Balta1701

QUOTE (K-Rock @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 08:59 PM) I'm sure they'll hype up some UFAs like they did with Reed/Addison at DE last year.You can only hype so much though...they let a lot of snaps walk with Okoye. Someone actually has to play, they can't just practice squad people.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 08:47 PM) Watching all these OL/DL get drafted, Id rather have had the Bears draft one and then later on grab a WR as Toon/McNutt are still there. I'm actually wondering who will be filling their DT slots this year. Not sure they have the bodies at the position right now.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 08:48 PM) I do not like it but, KW will keep him around to justify he did not make a mistake drafting him. People have said his defense at 2b is worth a first year arb offer ($2.5 mil or so).

QUOTE (K-Rock @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 08:46 PM) He got hit on the backswing Yeah, got that too. The second throw wasn't good either.

That was a laughably bad throw.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 08:40 PM) Danks is throwing the change-up a little bit less than 1% more than last season. The big thing that sticks out is his FB velocity is down a full 1.9 MPH from last year. Is it the April excuse, or something more serious? Take a look at his velocity charts. He had one game that was way down this year (maybe even erroneously low), but otherwise he's not far off where he was in other years to start the year. In fact, 2010 has as clear of an "increasing as the season goes on" trend as you'll ever see.

A perfect bunt that rolls foul? Roger Bossard...what happened...

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 08:36 PM) I'd love to see stats on this, cause I don't recall him throwing a lot of change-ups to lefties at all. I know Hawk has talked about it, but I don't know where to get stats on pitches thrown to particular hitters by split.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 08:33 PM) Why is he throwing a change up to a lefty? You almost never see that. Danks has always done that. When he actually has his good change, it can be effective because they never see it...but if he elevates it...

Changeup stayed up enough for Ortiz to get to it.

Crud.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 06:18 PM) It's getting to the point where we're going to have reboots done within the same year of the original. Sheesh. To be fair, the last version was awful.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 04:17 PM) I think Balta meant constant radio contact, not frequently calling the police over petty crap. Yeah, he approached and confronted the kid while having no idea how far away backup was. That would not be the case with a police officer. He just assumed they were too far away because they had been previously. There was an officer on scene within about 2 minutes of the shooting, if I recall my timeline.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 04:15 PM) The west as a whole went 156-114 against the east as a whole. The 8 playoff teams from the west went 100-44 against the east as a whole. The 8 eastern conference playoff teams went 74-70 against the west as a whole. What about when the 8 playoff teams from each conference played each other?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 03:47 PM) What if he passed and/or obtained all available certifications and training by the police? Would it be ok then? What circumstance exists which compels this hypothetical person to need the device in this neighborhood? A police official has several levels of protection beyond just being a police officer. They have more stringent legal punishments. They are constantly in contact with other authorities. They have authority granted to them by their position, where they can command you to respond to their requirements. None of those things exist for this hypothetical person who completes the same training level and is consistently updated and re-trained on the devices. If this person is carrying this weapon solely to protect themselves from a perceived risk of crime, then just by having the weapon, they've actually put everyone around them at more risk. So there needs to be some other reason why this person is compelled to have that weapon.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 03:40 PM) Would you agree with the below? (1) Is the use of a gun, if done in accordance with various safety procedures and protocols, dangerous or unsafe? No. (2) Is the use of a vehicle, if done in accordance with various safety procedures and protocols, dangerous or unsafe? No. (3) Is the use of a gun, if done carelessly and negligently in violation of various safety procedures and protocols, dangerous or unsafe? Yes. (4) Is the use of a vehicle, if done if done carelessly and negligently in violation of various safety procedures and protocols, dangerous or unsafe? Yes. And I would define almost any circumstance where a person chooses to carry a gun in a residential zone (note that I said chooses, thus ruling out police) to be dangerous and unsafe, even if it is done within the current laws.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 03:39 PM) Police and their guns have killed many innocent people. Our military and their bigger and scarier weapons have killed tens of thousands of innocent people. The list of items that have killed people is long. We can not make a risk free society, there are risks in almost everything we do. I would rather people called police and continued to keep an eye on someone. I don't mind them carrying a baseball bat, a pocket knife, a gun, or whatever. I will support that position until the day after the last criminal carries a weapon. I'd like to note, I'm not complaining about police carrying weapons. They're trained constantly on the use of those weapons, and they know that if they choose to use them they're going to face an investigation to make sure that their use was appropriate. In that position, their presence is necessary, and the organization acts like it.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 03:32 PM) I know this does not belong in this thread, but I've no where else to ask it that makes sense...as a Geologist, what exactly do you do? Do you like configure chemical compounds to make better concrete and stuff like that? I'm honestly wondering, it sounds like a very cool job -- I took Geology in college and really liked it. Personally, I'm an igneous rock guy...the Ph.D. was spent melting rocks in a lab and looking at the chemistry of the magmas generated. Currently, I'm measuring compositions of rocks from Mars and from the asteroid Vesta and using those measurements to look at the history of those rocks and how they were generated.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 03:31 PM) And again, this goes back to just about anything that is inherently dangerous to a person's safety, like a car. So because a kid gets hit and killed by a drunk driver we should all be kept from driving cars. That's the logic train you guys are on with this Martin case. Or, because a kid gets hit and killed by a car, you require a certain level of training, a certain level of safety, you set limits on where and how those devices can be operated, (speed limits), you strengthen those requirements in certain areas (stricter speed limits in residential areas), you require the device to be maintained in proper working condition, and require the installation of various types of safety equipment to try to prevent those incidents. I'm not here telling you that autos should be banned...but I am telling you that the person who tells you he or she is a good driver...isn't.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 03:28 PM) What exactly do you do? Are you a geologist? If an asteroid is ever hurtling toward earth, will you be the one to save us? Yes, geologist, and maybe, depends on if JPL decides to hire me or not.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 03:25 PM) Is the rule then one death and we stop using it is that was involved? So you're going with 2?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 03:18 PM) Thanks for the nightmares for the next few weeks. If I tell myself "I'm safe using it", I'm going to wind up dead. I tell myself "Here are the procedures we have established to take care of this chemical, I'm going to rigorously follow those", and meanwhile, I'm going to be calm but terrified while doing so. And I will not sit here and tell you that I'm safe to use it, unlike whatever other person out there does something different...because it isn't safe to use, having it around puts you in mortal danger, and if you skip or neglect any safety step because you're confident it's ok...you're going to die.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 03:16 PM) So basically your argument is that anyone that uses a gun will use it negligently, thus it's better just to ban them altogether. No. The argument is that the person who tells you that they know how to keep their gun safe has lost enough respect for the weapon to truly believe that they know how to keep it safe, to the point where they're happy to inform others that they know how to keep it safe.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 03:14 PM) I don't know what HF is. Hydrofluoric acid. If you get a drop of that on your skin, you won't feel it. Until 3 hours later when you're in ungodly pain because the stuff has leached down to your bones and begun to dissolve them, pulling the calcium out towards your skin. It's an industrial chemical we use constantly in sample preparation.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 03:07 PM) Then how are you still here to tell about it if it was so unsafe? Same way I haven't killed myself by using HF. By knowing that it's inherently unsafe, acting that way, and taking every safety precaution I can think of. And even then, I'm still amazed that s*** hasn't killed me. Scares the bejeezus out of me every time. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I'm safe to use HF, because it's not. You do everything you can to avoid getting hurt by it, but it touches your skin, you're f***ed. Carrying around a loaded weapon and expecting the safety to protect you, or having weapons unlocked in a house...or having locked weapons where people can easily get to them...that's not acting like the item is inherently unsafe.