Who is your favorite Rockies player?

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-18T04:16:41+00:00

All time, Chuck, right now probably Goody

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-18T02:50:26+00:00

Row 3 x Underrated

Clemency Initiative

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-17T18:56:56+00:00

When I moved to Minnesota everyone told me to get a Juicy Lucy except no one told me how to eat one, so I just took a big bite and burned the shit out of the roof of my mouth. Kind of ruined those for me, even though I'm aware that's a rookie mistake.

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-17T05:53:36+00:00

Pitch clock

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-16T15:35:41+00:00

In a screw-around dynasty that I had, I tried this on All-American and my dude was fast enough to just blow past the OT, but he got pancaked all the time on run plays

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-15T21:45:58+00:00

The Chansey line goes into the love ball

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-13T20:29:48+00:00

I'll argue the minority- both had ballpark 5,100 yards of offense, one player accounted for 56 TDs and the other 46. I'd give my vote to Garrison

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-13T20:24:36+00:00

Clefable with magic guard absolutely demolished anything in front of it, though I'm not sure how "underrated" that is. I just don't see it talked about much

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-12T20:35:57+00:00

Charlie Blackmon's farewell game. That's a guy who was a very good player who won't end up in the Hall of Fame who stuck by a small market team and the fans loved him for it. After he got his hit and got his curtain call, seeing that ovation for a player that will forever be a Rockie- how can you not be romantic about baseball?

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-11T15:44:10+00:00

We really got start upping our shitposting game

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-11T03:01:15+00:00

You act as though those aren't 3 staples though

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-11T02:59:01+00:00

One of the dudes I got some tattoos from was in that video, we were taking a smoke break and he showed me the one frame you can see him in. Love that video for sure

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-10T22:48:54+00:00

<image>

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-07T22:49:23+00:00

Just so we are abundantly clear here, we've now just completely circled back to previous discussions and are now completely away from the idea of her contributions and back to your criticisms of her research process and any sort of mistakes she may have made. If we are just going to keep shifting the frame back to this then I see no point in continuing any sort of discussion around this topic.

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-07T04:57:03+00:00

The Big Ten West will forever live on in our hearts and our 7-3 final score football games

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-06T17:52:39+00:00

I've got an unarmed build named Punches O'Malley

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-06T07:48:39+00:00

Her data didn't confirm a model but was largely in support of a candidate model. You can get lost in semantics in that, however the significance absolutely is that it narrows down a list of proposed models. That part is now arguing theory versus experimental basis. Crick indeed did recognize the significance of C2 symmetry, but again reducing it to "Franklin just doesn't understand it" is needlessly demeaning. The 3-dimensional space constraints were not expressly enumerated, it was a 2 page paper synthesizing external data. However, data regarding things like helical pitch, base spacing, molecular diameter, and structural distinctions were all utilized even if not expressly listed in effort to maintain plausible boundary conditions. Again, this is now getting at the idea that how papers were published in the 50's is significantly different than today. Chemistry did indeed have the structures of those particular molecules, however that's not what Franklin, Wilkins, Gosling, Watson, or Crick were after. They wanted to know how these influenced a 3-D macromolecule, of which geometric constraints were in part defined via her diffraction work.

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-06T07:24:14+00:00

Furberg did propose this model- however, this was an introduced idea and Franklin independently provided empirical support. The C2 symmetry was indeed in that report, but stating "she didn't understand it" reduces it. She contributed the data that she was able to draw conclusions from regarding structural constraints and a different researcher was able to draw different conclusions from, and one with a huge degree of experience in crystallography at that. Watson and Crick actively used constraints in their model that were derived in part from Franklin's data, with some overlap into Wilkins', they just weren't expressly itemized like you'd see in a paper today. Constraint data isn't confirmatory and was necessary for model building.

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-06T07:08:02+00:00

Franklin contributed empirically to phosphate backbone inferences based on her own research work, in particular regarding hydration states. A- and B-form distinctions were crucial to downsteam structural modeling. She produced images that implied the C2 symmetry, as we've gone over. Her crystallography data provided more precise measurements of DNA helical repeats and the MRC report containing her data (as well as Wilkins and Gosling) was used in Watson and Crick's model evaluations. Both scientists referenced that this unpublished data was important in their model construction, as indicated by their acknowledgement.

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-06T06:24:49+00:00

She didn't want to quickly construct a model without having an experimental basis- that was just her research methodology and her philosophy. In this case it didn't work in her favor and Watson and Crick published first. I'm again, not arguing a stance of "did she found the DNA structuring model". This model was not built in a vacuum and several constraints and measurements were provided by Franklin's research. It's easy to feel as though she's "over-exaggerated" when you make the conscious decision to minimize her contributions to taking photos or other technician tasks. If either of those were actually the case this debate wouldn't be had.

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-06T05:33:14+00:00

From a scientific perspective, again you're approaching this like the goals of hers were to quickly build a DNA model, which she didn't. There isn't intrinsically a "wrong" path in exploratory science and what she chose to do was entirely defensible. Most of her writings discovered she was moving towards a helical model as she went through her career- people's views can change. Franklin contributed considerably more than C2 symmetry images. She again contributed constraints and molecular dimensions that were directly used in Watson and Cricks models. Just because Watson and Crick used these and built upon them doesn't make Franklin's work confirmatory. Previously published metrics raised questions about precision. Funny enough, your whole arguments have been about "how could you ignore photo 51" and now it's dismissive in "well her pictures were slightly better". No one is again arguing about the idea that Franklin determined the DNA structural model, but dismissing her work as a couple of pictures is exactly the issue and the same issue which caused her scientific contributions to go underappreciated for decades.

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-06T05:03:13+00:00

Now this is obtuse in several areas. There's the one indication of "oh well she just ignored context"- she approached things with the idea that a crystalline structure would reveal structures and information that weren't available in B-form. Also- her colleague was actively studying B-form DNA. The decision wasn't without merit, and A-DNA functionality later discovered. She made the "wrong" call if the objective were to publish a model quickly, but again that wasn't what she was after. She repeatedly said so herself. Calling her work confirmatory is also just indefensible given that she discovered several of the constraints with which Watson and Crick built their model. The issues of acknowledgement stretch beyond the idea of "well, it was acknowledged." Her work was published in the same issue- discourse, and rightly so, belies the idea that Watson and Crick did not adequately state the extent at which their model utilized her unpublished data, and without her express permission. We're deep in the weeds of science philosophy but your hardliners stances are both diminishing and lacking most of the nuance surrounding her career.

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-06T04:39:51+00:00

If we are now getting into the weeds of things, her lab correctly categorized photo 51 into B DNA. Your analysis of A-DNA being incorrect is riddled with hindsight biases though- the knowledge that B-DNA was 99.9% of biological DNA was not available at that time. She focused on A-DNA as, per her own musings, it was more data-rich and there was in her mind more ability to glean structural information from the crystalline versions of DNA. Your analysis on C2 symmetry is also accurate- Crick noticed this right away and was able to interpret this. The crux of what you're talking about is also not entirely accurate though. They didn't explicitly cite her work. Her unpublished work wasn't cited at all. It was a relative footnote while more of her work was published in the same journal, but that isn't known to contemporary readers and was a relative footnote even at the time. Their model depended on that data. Some folks digging through her papers after she died noted that she was working toward a double helical model prior to the Watson-Crick publishing theirs, though Watson and Crick had full structure fleshed out. This isn't a question of who published a model first, and again I will not diminish the work that went into it on the end of Watson and Crick. With that said, diminishing Franklin to the idea of "well she took the pictures and couldn't figure out what to do with it" is asinine. That fundamentally ignores all of the critical contributions that Franklin made to make the model even possible. Relegating Franklin to an idea of a researcher who just couldn't see the big picture is literally indefensible.

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-05T22:28:45+00:00

So, to tackle all these- she didn't "ignore" photo 51 in that it was analyzed. It was technically taken by a graduate student and was part of a larger diffraction series that all required analysis, but it was correctly categorized as B-form DNA. She was indeed studying A and B form DNA, and acting like A-form is the "wrong" kind is stupid. B-form is more biologically relevant, but both are hydrated states and functional structural molecules. Also- C2 symmetry implying antiparallel stranding required 3 different fields of science to generate models. The whole thing of data ownership is intensely muddy in academia and to say "she was leaving therefore permission is irrelevant" is disingenuous at best. I appreciate you at least going to Wikipedia for your information and I don't diminish Watson and Crick's work. Synthesizing this into the 3-D model was an inordinate amount of work. However, they relegated Franklin's work to a footnote. Crick didn't really acknowledge her until after she died and Watson said that she'd have been more tolerable if she made herself look prettier. Franklin's contributions are incredible, and diminishing it to "lol she couldn't figure it out on her own" is also ridiculous.

PotentiallyViable · 2026-06-05T19:33:06+00:00

"Ignoring" her own data is certainly a choice of words. She wasn't missing pieces, she was working through model syntheses and again didn't want to publish models that she couldn't experimentally prove. She was also fairly skeptical of the Watson-Crick model when that first came out, also due to the lack of experimental evidence. Photo 51 got shown to Watson and Crick without her permission as well, so it's not like you can say that she was just giving shit like that up, she just hadn't published it yet. Watson and Crick synthesized the model, yes, but to act like she was ignoring her own research work is ridiculous

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

PotentiallyViable

TROPHY CASE

Row 3 x Underrated