’t seen ‘Mad Dogs,’ it’s the newest Amazon Original series. The writing is a bit sloppy in parts, and the plot seems to be full of holes, but wow! – it’s extremely absorbing, with great acting, and with characters who feel very real.
How does that fit into NBA? I’ll tell you.
This was the Sunday slate. Abby and I were out very late on Friday night with some of the RotoGrinders crew in Nashville, and Saturday was spent attempting to recover. On Saturday evening, we hung out with my oldest friend in the world, and what I really felt like doing after that was going back to our hotel room and going straight to sleep. There was one thing I wanted to do even more than that, though: watch the last two episodes of ‘Mad Dogs.’
Yeah.
So I stopped to get coffee in order to be able to stay awake long enough to watch those final two episodes. Then we watched those final two episodes. Then I couldn’t fall asleep, because I still had all this coffee coursing through my body.
Instead of using that time to read or to do some thinking or to do anything else that could be labeled “not stupid,” I got out of bed and used that time to research the Sunday NBA slate – which was dumb, because I was going to be at the NHL All Star Game that afternoon while late NBA news was coming out and while games were getting underway. My plan – intelligently – had been to skip that slate. Instead, I played it.
It wasn’t a bad team I put together. I finished three points out of the money in cash, and frankly, I only finished out of the money because P.J. Tucker put up 10.8 points. (Outside of the game in which he got injured six minutes in and missed the remainder of the game, he had topped 20 fantasy points in ten consecutive contests, and had topped 27 fantasy points in five straight; at 14.7% ownership, another five points from him – which still would have been a surprisingly subpar game – would have gotten me into the money.) With that said, however, I didn’t like this team when I locked it in place. I didn’t care for Lillard that day; I didn’t care for Kemba. But I was unable to really shift things around that day to find a team I loved, and that cost me.
You have probably noticed that I travel a lot. Late last summer, I wrote an article exploring how much better my cash game rate was in MLB when I was at home compared to when I was traveling. Since then, I have made an effort to only play slates when I can give them my full attention.
This last Sunday, I broke away from that resolution, and it cost me.
It wasn’t a bad team, but I’m glad that I finished out of the money that day. Finishing out of the money reinforced for me the realization that it’s only smart to play a slate when you can really buckle down and play it.
2/1/16
Score: 279.75
Result: Cashed in double-ups; just missed the cut in tourneys
Team:
38.25 Kyrie Irving – $6600
22.50 Khris Middleton – $7100
42.75 Kevin Durant – $10,400
33.50 Jordan Hill – $4800
23.75 Kosta Koufos – $3500
32.75 Marco Belinelli – $3900
30.00 Derrick Favors – $6600
56.25 Rudy Gay – $6800
My future bankroll is grateful that I cashed on this slate.
Because I am still building and developing my knowledge and confidence in NBA, I am more likely to get derailed by one bad slate in this sport than I am in MLB or NFL. Heck, after the slate on Thursday February 4 (which I’ll be breaking down as part of next week’s article), I have cashed in double-ups in eight of the last 11 slates I have played, and I have cashed in tourneys in five of those 11 slates (with really nice finishes three of those nights). That’s a small sample size, but it’s also a darn-near elite rate. And yet, I still get a bit unstable after a losing slate – and in the case of this roster, I went overboard trying to “make smart moves,” rather than just trusting my research and putting together a solid, top-to-bottom team.
There were three places where this was particularly evident to me.
1) Kyrie Irving. I never play Kyrie in cash. And sure, I could certainly justify this play (he’s had nice involvement in the offense since Blatt was fired, and the Cavs were playing a game against Indiana that was expected to remain close and was guaranteed to be a pace-up spot for them), but when it comes down to it, do you really want to dedicate $6600 in salary and a point guard slot on your roster for a guy who rarely tops five assists? This game went into overtime, and Kyrie picked up about ten fantasy points in those final five minutes. If not for OT, I would have had a much more difficult time finishing in the money.
2) Derrick Favors. I love Favors, and $6600 is too cheap for him. He was 40% owned in this matchup against Chicago, so it’s not like I was making some sort of outlandish play here. With that said, I couldn’t quite get comfortable with Favors on this slate, but I used him anyway. His game went into overtime as well, where he picked up a few extra points. It wasn’t a bad play, but I felt there were better plays on this slate, and yet I stuck with Favors anyway.
3) Kevin Durant. Okay, he was playing Washington, who is awful against wing players; he also grew up in D.C. and seems to save some of his best games for the Wizards. But to be honest, I got married to the idea of using Durant on this day – deciding I was using him no matter what. Even as I built some other rosters on which I used Westbrook instead (rosters I liked a lot more, even before games started – and that would have outperformed this roster), I had decided I “didn’t want to miss out on” a big game from Durant against the Wizards, so I stuck with him.
In spite of those mistakes, and in spite of my homeboy Khris Middleton absolutely bombing (thankfully, he was 54% owned on this slate – one of the rare instances of people actually rostering him!), I cashed. I can mostly thank Belinelli for that (he went over 8x salary, at 15.9% ownership, as he filled in at shooting guard for the Kings, and I figured there would be plenty of shots to be spread around with DeMarcus Cousins out), and that cashing made it easier for me to get back on track mentally, rather than sinking into a losing streak.
2/2/16
Score: 259.50
Result: Finished a few points out of the money in double-ups
Team:
24.25 Patrick Beverley – $4500
29.50 Dwyane Wade – $7300
28.50 Justise Winslow – $4400
28.00 Amar’e Stoudemire – $4400
32.25 Karl-Anthony Towns – $7800
59.50 James Harden – $10,300
22.50 Trevor Ariza – $5900
35.00 Gorgui Dieng – $5400
This slate was absolutely infuriating to me. I was reminded of why I make an effort these days to rarely (if ever) sweat slates throughout the night.
I’ll start with this: the biggest disappointments on the night were KAT and Wade, but because they were both so highly-owned (Wade at 51%; KAT at 86%), the biggest impact of their disappointing performances should have been lowering the cash line to a smaller number than we usually see. And that was very nearly the case, as my 259.50 looked like it would be solid for cashing in double-ups, at worst.
But then, Markieff Morris happened – and at 30% ownership, he put up more than 12x his salary and knocked me out of the money.
Why was this so frustrating to me? – why was it so borderline-tilting?
Because it was Markieff Morris. Look at what he did on Thursday night if you’re wondering what I mean (23.25 fantasy points – or just over 4x salary – at 84% ownership).
In all honestly, I should have shifted to Markieff myself. There were a lot of sharp players who used him that night even before it was official that he would be starting, as these sharp DFSers who have followed the NBA closely for years are aware of what an emotional player Markieff is. They knew that the coaching change was likely to spark a big game from him. They saw him as a great, low-owned, high-upside tournament play.
But then, Rotoworld released the information that ’Kieff was starting. This was after rosters locked on FanDuel, and you see the difference that this news made: he was under 15% owned on FanDuel; he jumped over 30% on DraftKings.
Maybe I should have shifted myself. If I had really thought through things, I would have said, “I know that late news from Rotoworld has a big impact on roster decisions. I bet ’Kieff sees his ownership spike, and I should move there myself in case he has a big game.” But I’m trying to get away from that type of thinking, right? – we talked about that last week. I think the better move, over the long run, is to build what you feel is truly the best team. So I didn’t move to Markieff…
Then, I finished four points shy of cashing, with Markieff dropping 58 fantasy points. Ouch!
I think the surprisingly high Markieff ownership that night is something we can learn from. Of course, Markieff’s minutes and usage spiked far more than anyone could have anticipated, but he was a good play on paper – a talented (albeit mercurial) power forward at only $4800, with an expectation for increased usage and maybe even a few more minutes than he had been seeing. With that said: we also had Josh Smith and Terrence Jones filling in for Dwight Howard, we had Stoudemire filling in for Hassan Whiteside against a Rockets team missing Howard, and we had Luol Deng and Justise Winslow in a phenomenal spot in a pace-up game against Houston. I genuinely felt all five of those guys were better forward plays than Markieff. All five of those guys had really nice point-per-dollar games that night. If I could go back and play that slate again, I would still probably stick to the decisions I made, as Markieff has a greater chance of disappointing on any given night than any of those five guys in the Miami-Houston game had in that particular matchup.
Ultimately, playing Markieff was a smart play on paper. For any of you who used him, it not only worked out, but it also made sense.
But if you, like me, chose not to use Markieff, I think that was a smart play on paper as well. No, it did not work out. But I think there was sound reasoning for going a different direction – and if we could go back and play that slate again, I would go that “different direction” once more.
2/3/16
Score: 273.25
Result: Cashed in double-ups; cashed in tourneys
Team:
40.75 Jeremy Lin – $5400
32.00 Evan Turner – $4800
28.25 Michael Kidd-Gilchrist – $4500
14.00 Jordan Hill – $5500
38.00 Brook Lopez – $7500
70.75 Stephen Curry – $10,700
26.00 Taj Gibson – $5600
23.50 Gorgui Dieng – $5700
This was one of those weird nights on which I really was going to be set no matter what I did, as my narrowed-down list of players was pretty much full of players who had good games. I messed around with several roster combinations along the lines of this team I used. There was one in particular that would have been about 20 points better (dropping down from Evan Turner to E’Twaun Moore, and moving up from Taj to Derrick Favors), but otherwise, this was about the best I could have done.
Turner and Steph were the only guys on this team under 20% owned, so I certainly didn’t go out on a limb with any of these roster decisions.
I think the only reason Turner’s ownership is consistently so low is because he is not the starter; but he sees steady minutes, takes a decent number of shots, and (most importantly for me, considering he’s a shooting guard) he gets a lot more peripheral stats (rebounds, assists, steals, etc.) than most guys in his price range – especially most shooting guards in his price range.
As for Steph: I used him over Westbrook for three reasons: 1) I felt the Warriors on the road against Washington made it unlikely we would see a blowout, 2) I felt that OKC at home against Orlando had a greater chance of a blowout, and 3) with Golden State and the Wizards both being among the fastest-paced teams in the NBA, I really liked the chances of Steph just absolutely going off. It turns out I was right. But it also turns out Russ outscored Steph by 5.5. I had the salary available to use Russ on this team, and maybe rolling with Steph was just plain overthinking things (after all: if Steph had been cold from the field, he would have just let other guys shoot; if Russ is cold from the field, he’ll keep shooting – which means Russ is always a safer cash game play than Steph, even if the upside is the same), but it sure was fun to watch those threes rolling in for Steph! If I could rework this roster, that’s the one change I would make (particularly for cash, as Russ is more guaranteed to chuck up tons of shots, and he notches more peripheral stats than Steph), but it worked out, so I’ll take it.
As for this article “working out” – what do you think? Is there anything in here you would like to see me do differently? Are the examinations of each lineup too long, or do you like the length the way it is?
Is there anything you would like to see me dive into more deeply (or less deeply) moving forward? Is there anything in particular you would like me to cover or answer in one of the intros?
Let me know in the comments.
I read them all – always. So I’ll see you there; and I’ll see you here next week; and in the meantime, I’ll see you at the top of the leaderboards. I’ll be there most days, waiting to hang out with you.