The CardBoard

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
The CARDboard / Re: SF Giants are cleaning house
« Last post by teejers1 on Today at 01:55:41 pm »
Actually, the point was the comparison to Posey with other catchers, who typically suffer far more day-to-day wear and tear on the body. 

Posey was a catcher roughly 75% of the time (76% to be more precise), based on ABs.  The rhetorical question is does that same percentageapply to the other catchers you compared him to?  I suspect not (but don't know).
thanks for the detailed story. Great that Arbuthnott is playing so well; what I saw yesterday clearly was not an anomaly. We appear to have some very strong players at present: strong 1-4 and very credible 5-6 players. Seems like there could be stiff competition for each spot in the lineup, including #1, which is great. Plus, one consistent feature of our teams is that they improve significantly over the school year. A lot to look forward to this year!

(now if only my own game could improve . . . )
The CARDboard / Re: College football in the Bay Area
« Last post by teejers1 on Today at 01:48:33 pm »
Wait, you mean Coach Shaw isn't obligated to cater to my whims on offense?!?  BC, what a crushing revelation . . .

What I am saying is that I don't think Shaw's O maximizes the talent and productivity on the roster. But there is no doubt that Love has made this offense explosive this season.  Let's all hope he is healthy and can keep it up.

And I witnessed all those Stanford teams of yesteryear, too (well, a lot of them, anyway).  Where I depart from Red State (and Lex and others) is this:  I don't believe that the Rose Bowl/Seattle Bowl offense under Willingham/Diedrick is incompatible with/mutually exclusive of a great defense.  Indeed, the Seattle Bowl team was quite accomplished on D, IIRC.  So I don't buy the notion that Stanford has to run "bully ball" to be successful - Stanford can have a very good D w/o playing Bully Ball. 

All the other years that Red State (and I) witnessed typically involved a less than stellar D.  See Elway years.  That explained the "losing" part of "losing season."
The CARDboard / Re: OT: The Athletic
« Last post by unclechuck on Today at 01:45:47 pm »
Chris Dufresne and a few others are also offering are more limited in scope subscription option:

I'm not a subscriber yet, but I do enjoy their podcast,

I thought Dufresne did a great job for Pac 8/10/12 while with the LA Times, and I occasionally posted links to his articles here. I've been full up on his site since it started last year. At $20 for a full year, it's a great value: quality writing by four old school sports guys with regional preferences. They added Tony Barnhart this Fall to get a real SEC/ACC guy, so now have Eastern, Midwest & Southwest, Southeast, and Pacific/West areas of focus, with Dufresne covering the latter and acting as ringmaster.

During football season each guy contributes 3-4 articles per week almost exclusively on college football. College hoops season maybe only 2-3 per week, and maybe less during spring & summer depending on spring ball activity. Occasionally they'll drift off on to Cubs, Red Sox, Olympics or NCAA riffs/rants which are consistently enjoyable, as are their frequent rambles from their multiple decades of covering the games. And:

The CARDboard / Re: SF Giants are cleaning house
« Last post by DC 86 on Today at 01:45:23 pm »
What percentage of the GP did Posey play 1B?

I assume this is a rhetorical question, but Posey recorded 400 plate appearances as a catcher and 126 plate appearances as a first baseman.

It is a valid point that if Posey can't catch then his relative value suffers significantly, but that's not really a material issue now.
The CARDboard / Re: What's up with Wilner?
« Last post by oldalum on Today at 01:42:05 pm »
I think the benefits of getting a Pac-12 team into the CFP that Wilner sees are (1) more $ to the conference (which then gets divided equally among the schools) and (2) reputation (which might help conference teams with future seeding). But the idea that the conference should favor "contenders" over other Pac12 teams, even apart from the issue of correctly identifying them, is a total nonstarter. I can only assume he is seeking more visitors to his Pac-12 site.
The CARDboard / Re: College football in the Bay Area
« Last post by wallendar on Today at 01:41:27 pm »
The number #1 reason for relatively low Bay Area college football attendance is that the area is a pro sports haven.  Winning helps the colleges but not too a great extent.  IMO, the style of play has nothing to do with attendance.  And, of course, the inability to make plans because of the ever changing game times is a dilemma that will not be resolved anytime soon. 

The days of full houses for the Big Game being an automatic expectation in Berkeley and Palo Alto are long gone. 
The CARDboard / Re: College football in the Bay Area
« Last post by CTcard on Today at 01:41:03 pm »
  Stanford used to draw 60K+ when I was a season ticket holder from 1999-2001, and Big Games would routinely put 80K in seats for years.

Aw, memories. How fickle.

Average attendance average:
1999: 49,738
2000: 37,980
2001: 51,534
2013: 50,726
2014: 47,862
2015: 49,917

Even back at the turn of the century, Stanford had an even/odd year issue.

The main difference to now is that back then the important games (ןɐɔ, $C, UCLA, und) would turn out substantially larger crowds than can fit in the new stadium. The other games, turned out substantially smaller crowds than we see now.

Perhaps of note, Stanford does have crowds that are larger than the FBS average but smaller than the Power 5 average - close to the ACC average which is bottom of the heap most years.
However, Stanford typically has been #4 among private schools lately, behind $C, und, and BYU; though sometimes Miami hops over us.
I am not sure whether that is good or bad, but private school teams mostly don't get the same fan base - particularly without the "our religion versus the world" aspect.
The CARDboard / Re: Stanford - OSU predictions
« Last post by teejers1 on Today at 01:36:51 pm »
If you are conceding that the H-Trophy will never be won by Love, AND if you're sure that Stanford can beat Oregon State without Love, then it's okay to sit him out.

Not at all sure about the above; so, I'd play him.

Of course, that doesn't matter.  What really matters is the possibility implied in cardcrimson's post.  And it's troubling that the possibility remains open 9 days after the Oregon game.
The CARDboard / Re: Stanford - OSU predictions
« Last post by ChicagoTree on Today at 01:34:51 pm »
Unfortunately no Branch, Alexander or Fanaika for Oregon St (Per RJ Abeytia on Twitter).
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10