amazing belliard highlight reel (pre-nationals)

[ronnynat]

I think we all like Belliard just fine. It's funny, though, how someone's man-love for a player on a message board can really somewhat sway the opinions of other members. It's tricky chit.

[Steve Heezy]

I have to side with Belly knew what he was doing. These guys are professionals and can operate on a level that we can't even imagine. I'm not saying that Belly can make that play every time, but its no surprise that he did.

I'm not getting ready to compare Belly to Ozzie Smith by any stretch of the imagination, but I remember watching an interview with the Wizard when I was much younger ... he was walking back and forth between shortstop and 3rd talking and looking at the reporter ... while answering questions **and not looking at first base** he was throwing spot on bullets to first. Point being that he knew exactly where he was on the diamond at all times. Again, I'm not comparing Belly to Ozzie, but to think that Belly knew where he was and what he needed to do to make that play is not outside the realm of possibility.

[Ali the Baseball Cat]

Like Ovechkin's Goal for the Ages last year...sometimes a little dose of flukiness is just the ticket to rescue us from the everyday humdrum...

The flip play is pretty to look at but it was a complete fluke.  You couldn't convince me otherwise.  But I agree it is cool to watch.

[Dave B]

Like Ovechkin's Goal for the Ages last year...sometimes a little dose of flukiness is just the ticket to rescue us from the everyday humdrum...

Ovechkin shouldnt have done that. It wasnt fundamentally sound. More often than not that would have been a 5 on 4 rush the other way. Ovechkin should have pushed the puck into the corner and covered it until his teammates could help out. (eye roll smiley)

[Nat of the Living Dead]

Ovechkin shouldnt have done that. It wasnt fundamentally sound. More often than not that would have been a 5 on 4 rush the other way. Ovechkin should have pushed the puck into the corner and covered it until his teammates could help out. (eye roll smiley)

I know!  We can just blindfold every player on the ice!  Not only will that make it more exciting, it will force our supreme athletes to improvise and use creativity!

[ronnynat]

^ that had me cracking up 

[Dave B]

I know!  We can just blindfold every player on the ice!  Not only will that make it more exciting, it will force our supreme athletes to improvise and use creativity!

(Image removed from quote.)

there you go blowing things out of proportion again hoping people get confused and just give up. granted i did it a little too, but mine was still almost applicable

april 5th. zimm shouldnt have swung at this, it was a ball four. we needed base runners. more often than not, that is a strike or a flyout

http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/multimedia/tp_archive.jsp?c_id=was&ym=200604

i'm willing to concede that there is some amount of luck involved but your assertion that you should attempt unfundamental plays is absurd. you dont watch football apparently, but eli manning should have thrown the football away instead of heaving a jump ball down the middle last night, according to your school of thought

[Nat of the Living Dead]

your assertion that you should attempt unfundamental plays is absurd.

My assertion?  You sir, are the one that is implying we should be throwing the ball without looking and making it a day to day habit.  That is about as unfundamental as you can get!

Besides, the last post was a joke.  You took a little poke fun at me with one post, I poked a little back.  Apparently you don't like to be poked.

[Dave B]

My assertion?  You sir, are the one that is implying we should be throwing the ball without looking and making it a day to day habit.  That is about as unfundamental as you can get!

Besides, the last post was a joke.  You took a little poke fun at me with one post, I poked a little back.  Apparently you don't like to be poked.

i dont imply we should be throwing the ball without looking when a regular throw will do. only that sometimes you might need to as it is the only play. stop twisting things to suit your failing argument

as i said, my poke was a slight exaggeration. your's was irrelevant completely out of left field.  you took two words i happened to include in a post a while back and made it sound like i'd rather have belliard hackey sack it over to first instead of throwing.

maybe my ovechkin thing was over the top because a 5 on 4 rush is no real consequence (even though 1st and second is no real consequence), but the zimmerman and manning examples are relevant with adverse consequences yet are widely accepted as great plays. however, if you want to call them unfundamental/careless/ill-advised go ahead. at least you will be consistent. the whole point i've been trying to make here is that if you are against belliard's play, there are a lot of other great plays you need to denounce too. maybe you are a revolutionary in this regard.

[Nat of the Living Dead]

i dont imply we should be throwing the ball without looking when a regular throw will do. only that sometimes you might need to as it is the only play. stop twisting things to suit your failing argument

Failing argument?  Dave, you switched stance numerous in this one thread and you say I have a failing argument when I have stood by what I have said from page one?  Belliard has gone in your mind from a Derek Jeter-ish supreme athlete who has the improvising and and creativity to pull off such a play that only MLB players can do to not implying we should throw the ball without looking and only do it because its the only play.

Makes perfect sense to me Dave, carry on!

All I have ever said on the play that it was dumb luck and I continue to stand by that opinion.

[tomterp]

Your poke was bigger than my poke.

Was not.

Was so.

Not.

So.

.
.
.
.
etc.

 

[natsfan1a]

 

 

[Nat of the Living Dead]

Your poke was bigger than my poke.

Was not.

Was so.

Not.

So.

.
.
.
.
etc.

 

Thats about right, Tom.  Don't poke if you cannot stand to be poked.  If your too poked then stay out of the Poke kitchen.  Where there is poke, there is a poker.  Beware of Poker.  I am a habitual poke poker. Poke.

[tomterp]

I've been thinking about dogs.  Some dogs are alpha dogs, and they won't back down for any other dog.  They'll fight and fight and fight to the death, if necessary, but won't give in to another dog.  These are not generally considered the most intelligent of breeds, but give them credit (?) for dogged determination.  Get two of them together and it could go on for days.   

[Nat of the Living Dead]

I've been thinking about dogs.  Some dogs are alpha dogs, and they won't back down for any other dog.  They'll fight and fight and fight to the death, if necessary, but won't give in to another dog.  These are not generally considered the most intelligent of breeds, but give them credit (?) for dogged determination.  Get two of them together and it could go on for days.   

Come on Tom, stop doing the ole "jump around on the message board" thing.  You have something to say, then say it.

[Dave B]

Failing argument?  Dave, you switched stance numerous in this one thread and you say I have a failing argument when I have stood by what I have said from page one?  Belliard has gone in your mind from a Derek Jeter-ish supreme athlete who has the improvising and and creativity to pull off such a play that only MLB players can do to not implying we should throw the ball without looking and only do it because its the only play.

youre intepreting my use of "creativity" incorrectly. i'm not saying people should find creative ways to make plays that could otherwise be made through fundamental means.  the guy who was given lemons and made lemonade was creative. 

i'm not advocating an "and 1" mix tape style of play

[Dave B]

i can take a poke. but some pokes are funny and applicable. others just dont make sense.  if you called me a bed-wetter and i had done so at some point in time as an adult that would be funny.  if i hadnt, it's just kinda stupid

[tomterp]

Come on Tom, stop doing the ole "jump around on the message board" thing.  You have something to say, then say it.

I'll speak in parables if I want to.   

[spidernat]

I've been thinking about dogs.  Some dogs are alpha dogs, and they won't back down for any other dog.  They'll fight and fight and fight to the death, if necessary, but won't give in to another dog.  These are not generally considered the most intelligent of breeds, but give them credit (?) for dogged determination.  Get two of them together and it could go on for days.   

One of my dogs is like this. Unfortunately I've been told that he has taken on my personality

[tomterp]

Maybe what we need is a more proactive moderator function, cause some of these threads are like watching a tennis match from midcourt.  Since nobody wants to give in, have the mod just kill it and it's on to the next one.

[Nat of the Living Dead]

Maybe what we need is a more proactive moderator function, cause some of these threads are like watching a tennis match from midcourt.  Since nobody wants to give in, have the mod just kill it and it's on to the next one.

But what you see as nagging might be a legit argument in other people's eyes.  Where do you draw the line?

[ronnynat]

Maybe we should have a "Fight It Out" and a "Hug It Out" thread

[Nat of the Living Dead]

Maybe we should have a "Fight It Out" and a "Hug It Out" thread

I'm sure we can make it to the season before that....I hope.

[spidernat]

I see no problem with the arguments. Like NOTLD said, where do you draw the line?

[tomterp]

I see no problem with the arguments. Like NOTLD said, where do you draw the line?

 , I guess when the arguers start repeating their same arguments, then it's obvious they've exhausted logic and have resorted to hoping to win the battle of attrition.  To be honest, I sort of zoned out on the arguments after the first 10 or 12 and so I can't really state with certainty that the same arguments were repeated, but that would be my test.

So repeating same argument, flip the kill switch.

Another trigger would be name calling   .  Not that some of the name calling isn't amusing, but it is a strong indicator that the arguer has once again run out of logical basis and has to resort to plan B.  I dont' recall this trigger being reached yet (though my eyes were glazing over after a while), but it has been known to occur with at least one of the posters involved in this argument case study.