I think part of my growth as a DFS player is being able to look back at days like today and reverse engineer what went right and what didn't work & learn from my own approach to the process.
For example, someone asked about Centers today and I posted three that I felt were in good matchups for various reasons & all came through.
I rostered Ish because of D'Antoni's role in bringing him back, coupled with the matchup. I played Crabbe because he was already a key part of the backcourt rotation, compounded by no Dame and J.R.'s defense. These things worked for me because they were logical and thought out.
Josh Smith single handedly killed most of my late lineups. I put him in as a cheap punt getting the starting nod but I ignored that the experiment had failed all year long before. I didn't research and see that there was turmoil with him and the coaching staff.
I forced Booker into lineups not because I actually like his game but because no Favors, No Gobert, No Griffin, somebody has to rebound, right? I played Norris Cole not because I thought he was a good play but because some DFS article said he was a good GPP play.
Basically, a lot of times when we (or at least I) complain about player performance, to a degree it was simply a bad play in the first place. Value punt because the starter's out, playing a team with a horrible DVP, chasing points - all mistakes that seem like solid rationale but really not informed or rooted in reasearch that lasted more than 2 minutes.
My NFL lineup this week looks a lot different than what I'd usually go for because I'm going back and proving to myself why this pick makes sense. Even if it bombs, if I know the selection process was solid, I'll be cool with the loss.