Jump to content
NBC Sports EDGE Forums

Brotherbock

Established Members
  • Posts

    702
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Brotherbock

  1. Always fear Foles off waivers. Dead last place team a bunch of years ago is playing against me as I try to fight my way out of a bad season. He grabbed Foles five min before gametime when the owner came back from taking a couple weeks off and realized his QB was on a bye. My struggling team has its best game of the season. Foles throws 7 tds.
  2. I think the Browns will do okay--I have been sitting on them for 4 weeks just for their Week 16 matchup. I just saw that someone had dropped TEN and decided I liked this matchup even more. I was almost very wrong. But think about it: Boyd and Green out, Driskel driskeling, and all the Browns have to do is try to stop Mixon and then let their DBs play. I'm expecting good things from them. All the same, I am very happy to have been gifted 10 points in the last minute and a half of that game. I need every bit this week, my opp is a killer. Good luck to you, maybe the Browns will do the same for you.
  3. Don't you badmouth my guys (who I picked up just for this week and started instead of the Browns and was really angry about until the literally very last play of the game when they justified my genius)! (Seriously though, if you were playing against them, that had to have sucked. Condolences.)
  4. I've been enjoying it all along I guess my point about 'random' is that, particularly in the FF realm, that word means something very specific. It may be that some irrational things are random things, but they aren't the same concept. And 'irrational' does often get a bad name, but it shouldn't. If I'm driving down the road and a dog runs out right in front of me, my swerving to avoid it isn't rational. There wasn't a logical thought process that occurred, it was a reflex. But it wasn't random. To say it wasn't rational isn't to say that it 'didn't make sense'. And we can justify it with rationality after the fact. But the action itself wasn't taken by way of any rational thought process. There was no "Well, if I turn the wheel, I won't hit the dog, and my goal is to not hit the dog, so..." process It was 'non-rational', is perhaps a better term. But even if we use 'irrational' to mean 'non-ideal for my goals', like an economist would, it's still not random. If I care about economics, and the environment, but I continue to drive instead of taking the train, my action is irrational. But it's not random, I don't find myself driving my car through chance. My action is still guided by some of my preferences. So that's what my point was about 'random'. It's no doubt that my league has changed--we started, iirc, as a non-ppr, TDs and yardage only, non-decimal league. I took over for the second year, we made it a keeper league, added decimals, eventually ppr, more scoring categories, rules to prevent people from leaving starting spots unfilled, etc. And the process to add those involves rational debate. But it relies on preference. For example, I propose a new rule--what if we apply -10 points to kickers who miss extra points? What I do is explain the reasoning--kickers have the easiest jobs in the world, and we should seek vengeance against them for missing the easiest part of their job. And then someone responds, again with reasoning--the -10 points punishes the FF owner, not the kicker. I see his point, and agree, and we don't implement the new rule. There's reasoning--but it relies on whether we value punishing the team for what the player does, and also to what extent we value kickers. We actually did have a rule for a while that was -X points if your kicker blows out his knee celebrating a field goal. The reasoning we use relies on the values you have. Each argument comes down in the end, as you've indicated, to a hypothetical statement: if you value a certain thing, then it makes sense to do such and such. But someone is free to say "I don't value that thing". And that's where reason, logic, rationality can't do anything.
  5. Right. You're agreeing with me. Rationality is very useful for locating the best course of action given a certain set of preferences. But rationality does not give us those preferences. If I value my personal comfort and privacy over the economic value of the train, then there is no rational argument that will make me see that my preferences are 'incorrect'. If I value economic value, and I'm not seeing how the train is better, then a rational argument can help me see that I am not satisfying my preferences as well as I could be. But you simply declaring that Week 16 ships are objectively 'better', or that ppr is objectively 'better', i.e. 'more preferable', has nothing to do with rationality. I have friends who play TD-only leagues, like they have since high school. They really enjoy those leagues, and they do not enjoy all the bookkeeping that you and I have to do with yards and catches and tackles and etc etc. You are just flat out wrong that lacking logical reasons means you are acting 'randomly'. If you love someone, but have no logical reasons, it is not 'random'. If you like pizza, but have no rational argument for why you like it, your liking pizza isn't 'random'. It's preference. The opposite of 'rational' is not 'random'.
  6. You have reasons, but in the end they are going to be based not on logic but on personal preference. My keeper league has been running since 2001, and we have our reasons for liking it as well. But in the end they aren't 'logical'. They are preference. I also prefer Week 16 championships, but there are people out there who like Week 17, and I'm guessing it's because they like the extra challenge of dealing with Week 17 uncertainties. If they recognize those challenges, and they like those challenges, there's no 'logic' you can give them that will make them say "Oh, yeah, I guess I don't really like what I like". Now if someone's playing with certain settings, and they are complaining about certain consequences of those settings, it makes sense to explain how a settings change can help. But if I like oranges, it makes no sense for you to try to 'logically' explain to me why bananas are better. If you think that preferences are based on rationality, you're gonna have a hard time.
  7. There's no need for counter-arguments. I just think you'll find that people will pretty much always disagree when you tell them that your way of playing a game is better. But good luck to you too No ill will.
  8. No, it's better to try to tell everyone else that their way of enjoying the game isn't a good way to enjoy the game. I can't be completely happy playing in my FF leagues unless I know that everyone else in the world is playing it and enjoying it in the same way. My own enjoyment depends on that!
  9. There is no skill involved in any league that isn't run the way my leagues are run.
  10. And now, having ridden Cam to a bye, he's making me have to seriously consider Mayfield next week. I hate having to make decisions! Why can't my team just score a whole bunch more points than everyone else?! Dammit.
  11. Good lord. The way my team is playing, I totally understand why Yahoo only gave me a 99% chance of winning my bye week.
  12. So I'm not watching the Cleveland game, but watching a livetrack of it. How in the world do you get an 'Illegal Man Downfield' flag thrown...on a running play?
  13. Always fear players going up against non-Playoff-bound Green Bay.
  14. It's apparently going to be a rough week for everyone. I'm on a bye, and Yahoo says I have a 99% chance of winning.
  15. Oof, yeah. No offense, that pretty much looks like the Drop List from an average league this year Until they run out of guys willing to risk permanent brain damage, there's always next year.
  16. There's something to the easy accessibility of 'pretty good' analysis just a click away on everyone's phone. Any edge really attentive owners have had via research in the past has been whittled down significantly, that's for sure. Tell me twenty years ago that some dude asleep at the wheel for the last four weeks would suddenly wake up and know immediately to add Jalen Samuels. Wasn't likely to happen back then.
  17. On the other end of the spectrum, I just spent 15 minutes making lineup decisions for my bye week.
  18. Newton is a second-half fantasy guy, always has been.
  19. If you trade for Kelce I WILL track you down.
  20. My good friend back in HS in the late 80s ran a total points TD only league. Kept it all in a spiral notebook, watched Sportscenter each night to see who scored. Super low tech, and fun. But I just prefer the smack talk and tension of H2H, even though the 'best' team doesn't always win. I'm okay with that.
  21. Because preferences and opinions vary, and some people find it more enjoyable nonetheless. If your point is that people who are complaining about H2H screwing them over year after year are on shaky ground for their complaints...I totally agree. At the same time--I enjoy H2H a lot, don't enjoy total points as much, and I still reserve the right to vent at those times when I get screwed because of it. Doesn't mean I don't still enjoy it more over all.
  22. If they 'coulda' had him for a 2nd or 3rd, then just winning may not be enough to validate that trade. I mean, Ricky Williams played some good ball for the Saints. But was Ditka validated in giving up 14 first round picks, 20 million in pure heroin, the last living manatee, and the secret to cold fusion just to be able to draft the guy? To validate a 1st rounder, Cooper has to clearly be one of the reasons they win.
×
×
  • Create New...