If a football game is on the NFL network and no one sees it, did it really happen?
The answer in both cases is obviously yes. But there has been a lot of complaining lately about games being shown only on the NFL network which some cable companies do not carry and some (like Comcast in Philly) carry, but on a special sports tier that most people do not have.
So is this such a bad thing?
Well from the NFL's perspective I think its brilliant. It gets people to subscribe to their channel who otherwise would never subscribe. But the publicity is not great. In the long run though, I see it as a positive for them. In 10 years if lots of people have the channel and can watch the exclusive games, who will remember the games from 2006 and 2007 that they missed?
From a diehard fan's perspective it depends on if your cable company offers the channel. A diehard will not care about the $3 or $5 a month for the network. They will care a lot if its not available.
From my perspective (as a casual fan), I just don't care. Over the course of the season, the NFL network may show 10 games, of which 2 or 3 will be of interest. For those I can head over to a friend's house or to a bar (which I did last night).
The NFL network is also a great lead in to my next topic, ala carte cable. My cable package includes a lot of channels, probably close to 300, even without counting the 100 music stations. Of all these channels I would say 95% of my TV viewing comprises:
ESPN & ESPN2
Network channels (Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC)
Comedy Central
Turner Classic Movies
TNT
TBS
Comcast SportsNet & CN8
Versus
The Encore suite of movie channels
MOJO
G4
Other movie channels (IFC, Fox Movies, Flix, etc)
I will also occasionally watch A&E, Bravo, USA, Travel Channel, AMC, FX, Spike,
Food Network.
This totals roughly 35, maybe 40 channels. The rest I completely ignore. So why should I need to pay for them? The real reason is that Comcast and other cable providers say so. Well what is stopping a new cable company from offering channels ala carte?
I suspect that the networks are part of the problem. If one company owns 10 different channels, they may require that all 10 be included together.
The advantages to ala carte are that the consumers will likely save money, choosing only the channels they are likely to watch. In addition this forces networks to put out better products. Right now a lot of channels know they're included in all cable packages, so there is less incentive to improve.
The one disadvantage I see is the possibility that start up channels will have more difficulty breaking through. I started watching MOJO and G4 because we had them and now I enjoy a few shows on the channels, but I'd never have seen them if they weren't automatically included. Of course, if a channel promotes itself correctly, this may not be an issue (example: if the major league baseball network ever gets off the ground I would order even without seeing it because I know what the product would be.)
Overall, I'd like to see ala carte choices. However, I someone doubt this will be happening any time soon.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
And the award goes to ...
The baseball awards have been handed out so now its time for some fun facts. I'm not going to delve into whether or not voters made correct choices, there are enough people doing that already.
Rollins won the MVP a year after Ryan Howard pocketed the award. How many times have different teammates won the award in consecutive years? Well its happened way more than I orginally expected, 20 times including this year. But then I realized with only 8 teams in a league, this would happen more often. 4 times, we had 3 different teammates win in consecutive years. A full list is here:
Walter Johnson and Roger Peckinpaugh for the Senators in 1924-25 (although AL MVP rules at the time allowed a player to only win the award once, so Johnson was ineligible in 1925)
Rogers Hornsby and Bob O'Farrell for the Cardinals in 1925-26
Lefty Grove and Jimmie Foxx for the A's in 1931-32 (Foxx won again in 1933)
Mickey Cochrange and Hank Greenburg for the Tigers in 1934-35
Ernie Lombardi and Bucky Walters and Frank McCormick !!! for the Red in 1938-40
Joe DiMaggio and Joe Gordon and Spud Chandler !!! for the Yankees in 1941-43
Mort Cooper and Stan Musial and Marty Marion !!! for the Cardinals in 1942-44
Phil Rizzuto and Yogi Berra for the Yankees in 1950-51
Yogi Berra and Mickey Mantle for the Yankees in 1955-56 (Berra also won in 54, Mantle also won in 57)
Roy Campanella and Don Newcombe in 1955-56
Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle and Elston Howard !!! in 1961-63 (Maris also won in 60)
Maury Wills and Sandy Koufax in 1962-63
Orlando Cepeda and Bob Gibson in 1967-68
Johnny Bench and Pete Rose in 1972-73
Joe Morgan and George Foster in 1976-77 (Morgan also won in 75)
Dave Parker and Willie Stargell in 1978-79 (Stargell tied for the award)
Rollie Fingers and Robin Yount in 1981-82
Juan Gonzalez and Ivan Rodriguez in 1998-99
Jeff Kent and Barry Bonds in 2000-01 (Bonds also won from 02-04)
Chase Utley will have a lot of pressure on him next year to get the three-peat.
Also note that this has happened 7 times with the Cy Young.
And lastly on this topic, the Dodgers once had 5 consecutive rookies of the year. I did not confirm, but I assume this is a record
For an award that voters seem to just vote for last years winners, the gold glove had 10 first time winners, by my count. It doesn't mean much, but I thought it was interesting.
Rollins won the MVP a year after Ryan Howard pocketed the award. How many times have different teammates won the award in consecutive years? Well its happened way more than I orginally expected, 20 times including this year. But then I realized with only 8 teams in a league, this would happen more often. 4 times, we had 3 different teammates win in consecutive years. A full list is here:
Walter Johnson and Roger Peckinpaugh for the Senators in 1924-25 (although AL MVP rules at the time allowed a player to only win the award once, so Johnson was ineligible in 1925)
Rogers Hornsby and Bob O'Farrell for the Cardinals in 1925-26
Lefty Grove and Jimmie Foxx for the A's in 1931-32 (Foxx won again in 1933)
Mickey Cochrange and Hank Greenburg for the Tigers in 1934-35
Ernie Lombardi and Bucky Walters and Frank McCormick !!! for the Red in 1938-40
Joe DiMaggio and Joe Gordon and Spud Chandler !!! for the Yankees in 1941-43
Mort Cooper and Stan Musial and Marty Marion !!! for the Cardinals in 1942-44
Phil Rizzuto and Yogi Berra for the Yankees in 1950-51
Yogi Berra and Mickey Mantle for the Yankees in 1955-56 (Berra also won in 54, Mantle also won in 57)
Roy Campanella and Don Newcombe in 1955-56
Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle and Elston Howard !!! in 1961-63 (Maris also won in 60)
Maury Wills and Sandy Koufax in 1962-63
Orlando Cepeda and Bob Gibson in 1967-68
Johnny Bench and Pete Rose in 1972-73
Joe Morgan and George Foster in 1976-77 (Morgan also won in 75)
Dave Parker and Willie Stargell in 1978-79 (Stargell tied for the award)
Rollie Fingers and Robin Yount in 1981-82
Juan Gonzalez and Ivan Rodriguez in 1998-99
Jeff Kent and Barry Bonds in 2000-01 (Bonds also won from 02-04)
Chase Utley will have a lot of pressure on him next year to get the three-peat.
Also note that this has happened 7 times with the Cy Young.
And lastly on this topic, the Dodgers once had 5 consecutive rookies of the year. I did not confirm, but I assume this is a record
For an award that voters seem to just vote for last years winners, the gold glove had 10 first time winners, by my count. It doesn't mean much, but I thought it was interesting.
Eating in Philly
We spent a lot of time in center city over the weekend, so I thought I'd review some new places we visited.
On Friday night we went to Marathon Grill on 16th & Sansom. The place was not too large, but we had no trouble getting a table. The service was a little slow, but it was a Friday night. The menu sounded really good and I had a tough time deciding. The seafood bisque did not impress me, it was really just some shreded fish, almost like what you'd get out of a can of tuna. I had a turkey BLT with guacamole for dinner. Unfortunately, you couldn't really taste the guacamole, so it was just a BLT. The meal came with a side of potato salad that was good. The beer selection was nothing impressive, I believe a Flying Fish, Yuengling, and one other decent tap I can;t remember. Overall, an ok place, but not one that I'm in a hurry to get back to.
After dinner we went to Lucky Strike to bowl. Again I'd never been there before, so I didn't know what to expect. It was fairly posh for my normal drinking nights. I drank Sam Adams Octoberfest, which isn't my favorite octoberfest, but is still good. The bowling was of course fun, albiet a bit pricy.
On Saturday we started our night with a pre-dinner drink at Zot on Lombard between 2nd and Front Sts. The place is a beer bar, specializing in Belgians. They had 4 beers on tap, Karmeliet Triple, Blanche de Bruxelles, Delirium Tremens and I can't remember the other one. I had the Karmeliet which was very tasty. The wife had some wine, their wine selection didn't look too bad. After dinner we returned here and I had a few other Belgian beers, Gouden, Brugse Zot and of course more Karmeliet. Interesting fact, they run a happy hour with 1/2 priced drafts from 10-midnight. We of course took advantage of this. Overall, the place had a good Belgian beer selection, mostly in bottles, and was not nearly as crowded as a place like Monks or Eulogy (possibly because it is much newer). The food menu looked good, including about 20 kinds of mussels, but we did not eat there.
Between Zot visits, we eat next door at Bistro Romano. The restaurant runs some dinner theaters, although we didn't participate. We were seated downstairs at a booth. We had a bottle of Nero D'Alova which was good, and priced around $30. The wife and I split a smoked mozzarella appetizer which was very good, even though there wasn't much to it besides the cheese. I had a glazed duck for my entree. The portions were very large, and my duck was tasty, although maybe a touch overdone. The only thing I didn't like were the peppercorns. I like when things are flavored with peppercorns, but I hate actually biting into them. The wife had a fusilli pasta dish with chicken and peppers. The toppings were good, but the pasta was way past al dente. Overall it was a good place and other things on the menu looking interesting to try as well.
And to close out the new restaurants post, we got take out from Alex's pizza last night. They are a little hole in the wall pizza place on the corner of Pechin and Leverington. The pizzas are smaller than some, a large fed 2 people well, but not too pricy ($9.50 with 1 topping). The pizza is fairly thin crust, a bit too crispy for my taste. The sauce was ok, could have used some more spices and the cheese was ok, but slightly lacking in quantity. Not a great pizza, but better than most of what you'll find around Manayunk.
On Friday night we went to Marathon Grill on 16th & Sansom. The place was not too large, but we had no trouble getting a table. The service was a little slow, but it was a Friday night. The menu sounded really good and I had a tough time deciding. The seafood bisque did not impress me, it was really just some shreded fish, almost like what you'd get out of a can of tuna. I had a turkey BLT with guacamole for dinner. Unfortunately, you couldn't really taste the guacamole, so it was just a BLT. The meal came with a side of potato salad that was good. The beer selection was nothing impressive, I believe a Flying Fish, Yuengling, and one other decent tap I can;t remember. Overall, an ok place, but not one that I'm in a hurry to get back to.
After dinner we went to Lucky Strike to bowl. Again I'd never been there before, so I didn't know what to expect. It was fairly posh for my normal drinking nights. I drank Sam Adams Octoberfest, which isn't my favorite octoberfest, but is still good. The bowling was of course fun, albiet a bit pricy.
On Saturday we started our night with a pre-dinner drink at Zot on Lombard between 2nd and Front Sts. The place is a beer bar, specializing in Belgians. They had 4 beers on tap, Karmeliet Triple, Blanche de Bruxelles, Delirium Tremens and I can't remember the other one. I had the Karmeliet which was very tasty. The wife had some wine, their wine selection didn't look too bad. After dinner we returned here and I had a few other Belgian beers, Gouden, Brugse Zot and of course more Karmeliet. Interesting fact, they run a happy hour with 1/2 priced drafts from 10-midnight. We of course took advantage of this. Overall, the place had a good Belgian beer selection, mostly in bottles, and was not nearly as crowded as a place like Monks or Eulogy (possibly because it is much newer). The food menu looked good, including about 20 kinds of mussels, but we did not eat there.
Between Zot visits, we eat next door at Bistro Romano. The restaurant runs some dinner theaters, although we didn't participate. We were seated downstairs at a booth. We had a bottle of Nero D'Alova which was good, and priced around $30. The wife and I split a smoked mozzarella appetizer which was very good, even though there wasn't much to it besides the cheese. I had a glazed duck for my entree. The portions were very large, and my duck was tasty, although maybe a touch overdone. The only thing I didn't like were the peppercorns. I like when things are flavored with peppercorns, but I hate actually biting into them. The wife had a fusilli pasta dish with chicken and peppers. The toppings were good, but the pasta was way past al dente. Overall it was a good place and other things on the menu looking interesting to try as well.
And to close out the new restaurants post, we got take out from Alex's pizza last night. They are a little hole in the wall pizza place on the corner of Pechin and Leverington. The pizzas are smaller than some, a large fed 2 people well, but not too pricy ($9.50 with 1 topping). The pizza is fairly thin crust, a bit too crispy for my taste. The sauce was ok, could have used some more spices and the cheese was ok, but slightly lacking in quantity. Not a great pizza, but better than most of what you'll find around Manayunk.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
hockey stats
The NHL has gone through several somewhat major rule changes over the years, which makes it somewhat difficult to compare players and teams across eras. So here's my attempt at rectifying this.
From the beginning of the NHL up to and including the 1998-99 season, points were awarded as follows:
Win in regulation - 2 points
Loss in regulation - 0 points
Win in overtime - 2 points
Loss in overtime - 0 points
Tie - 1 point
This meant that for every game, 2 points were awarded. So the number of points in the standings was (# of teams) * (# of games in the season)
From the 1999-00 season until 2003-04 season, points were awarded as:
Win in regulation - 2 points
Loss in regulation - 0 points
Win in overtime - 2 points
Loss in overtime - 1 points
Tie - 1 point
The difference is the point for an overtime loss. The idea was that teams were playing for a tie in overtime rather than risk earning nothing, so they gave both teams a point going into overtime, then if someone scored they got another point. What this did was increase the number of points in the standings, making it (# of teams) * (# of games in the season) + (# of games won in overtime). More than adding points, this also added variation to the number of points each season, leading to different playoff qualifying situtaions each year.
Since 2005-06, the scoring is:
Win in regulation - 2 points
Loss in regulation - 0 points
Win in overtime - 2 points
Loss in overtime - 1 points
Win in shootout - 2 points
Loss in shootout - 1 points
Ties are eliminated, so every overtime game will yield 3 points. Since shootout wins and overtime wins are identical from a points perspective, I'll just refer to both of these as OT wins. So the number of points in the system is (# of teams) * (# of games in the season) + (# of games going to overtime). We still have variation and an even larger number of points than the other two settings.
So who was better, the 05-06 Red Wings with 124 points, 01-02 Red Wings with 116 points, or 97-98 Stars with 109 points?? (These are arbitrary comparisons)
One option is to look at the ratio of points earned to the average # of points a team earned in those 3 years.
97-98 teams averaged 82, ratio is 1.33
01-02 teams averaged 86.03, ratio is 1.35
05-06 teams averaged 91.47, ratio is 1.36
We can alternatively look at the number of standard deviations each is away from the mean:
97-98 Stars - 1.71
01-02 Red Wings - 1.995
05-06 Red Wings - 1.976
The 109 points is clearly not quite as impressive, but the 116 and 124 look very close. The ratios are nearly identical, with the 116 being more SDs away from the mean, largely due to the increase in variance in points under the current system. Of course, the evidence is really telling us that 116 in 01-02 is roughly equivalent to 124 in 05-06 (or any year in today's system). So always be weary of comparing team points without acknowledging the system under which it was obtained.
So what does it mean for this season?? Well last year 22.8% of games went to OT. So far a sixth of the way into this season, only 13.9% of games are going to OT. So instead of 2741 points last year, we're on pace for 2631 points, which is only slightly more than we saw in the previous points system. If this keeps up (I don't have game by game data to see if this is possibly a typical early season trend), expect teams to need fewer points to reach the playoffs. Instead of 93.75 (the average in the past 2 years), a team might need only 90.
Of course if Ottawa keeps hogging all the points, things could change.
The other implication of the new system is on goalie stats, but that will need to wait for another post.
From the beginning of the NHL up to and including the 1998-99 season, points were awarded as follows:
Win in regulation - 2 points
Loss in regulation - 0 points
Win in overtime - 2 points
Loss in overtime - 0 points
Tie - 1 point
This meant that for every game, 2 points were awarded. So the number of points in the standings was (# of teams) * (# of games in the season)
From the 1999-00 season until 2003-04 season, points were awarded as:
Win in regulation - 2 points
Loss in regulation - 0 points
Win in overtime - 2 points
Loss in overtime - 1 points
Tie - 1 point
The difference is the point for an overtime loss. The idea was that teams were playing for a tie in overtime rather than risk earning nothing, so they gave both teams a point going into overtime, then if someone scored they got another point. What this did was increase the number of points in the standings, making it (# of teams) * (# of games in the season) + (# of games won in overtime). More than adding points, this also added variation to the number of points each season, leading to different playoff qualifying situtaions each year.
Since 2005-06, the scoring is:
Win in regulation - 2 points
Loss in regulation - 0 points
Win in overtime - 2 points
Loss in overtime - 1 points
Win in shootout - 2 points
Loss in shootout - 1 points
Ties are eliminated, so every overtime game will yield 3 points. Since shootout wins and overtime wins are identical from a points perspective, I'll just refer to both of these as OT wins. So the number of points in the system is (# of teams) * (# of games in the season) + (# of games going to overtime). We still have variation and an even larger number of points than the other two settings.
So who was better, the 05-06 Red Wings with 124 points, 01-02 Red Wings with 116 points, or 97-98 Stars with 109 points?? (These are arbitrary comparisons)
One option is to look at the ratio of points earned to the average # of points a team earned in those 3 years.
97-98 teams averaged 82, ratio is 1.33
01-02 teams averaged 86.03, ratio is 1.35
05-06 teams averaged 91.47, ratio is 1.36
We can alternatively look at the number of standard deviations each is away from the mean:
97-98 Stars - 1.71
01-02 Red Wings - 1.995
05-06 Red Wings - 1.976
The 109 points is clearly not quite as impressive, but the 116 and 124 look very close. The ratios are nearly identical, with the 116 being more SDs away from the mean, largely due to the increase in variance in points under the current system. Of course, the evidence is really telling us that 116 in 01-02 is roughly equivalent to 124 in 05-06 (or any year in today's system). So always be weary of comparing team points without acknowledging the system under which it was obtained.
So what does it mean for this season?? Well last year 22.8% of games went to OT. So far a sixth of the way into this season, only 13.9% of games are going to OT. So instead of 2741 points last year, we're on pace for 2631 points, which is only slightly more than we saw in the previous points system. If this keeps up (I don't have game by game data to see if this is possibly a typical early season trend), expect teams to need fewer points to reach the playoffs. Instead of 93.75 (the average in the past 2 years), a team might need only 90.
Of course if Ottawa keeps hogging all the points, things could change.
The other implication of the new system is on goalie stats, but that will need to wait for another post.
At a loss for words
As of yesterday, the writer's guild is officially on strike. While I'm not a person who will automatically side with unions, I am definitely on the writers' side here. The main reason for the strike as I understand it is the negotiations over newer forms of media including internet content. The studios (and probably most management) tends to try and create the rules or carry over old rules when new forms arise. Similar instances occurred when the home video market took off.
The last writers strike was in 1988 and lasted 5 months. I have no idea how long this will last, but hopefully it will be quick.
Supposedly reality shows will be unaffected by the strike, but I hate most reality shows, so this does not bode well for me. Two of my favorite shows, The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are already on re-runs. I've read that the Office and Scrubs have a few episodes written that they can shoot, although it must be somewhat confusing for the office when half their stars are also writers. (See this site for more Office discussion). The other rumor is that Scrubs will not have a series finale.
I'm also curious how other shows with continuously running themes such as 24 will handle the strike. Ignoring the fact that the premise of 24 is that a season is 24 episodes, I would imagine that no more than a third of the season is written. If the strike could last until spring, then they might be better off delaying the start of the season (scheduled for January).
I'm guessing movies will be least effected since writing takes place far earlier in the production timeline. Plus if you watch TV and movies you get the impression that Hollywood has billions and billions of scripts floating around.
So I guess I'll be spending the next few months catching up on movies and shows I've missed over the past few years and watching more football and hockey. If anyone has heard info on other shows, please comment.
The last writers strike was in 1988 and lasted 5 months. I have no idea how long this will last, but hopefully it will be quick.
Supposedly reality shows will be unaffected by the strike, but I hate most reality shows, so this does not bode well for me. Two of my favorite shows, The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are already on re-runs. I've read that the Office and Scrubs have a few episodes written that they can shoot, although it must be somewhat confusing for the office when half their stars are also writers. (See this site for more Office discussion). The other rumor is that Scrubs will not have a series finale.
I'm also curious how other shows with continuously running themes such as 24 will handle the strike. Ignoring the fact that the premise of 24 is that a season is 24 episodes, I would imagine that no more than a third of the season is written. If the strike could last until spring, then they might be better off delaying the start of the season (scheduled for January).
I'm guessing movies will be least effected since writing takes place far earlier in the production timeline. Plus if you watch TV and movies you get the impression that Hollywood has billions and billions of scripts floating around.
So I guess I'll be spending the next few months catching up on movies and shows I've missed over the past few years and watching more football and hockey. If anyone has heard info on other shows, please comment.
Mad Dog
One of my favorite pitchers of all time, Greg Maddux, re-signed with the Padres for another year. Obviously at 41 he's no longer the pitcher he was in the mid 90s, but he's still a slightly above average start who stays healthy. Since 1988, the fewest starts he's made in a non-strike shortened year was 33!! For comparison's sake, Pedro Martinez has started 33 games 3 times, but thats the most he's ever started.
In fact, as scary as this sounds, if Maddux pitches 3 more seasons and gets 100 starts (I know its a big if, but a pitcher of his style can last), he'll be only 8 starts shy of tying Cy Young.
Since we know he'll pitch in 2008, lets look at some numbers.
He's 7 wins shy of Clemens at 354, which he should get easily (assuming Clemens actually retires). He's 14 shy of Kid Nichols and 16 shy of Spahn. Last year he had 14 wins, so this range is possible.
If he stays healthy, he'll end the season in 4th for all time games started, passing Clemens (they are tied), Carlton and Niekro
He's currently 16th in innings pitched and could pass Clemens, Bobby Mathews (who??) and Blyleven.
He never was much of a strikeout guy, but still sits at 11th all time. He should pass Niekro.
I can't say how long he'll pitch, but I'll be rooting for him.
In fact, as scary as this sounds, if Maddux pitches 3 more seasons and gets 100 starts (I know its a big if, but a pitcher of his style can last), he'll be only 8 starts shy of tying Cy Young.
Since we know he'll pitch in 2008, lets look at some numbers.
He's 7 wins shy of Clemens at 354, which he should get easily (assuming Clemens actually retires). He's 14 shy of Kid Nichols and 16 shy of Spahn. Last year he had 14 wins, so this range is possible.
If he stays healthy, he'll end the season in 4th for all time games started, passing Clemens (they are tied), Carlton and Niekro
He's currently 16th in innings pitched and could pass Clemens, Bobby Mathews (who??) and Blyleven.
He never was much of a strikeout guy, but still sits at 11th all time. He should pass Niekro.
I can't say how long he'll pitch, but I'll be rooting for him.
Monday, November 5, 2007
random thoughts
The Gmail inbox always has a link on top to some random website. The title of the website is related to whatever emails you've recently been reading. These are quite humorous to me, especially when the keywords in the email they read have multiple meanings.
Our neighborhood (Manayunk) has lots of college students and other young adults, so weekend parties are common. Walking around on a Saturday or Sunday morning will show you the evidence of the parties such as beer bottles sometimes with a little beer still in them. Usually the beer is crap, but yesterday I walked by an empty bottle of Flying Dog Dogtoberfest and I smiled.
Daylight savings time ended this past weekend, which gave us an extra hour!! This year the switch was made a week later than usual, but many people had calendars printed before the change was implemented and possibly got confused. My parents very nearly would have missed a flight if I didn't mention it to them. Is the change in DST worth the potential confusion? I say no.
My DVR is set to record a bunch of series, but it won't record them in HD. Even if I set the recording on the HD channel, it will resort to the regular version of that channel. Anybody else encounter this problem?
My office instant message program has a feature where you can select people and invite them to a meeting on the spot. However, if you don't select anybody it will invite everybody in your list, which can be quite long. I just got one of these invites. It doesn't bother me too much, I laugh at it, partially because I committed this error when I started working here.
The Sunday night football game yesterday consisted of the broadcast being "green". This does not mean people wore their Eagles jerseys, but rather that the broadcast was eco-friendly, including the studio being in darkness. Excuse me if I'm not impressed with an event that flies hundreds of people around the country and then turns the lights out. I hate these bullshit, purely symbolic acts.
Our neighborhood (Manayunk) has lots of college students and other young adults, so weekend parties are common. Walking around on a Saturday or Sunday morning will show you the evidence of the parties such as beer bottles sometimes with a little beer still in them. Usually the beer is crap, but yesterday I walked by an empty bottle of Flying Dog Dogtoberfest and I smiled.
Daylight savings time ended this past weekend, which gave us an extra hour!! This year the switch was made a week later than usual, but many people had calendars printed before the change was implemented and possibly got confused. My parents very nearly would have missed a flight if I didn't mention it to them. Is the change in DST worth the potential confusion? I say no.
My DVR is set to record a bunch of series, but it won't record them in HD. Even if I set the recording on the HD channel, it will resort to the regular version of that channel. Anybody else encounter this problem?
My office instant message program has a feature where you can select people and invite them to a meeting on the spot. However, if you don't select anybody it will invite everybody in your list, which can be quite long. I just got one of these invites. It doesn't bother me too much, I laugh at it, partially because I committed this error when I started working here.
The Sunday night football game yesterday consisted of the broadcast being "green". This does not mean people wore their Eagles jerseys, but rather that the broadcast was eco-friendly, including the studio being in darkness. Excuse me if I'm not impressed with an event that flies hundreds of people around the country and then turns the lights out. I hate these bullshit, purely symbolic acts.
When life gives you lemons ...
some people make lemonade.
I make limoncello.
For those unfamiliar, limoncello is an Italian liquor made from lemons (obviously) that is often served (chilled) as an after dinner drink.
I got a recipe from my parents and decided to make some. The process is fairly easy, although zesting lemons can be tiring. I finished it this weekend and had some last night. It was pretty good. I was very worried about the amount of sugar added. I didn't want an overly sweet or overly bitter drink, but it came out very nice. The good news is I have 5 1/4 liters (about 1.3 gallons), so it will last me a long time.
Stop by if you want to try.
I make limoncello.
For those unfamiliar, limoncello is an Italian liquor made from lemons (obviously) that is often served (chilled) as an after dinner drink.
I got a recipe from my parents and decided to make some. The process is fairly easy, although zesting lemons can be tiring. I finished it this weekend and had some last night. It was pretty good. I was very worried about the amount of sugar added. I didn't want an overly sweet or overly bitter drink, but it came out very nice. The good news is I have 5 1/4 liters (about 1.3 gallons), so it will last me a long time.
Stop by if you want to try.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Tennis update
Federer lost to Nalbandian again.
Did I just write that?
Anyway, we're down to 6 as Berdych loses missing out on Nalbandian's gifts and the 8th place holder heading into Paris (Haas) also loses.
Gonzalez can't like Federer going out, but he'll still advance unless Youzhny beats the Gasquet/Murray winner in the final OR Robredo plays the Gasquet/Murray winner in the final.
Robredo is in ok shape. He must win against Baghdatis (who is up 5-3 in the first as I write this). That could be enough, but may not be, we'll see.
Gasquet/Murray - Again these two are paired because the winner will make the semis. If Robredo loses, that will likely be enough, if he wins, they'll need to win another match as well.
Youzhny - Beat Nadal, beat the Robredo/Baghdatis winner, win in the final and he's in.
Baghdatis - Still needs to win, and also needs the Nalbandian/Ferrer winner to advance to the final. Much better chances than yesterday, but not fantastic.
Did I just write that?
Anyway, we're down to 6 as Berdych loses missing out on Nalbandian's gifts and the 8th place holder heading into Paris (Haas) also loses.
Gonzalez can't like Federer going out, but he'll still advance unless Youzhny beats the Gasquet/Murray winner in the final OR Robredo plays the Gasquet/Murray winner in the final.
Robredo is in ok shape. He must win against Baghdatis (who is up 5-3 in the first as I write this). That could be enough, but may not be, we'll see.
Gasquet/Murray - Again these two are paired because the winner will make the semis. If Robredo loses, that will likely be enough, if he wins, they'll need to win another match as well.
Youzhny - Beat Nadal, beat the Robredo/Baghdatis winner, win in the final and he's in.
Baghdatis - Still needs to win, and also needs the Nalbandian/Ferrer winner to advance to the final. Much better chances than yesterday, but not fantastic.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Booking a flight from Paris to Shanghai
The tennis season is coming to a close. The final masters event in Paris is currently in the round of 16, and next week we have the masters cup for the top 8 players in Shanghai. 6 players (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Davydenko, Roddick, and Ferrer) have locked up spots in the tourney. The results in Paris will determine who will get the final 2 spots.
Going into this tournament, an amazing 18 people still had a chance at one of the two spots. (Hewitt would have made 19 had he played in the tournament). Well at this point, several have lost, or in the case of Nalbandian other results have hurt him and we're down to 9 (as of 10:00am in Philly). So lets handicap the 9, in the order they were entering the tournament.
Gonzalez - lost in the 2nd round, but had a decent hold on 7th place entering Paris. Needs to be passed by 2 people, which will only happen if the finals are between 2 of the following players. So he's got a very good shot at Shanghai.
Haas - In 8th place entering Paris, but has the daunting task of Nadal in his quarter. Needs to make the semis at least, I'm not liking his chances.
Robredo - Won earlier today to make the quarters and will face Baghdatis tomorrow. A win there could be enough.
Blake, Murray, Gasquet - These 3 I'm grouping together because they're in the same quarter and have almost the same number of points. They lucked out when Djokovic lost, meaning one of the 3 will make the semifinals. Dependent upon Robredo and Haas, that could be enough to get the winner to Shanghai. Blake plays Gasquet today and the winner takes on Murray tomorrow.
Berdych - Will need to beat Ferrer and then Federer (or Nalbandian) and even that will most likely not be enough, chances very slim
Youzhny - If he wins the tournament, he'll get enough points, otherwise no chance.
Baghdatis - Very slim chance. He needs to win, plus he needs to play Nalbandian, Federer or Ferrer in the final.
So other than Gonzalez, Robredo is possibly in the best position, especially since he's already won today. I'll be cheering for Blake, but I rarely have much hope when I do that.
UPDATE: Blake holds to form and loses. He is out and tomorrow Murray and Gasquet will play. Nadal also won, meaning Haas (or Youzhny) would need to beat him.
Going into this tournament, an amazing 18 people still had a chance at one of the two spots. (Hewitt would have made 19 had he played in the tournament). Well at this point, several have lost, or in the case of Nalbandian other results have hurt him and we're down to 9 (as of 10:00am in Philly). So lets handicap the 9, in the order they were entering the tournament.
Gonzalez - lost in the 2nd round, but had a decent hold on 7th place entering Paris. Needs to be passed by 2 people, which will only happen if the finals are between 2 of the following players. So he's got a very good shot at Shanghai.
Haas - In 8th place entering Paris, but has the daunting task of Nadal in his quarter. Needs to make the semis at least, I'm not liking his chances.
Robredo - Won earlier today to make the quarters and will face Baghdatis tomorrow. A win there could be enough.
Blake, Murray, Gasquet - These 3 I'm grouping together because they're in the same quarter and have almost the same number of points. They lucked out when Djokovic lost, meaning one of the 3 will make the semifinals. Dependent upon Robredo and Haas, that could be enough to get the winner to Shanghai. Blake plays Gasquet today and the winner takes on Murray tomorrow.
Berdych - Will need to beat Ferrer and then Federer (or Nalbandian) and even that will most likely not be enough, chances very slim
Youzhny - If he wins the tournament, he'll get enough points, otherwise no chance.
Baghdatis - Very slim chance. He needs to win, plus he needs to play Nalbandian, Federer or Ferrer in the final.
So other than Gonzalez, Robredo is possibly in the best position, especially since he's already won today. I'll be cheering for Blake, but I rarely have much hope when I do that.
UPDATE: Blake holds to form and loses. He is out and tomorrow Murray and Gasquet will play. Nadal also won, meaning Haas (or Youzhny) would need to beat him.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Everybody must get Stoned!
I'm a big fan of the Stone Brewery from California. They continuously amaze me with their beers, the Russian Imperial Stout, Arrogant Bastard (regular and oaked), the Vertical Epic series, etc. All tremendous beers. Last night, for the first time, I tried the Double Arrogant Bastard. This may be my new favorite Stone beer. Its quite hoppy (would you expect anything else from Stone?) but with a great caramelly malt flavor. And it packs a punch at 10%. Its not an easy beer to find (especially living in PA), but I will definitely drink this again and again.
Cheesesteaks or Chowder?
The Philly metro had a fun article yesterday comparing Philly and Boston as sports towns.
Monday, October 29, 2007
2 ounces of heaven
I attended a beer festival this past Saturday in New York City. I've been to several beer festivals in the past including the World Beer Festival in Durham, NC (several times), the Brewer's Jam in Knoxville, TN, and the Philadelphia Craft Beer Festival. For those familiar with the movie Bull Durham, the World Beer Fest is held annually on the field from the movie, which is the former home of the Durham Bulls.
We had a great time at the Brewtopia this past weekend. Got to try several new beers and brewers. Some quick comments:
1) The best beer at the festival (at least of the ones I tried) was the Ommegang Chocolate Indulgence, a 10th anniversary specialty of the brewery.
2) There was a stand selling beer chips for $1. This was brilliant.
3) I know Halloween is around the corner, but I was still surprised by how many people dressed up in costumes.
Anyway, I starting thinking about what would be my guide to beer festivals. So here goes. (For those who have never been, beer festivals generally consist of unlimited small samples (2-4 ounces) of as many beers as you want.) We're going to break this down into 2 sections, tips for festival goers and tips for a well run festival.
Participant tips:
1) Eat. This is obviously key to any drinking experience, but its the most important. I also recommend eating before the festival, because the food lines can be long. Who wants to wait in line when they can drink beer instead. I saw people with pretzel necklaces last weekend, this is also a good idea.
2) Try as many new beers as possible. If Sam Adams has a stand, I'm not going to drink their Lager, I've had it many times. If they have the honey porter, then I'm interested. My point is, this is the perfect time to be adventurous, its a small sample and if you don't like it, don't finish it. If you are at a beer festival that doesn't have at least 20 beers you've never had, well then I'm impressed because I've tried a lot of different beers (my current list is over 700) and I always find lots of new and interesting beers.
3) Take notes. Ideally, the festival will give you a list of the beers, but not all of them are smart enough. I try to write down all the beers I try with at least a basic rating of how much I like it. By the end you'll get a little drunk and won't remember every single beer, so trust me, write it down. These notes tend to get very sloppy.
4) Arrive early. All beer festivals are required to check ID, so its sometimes a slow process getting in and you never want to waste precious drinking time. I've seen lines that take 1 1/2 hours to get every person inside.
5) Choose your session wisely. Beer festivals often have an afternoon and evening session. The evening sessions tend to get a younger, rowdier crowd. If you're into that, great. If not, the afternoon session may suit you better. Another plus is that afternoon sessions are less likely to run out of a particular beer.
6) Drink water. This will make the next day more pleasant.
7) Talk with the brewers. If the head brewer or another brewery employee is pouring (and not just a festival employee), talk to them. They will share info on their beers such as where to buy them, what other style they make, etc. Also, some will occasionally have some special beers under the table that are not listed. I met with one of the heads of Sprecher brewery who was very nice and told me all about their operation, even if they don't yet distribute to Philly, its nice to keep in mind since they brew a tasty black lager.
8) Pockets. If you like coasters, bottle openers, stickers or other beer paraphenalia, then wear cargo pants (or shorts), because lots of breweries have free stuff. Alternatively, you can find a girlfriend or wife with a large purse.
9) Scope out bathrooms early. Lines can be long.
10) Courtesy. If there is a line at a stand, after getting your beer, move to the side. Nobody likes lines, this makes them move faster.
11) Strategy. Your strategy may differ from mine, but here are some potential tips. If you can get your hands on a beer list beforehand, scope out any "must try" beers. If lines are long, get onto a line immediately after getting your beer, don't wait until your glass in empty.
Wish list for a beer festival:
(Note, good beer is the first thing I look for but thats kind of obvious, this list is more for faults I've found at some festivals)
1) Bathrooms. If you're organizing a festival with lots of beer, please have enough bathrooms, even if they are of the portable variety.
2) Food. Drunk people love food. Please set up enough stands selling food (and water).
3) Space. Please do not overcrowd a venue so that I can't even walk between stands. Get a larger location or sell less tickets.
4) Entrance. Every festival waits until the official start time, then begins letting people into the location, which can take a long time. Why not start letting people in earlier, but tell the vendors not to serve before the start time?
5) Beer list. I know the brewers will often change their line up at the last minute, but it really helps to have a list of the beers. Its much easier to check off the name of a beer than it is to write it down.
6) Water. I'm referring here not to drinking water, but to water at the stands to rinse out my glass. I don't like to have someone pouring a hefeweisen into a glass that just had a triple espresso stout. It just messes up the flavors too much.
7) Pouring sizes. This refers to the breweries, not the organizers, but I feel pour size is key. As the title of this post indicates, 2 ounces is just about right. Any less and you're getting only a single small sip. Any more and you're getting too drunk off a single beer. Like any person, I have a limit as to how much beer I can have and if I wanted to drink a lot of a couple of beers I'd just go to a bar, not a festival. If I really want more than 2 ounces, I'll just return to that stand later.
8) Designated drivers. Too many festivals do not offer DD tickets. I know enforcement is difficult (the bracelet method is only somewhat effective). But since Mrs. Hot Dogs & Beer does not drink beer it can be expensive. Plus it encourages responsibility, even if the DD has a couple of samples.
We had a great time at the Brewtopia this past weekend. Got to try several new beers and brewers. Some quick comments:
1) The best beer at the festival (at least of the ones I tried) was the Ommegang Chocolate Indulgence, a 10th anniversary specialty of the brewery.
2) There was a stand selling beer chips for $1. This was brilliant.
3) I know Halloween is around the corner, but I was still surprised by how many people dressed up in costumes.
Anyway, I starting thinking about what would be my guide to beer festivals. So here goes. (For those who have never been, beer festivals generally consist of unlimited small samples (2-4 ounces) of as many beers as you want.) We're going to break this down into 2 sections, tips for festival goers and tips for a well run festival.
Participant tips:
1) Eat. This is obviously key to any drinking experience, but its the most important. I also recommend eating before the festival, because the food lines can be long. Who wants to wait in line when they can drink beer instead. I saw people with pretzel necklaces last weekend, this is also a good idea.
2) Try as many new beers as possible. If Sam Adams has a stand, I'm not going to drink their Lager, I've had it many times. If they have the honey porter, then I'm interested. My point is, this is the perfect time to be adventurous, its a small sample and if you don't like it, don't finish it. If you are at a beer festival that doesn't have at least 20 beers you've never had, well then I'm impressed because I've tried a lot of different beers (my current list is over 700) and I always find lots of new and interesting beers.
3) Take notes. Ideally, the festival will give you a list of the beers, but not all of them are smart enough. I try to write down all the beers I try with at least a basic rating of how much I like it. By the end you'll get a little drunk and won't remember every single beer, so trust me, write it down. These notes tend to get very sloppy.
4) Arrive early. All beer festivals are required to check ID, so its sometimes a slow process getting in and you never want to waste precious drinking time. I've seen lines that take 1 1/2 hours to get every person inside.
5) Choose your session wisely. Beer festivals often have an afternoon and evening session. The evening sessions tend to get a younger, rowdier crowd. If you're into that, great. If not, the afternoon session may suit you better. Another plus is that afternoon sessions are less likely to run out of a particular beer.
6) Drink water. This will make the next day more pleasant.
7) Talk with the brewers. If the head brewer or another brewery employee is pouring (and not just a festival employee), talk to them. They will share info on their beers such as where to buy them, what other style they make, etc. Also, some will occasionally have some special beers under the table that are not listed. I met with one of the heads of Sprecher brewery who was very nice and told me all about their operation, even if they don't yet distribute to Philly, its nice to keep in mind since they brew a tasty black lager.
8) Pockets. If you like coasters, bottle openers, stickers or other beer paraphenalia, then wear cargo pants (or shorts), because lots of breweries have free stuff. Alternatively, you can find a girlfriend or wife with a large purse.
9) Scope out bathrooms early. Lines can be long.
10) Courtesy. If there is a line at a stand, after getting your beer, move to the side. Nobody likes lines, this makes them move faster.
11) Strategy. Your strategy may differ from mine, but here are some potential tips. If you can get your hands on a beer list beforehand, scope out any "must try" beers. If lines are long, get onto a line immediately after getting your beer, don't wait until your glass in empty.
Wish list for a beer festival:
(Note, good beer is the first thing I look for but thats kind of obvious, this list is more for faults I've found at some festivals)
1) Bathrooms. If you're organizing a festival with lots of beer, please have enough bathrooms, even if they are of the portable variety.
2) Food. Drunk people love food. Please set up enough stands selling food (and water).
3) Space. Please do not overcrowd a venue so that I can't even walk between stands. Get a larger location or sell less tickets.
4) Entrance. Every festival waits until the official start time, then begins letting people into the location, which can take a long time. Why not start letting people in earlier, but tell the vendors not to serve before the start time?
5) Beer list. I know the brewers will often change their line up at the last minute, but it really helps to have a list of the beers. Its much easier to check off the name of a beer than it is to write it down.
6) Water. I'm referring here not to drinking water, but to water at the stands to rinse out my glass. I don't like to have someone pouring a hefeweisen into a glass that just had a triple espresso stout. It just messes up the flavors too much.
7) Pouring sizes. This refers to the breweries, not the organizers, but I feel pour size is key. As the title of this post indicates, 2 ounces is just about right. Any less and you're getting only a single small sip. Any more and you're getting too drunk off a single beer. Like any person, I have a limit as to how much beer I can have and if I wanted to drink a lot of a couple of beers I'd just go to a bar, not a festival. If I really want more than 2 ounces, I'll just return to that stand later.
8) Designated drivers. Too many festivals do not offer DD tickets. I know enforcement is difficult (the bracelet method is only somewhat effective). But since Mrs. Hot Dogs & Beer does not drink beer it can be expensive. Plus it encourages responsibility, even if the DD has a couple of samples.
Friday, October 5, 2007
The return of hot dogs and beer
If I had to name 1 day of the year when I'm least likely to be focused on work, it would probably be either of the first 2 days of the ncaa tournament. But after that, the wonderful time of october playoff baseball is a close second.
Now, its 85 degrees in Philly today, so the crisp early fall weather that I love has been put on hold, but the desire to watch 3 meaningful baseball games a day has not. Some recent work travelling has prevented me from posting recently, but I'm back with some thoughts on the first 2 days of the playoffs.
Before we even get to the playoffs, I need to comment on the amazing game the rockies and padres played on Monday. The game kept you on the edge of your seat like few sporting events can. One such event is a playoff overtime hockey game, and as fewer baseball games are on tv I'll slowly transition myself into hockey season. Please see my follow up post on the top 10 baseball games I've watched. Here are some general comments on the playoffs.
MLB needs to do a better job of schedulling. First, no 5 game series should have 3 off days. Second, they need to ensure that all teams have at least 1 game in prime time spot. The Phillies played 2 afternoon weekday games, they next two are weekend, but start at 10pm and only if they get to a 5th game will they get a good slot. Also, its clear that playoff games don't last 3.5 hours, they need longer time slots.
If I hear another announcer ask if Joe Torre will get fired if the Yankees don't win a world series, I'm going to punch someone.
***Note: this is the first, and probably last nice thing I will ever say about Comcast***. Comcast just started carrying TBS in HD last week, making my baseball viewing much nicer. Thank you Comcast.
Its scary to think, that a team thats been outscored by 14 runs (including playoffs) is on the verge of hosting the NLCS.
Can someone tell the Rockies its ok to lose more than once in 3 weeks?
Jose Mesa is just terrible this year. Please don't let him pitch.
And now my (worthless) predictions:
Phillies take the next 2 games, then lose in 5
Diamondbacks complete the sweep leaving Cubs fans to plan for next year's "celebration" of the 100th anniversary of their last world series win.
Anaheim wins tonight and they trade wins until Boston takes the series in 5.
Yankees win tonight and game 3, lose game 4 and wang comes back to redeem himself as the yanks advance.
Now, its 85 degrees in Philly today, so the crisp early fall weather that I love has been put on hold, but the desire to watch 3 meaningful baseball games a day has not. Some recent work travelling has prevented me from posting recently, but I'm back with some thoughts on the first 2 days of the playoffs.
Before we even get to the playoffs, I need to comment on the amazing game the rockies and padres played on Monday. The game kept you on the edge of your seat like few sporting events can. One such event is a playoff overtime hockey game, and as fewer baseball games are on tv I'll slowly transition myself into hockey season. Please see my follow up post on the top 10 baseball games I've watched. Here are some general comments on the playoffs.
MLB needs to do a better job of schedulling. First, no 5 game series should have 3 off days. Second, they need to ensure that all teams have at least 1 game in prime time spot. The Phillies played 2 afternoon weekday games, they next two are weekend, but start at 10pm and only if they get to a 5th game will they get a good slot. Also, its clear that playoff games don't last 3.5 hours, they need longer time slots.
If I hear another announcer ask if Joe Torre will get fired if the Yankees don't win a world series, I'm going to punch someone.
***Note: this is the first, and probably last nice thing I will ever say about Comcast***. Comcast just started carrying TBS in HD last week, making my baseball viewing much nicer. Thank you Comcast.
Its scary to think, that a team thats been outscored by 14 runs (including playoffs) is on the verge of hosting the NLCS.
Can someone tell the Rockies its ok to lose more than once in 3 weeks?
Jose Mesa is just terrible this year. Please don't let him pitch.
And now my (worthless) predictions:
Phillies take the next 2 games, then lose in 5
Diamondbacks complete the sweep leaving Cubs fans to plan for next year's "celebration" of the 100th anniversary of their last world series win.
Anaheim wins tonight and they trade wins until Boston takes the series in 5.
Yankees win tonight and game 3, lose game 4 and wang comes back to redeem himself as the yanks advance.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Fun Monday trivia
Its Monday. I know this can be fairly boring and the next weekend is so far away, so here are some random interesting facts that I would like you share with you.
Do you know who leads the Yankees in doubles? Its Jorge Posada, with 37.
In the 4 grand slams this year, Roger Federer lost 9 sets. In 28 matches. Henin has lost 3 sets in Wimbledon, and none in the US Open or French Open (she skipped Australia).
The most innings pitched in a season without giving up a run is 18, by Karl Spooner for the Dodgers in 1954. He pitched alright in 1955, then retired due to arm troubles.
Philadelphia puts up lots of historical markers around its streets. Over the weekend I found one commemorating the first batch of girl scout cookies and one showing the home of longtime Philadelphia A's manager Connie Mack.
The Pennsylvania liquor control board had $1.5 billion in income in the 05-06 fiscal year on wine and spirits.
Google maps now has a feature that allows you to calculate the shortest distance between 2 points on the globe, taking a circular path. I haven't yet figured out why this will be useful, but I know it will be.
Do you know who leads the Yankees in doubles? Its Jorge Posada, with 37.
In the 4 grand slams this year, Roger Federer lost 9 sets. In 28 matches. Henin has lost 3 sets in Wimbledon, and none in the US Open or French Open (she skipped Australia).
The most innings pitched in a season without giving up a run is 18, by Karl Spooner for the Dodgers in 1954. He pitched alright in 1955, then retired due to arm troubles.
Philadelphia puts up lots of historical markers around its streets. Over the weekend I found one commemorating the first batch of girl scout cookies and one showing the home of longtime Philadelphia A's manager Connie Mack.
The Pennsylvania liquor control board had $1.5 billion in income in the 05-06 fiscal year on wine and spirits.
Google maps now has a feature that allows you to calculate the shortest distance between 2 points on the globe, taking a circular path. I haven't yet figured out why this will be useful, but I know it will be.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Football (the kind where you use your feet)
I heard this morning on Sportscenter that the Women's world cup is starting next week. Now that I think about it I knew it was supposed to be at some point in 2007, but I had no idea it was next week. This could be my own fault, but I watch and read plenty of sports news so its not like I was being beaten over the head with this news.
Anyway, the tournament is being held in China. If you recall, they planned to hold the 2003 world cup in China, but the SARS outbreak forced them to move the tournament to the US. In the 4 previous world cups, the US team has won twice and finished 3rd twice, so there is reason for optimism unlike with the US men's team.
Yesterday I discussed the state of women's professional sports in the US. My general conclusion was that besides tennis, golf and maybe WNBA (its a stretch), very few people watch women's sports. However, I feel that when it comes to international events such as the world cup or olympics, people watch. Or at least I will.
Is this because I'm a big sports junkie and love watching competition at the highest level? Possibly, but I'm going to lean towards a sense of national pride. Thats what leads me to watch women's track or beach volleyball during the olympics (And here you thought it was just for the women in bikinis). So I'll probably watch parts of the women's world cup, especially when the US plays.
Side note #1: I mentioned yesterday that at times women's tennis is more popular than men's tennis. Well I don't like TV ratings as a metric buts its all I can think of using and here are articles from within the past 10 years mentioned higher ratings for women's matches than for men's.
article 1
article 2
Side note #2: The Rugby world cup (men's) is also starting this weekend. I'm not that much of a rugby fan, although I did get to watch some Gaelic football and hurling while in Ireland and those were lots of fun. So I'll probably also try and watch some rugby, even if its just an excuse to go to an Irish pub.
Anyway, the tournament is being held in China. If you recall, they planned to hold the 2003 world cup in China, but the SARS outbreak forced them to move the tournament to the US. In the 4 previous world cups, the US team has won twice and finished 3rd twice, so there is reason for optimism unlike with the US men's team.
Yesterday I discussed the state of women's professional sports in the US. My general conclusion was that besides tennis, golf and maybe WNBA (its a stretch), very few people watch women's sports. However, I feel that when it comes to international events such as the world cup or olympics, people watch. Or at least I will.
Is this because I'm a big sports junkie and love watching competition at the highest level? Possibly, but I'm going to lean towards a sense of national pride. Thats what leads me to watch women's track or beach volleyball during the olympics (And here you thought it was just for the women in bikinis). So I'll probably watch parts of the women's world cup, especially when the US plays.
Side note #1: I mentioned yesterday that at times women's tennis is more popular than men's tennis. Well I don't like TV ratings as a metric buts its all I can think of using and here are articles from within the past 10 years mentioned higher ratings for women's matches than for men's.
article 1
article 2
Side note #2: The Rugby world cup (men's) is also starting this weekend. I'm not that much of a rugby fan, although I did get to watch some Gaelic football and hurling while in Ireland and those were lots of fun. So I'll probably also try and watch some rugby, even if its just an excuse to go to an Irish pub.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Female sports
I got an interesting comment from Matt about the popularity of women's tennis in general compared to other women's professional sports. I'll focus my comments to US sports as I have no knowledge of how popular women's soccer is in Brazil or women's curling in Canada.
My research dug up the following women's professional sports:
Tennis
Golf
Softball
Football
Basketball (WNBA)
Boxing
Soccer (the WUSA apparently has plans to start again after disbanding)
There may be other professional leagues, but I didn't find any so even if they exist I doubt they are at a very high level.
Of these sports, I would presume that only tennis, golf, and maybe the WNBA could make a female athlete a "star". Now I don't have a well defined explanation for star, but lets just say that the women in the other sports are not getting endorsement deals and I cannot name any of them. I can name female soccer players, but thats just because I'll watch the US national team play.
I think its a safe statement that women's tennis is the biggest of these 3 based on the following criteria:
Money: The WBNA top salary is $100,000. In golf, 79 players have $100,000 so far this year with 5 over $1,000,000. In tennis, 114 women have earned $100,000 this year with 7 over $1,000,000. From these numbers tennis and golf are close.
Name recognition: I'm not a representative sample as I'm a very big tennis fan, but I'd imagine even the casual sports fan knew the Williams sisters and Sharapova and probably a couple of others like Henin or Hingis. For golf, Sorenstam is a big name, as is Michelle Wie, but I think it gets tough after that. If I tried hard enough I could come up with a few WNBA players, but I don't feel there is nearly as much name recognition. Of course, name recognition is very country dependent as the media focuses more on American athletes
So the question becomes why does tennis have the strongest women's sports program? Some possibilities:
1) Tradition: Women's tennis has been around longer than other sports and has gained a foot hold in the sports media.
2) Sex Appeal: Tennis players are more fit than golfers and more feminine (for lack of a better term) than many basketball players. I'm not sure how much of an effect this has but its certaintly something.
3) Similarities to men's game: In this regard, I think golf is more similar between the sexes, other than the distance they are hitting the ball. Tennis is somewhat similar between genders although the increases atheleticism in males has some effect on the playing styles.
Now if we compare the men's and women's version of any given game, tennis also has to be the closest in popularity. In fact, you could argue that at any given time women's tennis can be MORE popular than men's tennis, at least amongst people who consider themselves tennis fans. This depends of course on who the top players are, how deep the field is, blah blah blah.
So what does it all mean? I'm not sure, but the people at the WTA are definitely doing something right.
My research dug up the following women's professional sports:
Tennis
Golf
Softball
Football
Basketball (WNBA)
Boxing
Soccer (the WUSA apparently has plans to start again after disbanding)
There may be other professional leagues, but I didn't find any so even if they exist I doubt they are at a very high level.
Of these sports, I would presume that only tennis, golf, and maybe the WNBA could make a female athlete a "star". Now I don't have a well defined explanation for star, but lets just say that the women in the other sports are not getting endorsement deals and I cannot name any of them. I can name female soccer players, but thats just because I'll watch the US national team play.
I think its a safe statement that women's tennis is the biggest of these 3 based on the following criteria:
Money: The WBNA top salary is $100,000. In golf, 79 players have $100,000 so far this year with 5 over $1,000,000. In tennis, 114 women have earned $100,000 this year with 7 over $1,000,000. From these numbers tennis and golf are close.
Name recognition: I'm not a representative sample as I'm a very big tennis fan, but I'd imagine even the casual sports fan knew the Williams sisters and Sharapova and probably a couple of others like Henin or Hingis. For golf, Sorenstam is a big name, as is Michelle Wie, but I think it gets tough after that. If I tried hard enough I could come up with a few WNBA players, but I don't feel there is nearly as much name recognition. Of course, name recognition is very country dependent as the media focuses more on American athletes
So the question becomes why does tennis have the strongest women's sports program? Some possibilities:
1) Tradition: Women's tennis has been around longer than other sports and has gained a foot hold in the sports media.
2) Sex Appeal: Tennis players are more fit than golfers and more feminine (for lack of a better term) than many basketball players. I'm not sure how much of an effect this has but its certaintly something.
3) Similarities to men's game: In this regard, I think golf is more similar between the sexes, other than the distance they are hitting the ball. Tennis is somewhat similar between genders although the increases atheleticism in males has some effect on the playing styles.
Now if we compare the men's and women's version of any given game, tennis also has to be the closest in popularity. In fact, you could argue that at any given time women's tennis can be MORE popular than men's tennis, at least amongst people who consider themselves tennis fans. This depends of course on who the top players are, how deep the field is, blah blah blah.
So what does it all mean? I'm not sure, but the people at the WTA are definitely doing something right.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
32 and counting
There are 32 days left in the baseball season so I think its time to discuss the playoffs. We've got some heated races (or at least races that are heating up). Lets start with the AL
At this point the division races are looking fairly tame in the AL. The Red Sox lead by 6 with 4 games remaining against the Yankees. If the Yanks go 4-0 over those games, then it could get interesting, but even 3-1 leaves Boston with a 4 game lead. So short of a remarkable collapse (see Phillies, 1964), the division is over.
In the central the Indians lead by 4 1/2 over the Tigers and the teams play 3 more games. The Indians have a slightly harder schedule with 4 games against the Angels, but Cleveland is a better team and I don't see them blowing this lead.
The west is completely over. The Angels lead by 5 and Seattle is a .500 team playing way above their heads.
The wild card could be interesting. The Yanks and Mariners are tied and the Tigers are 3 back. The 3 game series next week between the leaders will go a long way to deciding the outcome. But of these 3 the Yankees are the best team (I'll admit a little bias here) and their schedule has enough Royals and Devil Rays games that they should earn the WC.
The National League is much more wide open at this point. Mets lead the Phillies by 3 with 4 games remaining against them. They are both decent but not great teams. If the Phillies play a little bit better than usual or the Mets a little bit worse, it will go down to the wire.
In the central we have a battle of who can suck the least. Last year the Cardinals finished 5 games over .500, the 3rd worst in a full season for a division winner ever (1973 Mets at 82-79 and 2005 Padres at 82-80). The Rangers "won" the division in the strike shortened 1994 season 10 games UNDER .500. Its possible we'll see the division winner below .500, we can only hope. In reality its a crap shoot between the Brewers, Cubs and Cardinals. The Cubs are probably the best, but not by much.
The NL West is techincally a 4 team race with everyone except the Giants within 5.5 games. But in reality, San Diego is the best team and is tied with Arizona which has the same issues as the Mariners, playing way above their head. I expect them to regress towards 0.500. So can the Dodgers or Rockies catch the Padres? I doubt it.
Given that I think the Padres with the division, we have the Diamondbacks, Phillies, Braves, Dodgers and Rockies as serious WC threats. The Diamondbacks will go away shortly. The other 4 are all close at just like last year, it will go down to the final weekend.
So get ready for some exciting baseball in the next 4 1/2 weeks.
At this point the division races are looking fairly tame in the AL. The Red Sox lead by 6 with 4 games remaining against the Yankees. If the Yanks go 4-0 over those games, then it could get interesting, but even 3-1 leaves Boston with a 4 game lead. So short of a remarkable collapse (see Phillies, 1964), the division is over.
In the central the Indians lead by 4 1/2 over the Tigers and the teams play 3 more games. The Indians have a slightly harder schedule with 4 games against the Angels, but Cleveland is a better team and I don't see them blowing this lead.
The west is completely over. The Angels lead by 5 and Seattle is a .500 team playing way above their heads.
The wild card could be interesting. The Yanks and Mariners are tied and the Tigers are 3 back. The 3 game series next week between the leaders will go a long way to deciding the outcome. But of these 3 the Yankees are the best team (I'll admit a little bias here) and their schedule has enough Royals and Devil Rays games that they should earn the WC.
The National League is much more wide open at this point. Mets lead the Phillies by 3 with 4 games remaining against them. They are both decent but not great teams. If the Phillies play a little bit better than usual or the Mets a little bit worse, it will go down to the wire.
In the central we have a battle of who can suck the least. Last year the Cardinals finished 5 games over .500, the 3rd worst in a full season for a division winner ever (1973 Mets at 82-79 and 2005 Padres at 82-80). The Rangers "won" the division in the strike shortened 1994 season 10 games UNDER .500. Its possible we'll see the division winner below .500, we can only hope. In reality its a crap shoot between the Brewers, Cubs and Cardinals. The Cubs are probably the best, but not by much.
The NL West is techincally a 4 team race with everyone except the Giants within 5.5 games. But in reality, San Diego is the best team and is tied with Arizona which has the same issues as the Mariners, playing way above their head. I expect them to regress towards 0.500. So can the Dodgers or Rockies catch the Padres? I doubt it.
Given that I think the Padres with the division, we have the Diamondbacks, Phillies, Braves, Dodgers and Rockies as serious WC threats. The Diamondbacks will go away shortly. The other 4 are all close at just like last year, it will go down to the final weekend.
So get ready for some exciting baseball in the next 4 1/2 weeks.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Serves and Volleys
Its a grand August day as the US Open begins. I won't be able to make it to Flushing this year, but I'll watch plenty on TV and will be following the ticker when away from a TV. So without furhter ado, here are some things I expect or hope to see:
1) Federer should cruise into the finals. Roddick, Blake and Davydenko are not incredibly tough foes.
2) Now that electronic line calling (at least for challenges) has been around for a year, we're seeing players use it a little bit better. I think the challenge system is a good thing for tennis, even with its potential for abuse.
3) Even with Djokovic's strong early draw, I like him to go far, at least to the semis.
4) This point has nothing to do specifically with the US Open, but I think mixed doubles is a strange event. I couldn't think of any other professional sport where men and women played together. I'm not saying they should have the event, just that I won't be wathcing it.
5) Watching tennis in HD is fantastic.
6) Keep an eye on some of the young American men's entries. Sam Querrey has already shown he can beat decent players and could advance a couple of rounds. Donald Young (18) and John Isner (22) have shown some potential. I doubt either will go very far, but they'll be fun to watch. (UPDATE: Young dropped the first set in a tiebreaker, but is up a break in the second).
7) If you're looking for a place to discuss tennis or compete in a wide range of contests, I recommend this website, although its too late to enter for this tournament.
8) Blake has the potential to reach the semifinals. I say potential because there is a lot of variance in how he plays from day to day. But there is no one in his 1/4 of a bracket that he couldn't beat. He's played well this summer saving his ranking a bit.
9) A lot was made of the fact that Wimbledon began paying its men's and women's players equally, something the US Open has done for a while. The payouts should be based on how much revenue the draw earns. This is impossible to accurately calculate, but I'd imagine that the men's matches being best of 5 rather than best of 3 for the women should last longer and earn more money. Of course, there is a huge PR benefit of keeping the pay equal that is more important than a few hunderd thousand dollars.
10) And lastly I need to state that the US Open is my favorite tournament of the year. This is partly due to the fact that growing up, my dad and I would go every year. But its also driven by the fact that due to time zones (I live in Philadelphia) I get to watch more of this tournemant than any other grand slam. So for the next 2 weeks (or 1 fortnight if you prefer) I will sit back and enjoy some great tennis.
1) Federer should cruise into the finals. Roddick, Blake and Davydenko are not incredibly tough foes.
2) Now that electronic line calling (at least for challenges) has been around for a year, we're seeing players use it a little bit better. I think the challenge system is a good thing for tennis, even with its potential for abuse.
3) Even with Djokovic's strong early draw, I like him to go far, at least to the semis.
4) This point has nothing to do specifically with the US Open, but I think mixed doubles is a strange event. I couldn't think of any other professional sport where men and women played together. I'm not saying they should have the event, just that I won't be wathcing it.
5) Watching tennis in HD is fantastic.
6) Keep an eye on some of the young American men's entries. Sam Querrey has already shown he can beat decent players and could advance a couple of rounds. Donald Young (18) and John Isner (22) have shown some potential. I doubt either will go very far, but they'll be fun to watch. (UPDATE: Young dropped the first set in a tiebreaker, but is up a break in the second).
7) If you're looking for a place to discuss tennis or compete in a wide range of contests, I recommend this website, although its too late to enter for this tournament.
8) Blake has the potential to reach the semifinals. I say potential because there is a lot of variance in how he plays from day to day. But there is no one in his 1/4 of a bracket that he couldn't beat. He's played well this summer saving his ranking a bit.
9) A lot was made of the fact that Wimbledon began paying its men's and women's players equally, something the US Open has done for a while. The payouts should be based on how much revenue the draw earns. This is impossible to accurately calculate, but I'd imagine that the men's matches being best of 5 rather than best of 3 for the women should last longer and earn more money. Of course, there is a huge PR benefit of keeping the pay equal that is more important than a few hunderd thousand dollars.
10) And lastly I need to state that the US Open is my favorite tournament of the year. This is partly due to the fact that growing up, my dad and I would go every year. But its also driven by the fact that due to time zones (I live in Philadelphia) I get to watch more of this tournemant than any other grand slam. So for the next 2 weeks (or 1 fortnight if you prefer) I will sit back and enjoy some great tennis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)