Can someone please give me a neutral short-version of the story? I've never heard of Sprankle, don't follow the cosplay scene, and don't watch mtg content on YouTube.
I'm kinda in the same boat as you. I've only heard the name Christine Sprankle from SCG Twitch streams. I don't watch MTG content on YouTube and know nothing of the parties involved.
You'd be hard-pressed to find a neutral version, just because most people who know the details have already chosen a side that they are adamantly for (and adamantly against the other).
Anyway, I'll try my best with the little that I know:
Christine Sprankle, a prominent MTG cosplayer, said that she was no longer cosplaying anything MTG related. She was partaking in an activity called "flip it or rip it", where people open packs and rip cards before looking at them, possibly destroying a valuable card. Apparently, people were criticizing/abusing her for this.
Sprankle then came out and said that UnsleevedMedia, a YouTube channel ran by someone named Jeremy, was the source of alleged harassment towards her, made her life hell, and was the reason she's quitting the Magic community.
In a YouTube video, UnsleevedMedia previously called out Sprankle for using her sexuality to further her career. Relates cosplaying to prancing around in lingerie. Accuses her of preying on younger males who are vulnerable to this sort of marketing. Made disparaging comments about her physical appearance and her integrity and was pretty objectively rude about it.
Members of the community have come to her defense and condemned UnsleevedMedia's actions. WotC said that they will take action. Tolarian Academy (another YouTube channel) defended her. Eric Froelich (an MTG pro) proposed an anti-bullying/harassment committee, tasked with investigating and preventing this type of harassment.
Other members of the community have come to the defense of UnsleevedMedia, stating that while he may be guilty of being a jerk, there was no actual harassment taking place. There was a YouTube video echoing UnsleevedMedia's sentiments about Sprankle, and also denying any harassment. States that the community is up-in-arms without looking at the facts first.
UnsleevedMedia has received harassment as well, in retaliation of his alleged harassment, including death threats, and people trying to find out where he lives.
YouTube took down one of his videos, citing bullying/harassment as the reason.
As for his reaction, Jeremy of UnsleevedMedia has not been apologetic, claims that he has not harassed anyone and that he himself is the victim of harassment. Responds to other people's criticism with his own criticism of his critics, including comments about another person's alleged infidelity. This is on his twitter feed.
Anyway, that's as much as I've gathered. I still haven't seen anything indicating of said harassment. I've seen one video of UnsleevedMedia calling out Sprankle and criticizing her, but the other video and his twitter posts have apparently been deleted.
I'd post links and examples, but this thread is being pretty heavily moderated. Warnings/Infractions being dealt out for anything that defends the alleged harasser, questioning whether or not harassment has taken place, asking for examples/proof of said harassment, or using the term "SJW" or "Social Justice Warrior".
I hope I don't get moderated for this, as I've tried my best to be neutral and just stating what I know.
I also requested some sort of clarification/examples of exactly what happened here but have yet to get a response.
So once again, I'm asking for the proof of this longstanding, concerted campaign of harassment specifically against Christine.
Followed by the following Mod Note:
Public Mod Note (Wildfire393): Warning for trolling - The Professor's videos have been linked and other sources provided. At this point, it's on you to actually follow the research provided. Continued stubbornness does not equal a counterargument.
One of the ground rules in the first post in the thread was:
"While many of the videos and tweets leading up to this were deleted, this is not the place to debate whether or not this actually happened."
First of all, I agree with the sentiment that harassment is not okay and there isn't really a "harassment is okay" side of hearing things out. I whole-heartedly agree with that. Harassment, bullying, cyber-bullying are things that we as a community should not condone.
With that being said, I'm very much out-of-the-loop when it comes to this topic. I wish to be more informed so I can have my own opinion on this issue, much like many other people within the community who are just as concerned as I am.
However, I must say that the moderation of this thread is kind of pushing people towards a specific conclusion. Anything that threatens to challenge said conclusion are met with red texts of warnings and infractions. I feel that the moderation in this thread is kind of hindering people from trying to become more informed, so we could form their own opinion on the matter. Particularly in the example above.
I'm very much against harassment and bullying, but I'm also against jumping to a conclusion when the facts are not laid bare in front of me. And when someone is warned for "trolling" for asking for those facts, that just doesn't sit right with me.
I'm not "defending the harasser" and I'm not "debating whether or not this actually happened". I just want to know exactly what happened. When, where, and in what way was Christine Sprankle being harassed?
I've done as much research as I could, but as mentioned in the ground rules, many of the alleged harassment examples were deleted. The "sources provided" are simply people's reactions to this alleged harassment, not examples of the harassment itself. Maybe I'm just bad at the internet or I arrived too late to the party, but I can't find this "mountain of easily available evidence of harassment". Moreover, I don't see what's wrong with asking for examples. I don't understand why the above poster was modded. Why don't we just post the examples in the OP or anywhere in this thread?
I don't think it's fair that the person asking for proof of harassment was "warned for trolling" when he was simply searching for the truth, just as I am. As someone out of the loop, it just feels fishy when we're not allowed to question whether or not harassment took place, we are only allowed to discuss this topic under the premise that the harassment DID take place, but we're also not allowed to request examples of the alleged harassment. Does this not seem fishy to you? It's as if to say "take our side in this argument or get an infraction".
I hope I don't get modded for this but, can anyone provide specific context of this alleged harassment, to help me and people like me form our own opinion on the matter?
I think Mist Intruder's popularity shows exactly how skewed priorities are in BFZ draft. Literally everyone seems to actively want to draft Grixis Devoid of some combination, and I really don't think that cards like this warrant that level of obsessive attention.
Particularly in an environment where everyone thinks that.
I don't agree with you here. I haven't noticed this "obsessive" want to draft Grixis Devoid. Naturally, 2-4 players at the table will fall into that category. Everyone's experience is going to be different. I find WB to be overdrafted.
Taking a Mist Intruder early doesn't necessarily mean you have a predisposition towards drafting Grixis Devoid. It's just a genuinely good card. It can be the best card in the pack as early as Pick 3-4.
Mist Intruder is strong in two of the three good Blue archetypes, so it's not THAT inflexible. Compare that to another strong common 2-drop, Kalastria Healer, which is only really great in WB. People take that card early too.
No man, not the same case. I wouldn't make fun of that, but I would if Phelps says something like "there aren't good swimmers in Russia" and then a russian defeats him in the finals. See the difference?
That is a terrible analogy.
-Turtenwald did not say there is not a good Green deck that can be made. He said you're better off not drafting Green.
-The element of chance is a key determining factor in winning at Magic. That is not the case in swimming.
-Being Russian or not being Russian doesn't actually have an effect on your ability to swim. Being in Green changes the entire subset of cards that are available to you.
-Being Russian or not being Russian isn't really a matter of choice. Being in Green is a strategic decision and it's something you can actively choose to avoid.
-Saying "there aren't good swimmers in Russia" not only insults all Russian Olympic swimmers, but insults an entire nation. Nobody "belongs" to Green, since you choose your colors to start each draft.
If you think what Owen Turtenwald said is like saying "there aren't good swimmers in Russia", you're just being incredibly ignorant and dramatic.
This doesn't "prove" anything. Like I said, it is a drop of water in an ocean. This is like flipping a coin two times, noticing it landed tails twice, and saying "This proves that tails is better than heads".
Well, Martell's coin landed tails 6 times of 6, but of course, you can always call it variance.
Yes, let's ignore the two other Green decks that weren't able to win a single game.
Now you are being dense. The "proof" is not that Owen lost against a green deck, but Martell winning the whole draft scoring 6-0 with a green deck. The fact that Owen was the victim is just icing on the cake.
It's one draft table. Again, do you realize how much variance there is in Magic? Avoiding Green or not avoiding Green might yield one extra win in the course of 100 or 200 wins. It's not the difference between 3-0 and 2-1.
This doesn't "prove" anything. Like I said, it is a drop of water in an ocean. This is like flipping a coin two times, noticing it landed tails twice, and saying "This proves that tails is better than heads".
I suggest listening to this week's Limited Resources, which was posted a few hours ago (link), where he explains where he's coming from. That way, none of us have to interpret what he said in the article; he can do so himself.
Yes! Owen and LSV explained it perfectly and confirms what many of us have been saying about the matter.
Yes. Owned he truly was. Such a pitiful showing; surely if any of us had played, we'd have done better than he did.
We? Of course not. But you know who did better than him? Someone with a green deck.
This GP proves that he's still one of the best players around, but also that he (among others) was wrong about one thing. And I truly agree with him about green being the worst color in BFZ by far, but this proves that you can effectively draft a green deck that works, which is what he was so adamantly denying.
No. That's just you being dense and misinterpreting everything he said.
Owen didn't say that you can't possibly draft a good green deck. He asserted that you're better off in the long run avoiding green than you are being open to green.
Also, do you realize how high-variance MTG is? This doesn't "prove" anything.
Whether Owen is right or wrong, the difference between avoiding green and being open to green probably equates to a sub 1% difference in win rate. One match is a drop of water in an ocean.
And I'd you actually followed the GP, Turtenwald's deck was way better than Martells. Martell simply drew better. It happens.
If you honestly believe that one Bo3 match constitutes as "proof" that Owen was "wrong", that's a really dumb thing to say. I don't know what else to tell you
I also don't quite understand bokchoykn points: if people in XG pick the other colors cards over green cards, then green will be more open. As you say, you will get ganrlid more often because they will pick other cards of other colors first? You can't claim at the same time that people let pass top green commons and uncommons *and* that you should not draft green because you won't get its good commons and uncommons?!.
That’s not what I said at all. Those were merely examples and you are completely missing the point I was trying to convey.
My point is that it is much harder to identify Green as an open color because:
1. What constitutes as "open" is much more strict with Green than it is with the four other colors, due to how shallow Green is.
2. The best Green commons are on a lower tier than the best White/Blue/Black/Red commons. As a result seeing a late Snapping Gnarlid or Eyeless Watcher doesn't tell you anything, while seeing a late Skyspawner or Clutch tells you a ton.
This is a counter-argument to everyone says "Why not just draft Green when it's open?" My answer is because it's much more difficult to ascertain if Green is open compared to the four other colors, due to Green's severe lack of depth.
I agree that green supports fewer drafters, but I think you overstate the likelihood that you get multiple green signals when green is closed.
I'm not overstating it. If Green supports fewer drafters, that means that what constitutes as "open" for Green is much more strict than with the other four colors. It's simply math.
So, if you agree that Green supports fewer drafters, you must also agree that it takes more for Green to be "open" and therefore it's harder to ascertain when Green is open simply by the signals you're receiving.
I mean the evidence people use against green is the proof that self-correction does happen and works: green is weaker, fewer people draft it, so green ends up not being that far off in win %. The data state it right there: green supports fewer drafters, so fewer drafters have been drafting it.
Yes, the self-balancing nature of draft is already being taken into account. Green still has easily the lowest win rate.
Self-balancing applies in other draft formats because the worst color isn't quite as bad as BFZ Green.
One thing everyone needs to realize: When a color is as shallow as BFZ Green, signals that it might be open become much less reliable and moving in becomes much more risky.
Ideally, a color can support three players at a draft table. If you're sharing a color four ways, you're naturally going to get fewer cards of that color. Meanwhile, BFZ Green only supports two players at a draft table. If you're sharing Green three ways, it's actually even worse than sharing any other color four ways.
Now, suppose you've received a Tajuru Warcaller P1P4, a very good Green uncommon. Green must be wide open, right?
Well, what if the person who opened that pack took Greenwarden of Murasa or Oran-Reef Hydra over the Warcaller? Or what if he took a Drowner of Hope, and later got his own Warcaller? As you can see, getting a Tajuru Warcaller P1P4 does not rule out the possibility that one of the three players to your right can be interested in Green. Also, what about the four players to your left? You have zero information about that half of the table? There could be one or two Green players there too.
What if this happens with another color? Suppose instead of Tajuru Warcaller, it's a P1P4 Ruination Guide or Windrider Patrol. Like the Warcaller, you can't rule out the possibility that one of the three players to your right could be in Blue. However, it's a much more acceptable risk since Blue supports three, while Green only supports two. The signal that Blue may be open is 1.5x more reliable.
The same goes with later picks:
Suppose you saw a Snapping Gnarlid AND Eyeless Watcher P1P8. These are the two best Green commons. Surely, Green must be wide open if none of the other seven players in the table took either of these, right? Well, not really. There could have been a really good Green rare or uncommon in this pack. Also, a RG player will still select Touch of the Void or Stonefury ahead of these cards. A UG player will still take Eldrazi Skyspawner or Clutch of Currents over them too. There are so many plausible scenarios as to why the Gnarlid and Watcher would still be in a pack this late, even with two other Green players at the table.
Add in the fact that Green optimally supports two players while Red/Blue can support three each, and that makes this information even more unreliable.
If you see Touch of the Void AND Stonefury P1P8, this is a very reliable signal that Red is open. If you see Eldrazi Skyspawner AND Clutch of Currents P1P8, this is a very reliable signal that Blue is open and the rest of the table is smoking dope. Snapping Gnarlid + Eyeless Watcher? Not so much, simply because the top tier of Red and Blue (and White and Black) commons are on a higher level than the top tier of Green commons
This is the best explanation I can give on why Green can be considered "unplayable". You can't act on signals that Green might be open, because those signals are so unreliable. The punishment for being wrong is so much worse than being wrong about White/Blue/Black/Red being open.
It's a high-risk and the reward is bringing Green simply up to par with the other colors.
I doubt he'll change many minds. A lot of people are adamantly against the concept of outright avoiding a color. Turtenwalds' article definitely ruffled a few feathers over this topic.
I think a lot of people are unreasonably upset and offended over it. If he preaches his anti-Green approach on LR, they're just going to be more angry.
Argue all you want, but someone provided the statistic that green has about 1% less win-rate than other colors. You cannot mesh Owen statement with this fact.
Color Win Rate
Blue - 52.2%
White - 51.0%
Black - 50.7%
Red - 50.7%
Green - 48.4%
Color Popularity
Black - 48.6%
Blue - 46.7%
Red - 44.7%
White - 44.5%
Green - 38.3%
Green's overall win rate is 2.8% below the non-Green average of 51.2%. This doesn't seem like a lot, but it actually is. Green is going to be paired with another color, bringing down that color's win rate and bringing up Green's win rate. Green decks are also sometimes playing against other Green decks, bringing its win rate closer to 50%.
Green's performance is poor, even despite being by far the least popular color. Despite the self-balancing nature of Draft, Green is STILL performing very poorly.
I don't buy Owen's record as proof either. He's good enough that he could be winning *despite* taking a wrong stand on green.
It's not proof that he's correct. It's proof that he probably understands the draft format better than the vast majority of Magic Pros, let alone Magic players.
I also don't buy that one would need to see the full draft sets to decide to go green. The argument applies to every colors.
Yes, but the risk is higher with Green than it is with other colors. You're more likely to be wrong about Green being open (because Green ideally supports two players while other colors should support three). The punishment for being wrong is more severe.
I'm kinda in the same boat as you. I've only heard the name Christine Sprankle from SCG Twitch streams. I don't watch MTG content on YouTube and know nothing of the parties involved.
You'd be hard-pressed to find a neutral version, just because most people who know the details have already chosen a side that they are adamantly for (and adamantly against the other).
Anyway, I'll try my best with the little that I know:
Anyway, that's as much as I've gathered. I still haven't seen anything indicating of said harassment. I've seen one video of UnsleevedMedia calling out Sprankle and criticizing her, but the other video and his twitter posts have apparently been deleted.
I'd post links and examples, but this thread is being pretty heavily moderated. Warnings/Infractions being dealt out for anything that defends the alleged harasser, questioning whether or not harassment has taken place, asking for examples/proof of said harassment, or using the term "SJW" or "Social Justice Warrior".
I hope I don't get moderated for this, as I've tried my best to be neutral and just stating what I know.
I also requested some sort of clarification/examples of exactly what happened here but have yet to get a response.
Followed by the following Mod Note:
One of the ground rules in the first post in the thread was:
First of all, I agree with the sentiment that harassment is not okay and there isn't really a "harassment is okay" side of hearing things out. I whole-heartedly agree with that. Harassment, bullying, cyber-bullying are things that we as a community should not condone.
With that being said, I'm very much out-of-the-loop when it comes to this topic. I wish to be more informed so I can have my own opinion on this issue, much like many other people within the community who are just as concerned as I am.
However, I must say that the moderation of this thread is kind of pushing people towards a specific conclusion. Anything that threatens to challenge said conclusion are met with red texts of warnings and infractions. I feel that the moderation in this thread is kind of hindering people from trying to become more informed, so we could form their own opinion on the matter. Particularly in the example above.
I'm very much against harassment and bullying, but I'm also against jumping to a conclusion when the facts are not laid bare in front of me. And when someone is warned for "trolling" for asking for those facts, that just doesn't sit right with me.
I'm not "defending the harasser" and I'm not "debating whether or not this actually happened". I just want to know exactly what happened. When, where, and in what way was Christine Sprankle being harassed?
I've done as much research as I could, but as mentioned in the ground rules, many of the alleged harassment examples were deleted. The "sources provided" are simply people's reactions to this alleged harassment, not examples of the harassment itself. Maybe I'm just bad at the internet or I arrived too late to the party, but I can't find this "mountain of easily available evidence of harassment". Moreover, I don't see what's wrong with asking for examples. I don't understand why the above poster was modded. Why don't we just post the examples in the OP or anywhere in this thread?
I don't think it's fair that the person asking for proof of harassment was "warned for trolling" when he was simply searching for the truth, just as I am. As someone out of the loop, it just feels fishy when we're not allowed to question whether or not harassment took place, we are only allowed to discuss this topic under the premise that the harassment DID take place, but we're also not allowed to request examples of the alleged harassment. Does this not seem fishy to you? It's as if to say "take our side in this argument or get an infraction".
I hope I don't get modded for this but, can anyone provide specific context of this alleged harassment, to help me and people like me form our own opinion on the matter?
Thank you.
I don't agree with you here. I haven't noticed this "obsessive" want to draft Grixis Devoid. Naturally, 2-4 players at the table will fall into that category. Everyone's experience is going to be different. I find WB to be overdrafted.
Taking a Mist Intruder early doesn't necessarily mean you have a predisposition towards drafting Grixis Devoid. It's just a genuinely good card. It can be the best card in the pack as early as Pick 3-4.
Mist Intruder is strong in two of the three good Blue archetypes, so it's not THAT inflexible. Compare that to another strong common 2-drop, Kalastria Healer, which is only really great in WB. People take that card early too.
The classic backpedal.
That is a terrible analogy.
-Turtenwald did not say there is not a good Green deck that can be made. He said you're better off not drafting Green.
-The element of chance is a key determining factor in winning at Magic. That is not the case in swimming.
-Being Russian or not being Russian doesn't actually have an effect on your ability to swim. Being in Green changes the entire subset of cards that are available to you.
-Being Russian or not being Russian isn't really a matter of choice. Being in Green is a strategic decision and it's something you can actively choose to avoid.
-Saying "there aren't good swimmers in Russia" not only insults all Russian Olympic swimmers, but insults an entire nation. Nobody "belongs" to Green, since you choose your colors to start each draft.
If you think what Owen Turtenwald said is like saying "there aren't good swimmers in Russia", you're just being incredibly ignorant and dramatic.
People are misinterpreting the word unplayable. Probably poor choice of words from Owen.
I find the majority of people who are all up-in-arms about this concept just didn't understand what Owen was trying to convey.
Yes, let's ignore the two other Green decks that weren't able to win a single game.
It's one draft table. Again, do you realize how much variance there is in Magic? Avoiding Green or not avoiding Green might yield one extra win in the course of 100 or 200 wins. It's not the difference between 3-0 and 2-1.
This doesn't "prove" anything. Like I said, it is a drop of water in an ocean. This is like flipping a coin two times, noticing it landed tails twice, and saying "This proves that tails is better than heads".
Yes! Owen and LSV explained it perfectly and confirms what many of us have been saying about the matter.
No. That's just you being dense and misinterpreting everything he said.
Owen didn't say that you can't possibly draft a good green deck. He asserted that you're better off in the long run avoiding green than you are being open to green.
Also, do you realize how high-variance MTG is? This doesn't "prove" anything.
Whether Owen is right or wrong, the difference between avoiding green and being open to green probably equates to a sub 1% difference in win rate. One match is a drop of water in an ocean.
And I'd you actually followed the GP, Turtenwald's deck was way better than Martells. Martell simply drew better. It happens.
If you honestly believe that one Bo3 match constitutes as "proof" that Owen was "wrong", that's a really dumb thing to say. I don't know what else to tell you
That’s not what I said at all. Those were merely examples and you are completely missing the point I was trying to convey.
My point is that it is much harder to identify Green as an open color because:
1. What constitutes as "open" is much more strict with Green than it is with the four other colors, due to how shallow Green is.
2. The best Green commons are on a lower tier than the best White/Blue/Black/Red commons. As a result seeing a late Snapping Gnarlid or Eyeless Watcher doesn't tell you anything, while seeing a late Skyspawner or Clutch tells you a ton.
This is a counter-argument to everyone says "Why not just draft Green when it's open?" My answer is because it's much more difficult to ascertain if Green is open compared to the four other colors, due to Green's severe lack of depth.
I'm not overstating it. If Green supports fewer drafters, that means that what constitutes as "open" for Green is much more strict than with the other four colors. It's simply math.
So, if you agree that Green supports fewer drafters, you must also agree that it takes more for Green to be "open" and therefore it's harder to ascertain when Green is open simply by the signals you're receiving.
Yes, the self-balancing nature of draft is already being taken into account. Green still has easily the lowest win rate.
Self-balancing applies in other draft formats because the worst color isn't quite as bad as BFZ Green.
Ideally, a color can support three players at a draft table. If you're sharing a color four ways, you're naturally going to get fewer cards of that color. Meanwhile, BFZ Green only supports two players at a draft table. If you're sharing Green three ways, it's actually even worse than sharing any other color four ways.
Now, suppose you've received a Tajuru Warcaller P1P4, a very good Green uncommon. Green must be wide open, right?
Well, what if the person who opened that pack took Greenwarden of Murasa or Oran-Reef Hydra over the Warcaller? Or what if he took a Drowner of Hope, and later got his own Warcaller? As you can see, getting a Tajuru Warcaller P1P4 does not rule out the possibility that one of the three players to your right can be interested in Green. Also, what about the four players to your left? You have zero information about that half of the table? There could be one or two Green players there too.
What if this happens with another color? Suppose instead of Tajuru Warcaller, it's a P1P4 Ruination Guide or Windrider Patrol. Like the Warcaller, you can't rule out the possibility that one of the three players to your right could be in Blue. However, it's a much more acceptable risk since Blue supports three, while Green only supports two. The signal that Blue may be open is 1.5x more reliable.
The same goes with later picks:
Suppose you saw a Snapping Gnarlid AND Eyeless Watcher P1P8. These are the two best Green commons. Surely, Green must be wide open if none of the other seven players in the table took either of these, right? Well, not really. There could have been a really good Green rare or uncommon in this pack. Also, a RG player will still select Touch of the Void or Stonefury ahead of these cards. A UG player will still take Eldrazi Skyspawner or Clutch of Currents over them too. There are so many plausible scenarios as to why the Gnarlid and Watcher would still be in a pack this late, even with two other Green players at the table.
Add in the fact that Green optimally supports two players while Red/Blue can support three each, and that makes this information even more unreliable.
If you see Touch of the Void AND Stonefury P1P8, this is a very reliable signal that Red is open. If you see Eldrazi Skyspawner AND Clutch of Currents P1P8, this is a very reliable signal that Blue is open and the rest of the table is smoking dope. Snapping Gnarlid + Eyeless Watcher? Not so much, simply because the top tier of Red and Blue (and White and Black) commons are on a higher level than the top tier of Green commons
This is the best explanation I can give on why Green can be considered "unplayable". You can't act on signals that Green might be open, because those signals are so unreliable. The punishment for being wrong is so much worse than being wrong about White/Blue/Black/Red being open.
It's a high-risk and the reward is bringing Green simply up to par with the other colors.
I doubt he'll change many minds. A lot of people are adamantly against the concept of outright avoiding a color. Turtenwalds' article definitely ruffled a few feathers over this topic.
I think a lot of people are unreasonably upset and offended over it. If he preaches his anti-Green approach on LR, they're just going to be more angry.
- Blue - 52.2%
- White - 51.0%
- Black - 50.7%
- Red - 50.7%
- Green - 48.4%
Color Popularity- Black - 48.6%
- Blue - 46.7%
- Red - 44.7%
- White - 44.5%
- Green - 38.3%
Green's overall win rate is 2.8% below the non-Green average of 51.2%. This doesn't seem like a lot, but it actually is. Green is going to be paired with another color, bringing down that color's win rate and bringing up Green's win rate. Green decks are also sometimes playing against other Green decks, bringing its win rate closer to 50%.Green's performance is poor, even despite being by far the least popular color. Despite the self-balancing nature of Draft, Green is STILL performing very poorly.
It's not proof that he's correct. It's proof that he probably understands the draft format better than the vast majority of Magic Pros, let alone Magic players.
Yes, but the risk is higher with Green than it is with other colors. You're more likely to be wrong about Green being open (because Green ideally supports two players while other colors should support three). The punishment for being wrong is more severe.