nitetrain8601

Danks doesn't look too happy.

QUOTE (SouthsideDon48 @ Aug 16, 2009 -> 05:18 PM) ...and Pods messes up an easy out. Sheesh!!! That was far from easy. A guy like Rios, Wise, or BA would have that. The thing is, Pods had to time the jump right in order to have a shot at it. He didn't, and the ball was pretty damn high. With that said, he missed it.

And we'll start all over. Damn.

QUOTE (TitoMB345 @ Aug 16, 2009 -> 05:13 PM) Bobby should never be brought in unless to start the inning. This I am sure of. He doesn't do well starting with runners on. That's the truth. Hell, he's something like 6-10 in one run games.

Hopefully Dotel blows them away.

Screw Jenks. Just throw Thornton in. Then again, I wish we had alot more blowouts so we didn't have to waste Thornton.

His pitches are all over. Finally gets a strike in, but it isn't looking promising.

Good job by Rios. I for sure thought that would fall.

QUOTE (b-Rye @ Aug 15, 2009 -> 06:10 PM) Paul Bonerko Chayson Dix The Cuban Airhead LMAO, I like all of these alot.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 15, 2009 -> 04:51 PM) Batting average on balls in play. The basic idea is...if you hit the ball in the field of play, you should produce a roughly average number of hits. Thus, an average BABIP is about .300. If a player has a BABIP far below .300, that's often a statistical abberation, and they're due for a hot streak. If a hitter is well over .300, then they're due for a cold streak. There are, however, some players who are constantly well above .300, they typically are guys with excellent bat control who know how to deal with a pitcher. Think Derek Jeter, Rod Carew, etc. An example from our org; Jordan Danks had a BABIP over .400 for the first 2 months of the season. He was striking out a ton, but he kept getting hits on balls he put in play. It was pretty obvious that he was eventually going to hit a slump though, because that BABIP is almost always unsustainable; eventually you start hitting the ball at people. Now, he's in a big slump. Alex Rios, for another, typically in his career has had a BABIP of just over .300. His BABIP this year is something like .270. This suggests that he's been particularly unlucky so far this year, and that has kept his numbers down from where they ought to be. Balta, thanks for the breakdown. I luvvvvvvvvvve it when you analyze.

So since the game is not on TV, I'm bored, why don't we create nicknames from when those rare(frequent to me and flash) moments occur for all of our players on the 25 man roster. Basically, just come up with a nickname, if it sounds good and other people agree, we'll go with that. Sort of like Judy Garland. I'll start it off "Gas Can" Gavin "Firestarter" Freddy Mark "Buehr-s***"

Hopefully he juices up!

QUOTE (chimpy2121 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 11:09 PM) Lmao at Orton. 3 int hahahahaah And people still like him a ton. He's showing the same problem he had late last year. He's staring down the receiver that he's going to pass it to.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 08:39 PM) Well, that is a personal decision you make, and I won't attempt to change your opinion. I guess I am only arguing my point of view because I feel strongly about it, but I don't think I am doing so in the hopes of making you see my point of view. To me, it comes down to intent, and in Michael Vick's case, there was a clear intent to accomplish the end result of his actions - killing dogs for entertainment and monetary gain. In the case of a drunk driver, for the very vast majority of them, they are intending to get to a destination. They are not intending to injure or kill anyone. Certainly it is not a wise decision to attempt to drive a dangerous vehicle in an impaired state in order to get to their destination, but in my opinion, they should be punished for that unwise decision, not for some end result of their actions. That being said, there is enormous social pressure on the legal system to punish those drunk drivers who are unlucky enough (or inebriated enough) to actually injure or kill someone, as opposed to those who are actually caught by the police operating a vehicle under the influence, and that is where you see a difference in the punishment handed out. This is a difficult topic and that is why you see the vast divide in peoples' opinions and strongly-worded responses. Personally, I find the venom spewed to be excessive and also that a large amount of hypocrisy exists with regards to drunk drivers considering the society we live in, but I know that is an unpopular and minority opinion. As for Michael Vick, to me, it is the intention and premeditation of pure and certain cruelty involved in his actions that outrages me, far more so than the actions of a drunk driver. Just my humble opinion, however. Well I'll agree to disagree then.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 08:06 PM) Online Madden Dynasty for PS3? Anyone? Crickets. I might just get it. I'm not 100% sure yet. It won't be until Wednesday at earliest when I'm paid.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 08:14 PM) Great comparison. So according to you, all stupid decisions are equal? No, but I'm trying to reason with the people who believe stealing and killing a dog is much worse than driving drunk and high and speeding to only hit and kill a human pedestrian. It may not be murder, but it is killing.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 08:13 PM) Hah, I was thinking as I was writing that post that that would be your response. I am not saying it is ok to kill anyone or anything. Personally, that is for yourself to reconcile. What I am saying is that if you train and breed an animal for thousands of years to be your companion, that is, man's closest non-human companion, yes, there is going to be a large percentage of the population who finds what Michael Vick did to be entirely horrendous. Humans are emotional creatures who develop bonds to those beings that take part in their every day lives. Dogs are one of those beings. For the most part, cows and pigs are not. Thus, the outrage you see. I actually had a pet pig in which I watched my grandparents slaughtered for food when I was eleven. I didn't like it, but didn't think about it past an hour. Hell, they had me skinning the pig and all. Very popular in Mexico actually where there are a ton of farms as in the US. And for the record, I have a dog in which I adore the crap out of and yes, I would be pissed if Mike Vick stole him and fed him to other fighting dogs. I, however, would not want him sentenced or scrutinized longer than a guy who decided to end my father's life by being under two influences and speeding.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 07:39 PM) That's a bs response, and you know it. I'm terribly sorry that people die. And by no means am I excusing what Stallworth or any other drunk driver does or has done. But the fact remains that our society celebrates alcohol and the mass consumption of it. We are also a society that revolves around transportation in large, dangerous, fast-moving hunks of steel. As long as we are going to mix the two, bad things are going to happen and people are going to die. It's a compromise we make in order to live as we do. We can all refer to tragedies that have occurred to someone we know, someone in our family, or perhaps, even ourselves. And while I respect the fact that you have lost someone close to you because of a very poor decision someone else made, and an accident that occurred because of that poor decision, that doesn't make the point moot, nor does it change how human beings live. The only thing we can do is seek the best way in which to deal with these things, and punish those who make stupid decisions. However, the end result of a poor decision often does not equal the intent that caused that result to occur. To simply consider the end result, as opposed to the intent, as well as the other circumstances involved, is in my opinion the incorrect manner in which to punish that person or to rectify the situation. People drive vehicles in an unsafe manner all the time. Until we figure out a better way to solve that problem, we'll be dealing with injuries and deaths which occur because of that. It was a stupid decision to have a dog fighting ring knowingly. It was a stupid decision to knowingly drive drunk, high, and speed.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 07:20 PM) If you review the definition of domesticated, you'll notice that it states humans adapt animals to life in intimate association with humans and to the advantage of humans. The distinction lies in the purpose the animal has been domesticated. I am not even certain if cows bred to slaughter are considered "domesticated." However, it is quite clear that cows are not trained to obey commands so that they can live amongst humans. They are not invited into their homes. They are not trained to protect their homes or their families. They do not interact with their family members. They are not trained to help the blind. They have not been trained and bred for hundreds of years to be eaten by men, but rather to be a companion to men. The reason people are outraged by what Vick has done is because dogs have been trained and bred to be such an intimate companion of humans. As for this RealGM character, his logic seems extremely flawed to me. First of all, I won't disagree that there is all kinds of crazy s*** that goes on in the rural areas of this country. Because those things do occur does not make what Michael Vick did any more or less horrendous. Secondly, I have already addressed his hunting analogy, so I won't go any further there. As for this argument people make in regards to human rights, I just don't understand it. Why does it seem logical to people that for some reason humans must reach the pinnacle of their existence before they can concern themselves with the rights of some other animal? Why must we live in a utopia before we might expend one ounce of energy on anything other than ourselves? It just doesn't follow logically to me that because we still have problems in human society that we must ignore all else until those problems are eliminated. Senseless argument in my opinion. So if they are not trained to love us and be our slaves, fk them it's okay to kill them?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 06:16 PM) Do you not see the difference between a domesticated animal and one that is wild? Humans have worked, over the course of their history, to domesticate certain animals domesticate - to adapt (an animal or plant) to life in intimate association with and to the advantage of humans Humans have trained and bred dogs over the course of thousands of years to adapt them to life in intimate association with them. As a result, domesticated animals, and dogs in particular, have taken a very revered and particular place in human culture, especially in their relationship with man, that is now ingrained in our social and even moral norms. Dogs are a companion of man, an animal that lives in his home and protects it, interacts with his offspring, is fed and cared for by him, etc. For the majority of human culture, dogs are a very valuable, loved and protected companion in our social hierarchy. And yet Michael Vick chose to consciously and purposefully set up a medieval torture ring of brutality for pure entertainment and monetary gain over the course of a long period of time. Dante Stalllworth made the mistake of socializing with his friends a bit much and making the poor decision to attempt to transport himself home one evening. The situations are just not at all comparable when you consider our social and moral norms. Really? Because there are farmers who we buy our meat from which raise cows and other animals just to kill them for food. And the slaughtering of these pigs, cows, etc are not the prettiest site. And as far as one is for food, Vick did it for sport, I don't know if I could completely buy it. There are people who hunt just so they could put their head on the wall to show what they killed. This guy on RealGM who is having the same discussion said it best:

QUOTE (zenryan @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 05:38 PM) How Vick went about killing these dogs is more disgusting than him killing dogs IMO. I probably sound like a hypocrite because I dont care if people hunt or not but I do care if someone kills dogs. But shooting an animal is very different than electrocuting or slamming its body into the ground until it dies. I suppose that's true. The abusiveness that is. I think if you kill an animal, you kill an animal and it's no better or worse than killing another animal. I grew up around chicken fights and I view it on the same level.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 05:32 PM) And clearly he might not have. No one knows what who did what that night but Lewis gets slammed non stop while someone like Marvin Harrison gets the benefit of the doubt. He did get slammed much more than Marvin. Heck, there barely was a mention when it came to Marvin. As far as the idiot comment thing, I'm not the only one to agree with the analogy as I'm not the one who wasn't smart enough to come up with it. If you're going to resort to saying, "That's stupid, you're an idiot" or suggest that anyone is an idiot, don't bother. Just state your argument and that's it. If you don't have an argument or at least something smart enough to get me to think, then your post is worthless to anyone here reading.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 05:20 PM) I dont see the deer hunting connection either. A hunter doesnt want to make the animal suffer for long periods of time, they intend to drop a deer immediately, they try and hit the deer in the heart to put it down immediately. A dog fight is about watching two animals tear themselves apart so you can make money. And most of the time both dogs are alive at the end of the fights, and then they get to be killed by whatever method mentioned in Vicks case. A hunter takes down a deer also to control population, since there are not many natural predators of deer that can effectively control a population, especially in areas like suburban Chicagoland. If you disagree with hunting on principle, then what I am saying wont make any sense and you will disagree with it anyways. If you are an active hunter or at least respect the sport of hunting deer, then you might agree with this. And to clarify my position Nite, I also believe Vick has paid his debt to society and career, and this following him 6 games into the season is pretty ridiculous. However, the guy did far more than just kill dogs, which was my earlier point. He had quite the sleazy operation going on, and the people he hung out with were not quality people to have in his life. I understand what your saying and that's my point in the long run. Stop crucifying the guy already. He did his debt, and now let's see if he could resurrect it the same way we're going to see if Dante is. Let's not give this guy more crap, especially when the other guys who have done worse don't get much pub at all. Now we may disagree on the dogfighting/hunting thing, but I just want people to stop giving Vick so much attention for something that's been said and done, and the sentence is over.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 05:09 PM) Go watch a dogfight in person and make the same comparisons. Go watch a human lose his life due to recklessness and make your same opinions. There's a double standard going on in America. Let's kill animals for food. Let's kill animals for sport. Whoa whoa whoa, don't touch the dogs you inhumane bastard! Please.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 03:28 PM) If your buddies fight dogs, and you give them money to fight dogs, and provide dogs to them to fight other dogs, are you guilty for financing a dog fighting ring? Well, Michael Vick was. I saw it happen right in front of my eyes. Why do you keep speaking on Vicks behalf like you know who he is and what happened here? You think he didnt know his buddies were dealing dope out of his own house? The same guy who failed a drug test before going to prison didnt know that the tons of cash he was giving these morons wasnt going to drugs? Whatever nite I didn't say he's not guilty of the dogfighting ring. I don't think I've ever implied as much either. And honestly, the guy has several houses, or at least had. You think he'd actually live in the house the whole dogfighting ring was going down in? Hell no. He was living in his own mansion "handling his business". And yeah, there may have been a weed connect for him amongst his friends. I'm pretty sure he didn't know where all his money was going. Not many people making that much money would. I sure as hell wouldn't. So honestly, I don't believe he knew his money was going to drug beyond a recreational, go get me a dimebag, you should have money for it already, type of deal. Now financing the dog ring, he probably did do. My whole thing is this. The guy lost his contract, got suspended without pay from his job, got thrown in jail, did his time there and people still want to crucify him saying he didn't do nearly enough time for entertaining himself with dogfighting. When Dante Stallworth sped down the lanes high and drunk killing a man. If that's the case, let's crucify any hunter out there including our Mark Buehrle and AJ Pierzynski. Wait, they're hunting deer, so it doesn't count, right guys?