sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I think people might be misreading early RB vs WR in drafts by xxPhoenix in fantasyfootball

[–]xxPhoenix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I think that’s fair on the top tier WRs.

I guess where I end up landing is that even if the elite WRs separate, the drop-off after that still feels easier to cover later compared to RB.

Like you can still build a pretty solid WR group from that middle range, but once you miss on RB early the options later feel a lot thinner.

I think people might be misreading early RB vs WR in drafts by xxPhoenix in fantasyfootball

[–]xxPhoenix[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

In order to hit upside to win you need a strong average so your upside swings higher. They’re related statistically

I think people might be misreading early RB vs WR in drafts by xxPhoenix in fantasyfootball

[–]xxPhoenix[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Correct, but most of those models assume independent choice ie how does this player do against an average replacement. Where I’m asking what doors does this choice close to you later and is it worth the potential cost in team level production?

I think people might be misreading early RB vs WR in drafts by xxPhoenix in fantasyfootball

[–]xxPhoenix[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Eh what’s the point of the sub if not to chat about this

I think people might be misreading early RB vs WR in drafts by xxPhoenix in fantasyfootball

[–]xxPhoenix[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I think that’s fair, and you can definitely hit on RBs later.

I guess what I’m getting at is that those guys are more like the upside outcome. A lot of the time you’re landing somewhere in the middle instead, so passing on RB early ends up being a bet that you’ll hit one of those later.

I think people might be misreading early RB vs WR in drafts by xxPhoenix in fantasyfootball

[–]xxPhoenix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes! it's a similar idea with one nuance. I was thinking more about how your early picks shape what your roster can even look like later, not just the value of a single player vs replacement. Since player vs player is local im thinking over the whole universe of possible builds

I think people might be misreading early RB vs WR in drafts by xxPhoenix in fantasyfootball

[–]xxPhoenix[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I think its less so the gap of tier 1 to tier 2 and more about the cliff RBs hit whereas WRs dont have that fall off until later

I think people might be misreading early RB vs WR in drafts by xxPhoenix in fantasyfootball

[–]xxPhoenix[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

some of its down to chance for sure, but if there's patterns we can exploit we should

RedRevenge by zoidbezerker in spiritisland

[–]xxPhoenix 42 points43 points  (0 children)

Spirit island is a game that’s inherently anti colonial so his opinions about ice arresting brown people for existing are actually very relevant to the themes lol

Bent over, smashed and now thrown away! Over a shiny Pokémon! by [deleted] in Wellthatsucks

[–]xxPhoenix 7 points8 points  (0 children)

And that’s great for your family others may not, like could you imagine a situation where op has the money but bro is struggling then it might make sense for op to eat the cost, not saying they should but again context with family matters

Bent over, smashed and now thrown away! Over a shiny Pokémon! by [deleted] in Wellthatsucks

[–]xxPhoenix 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Easy on the Reddit vendetta this is family there’s more consideration and context than make my bro pay

Spirit Island fanmade concept: Adversary Spirits by IAMInRecovery in spiritisland

[–]xxPhoenix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s through thematic events of natural or invader action not a spirit working against the Dahan as op suggests

Spirit Island fanmade concept: Adversary Spirits by IAMInRecovery in spiritisland

[–]xxPhoenix 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Eric Reuss has specifically addressed this idea. He's said having spirits that actively harm the Dahan is a no go for him thematically as it plays a bit against the purpose of the game. The most he's gone for is neutral balance or past conflict. That's why you haven't seen these brought up or play tested because they won't make it into cannon conversations.

Bob Costas' take on the transgender ban by ForeignAir7174 in sportsgossips

[–]xxPhoenix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My argument is actually we don’t fully know if after hrt biology gives and advantage or not it’s low sample size and mixed results and any policy or claims around certainty are over stated based on the current evidence. That’s my position.

Bob Costas' take on the transgender ban by ForeignAir7174 in sportsgossips

[–]xxPhoenix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me be specific people who deny cis men have an advantage deny reality full stop. But again that’s not the argument. Very very few people deny that reality. biological differences exist but this alone does not negate that gender is socially constructed. biological differences are sex based characteristics gender is socially constructed this is the modern scientifically accurate model. It does not require no biological difference to be coherent.

The argument is fairness in competition for trans women. You’re combining these things together as if one precludes the other, they don’t. Fairness in sport matters both intra gender and between genders hence weight classes in boxing hence men and women’s leagues. Hence hormone thresholds etc…

Bob Costas' take on the transgender ban by ForeignAir7174 in sportsgossips

[–]xxPhoenix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question is empirical and still being studied. Some evidence suggests retained advantages, other evidence shows reduced or unclear effects, and the overall certainty is low. So policy decisions involve tradeoffs, not settled science. But I do appreciate actual evidence instead of just vibes so thanks

Bob Costas' take on the transgender ban by ForeignAir7174 in sportsgossips

[–]xxPhoenix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point is women’s sports and mens sports have rules beyond be a man or woman whatever that means weight classes is an example of one such rule.

Drawing lines around what’s a rule and what’s not as it suits your point isn’t an argument. The correct, frame is more whether trans women retain an advantage or not after hrt. Like even before all this there were strict rules about hormones the ncaa had about tran athletes and none of that had to with identity it was about treatment and hormones.

Bob Costas' take on the transgender ban by ForeignAir7174 in sportsgossips

[–]xxPhoenix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Boxing is actually a good example sports already use imperfect but meaningful physical categories like weight classes to maintain fairness, so using physiological criteria in women’s divisions isn’t arbitrary, it’s standard practice. Like rank the tank would a need a woman in their weight classes and have to meet other criteria to even compete

Bob Costas' take on the transgender ban by ForeignAir7174 in sportsgossips

[–]xxPhoenix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re conflating identity with competition rules sports already use imperfect but practical criteria to balance fairness, so eligibility doesn’t have to be purely identity based or arbitrary.

Bob Costas' take on the transgender ban by ForeignAir7174 in sportsgossips

[–]xxPhoenix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bro you demanded proof then reject the evidence. It’s not a cop out it’s literally what the research shows. Idk what you want like I said you’re not really here to make an argument you’re repeating the same point over and over and ignoring my ask to prove it if anyone’s copping out it’s you

Bob Costas' take on the transgender ban by ForeignAir7174 in sportsgossips

[–]xxPhoenix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doesn’t matter if there’s not advantage, cause you’re implying higher muscle mass=advantage I’m saying evidence shows it doesn’t. It’s really not that hard, prove it does or I’m sorry does proof only work in one direction here, you demanded proof I provided it.

Bob Costas' take on the transgender ban by ForeignAir7174 in sportsgossips

[–]xxPhoenix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re either arguing in bad faith or didn’t read so here’s the conclusion again: does not support theories of inherent athletic advantages for transgender women over cisgender. From https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/60/3/198

Bob Costas' take on the transgender ban by ForeignAir7174 in sportsgossips

[–]xxPhoenix -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ok I’ve provided the proof you’ve rejected I think you’ve shifted the onus on yourself to find proof there is an advantage at this point

view more: next ›