Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, January 20, 2014

Perry: Justin Verlander: Richard Sherman would get thrown at in MLB

If the NY Super Bowl crowd doesn’t break into a “Goodbye Allie” chant against Richard Sherman, I’ll be very disappointed.

Seahawks corner Richard Sherman (forbearance please: there’s a baseball hook forthcoming) announced names and shouted nice things about himself following his team’s victory over the 49ers in the NFC Championship Game. It was a soliloquy of triumph normally associated with the gentleman’s pursuit known as “professional wrestling,” which led some to wring hands over the matter on media sociale. One of those was Tigers ace Justin Verlander, who, understandably enough, viewed Sherman’s growled harrumphing through the handsome prism of this, our baseball.

Mr. Verlander’s thoughts:

Justin Verlander     ✔ @JustinVerlander

So Russell is a class act! Sherman on the other hand…. If he played baseball would get a high and tight fastball.

He’s probably right, of course, as baseball has a very specific and occasionally inscrutable code of decorum when it comes to triumphalism in all its forms.

Of course, given the video evidence available in that EOF link above, I have zero doubts that Mr. Sherman would be charging the mound upon receiving and giving due consideration to said purpose pitch. On the third hand, a manager would quite possibly be most displeased with the hurler who plunked a batter lugging around the sub-.100 OBP that constitutes the best that a football player could muster against MLB pitching.

Repoz Posted: January 20, 2014 at 06:26 AM | 154 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 2 minute warning, challenge, injury time out, time out

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Squash Posted: January 21, 2014 at 08:12 PM (#4643732)
Sherman has not only got a degree from Stanford, it's in Communications, and he's working on his Master's degree. You don't think he knows exactly what he's doing, and how the media works?

I don't know anything about Sherman's studies, but neither do you, really. Do you know what usually goes into a Communications degree? It's a pretty wide field of study, and the great majority of it isn't about how to performance art your way to fame. By the same measure, since my degree is in Psychology, clearly I am the only one here qualified to diagnose Sherman over the internet. And if you've ever taken Psychology classes in college you know that isn't true.

To answer your question though, I don't think you need to be a genius or a Communications major to know that if you give an interview on national television in the manner Sherman did you're going to get attention. I would say just about everyone knows that, especially in the reality TV age. You merely have to be willing to give that kind of interview, or emotional enough to do so. I would put Sherman in the latter category.
   102. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 08:24 PM (#4643735)
"Guy sounds like a jackassian loon but he's really a brilliant genius and it's racist to say otherwise!"

That's classic.
   103. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 21, 2014 at 08:27 PM (#4643738)
No, I don't. I've said it four or five times now.

Then how did he have Bayless's schtick down so cold, and how was he able to deconstruct it with such sublime perfection? His takedown of Bayless was sheer genius.
   104. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 08:27 PM (#4643739)

I don't deny that he came off as "angry" to Whitey, but that (obviously) isn't enough for him to have actually come off as angry.

Now you're the one being silly. Of course he came across as angry.
   105. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 08:31 PM (#4643741)
Sherman has not only got a degree from Stanford, it's in Communications, and he's working on his Master's degree.

Obligatory Simpsons clip.
   106. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 08:31 PM (#4643742)
#103, I don't know what happened with Bayless nor do I care. I didn't read Sherman's piece. I saw his loony interview.
   107. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 21, 2014 at 08:53 PM (#4643750)
#103, I don't know what happened with Bayless nor do I care. I didn't read Sherman's piece. I saw his loony interview.

So in other words you don't know a thing about the guy and have no way to internally falsify your opinion, yet you're going to pontificate anyway.

And your pontification just happens to be that in the five seconds (*) you saw a black guy with cornrows talk trash, you immediately formed the impression that he was "angry" and "insane."

Hmmm.

(*) Hardly an "interview."


   108. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 21, 2014 at 08:57 PM (#4643752)
There are white internet lawyers, and then there are people who regularly deal with Richard Sherman. Here's what one of the latter said today on ESPN.com:

As someone who interacts with Sherman on a regular basis, I can say, unequivocally, that he is as nice a guy as you could ever meet. He goes out of his way to be cooperative and courteous to anyone who needs a moment of his time.

Sherman also is one of the most intelligent young men I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. He is a proud graduate of Stanford, one of the most prestigious academic universities in the world.

   109. Zach Posted: January 21, 2014 at 09:01 PM (#4643754)
To back up what I said earlier about real vs. staged anger, watch Macho Man Randy Savage and Richard Sherman with the sound off. For a famous black man in a contact sport, watch Cassius Clay right after beating Sonny Liston.

Savage has quiet body language. He's putting on a show. Clay has happy, triumphant body language. Sherman has angry, irregular body language. And despite what Erin Andrews says, she is not feeling the moment. She's intimidated and wants to go away.
   110. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: January 21, 2014 at 09:07 PM (#4643757)
So in other words you don't know a thing about the guy and have no way to internally falsify your opinion, yet you're going to pontificate anyway.
Are there people who aren't familiar with the works of RayDP?
   111. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 21, 2014 at 09:07 PM (#4643758)
She's intimidated and wants to go away.

Actually she backtalked him after his first response, started formulating another question after his second response, only to have the truck make her cut away before she could get it out.
   112. Squash Posted: January 21, 2014 at 09:10 PM (#4643760)
As someone who interacts with Sherman on a regular basis, I can say, unequivocally, that he is as nice a guy as you could ever meet. He goes out of his way to be cooperative and courteous to anyone who needs a moment of his time.

Sherman also is one of the most intelligent young men I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. He is a proud graduate of Stanford, one of the most prestigious academic universities in the world.


That's their Seahawks beat writer, who needs access to one of their biggest stars (maybe now their biggest, certainly now their best known). He's not going to come out and trash the guy in his column. That would be nuts.

That being said, Sherman probably is a very nice guy at times. Most people are nice a lot of the time. And Sherman certainly seems to be very intelligent. He also, through this and several other stories, seems to have some anger issues that bubble up, particularly when he's challenged. It's not like this is an isolated interview - Sherman has gone off several times. I'm sure we all know people who are nice but when they snap show a pretty serious temper.
   113. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 21, 2014 at 09:11 PM (#4643762)
She's intimidated and wants to go away.

Actually she backtalked him after his first response,


How disrespectful!
   114. AuntBea Posted: January 21, 2014 at 09:20 PM (#4643768)
That was so awesome. And I loved it.”


Andrews' face during the interview tells a different story.

As for the throw, it was idiotic. Not only was it first down, with plenty of time left to work down the field for the game winner, it was against one of the best corners in the league (a player the niners stayed away from all game), and the coverage was ridiculously good on that very play, especially up until the time Kaepernick had to release the ball. In fact, Kaepernick basically decided to throw it as soon as he saw the one-on-one match-up; he did not look to any other part of the field at all, where at least 2 other players were far more open. He said as much in the interviews after the game.

All 3 of Kaep's turnovers were on 1st down in the 4th quarter of a one-score game on passing plays. His decision-making absolutely crushed the 49ers chances. Primarily because of those 3 plays, Football Outsiders statistics had him as way below replacement level for his passing game. He has a lot to learn still, great arm or no.
   115. Zach Posted: January 21, 2014 at 09:24 PM (#4643770)
Actually she backtalked him after his first response

She has an uncertain expression on her face, somewhere between a cringe and a grimace. Her weight shifts backwards. She breaks eye contact.

If you can find a happy expression on her face, please give a timestamp.
   116. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 21, 2014 at 09:27 PM (#4643771)
She has an uncertain expression on her face, somewhere between a cringe and a grimace. Her weight shifts backwards. She breaks eye contact.

If you can find a happy expression on her face, please give a timestamp.


None of which speaks "intimidation." She was flustered by his first answer, understandably.(*) How we get from that to her being "intimidated" is an utter mystery. You can't possibly be suggesting she thought she was in physical danger.

(*) An answer he gave straight to the camera, barely acknowledging Andrews' presence.
   117. AuntBea Posted: January 21, 2014 at 09:29 PM (#4643774)
I thought the myth that being a Stanford athlete necessitated intelligence was long dead. All you need to know about the communications major at Stanford is that Michelle Wie (aka "Bubbles") got the same degree.

Sherman's just a loudmouth. Hardly insane.
   118. Squash Posted: January 21, 2014 at 09:32 PM (#4643777)
Andrews' face during the interview tells a different story.

Not just her face, but the tone of her voice. Listen to her when she says "Who was talking about you?". She's completely conciliatory. But now she's decided after the fact that it was awesome because she couldn't possibly be intimidated during an interview and because it's become a huge talking point and she wants to be in on the next round.
   119. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: January 21, 2014 at 09:37 PM (#4643780)
I think it's safe to say the interview would have run longer if Mean Gene Okerlund and not Erin Andrews was doing the sideline duties. That said, I don't really think Andrews' reaction is that pertinent to this debate. Personally it looks as if the producers made a quick decision to pull the interview and maybe they sensed she was overwhelmed or needed rescuing (which doesn't really reflect well on their view of her competence) or they were worried about swear words and whatever else that could mess up the furnished souls of the American watching public (or more likely the sponsors).
   120. TDF, situational idiot Posted: January 21, 2014 at 09:53 PM (#4643784)
Why should we take Erin Andrews at her word when we have a number of anonymous internet posters who (1) weren't there, (2) know her only in their dreams, and (3) have never been in a similar situation?

This site is a great place to talk baseball. Everything else? Not so much.
   121. Squash Posted: January 21, 2014 at 09:54 PM (#4643787)
As for the throw, it was idiotic.

What bugs me about those plays, which NFL teams have begun using a lot, is that they're so low-percentage. They're automatic calls (Kaepernick has probably been told to throw that ball any time he sees one-one-one coverage in that situation) but they're so low percentage - you're basically gambling that the receiver is going to both beat the corner and that the throw is going to be perfect. It seems to me much better to actually run a play and see what develops rather than just throw it up, particularly given that one of the best DBs in the NFL is covering the guy.

I felt they should have done exactly what they should have done at the end of last year's Superbowl, which was have Kaepernick run the ball himself. That's one of their best options even in their designed offense (not just broken plays or scrambles). You don't have to run a "real" play. Play to your strengths.
   122. Squash Posted: January 21, 2014 at 10:17 PM (#4643795)
Why should we take Erin Andrews at her word when we have a number of anonymous internet posters who (1) weren't there, (2) know her only in their dreams, and (3) have never been in a similar situation?

I don't know, long experience with human beings? Why must we pretend on this site that people have no insight whatsoever into the motivations or reactions of other people any time a subject comes up that doesn't jibe with what we believe or want to believe? It's incredibly counter to human behavior - we are literally communication machines in both a verbal and nonverbal manner. Interpret each other's behavior is literally what we do and what we evolved specifically to do. We're actually even better at body language than we are at verbal language - take this specific instance for example.

I don't really think Andrews' reaction is that pertinent to this debate. Personally it looks as if the producers made a quick decision to pull the interview and maybe they sensed she was overwhelmed or needed rescuing (which doesn't really reflect well on their view of her competence) or they were worried about swear words and whatever else that could mess up the furnished souls of the American watching public (or more likely the sponsors).

I don't think it's particularly pertinent either, though I'm not sure what we're actually debating. But Andrews is saying something after the fact that seems a degree of wishful thinking compared to how she was actually reacting at the time, which people are going to jump on. For what it's worth I don't think they cut away because they were concerned for her specifically (though a little bit, nobody wants to see someone in an uncomfortable situation), but rather because they were afraid Sherman was going to start swearing or get more graphically personal or whatever.
   123. Squash Posted: January 21, 2014 at 10:39 PM (#4643803)
To add, I think talking about Andrews's reaction is to counter a lot of the writing that's going on these last two days about how what Sherman did was so awesome and we're all just too racist/blind/sticks in the mud to see it. I don't find the kind of anger he displayed to be particularly awesome, I think it's destructive in the long run, and I don't think it's productive to be implying that what he did was so great. There was no plan, this wasn't a statement - it was an excessively pissed off person displaying what seemed to be an excessive amount of rage. But we're praising it because we're scared about what people are going to say about us if we don't.
   124. greenback calls it soccer Posted: January 21, 2014 at 11:03 PM (#4643816)
This depth of analysis for a fifteen second interview (with Erin Andrews no less) seems like it's in the same supermarket aisle as the "Enhance" trope.
   125. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 22, 2014 at 12:51 AM (#4643860)
To add, I think talking about Andrews's reaction is to counter a lot of the writing that's going on these last two days about how what Sherman did was so awesome and we're all just too racist/blind/sticks in the mud to see it. I don't find the kind of anger he displayed to be particularly awesome, I think it's destructive in the long run, and I don't think it's productive to be implying that what he did was so great. There was no plan, this wasn't a statement - it was an excessively pissed off person displaying what seemed to be an excessive amount of rage. But we're praising it because we're scared about what people are going to say about us if we don't.

Yeah, I'm scared stiff that Richard Lapchick will call me a racist if I start acting like Seinfeld's library cop when an NFL player lets off steam right after putting his team into the Super Bowl.

I loved Sherman's little rant, but I loved it mainly because it was so unexpected, and if he did it again I'd react to it like I react to those mindfuckingly stupid Geico commercials: Try something new for a change, PLEASE. I'd have reacted the same way if it'd been some white player, and I don't have anything against Crabtree or the 49ers. This was just pure theater, nothing more and nothing less, and it brightened the usually solemn postgame atmosphere for a few brief moments. Good for him.

And if that makes me a modern liberal or a "progressive", whatever the fuck that is, then sue me.
   126. Squash Posted: January 22, 2014 at 02:24 AM (#4643880)
And if that makes me a modern liberal or a "progressive", whatever the #### that is, then sue me.

Believe it or not, it's possible to be a liberal and find what Sherman did to be distasteful. I, for example, am very liberal, and find what he did distasteful. And don't worry, you won't be getting sued tonight. Sleep easy.
   127. still hunting for a halo-red october (in Delphi) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 03:47 AM (#4643887)
I thought the myth that being a Stanford athlete necessitated intelligence was long dead. All you need to know about the communications major at Stanford is that Michelle Wie (aka "Bubbles") got the same degree.


Uh, you realize there's this, you know, whole admissions process you have to get through to get into college, take classes, and even enjoy use of the "easy list," right? And that, generally speaking, Stanford's admissions standards for student-athletes are going to be tougher than most schools (see the recruiting process, where at times the biggest hurdle for Stanford recruits isn't getting an offer, but gaining academic admission otherwise).

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130815/nerds-stanford-northwestern-vanderbilt/

If your sole evidence is that an "easy class" list exists at Stanford, well, then...I guess it's a good thing that no other non-athletics based, student organization at any school ever maintained a similar list.
   128. AuntBea Posted: January 22, 2014 at 04:23 AM (#4643890)
Obviously Stanford's admissions standards for student-athletes is going to be tougher than for most schools. That's an extremely low bar. (In fact, I can't think of a lower bar.) The issue is whether Stanford's academic admission standards for athletes is anywhere near their normal standards. If you think it is, you're severely deluded. The article states that Stanford is "adamant" that the athletes go through the "regular admissions process". That is not at all the same thing as saying they are held to the same academic standards as non-athletes. The article then misleadingly states what the normal extremely stringent acceptance rate for Stanford is, a statistic that has nothing to do with their acceptance rate of star quarterbacks and golf prodigies.

Ironically, the article then completely undermines its entire premise: stating "once Stanford coaches find a prospect they like, they take numerous steps to help navigate the admissions process. Anderson meets regularly with the school's admissions department so that both sides know what the other is seeking." Why would the coach have to do this if the applicant was going through the "normal procedures"? It's a way to let the admissions office know to make exceptions, lower standards, or whatever you want to call it, in order to get the athlete at the school.

   129. Dr. Vaux Posted: January 22, 2014 at 05:06 AM (#4643893)
Sherman didn't seem angry to me.
   130. still hunting for a halo-red october (in Delphi) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 05:17 AM (#4643894)
The issue is whether Stanford's academic admission standards for athletes is anywhere near their normal standards. If you think it is, you're severely deluded.


If you were to look through my post, I said nothing of the sort. And despite what you think, the fact that Stanford (and other schools like it) enforce higher admission standards than other schools is still meaningful. And the standard seems to have some teeth as well: to wit, safety recruit Kirk Tucker recently decommitted from Stanford because he was notified he would not be admitted due to his academic qualifications. This was despite the fact that the football program and the admissions committee previously thought he had a chance to make it through the admissions process, and gave him a scholarship offer.

Why would the coach have to do this if the applicant was going through the "normal procedures"? It's a way to let the admissions office know to make exceptions, lower standards, or whatever you want to call it, in order to get the athlete at the school.


Except you conveniently ignore the next sentence in the article:

If a player shows interest in Stanford, his recruiter serves as a de facto guidance counselor, advising the player on which courses he must take (most notably, at least two AP classes as a senior) and whether to re-take the SAT or ACT to best position himself for his eventual application.


So, would it be "making exceptions" and "lowering standards" to let a recruit know that, hey, in order to gain admission into the university, you're probably going to have to take some AP classes (as a SENIOR, never mind in addition to the rest of one's high school career) and get a good SAT/ACT score? Those aren't exactly abnormal--or easy, for that matter--hoops to jump through. In fact, what is described by the sentence you ignore sounds pretty damned similar to the advice high school counselors give across the country on an everyday basis--something the article itself points out.
   131. Cooper Nielson Posted: January 22, 2014 at 05:26 AM (#4643896)
The issue is whether Stanford's academic admission standards for athletes is anywhere near their normal standards.

It's not, but I think the athletic admissions procedure at Stanford (and presumably places like Northwestern and Vanderbilt) is more "fair" and transparent than some people think.

There is some baseline that all Stanford students must meet (which is why they never have Prop 48-type issues with athletes), but then to gain admission, you also have to do something extra to elevate yourself from the baseline.

For the majority of the student body, that "something extra" is simply more academics, but there are also people who stand out due to artistic ability, personal achievement (like community service or starting a business), leadership potential, intriguing back-story (which may include socio-economic factors), or (sigh) being the son/daughter of someone rich or important. Or being a world-class athlete.

Stanford doesn't want to admit students solely on some WAR-like formula of academic qualifications. To extend the baseball metaphor, they actually would consider things like "The Fear" and "Game 7 1991" in the admissions process. And I think that's OK.

I agree that the average Stanford running back is not going to be as "smart" (grades, SAT scores, Jeopardy ability, whatever) as his random freshman roommate, but he's also not going to be someone who struggled with high school.

In this particular case (and many others), I think Richard Sherman could've gotten accepted even if he had the football ability of the average Primate. His high school GPA was somewhere between 3.9 and 4.2 (depending on the source) with AP classes, he's the son of a garbageman from Compton, and I'm guessing he can write a fascinating personal essay. Why wouldn't you admit him?

It's true, however, that Communications is not considered one of the more challenging majors at Stanford.
   132. still hunting for a halo-red october (in Delphi) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 05:33 AM (#4643897)
It's true, however, that Communications is not considered one of the more challenging majors at Stanford.


That's true, but context is everything here. Not to be a snob, but when you consider what it means--by comparison--to major in the STEM fields like Mechanical Engineering, Computer Science, or Human Biology at Stanford...

(And no hate on my part, as my background is in the social sciences and humanities.)
   133. AuntBea Posted: January 22, 2014 at 05:57 AM (#4643898)
the fact that Stanford (and other schools like it) enforce higher admission standards than other schools is still meaningful.


I agree with this. However, among the highly recruited athletes I would bet a very significant fraction are not meaningfully above average in intelligence. Hence my statement, which I made originally: "being a Stanford athlete does not necessitate intelligence". And I'm not talking about one or two extreme outliers, but a decent fraction of them. (This does not extend to the non-highly recruited "rank-and-file" athletes, of course.) And yes, its not just the athletes, though they, along with the rich "legacies", are usually the most glaring examples.



If a player shows interest in Stanford, his recruiter serves as a de facto guidance counselor, advising the player on which courses he must take (most notably, at least two AP classes as a senior) and whether to re-take the SAT or ACT to best position himself for his eventual application.


Despite what you say, this is very obviously a way of lowering of standards, and a way to "set a path" that the student can take that will guarantee him entry just over some minimum cutoff that does not apply to a normal applicant. The "two AP class" rule is clearly a way to justify a student's admission after he will probably fail to earn his way in under normal standards. It certainly has nothing to do with regular admissions procedures. On Stanford's admissions website they state that AP courses are just another factor considered, implying that the more the better but again clearly stating that none are required for entry. They also say that test scores from the AP are not used in the Admissions process. How convenient for the star recruit.
   134. Cooper Nielson Posted: January 22, 2014 at 05:59 AM (#4643899)
That's true, but context is everything here. Not to be a snob, but when you consider what it means--by comparison--to major in the STEM fields like Mechanical Engineering, Computer Science, or Human Biology at Stanford...

With the caveat that I graduated more than 20 years ago and things may have changed, I think that getting accepted at Stanford is much more difficult than getting a degree once you're in. There's some grade inflation and hand-holding (not just for athletes, but for everyone) and outside of the hard-core STEM* fields it's hard to fail a class if you show up and do the work. There are definitely some easy majors. Communications used to have that reputation.

* I should also point out that "Human Biology" at Stanford -- which I believe was football player Owen Marecic's impressive-sounding major -- is actually not a technical major. (That would be just plain "Biology.") Human Biology is an interdisciplinary major with fairly un-rigorous scientific requirements. Here are some sample classes from the department website:

HumBio 110 - Building a Sustainable Society: New Approaches for Integrating Human and Environmental Priorities
HumBio 130 - Human Nutrition
HumBio 178V - Violence Against Women: Theories, Issues and Prevention
HumBio 176 - The Impact of Infectious Diseases on Human History

This stuff isn't exactly aimed at future Marie Curies/Jonas Salks. Students would switch to HumBio when they found Biology to be too difficult. (Then they would switch to Psychology when they found HumBio to be too difficult.)
   135. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 22, 2014 at 08:43 AM (#4643914)
And if that makes me a modern liberal or a "progressive", whatever the #### that is, then sue me.

Believe it or not, it's possible to be a liberal and find what Sherman did to be distasteful. I, for example, am very liberal, and find what he did distasteful.


No problem with that. I was just alluding to the patented catchphrase that gets thrown around on a lot of these threads by a couple of people. But of course one's reaction to Sherman shouldn't have anything to do with politics in the larger world.

----------------------------------------------------------

the fact that Stanford (and other schools like it) enforce higher admission standards than other schools is still meaningful.


I agree with this. However, among the highly recruited athletes I would bet a very significant fraction are not meaningfully above average in intelligence.

I'd say that's true for today, yesterday, the day before yesterday, and all the way back to the days when college teams used to hire non-student ringers to play in particular games. When I was at Duke in the 60's, the intelligence level of the jocks ranged from way above average to barely literate, with the great bulk of them being typical frat types who were there mostly to play sports and needed tutors to keep up in class.** It needn't be said that this was way before the era of integration on the southern gridirons and basketball courts.

**And given the number of practice hours that was demanded of them during the football or basketball seasons, I can't say that this was always a sign of a lack of intelligence.

   136. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 09:34 AM (#4643932)
I don't think it's particularly pertinent either, though I'm not sure what we're actually debating.


A man came off as angry during an interview, but we can't say that he was angry because he's black and if liberals conceded that a black man came off as angry during an interview it would upset their worldview. That's basically it.

As to SBB, I don't know what the hell he's arguing.

When Andrews says "Who was talking about you?" her voice sounds like she is very uneasy at best. Very unlike her typical interview, where her demeanor is much more joyful.

As to the play itself, it was a nice play, but people -- starting with Sherman -- are acting like he intercepted the ball, when really the interception itself was a bit flukey. Had the tip not been caught and intercepted, it would have been just another play, not very remarkable, and the 49ers would have simply run another down.
   137. Greg K Posted: January 22, 2014 at 09:45 AM (#4643943)
A friend of mine linked this video which is more or less the same thing Sherman did, except much more amusing due to context.
   138. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM (#4644034)
As to SBB, I don't know what the hell he's arguing.

It was quite clear. He didn't come off as "angry" to objective people who look at black people as people and know something about Sherman, and the perception of his "anger" among wide swaths of white people almost certainly has a racial element.

As always, gotta call it like I see it. If that bothers some people, so be it.

When Andrews says "Who was talking about you?" her voice sounds like she is very uneasy at best.

No, she doesn't.

   139. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM (#4644037)
A man came off as angry during an interview, but we can't say that he was angry because he's black and if liberals conceded that a black man came off as angry during an interview it would upset their worldview. That's basically it.

I hope you're trying to say "because he's black, we can't say that he was angry", and not that he was angry because he was black. The first sentiment is garden variety political insult, but the latter thought is mildly insane.
   140. NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM (#4644065)
Surprised no one's mentioned Hank Aaron tweeting his support of Sherman.
   141. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 11:38 AM (#4644092)
I hope you're trying to say "because he's black, we can't say that he was angry"


Yes.

   142. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 22, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4644112)
As to the play itself, it was a nice play, but people -- starting with Sherman -- are acting like he intercepted the ball, when really the interception itself was a bit flukey. Had the tip not been caught and intercepted, it would have been just another play, not very remarkable, and the 49ers would have simply run another down.


Except the Seattle secondary run that explicit play for tips and interceptions. Sherman made that play intentionally. It wasn't a random tip where the other guy was lucky to be in the area where the ball ricocheted. Earl Thomas plays back on that route every time, and Sherman goes high, to the point of the ball, and tips it back to Thomas for the INT, because Sherman is falling out of bounds on the play. Watch the tape, Ray. This isn't a tip drill. Sherman goes up, puts his hand on the ball and clearly and obviously deflects back to where he knows his teammate will be waiting for the tip.
   143. still hunting for a halo-red october (in Delphi) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 11:53 AM (#4644122)
With the caveat that I graduated more than 20 years ago and things may have changed, I think that getting accepted at Stanford is much more difficult than getting a degree once you're in. There's some grade inflation and hand-holding (not just for athletes, but for everyone) and outside of the hard-core STEM* fields it's hard to fail a class if you show up and do the work. There are definitely some easy majors. Communications used to have that reputation.


This is still accurate...

* I should also point out that "Human Biology" at Stanford -- which I believe was football player Owen Marecic's impressive-sounding major -- is actually not a technical major. (That would be just plain "Biology.") Human Biology is an interdisciplinary major with fairly un-rigorous scientific requirements. Here are some sample classes from the department website:


...but this is not.

Many of the courses you listed are options, but they are also required to take a slate of classes known as "the HumBio core," which has the reputation for being tough and often serves as a decision point for whether one wants to actually try to be a doctor or not.

It's still probably not as difficult as straight Biology, but it ain't no walk in the park, either.

This stuff isn't exactly aimed at future Marie Curies/Jonas Salks.


Fair, but it's all about objectives, right? If you're trying to be Jonas Salk, you're probably a bio major. If you want to be a doctor to see patients and not do research, then HumBio isn't a bad option.
   144. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 11:58 AM (#4644130)
Except the Seattle secondary run that explicit play for tips and interceptions. Sherman made that play intentionally. It wasn't a random tip where the other guy was lucky to be in the area where the ball ricocheted. Earl Thomas plays back on that route every time, and Sherman goes high, to the point of the ball, and tips it back to Thomas for the INT, because Sherman is falling out of bounds on the play. Watch the tape, Ray. This isn't a tip drill. Sherman goes up, puts his hand on the ball and clearly and obviously deflects back to where he knows his teammate will be waiting for the tip.


Seems to me that he did the only thing he could do with the ball from the position he was in. Watch the tape. But whatever. It was a nice play, as I said. But the defender who caught the ball didn't have to be there.
   145. still hunting for a halo-red october (in Delphi) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 12:01 PM (#4644135)
The "two AP class" rule is clearly a way to justify a student's admission after he will probably fail to earn his way in under normal standards.


Totally disagree. I went to high school a little before Richard Sherman did, and at a pretty decent public school in the same state's more affluent areas, and 95% of my classmates took zero AP classes senior year. I'd venture that 90% did not take a single AP class during the duration of their four years in high school, and I may be underestimating on both counts. And those were normal students, not student-athletes trying to get into a Div 1 school. So if a kid can take and do well enough in two AP classes, I'd expect they're doing pretty well academically anyway.

It's not an escape route, it's a proxy for testing a student's overall academic prowess.

   146. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 22, 2014 at 12:20 PM (#4644160)
Seems to me that he did the only thing he could do with the ball from the position he was in.


Ray, he was in that position because he played the route perfectly. That's the position the corner is supposed to be in to defend the fade. He identified the offensive concept the 49ers were running at the line. He baited Kaepernick into throwing the fade that he wanted to defend. He made the physical play to defend the play exactly as he and his teammates draw that defense up. There was nothing random or accidental about Sherman's actions on that play. Critique his post-game conduct all you want, but at least do the research if you're going to talk about his actual game play. Sherman's play on that ball was intentional and intended as any throw Tom Brady has ever made.
   147. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 22, 2014 at 12:50 PM (#4644206)
Ray, he was in that position because he played the route perfectly. That's the position the corner is supposed to be in to defend the fade. He identified the offensive concept the 49ers were running at the line. He baited Kaepernick into throwing the fade that he wanted to defend. He made the physical play to defend the play exactly as he and his teammates draw that defense up. There was nothing random or accidental about Sherman's actions on that play. Critique his post-game conduct all you want, but at least do the research if you're going to talk about his actual game play. Sherman's play on that ball was intentional and intended as any throw Tom Brady has ever made.

OK, but don't you dare call his play "clutch"!!!
   148. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:05 PM (#4644235)
A man came off as angry during an interview, but we can't say that he was angry because he's black and if liberals conceded that a black man came off as angry during an interview it would upset their worldview. That's basically it.

I hope you're trying to say "because he's black, we can't say that he was angry", and not that he was angry because he was black. The first sentiment is garden variety political insult, but the latter thought is mildly insane.I hope you're trying to say "because he's black, we can't say that he was angry"

Yes.


Glad you haven't gone completely nuts, but is it asking too much for you to cite some actual evidence for that statement? Is the footnote to this just another assertion? Or is trash talking by football players now considered presumptively "angry"?
   149. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:58 PM (#4644312)
It's wrong to call a black man angry at any particular moment because black people live in a perennial state of frightening rage. And sometimes they stand outside polling stations and furiously open doors for old ladies.
   150. Swedish Chef Posted: January 22, 2014 at 02:13 PM (#4644329)
A man came off as angry during an interview, but we can't say that he was angry because he's black and if liberals conceded that a black man came off as angry during an interview it would upset their worldview. That's basically it.
´

And you somehow found that reason enough to brand the man "insane".
   151. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 02:29 PM (#4644341)
And you somehow found that reason enough to brand the man "insane".


People don't have to be experts in the field of psychology to suggest that someone see a shrink.
   152. PepTech Posted: January 22, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4644344)
There was nothing random or accidental about Sherman's actions on that play. Critique his post-game conduct all you want, but at least do the research if you're going to talk about his actual game play. Sherman's play on that ball was intentional and intended as any throw Tom Brady has ever made.
Same route, same result.
   153. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4644350)
People don't have to be experts in the field of psychology to suggest that someone see a shrink.


Now that you mention it ...
   154. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4644358)
Now that you mention it ...


Ha.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogTigers' Miguel Cabrera appears to re-injure ankle, leaves game
(10 - 3:48am, Sep 01)
Last: Cooper Nielson

NewsblogBackman named PCL’s top manager
(12 - 2:57am, Sep 01)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogBob Melvin calls Athletics 'pathetic' after Angels sweep four-game set
(1 - 2:09am, Sep 01)
Last: Walks Clog Up the Bases

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(779 - 2:09am, Sep 01)
Last: DJS and the Infinite Sadness

NewsblogJesus Montero gets heckled by Mariners cross checker during rehab stint
(58 - 2:00am, Sep 01)
Last: Weratych

NewsblogAthletics Acquire Adam Dunn
(22 - 1:37am, Sep 01)
Last: 6 - 4 - 3

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-1-2014
(1 - 1:13am, Sep 01)
Last: Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq.

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(90 - 12:53am, Sep 01)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(6296 - 12:32am, Sep 01)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-31-2014
(100 - 12:29am, Sep 01)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

NewsblogHigh School Baseball Game In Japan Takes 50 Innings, Four Days
(6 - 11:46pm, Aug 31)
Last: Gamingboy

NewsblogBlue Jays Acquire Mayberry Jr.
(2 - 11:41pm, Aug 31)
Last: John Northey

NewsblogPhoto of the day: Bill Murray, indy league ticket-taker
(42 - 11:33pm, Aug 31)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogSherman: How Reds react to second-half swoon will be major factor in offseason
(5 - 9:46pm, Aug 31)
Last: Select Storage Device

NewsblogOrioles Acquire Kelly Johnson
(20 - 9:44pm, Aug 31)
Last: Mike Emeigh

Page rendered in 0.8025 seconds
52 querie(s) executed