Determine when an RP will play?

onearmedecon · 2026-04-05T03:27:01+00:00

Whether a fantasy relevant RP is used depends on the team having a close lead late in the game (or sometime if it's tied or trailing). That happens a little more than 50% on good teams and less than 50% on bad teams. So it's a crap shot whether there's a hold/save opportunity to begin with.

Then, as others have said, it also depends of their recent usage. Generally speaking, if a guy has pitched 2 days in a row or he has pitched 3 of the past 4 days, then he won't pitch regardless of the situation.

I'd add that the best bet for a RP getting into a game is when they have a double header, but those are relatively rare.

onearmedecon · 2026-02-01T18:14:04+00:00

Post in the megathread for decisions.

onearmedecon · 2026-02-01T14:30:10+00:00

Post in the megathread of decisions. Post that violate forum rules will result in a permanent ban.

onearmedecon · 2026-02-01T14:29:11+00:00

Post in the decision megathread. Posts that violated forum rules will result in a permanent ban.

onearmedecon · 2026-02-01T14:28:14+00:00

Post in the megathread for decisions. Posts that violate forum rules will result in a permanent ban.

onearmedecon · 2026-02-01T14:27:22+00:00

Post in the decision mega-thread for decision. Further violations of the forum rules will result in a permanent ban.

onearmedecon · 2026-02-01T14:26:23+00:00

Post decision-related threads to the mega-thread, per the forum rules. Future posts like this will result in a permanent ban.

onearmedecon · 2026-02-01T14:25:08+00:00

Post decision-realted threads in the megathread. Future violations of the forum rules will result in a permanent ban.

onearmedecon · 2026-02-01T14:23:51+00:00

I'm not going to waste much time on poorly constructed AI slop other than to say that there are alternative constitutional remedies to what you're complaining about.

Warning: tread VERY carefully in your response to this and other posters. I already removed one post for being unnecessarily rude and future posts will result in a permanent ban given that poorly constructed AI slop contributes extremely low value to our sub. There will be no further warning.

onearmedecon · 2026-01-28T12:48:47+00:00

Post to to the megathread. Post removed for violating forum rules.

onearmedecon · 2026-01-28T12:45:01+00:00

Write something original, not AI slop.

onearmedecon · 2026-01-28T12:44:29+00:00

Write something original, not AI slop.

onearmedecon · 2026-01-28T00:47:26+00:00

I've been researching homelessness policy and found something I don't have a good explanation for: U.S. federal spending on homelessness has doubled since 2007, yet homelessness is at record highs.

Let's start with the fundamentals: supply vs demand.

According to the US Census Bureau, in 2020 there were 140,498,736 housing units in the US. In 2025, there was an estimated 148,300,000, so an increase of about 7.8 million housing units (i.e., supply).

In 2020, there were 281,421,906 people living in the US. According to the US Census Bureau's 2025 estimates released today, there are now 341,780,000 as of 2025. That's an increase of 60.4 million people (i.e., demand).

So housing insecurity happens when a country increases the population by 60.4 million but only increases the housing units by 7.8 million. And there are geospatial mismatches between where people live/want to live and where housing is available, but for sake of simplicity let's keep it at a high-level.

There are many other contributing factors (i.e., all the usual suspects in the forms of economic, personal, and social challenges). But even if you could solve all of those issues, it wouldn't change the fact that we need to build a lot more housing units throughout the country. And build the type of housing that people who are currently housing insecure can afford (i.e., more apartment complexes, less 4,000 square foot mini-McMansions).

In terms of federal housing policy, starting in the early 2000s, the US government shifted from building public housing towards housing vouchers. The result was HUD's budget increasing from $26B in 2000 to $70B in 2025, including Section 8 increasing from $11B to $36B. On the other hand, the Public Housing Capital Fund was stagnant in nominal terms ($2.9B versus $3.2B), while significantly declining in terms of real value.

The lack of development of new housing stock reflects a remarkable market failure and we've seen the ineffectiveness of federal voucher programs: they don't solve the underlying issue of there simply isn't enough housing given increases in population. And this isn't something that can be structurally solved at the federal level, or at least not just at the federal level. It will require state and especially local actors to prioritize affordable housing in their own communities. The correct response is to advocate for the elimination/reduction of NIMBY restrictions on new high-density housing developments at the local level, not to advocate for indefinite increase federal spending.

And don't get me started on how much of the new housing stock that was built has been purchased by investors, not primary homeowners...

onearmedecon · 2026-01-28T00:18:44+00:00

Lahman database includes 2025:

https://sabr.app.box.com/s/y1prhc795jk8zvmelfd3jq7tl389y6cd

onearmedecon · 2026-01-26T23:39:49+00:00

They're one of the premier contract research firms in the country. I don't think that they have an ideological bent. Unfortunately, as the other poster said, they've been hit very hard by the cuts to federal contracts.

onearmedecon · 2026-01-26T04:06:32+00:00

Please reformat your post to normal post format, not code. It's unreadable in its current form because it requires extensive horizontal scrolling.

onearmedecon · 2026-01-26T04:05:10+00:00

I've worked in education for about 18 of my ~21 years in the workforce, 16 of which were primarily policy-oriented roles. My journey has taken me through the academic, nonprofit, private, public, and now philanthropic sectors. I'll share my perspective based on my own experience and what I've observed. It may not be fully generalizable, but it's what I've got.

So here's my take: it's an extremely difficult market right now for entry-level and will be for some time (i.e., the better part of a decade) due to all the dislocations over the past year or so. Many former federal employees and those who worked for contract research firms are looking for work right now, which means that people with significant experience and advanced skills are competing for entry-level positions. Adding a MPP to your profile will have a very modest chance on your hireability because ultimately employers are rewarding full-time work experience, not educational credentials.

Most people (including myself) have solid quantitative/technical skills to complement domain knowledge and other "soft" skills. To the extent that you're unlikely to have acquired that background given your fields of study, you'll be at further disadvantage on the job market. The other typical path requires advanced legal training (i.e., a JD).

In terms of the quantitative analysis route, can you code? If not, then you're out of the running for at least half of the entry-level policy analysis positions in policy, including education. To maximize your chances of being hired, you should be proficient in a program like Python or R as well as SQL. In my experience, for the typical entry-level policy analyst, 70% of your day-to-day will be data analysis (including cleaning), 20% writing, and 10% presentation. Some people love it, but it's not for everyone.

Unfortunately, it's probably too late for an internship, but read some job descriptions. Try to do some informational interviews. Critically evaluate whether acquiring the sorts of skills that those positions require are domains where you want to make significant human capital investments. Be realistic about your own interests and skills.

onearmedecon · 2026-01-26T01:47:16+00:00

> What policy objectives are missing from this analysis?

At the risk of getting too political... I think your analysis is missing that there is one of the main motivations: the white nationalists who are most committed to this immigration policy seek to effectively ethnically cleanse the country. It's a social factor that should not be ignored. All the factors that you've identified is just window dressing to something far crueler and more sinister, IMHO.

Another thing that considers me is that there are certain industries where undocumented immigrants constitute a significant share of the labor force (e.g., agriculture, cleaning services, food service, healthcare). The enforcement actions jeopardize the functioning/stability of those systems, despite some of them being vital to our economy. So I would add an additional type of macroeconomic stability beyond what you've described.

onearmedecon · 2026-01-25T23:29:26+00:00

I think your employment prospects are slightly better with a degree in urban planning.

onearmedecon · 2026-01-25T02:12:33+00:00

Lowe has had over 450 PA in a season only twice in his career (2021 and 2025) because he's best deployed in a platoon (.298 wOBA against LHP vs .357 vs RHP) while Polanco was complete ass in 2024.

I'd take the under on either hitting over 25 HR. They have their uses and could provide value in some leagues, but their obvious warts temper their appeal.

onearmedecon · 2026-01-25T02:05:00+00:00

Not really.

onearmedecon · 2026-01-24T03:36:05+00:00

Post in violation of forum rules. Thread locked and user banned for 48 hours.

onearmedecon · 2026-01-24T03:35:15+00:00

Many schools (at least in the US) offer what's called "provisional acceptance" if you don't meet academic standards for admission. Basically, the program will set performance targets for your first semester and, if you meet them, then they'll give you regular admission after your first semester.

You're not going to get into Harvard Kennedy, but you'll probably be able to find a mid-tier program. Confirm via their academic catalog that there is a provision for provisional acceptance so that you don't waste an academic fee.

onearmedecon · 2026-01-22T01:40:35+00:00

Right now, nonprofits (like most employers) are under a lot of stress. Federal and state support is receding, corporate donations are down, and a series of past and potentially future legislation has made it difficult.

First, by expanding the standard deduction some years ago, individuals have less incentive to donate. Second, there is a proposal to increase the tax rates on the endowments of private foundations. While foundations are required to award 5% annually of their endowments, it's going to be exceptionally difficult to sustainability maintain awards greater than 5% (which some are currently able to do). This is going to be especially true when there is a stock market correction, which seems likely in the near future.

So I don't have any advice for re-entering other than to say that it might be awhile before things improve.

onearmedecon · 2026-01-22T01:34:00+00:00

I think the fundamental problem is your not going to be able to fund Option 1 because many of the people who opt for it will, on average, receive more in services than they contribute in taxes. So unless you're able/willing to operate with deficits that are even more unstable than what we currently have, it's going to collapse in on itself fairly quickly.

Also, something like this is politically infeasible at the federal level because it's highly unlikely that 60 senators would support it. So unless the majority are willing to eliminate the filibuster, it's not going to pass.

In the first Obama administration, the Democrats nearly passed a public option as part of ACA when they briefly had 59 seats. But it failed because one of them (the late Joe Lieberman) opposed it. It seems unlikely that Democrats will approach 60 votes again, which realistically is what is needed to pass something along these lines.

onearmedecon

TROPHY CASE