I missed the Week 5 Review. Nobody seemed to notice. And yet I shall continue to chronicle the exploits of our young league, whether you bastards want me to or not! Here's Week 6:
10.17.2012
10.09.2012
NBD - Week 5 Review
The conversation rages on over in the Week 4 Review comments section. I've really enjoyed and appreciated everyone's opinions, whether I've 100% agreed with them or not. The link that Screen most recently posted is the most thorough and interesting thing I've read yet on the issue, and further muddies my thinking. I encourage you all to check it out. I hope Mr. Screen (and anyone else who hasn't commented yet) will weigh in with his own thoughts at some point. In light of our interest and excitement over the whole issue, I've chosen some proverbs to characterize each of Week 5's games. Enjoy.
10.04.2012
NBD - Week 4 Review
I'm about to pontificate for a bit, so if you're not into that sort of thing, feel free to scroll down 'til you get to the game reviews. Still, I'd love to hear what you guys have to say about this:
I was watching 'Around the Horn' on Tuesday, and the long-debated issue came up of whether or not it's appropriate for the Washington football franchise to use the name 'Redskins.' Obviously, this is not the first any of us is hearing of this, and I'm sure I've had conversations with many of you before as to our thoughts on the name. Apparently, this latest round of debate was brought up by the decision (or defense of the decision) of the Kansas City Star not to use the name in its coverage of the team, presumably referring to them instead as simply Washington. Now, historically, I've been relatively agnostic about the whole issue, and half-heartedly defended the name based on a few arguments: 1) That choosing something as your mascot implies a pride and adoration in that mascot, so calling the team "Redskins" is a celebration of Native Americans, not an insult to them. 2) That the name "Redskin" does not seem any more inherently offensive than "White" or "Black," both of which are freely used to refer to ethnic groups (I feel like the brief era where some black people insisted on being called "African American" has passed; I don't know any black people who are offended by being called black), although admittedly the idea of having a team named the Minnesota Whites or Atlanta Blacks does seem a little odd, if not necessarily offensive.
But this latest discussion got me thinking again and investigating my logic, particularly because the argument made by the ombudsman of the Star reminded me of a decision I made myself about a decade ago to stop using the words "f*g" and "f*gg*t." Those were words I used often in high school and college, and if pressed on the bigotry of using them, I always pointed out that really my use of them had nothing to do with homosexuality, it was just kind of a synonym for "bad" or "weak" or "lame." But at some point I kind of decided that that was bullshit, and that it was a word that was used in a nasty way towards a group of people who I respected as humans, and so I just wasn't going to use it any more (or at least try not to - I'm not perfect and I may have even used it on this blog a time or two). Nowadays, I work really hard at educating my students not to use those words.
So is there a huge difference between the two? Well, maybe a little. "F*g" is never really used with a positive connotation (except for sometimes by actual gay folks in somewhat the same way black folks say "nigga"), while I believe that naming your sports team "Redskins" connotes pride and celebration of that name. All the same, they're two words that a group of people born a certain way find offensive. I don't say f*g, I don't say k*ke, I don't say n*gg*r, so should I not be saying r*dsk*n? Seems like I probably shouldn't. So I think I'm going to try not saying it or writing it for a while. I'm just going to go with Washington, or if it's really tortured to do that, maybe Skins (I think that's what I say most of the time anyways). A bigger question, of course, is if the franchise itself ever reached this conclusion, what would they become? While it's very difficult to think of the team by another name, it's even harder to think of them with a different logo or colors. So is there a way to keep the scheme of the franchise without the name? The actual, politically correct appellation we use for the people we're talking about is Native American or American Indian, but it's difficult to imagine ever calling a sports team that. But there could be a simpler solution:
I was watching 'Around the Horn' on Tuesday, and the long-debated issue came up of whether or not it's appropriate for the Washington football franchise to use the name 'Redskins.' Obviously, this is not the first any of us is hearing of this, and I'm sure I've had conversations with many of you before as to our thoughts on the name. Apparently, this latest round of debate was brought up by the decision (or defense of the decision) of the Kansas City Star not to use the name in its coverage of the team, presumably referring to them instead as simply Washington. Now, historically, I've been relatively agnostic about the whole issue, and half-heartedly defended the name based on a few arguments: 1) That choosing something as your mascot implies a pride and adoration in that mascot, so calling the team "Redskins" is a celebration of Native Americans, not an insult to them. 2) That the name "Redskin" does not seem any more inherently offensive than "White" or "Black," both of which are freely used to refer to ethnic groups (I feel like the brief era where some black people insisted on being called "African American" has passed; I don't know any black people who are offended by being called black), although admittedly the idea of having a team named the Minnesota Whites or Atlanta Blacks does seem a little odd, if not necessarily offensive.
But this latest discussion got me thinking again and investigating my logic, particularly because the argument made by the ombudsman of the Star reminded me of a decision I made myself about a decade ago to stop using the words "f*g" and "f*gg*t." Those were words I used often in high school and college, and if pressed on the bigotry of using them, I always pointed out that really my use of them had nothing to do with homosexuality, it was just kind of a synonym for "bad" or "weak" or "lame." But at some point I kind of decided that that was bullshit, and that it was a word that was used in a nasty way towards a group of people who I respected as humans, and so I just wasn't going to use it any more (or at least try not to - I'm not perfect and I may have even used it on this blog a time or two). Nowadays, I work really hard at educating my students not to use those words.
So is there a huge difference between the two? Well, maybe a little. "F*g" is never really used with a positive connotation (except for sometimes by actual gay folks in somewhat the same way black folks say "nigga"), while I believe that naming your sports team "Redskins" connotes pride and celebration of that name. All the same, they're two words that a group of people born a certain way find offensive. I don't say f*g, I don't say k*ke, I don't say n*gg*r, so should I not be saying r*dsk*n? Seems like I probably shouldn't. So I think I'm going to try not saying it or writing it for a while. I'm just going to go with Washington, or if it's really tortured to do that, maybe Skins (I think that's what I say most of the time anyways). A bigger question, of course, is if the franchise itself ever reached this conclusion, what would they become? While it's very difficult to think of the team by another name, it's even harder to think of them with a different logo or colors. So is there a way to keep the scheme of the franchise without the name? The actual, politically correct appellation we use for the people we're talking about is Native American or American Indian, but it's difficult to imagine ever calling a sports team that. But there could be a simpler solution:
10.02.2012
BaDoBuKiBro - Week 4 Review
As you may recall from my post-draft post, I'm tracking the performance of all of our auctioned players this season based on Points Per Dollar. Though I'm not ready to publish the individual rankings yet, I did take some time this week, with roughly a third of the fantasy regular season under our belts, to calculate positional rankings. The formula is simple: total number of points contributed by drafted players at a position divided by total number of dollars spent on that position. A couple things to keep in mind:
1) This includes only players purchased during our auctioned draft, not ones that have since been acquired in the Free Agent Auction.
2) This includes only points that were actually contributed as part of the starting line-up, so even if you drafted, say Marques Colston, his 25.8 points this week didn't count towards your WR PPD if you started Lance Moore instead, you stupid fucking idiot.
Anyways, here are the rankings/results:
WR
Bev 3.94
Souts 3.54
Bost 2.81
JDC 2.38
Dekker 2.37
Bardey 2.34
Hambone 2.07
Jong 2.05
Wilson 1.77
Cody 1.72
Casano 1.29
Sovic 1.19
TE
Casano 14.90
Bost 7.40
Bev 5.23
Hambone 4.76
Souts 4.73
Wilson 3.92
JDC 2.33
Cody 2.15
Bardey 1.47
Dekker 1.41
Jong 0.87
Sovic 0.73
RB
Souts 2.44
Hambone 1.81
Bardey 1.73
Cody 1.64
Bost 1.52
Sovic 1.49
Casano 1.43
Wilson 1.29
Dekker 1.10
JDC 1.10
Jong 1.03
Bev 0.56
QB
Jong 31.25
Bev 17.6
Wilson 8.66
Dekker 8.12
Casano 4.75
Sovic 3.25
JDC 2.66
Bardey 2.10
Bost 1.43
Hambone 1.32
Cody 1.05
Souts 0.84
K
Bardey 47.00
Wilson 41.00
Casano 32.00
Souts 31.00
Bost 30.00
JDC 27.00
Dekker 25.00
Hambone 21.00
Cody 18.00
Sovic 17.50
Bev 7.00
Jong 5.00
Def
JDC 65.00
Bardey 40.00
Dekker 36.00
Bost 35.00
Casano 26.00
Hambone 14.00
Souts 12.33
Jong 12.00
Cody 11.50
Wilson 10.00
Bev 9.00
Sovic 3.00
Basically, the kicker and defense ratings just answer the questions Did you spend a dollar on your kicker/defense? and Have you used the same kicker/defense for all four weeks? Those rankings are pretty insignificant, right?
1) This includes only players purchased during our auctioned draft, not ones that have since been acquired in the Free Agent Auction.
2) This includes only points that were actually contributed as part of the starting line-up, so even if you drafted, say Marques Colston, his 25.8 points this week didn't count towards your WR PPD if you started Lance Moore instead, you stupid fucking idiot.
Anyways, here are the rankings/results:
WR
Bev 3.94
Souts 3.54
Bost 2.81
JDC 2.38
Dekker 2.37
Bardey 2.34
Hambone 2.07
Jong 2.05
Wilson 1.77
Cody 1.72
Casano 1.29
Sovic 1.19
TE
Casano 14.90
Bost 7.40
Bev 5.23
Hambone 4.76
Souts 4.73
Wilson 3.92
JDC 2.33
Cody 2.15
Bardey 1.47
Dekker 1.41
Jong 0.87
Sovic 0.73
RB
Souts 2.44
Hambone 1.81
Bardey 1.73
Cody 1.64
Bost 1.52
Sovic 1.49
Casano 1.43
Wilson 1.29
Dekker 1.10
JDC 1.10
Jong 1.03
Bev 0.56
QB
Jong 31.25
Bev 17.6
Wilson 8.66
Dekker 8.12
Casano 4.75
Sovic 3.25
JDC 2.66
Bardey 2.10
Bost 1.43
Hambone 1.32
Cody 1.05
Souts 0.84
K
Bardey 47.00
Wilson 41.00
Casano 32.00
Souts 31.00
Bost 30.00
JDC 27.00
Dekker 25.00
Hambone 21.00
Cody 18.00
Sovic 17.50
Bev 7.00
Jong 5.00
Def
JDC 65.00
Bardey 40.00
Dekker 36.00
Bost 35.00
Casano 26.00
Hambone 14.00
Souts 12.33
Jong 12.00
Cody 11.50
Wilson 10.00
Bev 9.00
Sovic 3.00
Basically, the kicker and defense ratings just answer the questions Did you spend a dollar on your kicker/defense? and Have you used the same kicker/defense for all four weeks? Those rankings are pretty insignificant, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
