Stanford Downs FSU and Posey
by SpinMD on Jun 14, 2008 4:01 PM PDT
Email
PrintBuster had a marginal game, did not come through in some clutch situations and got knocked around a bit in his role as, get this, Florida State's CLOSER. I read a bit about him when the Giants drafted him but don't remember reading that he came in to close games. How tough must that be? Catch for 8+ innings and then go out there to shut down the other team in tight situations after squatting for the three previous hours (it was a 4+ hour game today)?
For instance, today he came in when Stanford had men on (I think) 1st and second. He walked a guy, but then had some bad luck when the FSU shortstop couldn't field a double play ball. The Cardinal went on to score a CWS record-tying 11 runs in that inning, helped by another error by that poor shortstop. They beat FSU 16-5 (Go Cardinal!).
Anyway, Posey seems like a really athletic tough guy, and he'll be fun to watch. Hoping to get out to see him in San Jose at some point next year.
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
61 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
That shitty shortstop got drafted and will move back to playing catcher in professional ball. Wouldn’t that be something if he and Posey both ended up being all-star catchers in the bigs?
GO WINNER GAME 2!!!!
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jun 14, 2008 4:51 PM PDT reply actions
nothing personal, but yes -- yes we are
I mean, when you can pick between Stanfoo and Cal, how can you not be?
+1000000000000000000000000000000
Ryan Paul: Two four-letter words are better than one.
by The Enchanter on Jun 15, 2008 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions
now, in all seriousness, the problem with Stanfoo
is the problem with the entire Ivy League. The Ivy League thinks that because it now admits women, nonwhites and allows Jews to go to schools other than Yale that it has made a significant societal contribution in the last fifty years. The UC system simply decided to offer a decent education to ten times as many undergraduates per year as it once did.
But hey, elitism is fun. Go with it if that suits you. Me, I prefer my elitism to involve scotch whisky and Champagne. Life’s too short to drink bad liquor.
But it’s not too short to remind you that the greatest sports play in history involved a Cal player running over a Stanfoo trombonist. That never gets old.
Geez, inferiority complex much?
I think it’s awesome that Stanford, out of nowhere, has advanced to, and is playing well in, the CWS. I also think it’s cool that Cal had a reasonably good season and I’d be rooting HARD for them if they were in it right now, just like I did in Women’s b-ball. But I really don’t want this thread to go to the Cal Stanford rivalry dogs (I guess it’s too late for that), so I’ll stop here.
I just thought it was cool that Buster Posey is also a closer…
Pffffftttt....
As long as USD humiliates and shames San Diego St., that’s the greatest gift for me in every college baseball season (besides what we draft from the collegiate ranks).
it's always noonan somewhere
Posey's athleticism is what made the pick work for me
And I’m more than willing to step back from the brink. I root for Stanford against non-Cal opponents, as a rule. It’s not like the Dodgers, for whom I wouldn’t root against the Yankees.
Stanford's "elitism"
is that the driving force behind the school’s recent decision to make tuition completely free for anyone whose family earns less than 100K? The same elitism that doesn’t discriminate on admissions based on what state you come from? The same elitism that demands its student athletes actually be, you know, students?
Sign me up for that kind of elitism. Oh wait, I already signed up for it. Go Stanford baseball, go class of ‘08!!
(and as always, go Giants)
Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...
by Smoke on the Water on Jun 14, 2008 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm with you here
I know a water polo player going to Berkely who is dumb as nails and got a half(?) ride scholarship. He doesn’t deserve to go there at all.
BROCK BOND LIKES HIS MARTINIS PUNCHED IN THE FACE, NOT STIRRED.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jun 15, 2008 12:36 AM PDT up reply actions
I really want to staple this comment to my old history prof’s forehead. God she was such an insufferable shrew. All class period she would go on about how great Cal is. Her superior attitude was disgusting; when we did the usual meet and greet on the first class session she asked where each of us wanted to transfer to and every state (I mean Cal State University) school got a tepid “oh…” reaction from her. The rest of the semester it was always about the think tank she was a part of at Cal and this and that about omg CAL.
When she wasn’t doing that she was giving out tests that were impossible to pass because if you didn’t phrase the answers as she liked, it didn’t matter that you actually had the correct information. I hated her.
"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Jun 15, 2008 12:55 AM PDT up reply actions
And you hated her for good reason.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jun 15, 2008 2:05 AM PDT up reply actions
I get a lot of flack from my office because I got my undergrad from Davis and we’re all supposed to be Elitist snobs. But I always say that Davis is a salt-of-the-earth, humble school compared to Cal and Stanford.
Nonetheless, they aren’t humble for a good reason and I would have cut off my left pinky to study in the Berkely econ department.
you can't block the Bocock
Sample size of one?
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jun 15, 2008 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Stanford University is a glittering California treasure.
And that’s from an alumnus of the University of California.
Stanford’s alright. It’s fun to pretend like I hate it, though.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jun 15, 2008 1:56 AM PDT up reply actions
It’s fine. But it’s even better to make fun of! I even have misguided friends who went there.
As for the elitism, I don’t see it. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t there, but it doesn’t seem any worse than at Cal or in the Ivy League or at any number of institutions.
Berkeley v. Palo Alto, though? Are you kidding me? Berkeley +5million, Palo Alto 0.
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jun 15, 2008 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
I tried to let this one drop
..but I’ve got a weakness for arguing with the inept, so I shall repeat myself using nice, short words even a Stanford grad can undrestand. Apologies to the rest of you who got my point the first time.
Observing Stanford’s elitism is simple. Click http://www.stanford.edu/home/stanford/facts/chron.html#facultylist
Undergraduate Students 1960 5,648 2007 6,759
Admitting fewer students = elitism?
Wow, dude. You really need to work on your semantics.
Has it occurred to you that, you know, maybe the reason some schools admit fewer students is because they want to be smaller schools?
Is Deep Springs College the most elitist institution in the world?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
funny
..other Stanford grads I’ve met have been smart enough to follow a simple argument. Let’s try spelling out absolutely every step in the argument. It’ll be boring for the rest of you; my apologies.
In 1960, the UC system graduated maybe six thousand undergrads, so was about five times the size of Stanford. This made the two quite comparable as institutions, since UC was spread over a number of campuses. In the intervening half century, the UC system has taken seriously its charter to provide California with high-quality higher education. In 2008, it will graduate well over forty thousand undergrads, which is what it needs to do to meet demand.
Stanford’s response to the changes since 1960 in demand for high-quality undergraduate education has been to maximize the benefits to its stakeholders - existing Stanford grads and faculty - by shrinking relative to demand. Stanford, once almost comparable to UC as an undergrad institution, is now about 3% its size. This makes the Stanford name much more dear, makes every historically conferred degree more valuable, gives faculty positions more status, and not least helps make that endowment even bigger ($20 billion and counting, last I checked).
Now, I am a snob. I know elitism when I see it, in part because I see it in the mirror every day. The conscious decision by Pat Brown to make sure the UC system could educate the top 12.5% of California high-school students was antielitist. The conscious decision by Stanford to shrink its enrollment relative to demand by a factor of more than five in order to benefit current degree holders and faculty was profoundly elitist.
If you’re super-smart, your folks make less than $100k, but you can’t get into Stanford because they can be so selective you’d have to have been super-duper smart to get in, the fact that your tuition would have been free is lipstick on a pig.
As I said, I prefer my elitism to involve scotch whisky and Champagne. Their supply similarly is limited in the face of increasing demand. But there can be no duty by the producer of a luxury good to do more than provide high quality. Purveyors of higher education who have taken the LVMH path, by contrast, should be ashamed.
so, increasing selectivity is increasing elitism? Yes, the mission of the UC system is to educate a growing population, hence the mirrored growth of the UC schools. Congratulations on “doing your job.”
Stanford is a private institution. They don’t receive money from the state of California, and hence there is no obligation to keep pace with the increasing state population. Indeed, only about half of stanford undergrads are from California, with the class of ‘08 having students from 49 states (North Dakota being the lone exemption) and plenty of countries from around the world. I don’t see how any of this qualifies Stanford as an elitist institution. And I would hate to think that any organization that has the ability to select from among the best and the brightest could be called out for being elitist simply because they don’t take on as many people as you would like.
Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...
by Smoke on the Water on Jun 15, 2008 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions
The comment with which I helped start this little digression is at http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2008/6/14/552136/stanford-downs-fsu-and-pos#6774040 and, despite my weakness for invective and argument, I tire of repeating its well-worn truths. As noted, I root for Stanford when they’re not playing Cal in an all-of-us-against-the-infidel way. It’s a good school with good sports programs.
However, to pretend that it’s not an elitist institution or that it has not over the last half-century consciously chosen to become more elitist is a real up-is-down argument. To borrow Warren Buffet’s rhetoric about stock options, if Stanford doesn’t mainly educate the elite, whom does it educate? If mainly educating the elite isn’t elitist, what is it? And, if calling Stanford out for pursuing a luxury-goods approach to undergraduate education shouldn’t go into a message-board rant, where in the world should it go?
I don't root for them
Except maybe against Ohio State and U$C… maybe
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jun 16, 2008 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions
All I know is that in my time here, i’ve never met anyone with any trust funds, and i don’t know any millionaires. i’m aware there’s this stereotype out there that stanford is for rich snobs, but the fact is that it admits students on a need-blind basis. i.e. they let you in, then they help you figure out how to afford it. and as the years go by they’re helping more and more people attend. just based on the people i’ve known here, i think i would definitely not economically elitist. now it is true that they only admit the academically elite. it’s really, really hard to get in, i’ll grant you that, especially given that unlike the UC schools, it’s recruiting from a nationwide, rather than state wide, pool of applicants.
you of course, are free to rant as much as you want on message boards or in public. i, similarly, am free to call you out for baseless claims, etc. The internet’s a wonderful place.
don’t misunderstand: i’m not getting bent out of shape about this. I enjoy shooting down flawed arguments from time to time, though, and this seems like one to me.
Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...
by Smoke on the Water on Jun 16, 2008 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually, unless this has changed, the average parental income of a Cal student is higher than that of a Stanford student. It was like that a few years ago.
Also, many of the UCs might be recruiting from an in-state pool, but that isn’t true of Cal, which recruits from a worldwide pool. Probably UCLA too.
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jun 16, 2008 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions
This isn’t a direct response to you, but I don’t get the line of thinking that UC is deficient because it doesn’t work the same way as Stanford, and vice versa. UC does a more complete job of serving statewide education. That doesn’t mean Stanford sucks because they don’t or can’t accommodate the same purpose. Stanford does a better job of providing individualized financial support for their students. That doesn’t mean UC sucks because it doesn’t or can’t accommodate the same purpose.
Some things are more within the means of one system and some things are more within the means of the other. Both do great things both within and without of their own means, and both are great academic institutions for it.
People so often want to argue this like it’s one or the other. Like if Stanford is good then UC necessarily has to be awful, and then build their following arguments based on that false premise. It’s a complete fallacy. And it’s annoying.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jun 16, 2008 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions
..er, which part of “Stanford is a good school” sounds like “Stanford sucks?”
If you kids could stop arguing that up is down, that would be really helpful.
Errr… what part of my comment was directed at a particular poster? Was I talking about you? Please don’t claim that I’m saying anything that’s not in my comment. That would be nice for me. More than two people have been a part of this conversation. Just because you’ve said more than others doesn’t mean I HAVE to be talking about you.
Anyway, my point was that some of the arguments seem to be taking a “Stanford is good because they are better than UC at x” or “UC is good because they are better than Stanford at x.” There is a VERY clear dichotomy being set forth in most of the comments that have to do with the merits of one of these two systems, regardless of poster.
It’s not comparative by nature. That’s my point. Stanford’s a good school for a lot of reasons and UC is a good system for a lot of reasons and the two rarely have anything to do with each other.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jun 16, 2008 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions
I said she’s so fat that when she sits around the house, she sits around the house.
Do you have some question about that?
If you like things that are funny, perhaps you will enjoy ChatterBalks Dot Com?
She’s so fat, she has other fat people orbiting around her.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jun 16, 2008 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions
+1
I completely agree. I never meant to insult Cal or the UC system in general. My sister currently attends UC-Davis and I think that’s a great school. I think they’re all wonderful schools. I was mostly just trying to shoot down the notion that Stanford is somehow elitist because it doesn’t admit as many students as Cal or the UC system and so hasn’t kept pace with the growth of the state’s population.
Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...
by Smoke on the Water on Jun 16, 2008 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Relating your personal history is not ‘calling out’, as the plural of anecdote is, lo these many years after the phrase was coined, still not data.
The need-blind approach is a nice thing to see, and an improvement over past traditions of legacy admissions. That doesn’t change the fundamental character of an institution aimed squarely at the strengths of the economic elite. There is a reason that parental income is a strong predictor of IQ scores, and it isn’t that the US is such a strong meritocracy that intelligence will always excel. The data here are also pretty unequivocal: social mobility is lower in the US than in other developed nations.
You haven’t challenged a single claim I have made, which parenthetically is smart, since it tends to be difficult to challenge well-sourced fact. The only thing you have challenged is my conclusion that Stanford’s behavior over the past half-century is elitist and serves primarily existing degree holders and faculty.
Any time you feel like answering the Buffet-style questions, feel free.
where are your well sourced facts? please, by all means, direct me to them. All I’ve seen from you to support your contention that Stanford is an elitist institution is the point about how the size of the university hasn’t increased, which I think I’ve addressed. bring me some more well sourced facts and i’ll do my best to show you why they’re irrelevant as well. :)
Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...
by Smoke on the Water on Jun 16, 2008 7:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Stanford’s admission requirements are the hurdle so few clear. Once you actually get admitted, there’s nothing saying you can’t go. Money isn’t an issue for the school—especially not now with the huge endowment they just got that allowed the school to waive tuition and board fees for poor people.
I’m applying to Stanford for Fall 2009 and this is what I have to do to be accepted: score 690 or better on the reasoning portion of the SAT, score 690 or better on English Lit on the SAT, write a handful of essays that prove I am an intelligent and capable student and human being, and submit both my CC and high school transcripts for intense scrutiny. It’s not elitism to require their students to be exemplary. To score so highly on your SATs and write essays that will grab the attention of a higher education board of directors means you got game as a student. That’s what Stanford wants. Now how is that bad?
The only thing that will keep me out of that school is the math part of the SAT, which I’m almost fairly certain I’ll screw up. No elitist attitude is telling me no don’t apply. And sure, maybe the UC system isn’t elitist either, but my personal feelings don’t reflect either instituitions’ admissions patterns. The only thing keeping me from whatever UC that won’t take me anyway is a few classes that I didn’t take, only because I wasn’t following the UC transfer plan anyway. I planned to transfer to CSU all along, and this Stanford thing just happened into my life last semester.
"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Jun 16, 2008 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions
best of luck baron...
rock those SATs!!
Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...
by Smoke on the Water on Jun 16, 2008 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks man.
"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Jun 17, 2008 8:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, good luck
Good luck to you, Baron. You should go for Stanford, even though the odds if you’re not a legacy, athlete or other special student are probably 25-to-1.
But there IS that one—and it could be you. Remember to emphasize the special traits that make YOU different from the thousands of other extremely-well-qualified applicants. You have them, you just need to find them and hope they are what Stanford is looking for.
If you want to pursue the media, why not apply to Northwestern or even the University of Missouri? Northwestern is a FABULOUS journalism and communications school. It is cold enough to have lake effect snow, but it has a truly beautiful location on Lake Michigan.
Or why not go for one of the many fabulous liberal arts schools that are all over the country? Read Lauren Pope’s book, Colleges that Change Lives. You can pick it up at the county library. Lauren has written another book on liberal arts colleges that is quite good. I can’t remember its title, but it also is available from the library.
And when it comes to quality education for the price, the UC system is hard to beat. My son has found that his UC degree has opened many doors, although he nearly went to Kalamazoo College, a fine liberal arts college in … Kalamazoo, Michigan. It is up to him once he enters the door, but one can’t succeed somewhere if he can’t get hired.
Where you get your degree matters less than HOW you get it (which is up to you), but where you get it can open doors so you can SHOW what you have learned.
I’m pretty sure if I ever left California I’d be like one of those animals at the zoo, languishing away from its native environment. Eventually I’d just get confused and start eating my own feces. Though my original plan was to go to the University of Oregon but that fell through because I don’t have the money or other means to move out of state.
‘sides, I like the opportunities at the schools I am applying to. Both Stanford and San Jose State will give me good things to work with. And going to school in the South Bay means I can do even more work for SF Dugout and develop a rapport with the SJ Giants media relations people. Doing professional-level work like that while still in college is pretty good.
"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Jun 17, 2008 8:00 AM PDT up reply actions
Very good point
I am a Cal grad with a son who is a Cal grad, and I have always liked Stanford. I’ve rooted for them MANY times, particulary back in the days of Todd Lichti. I would have been rooting for them yesterday if not for Buster.
And I didn’t even know about the free tuition for families making less than $100K. That’s a FABULOUS program.
My son had a buddy who chose Stanford over Harvard—mostly because he felt the kids were enjoying themselves more at Stanford.
"did not come through in some clutch situations"
It’s like a freaking disease.
Ruben Rivera: Incompetent oaf, or mad genius?
by Stuttering John Tamargo on Jun 14, 2008 4:53 PM PDT reply actions
What
What people don’t realize is that even the best hitters don’t come through in the clutch in close to seven of their ten at bats. It’s an obvious statement, of course, but you’d be surprised how often people forget it.
When you’re a Giants fan there’s not too many times when you can enjoy a ninth inning. Being a Stanford fan, that was a heck of a ninth inning.
Posey actually looked pretty good out there. You can tell he was rattled by the awful luck, though.
Buster Posey is such a gamer....
He’d umpire at every spot if he had to…and he’d kickass at that too.
it's always noonan somewhere
I was at the game and FSU’s shortstop blew so hard. The 9th was over twice, but the short stop muffed the ball, for two errors, and he should have had one more. It was really a very odd game. The wind was blowing straight out hard at the begining of the game, but no one could get a hit. Then about the 4th the wind died and the park heated up, and the ball began to fly. I am hoping to catch the game monday as well, so i will update again then.
Posey up
with FSU’s season on the line. 7-5 is the score with 2 out and 2 strikes in the 9th. IS he a gamer?!
HA!
Posey drew a walk, he’s 4-5 with 3 singles, and a double on the day and just drew a 2 out walk. Bases jacked for FSU down by 2 with 2 out against Miami.
HES NOT CLUTCH IF HE WUZ CLUTCH HE WOULD HIT NOT WALK OMGWTFBBQ!!111
1ichi!
1!1onze
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jun 16, 2008 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Bengie Molina would have swung
Gamer.
If you like things that are funny, perhaps you will enjoy ChatterBalks Dot Com?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Does Billy Beane’s contract extension signal an optimistic dawn for Oakland fans?
- Ask Alex: Will Alex Avila be an All-Star again?
- Create-a-Caption: Matt Cain’s great pair of golf pants
- Kim Kardashian, Kris Humphries autographed ball being auctioned by Twins
- George Brett lawsuit claims his company falsely advertises ion necklaces’ health benefits
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
