Edit: The Bulls have since dealt Larry Hughes for Jerome James and Tim Thomas. All contracts expire in 2010, and 2010 cap space remains the same.
Welcome back Brad Miller. There is no doubt that you will continue to underperform. You are most definitely a less gritty veteran than Drew Gooden and will bring less fire than Andres Nocioni. Regardless, you are a beacon of light in the grim obscurity that is the Chicago Bulls. The same Bulls that gave us so much hope after a second round exit in 2007. Those days are a distant memory, as they followed up that season as Eastern Conference favorites who fell to 33-49.
That was probably a blessing in disguise as it helped us land #1 pick Derrick Rose. And yesterday you solidified our future by unloading a bad contract to take on a worse one. Sacramento is content to unload the $23.5 mil it owes Brad Miller to take on $7 million a year for Nocioni. It happily gobbled up Drew Gooden's expiring contract and threw in John Salmons for $5 something million a year.
Why all the numbers? Because this is what the trade is all about. The combination of Brad Miller and Larry Hughes produces almost $26 million that will come off the salary cap in time for summer 2010. For those of you who don't know, 2010 free agency is grounds for a bidding war to acquire the most coveted NBA players of this generation. A list of 2010 free agents can be found below:
http://www.realgm.com/src_freeagents/2010/
Historically the Bulls aren't known to be big spenders. Jerry Reinsdorf is the notoriously stingy owner of both the Bulls and the White Sox. He's a businessman, and the Bulls are a great business. Forbes ranks the Chicago Bulls as the third most valuable franchise in the NBA.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/32/nba08_Chicago-Bulls_321267.html
With the third highest revenue and 15th highest payroll, the Bulls generate the highest operating income of all NBA teams at almost $70 million. The GM, John Paxson, has been guilty of signing a number of bad contracts in the past, including Ben Wallace, Kirk Hinrich, and Andres Nocioni, but he's been very successful at unloading them to other teams.
The NBA's soft salary cap is based off a percentage of the NBA's income, and despite the poor economy, basketball's revenue has increased from last year. The salary cap this year was $58.68 million and can be expected to exceed $60 million in 2010. Assuming the team exercises options on Rose and Noah, their total salary for 2010-2011 comes in at $35.88 million. At this point, the Bulls will have Hinrich, Deng, Salmons, Rose, and Noah on salary. A max salary for any of the Lebron/Wade/Bosh combo will likely count as about $18 million against the cap. This leaves another $6 million to round out the roster.
How attractive is the combination of Deng, Rose, Noah, and Tyrus for these free agents? It's definitely up there with the rest of the teams who will have cap space available. The question remains as to whether Reinsdorf will spend to acquire a marquee player. It's easy to make the assumption that the Bulls could become such an attraction, that they will certainly make up their money in revenue. If Jordan allows Lebron to wear 23, imagine how many of those jerseys will sell.
There are still a lot of things that can happen before 2010. The Bulls could sign someone in 2009 to use up the cap space. They could forgo free agency in 2010 to simply save money. It's hard to definitively say that this move was meant to free up cap space. Paxson could have wanted to return Miller to Chicago as the inside presence this team desperately needs. He surely wanted to get rid of underperforming Nocioni.
Still this trade isn't as bad as the players in it. It's a move that's hopeful at heart, and hope is certainly what this team needs. Imagine if Paxson manages to unload Hinrich's de-escalating contract for another expiring deal. This frees up another $9 million, which the team would definitely need to resign Tyrus AND sign a max contract.
The Bulls still need a little work to be in place to truly compete in 2010, but with a couple of moves, they can retain a young core and have the cap space to be a championship contender the next decade. That being said, Paxson needs to make a couple more creative moves, and Reinsdorf needs to be willing to open up the checkbooks.
It'll be difficult to draw Wade and James away from teams that don't need to be under the salary cap to resign them. Chicago will need to compete with the New York Knicks, who might have enough cap room to sign two max contracts. Still there's not a huge amount of competition out there. Most teams under the cap are small market teams without the draw of large market advertising. Growing economy concerns mean that teams will likely focus on saving money.
There are only a handful of competitors, and this trade puts Chicago in the conversation. It'll be bleak for a while, but come 2010, the bulls may be back on the NBA map.
Bulls Salaries:
http://hoopshype.com/salaries/chicago.htm
Salary Cap FAQ:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Table Fifty-Two Review
Apparently the Obamas were in our neighborhood on Valentine's Day. "In our neighborhood" is an understatement. They were at Table Fifty-Two, the upscale comfort food restaurant, about a block away. The two of us are in love with the place. I could probably say it's our favorite place in Chicago, but I don't think that's quite accurate. It's more likely the best restaurant in the world...ever. The owner/chef was Oprah's personal chef; as such, the restaurant itself was hyped up by Oprah herself.
It has been around the corner for a short while. The small residence previously had housed a small patisserie which had been closed since before we moved to Chicago. When someone finally moved in, we were curious who it was. Little did we know what we were in store for.
It's nice and all that the Obamas share our taste in food. I like the fact that he's our president, but I maintain that he has a lot to prove. Sadly, this little event has increased my opinion of him. That's how pathetic I am towards good food.
We've been to Table Fifty-Two a grand total of three times: once for dinner, twice for brunch. Brunch is served on weekends, and any reservation usually takes around two weeks to get. I'm fairly certain that after this recent Obama trip, I can count on that to go up to three or four weeks for a reservation.
I'll use this as a forum to talk about a handful of things we've had at Table Fifty-Two. Everything we've had has been very good. The coal-fire breakfast pizza has an egg cooked right into it. It's a fresh take with great ingredients. The cornbread crumbles and bits of cheese blend into the texture of the bread. I can't order the chicken and waffles at brunch because my wife will stake her claim on them. The chicken and waffles are literally life-altering. I'm totally serious about this. My life is different now that I know those chicken and waffles exist. The more I say the more I just want to shut up.
I had their pork chops for dinner and almost cried. I vaguely remember my wife asking me what was wrong because I might've been tearing up. I'm not even going to talk about them, because not having them right now is making me sad.
There are very few places that have been hyped up this much and still lived up to the hype. Table Fifty-Two is one of those places. If you ever get the chance you have to go, or you'll probably never know if you truly lived. That being said, I'm gonna go make a reservation so that maybe I can get in next month for dinner or brunch.
It has been around the corner for a short while. The small residence previously had housed a small patisserie which had been closed since before we moved to Chicago. When someone finally moved in, we were curious who it was. Little did we know what we were in store for.
It's nice and all that the Obamas share our taste in food. I like the fact that he's our president, but I maintain that he has a lot to prove. Sadly, this little event has increased my opinion of him. That's how pathetic I am towards good food.
We've been to Table Fifty-Two a grand total of three times: once for dinner, twice for brunch. Brunch is served on weekends, and any reservation usually takes around two weeks to get. I'm fairly certain that after this recent Obama trip, I can count on that to go up to three or four weeks for a reservation.
I'll use this as a forum to talk about a handful of things we've had at Table Fifty-Two. Everything we've had has been very good. The coal-fire breakfast pizza has an egg cooked right into it. It's a fresh take with great ingredients. The cornbread crumbles and bits of cheese blend into the texture of the bread. I can't order the chicken and waffles at brunch because my wife will stake her claim on them. The chicken and waffles are literally life-altering. I'm totally serious about this. My life is different now that I know those chicken and waffles exist. The more I say the more I just want to shut up.
I had their pork chops for dinner and almost cried. I vaguely remember my wife asking me what was wrong because I might've been tearing up. I'm not even going to talk about them, because not having them right now is making me sad.
There are very few places that have been hyped up this much and still lived up to the hype. Table Fifty-Two is one of those places. If you ever get the chance you have to go, or you'll probably never know if you truly lived. That being said, I'm gonna go make a reservation so that maybe I can get in next month for dinner or brunch.
13 Days of Gears
Taeil and I recently participated in an Xbox 360 promotional sweepstakes on Gears of War 2. The details can be found here:
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/g/gearsofwar2/13daysofgears/default.htm
The gist of the promotion is that if you play a public matchmaking game everyday for thirteen days you will be entered in a chance to win a prize. In this specific sweepstakes there are daily prizes as well as a grand prize drawing; but realistically, everyone participating just wanted to win the Samsung LCD.
On the surface is appears to be a brilliant marketing campaign. What gamer doesn't want to play games to win prizes? This is like a carnival game you don't have to pay to play (other than buying the game). It isn't too much of a commitment because although you need to play for thirteen straight days, you only need to play a game a day. The fact that it requires any commitment at all leads the participant to believe that other players will drop out of the grand prize drawing.
This contest is obviously a test product for Microsoft. Although they have somewhat of a sponsor in Warner Bros., they did little to advertise the movie. The only time I heard anything about the movie was when I had to download the gamer pic required for registration. Taeil registered online and didn't even know that 'Friday the 13th' had anything to do with this promotion until I told him. The net cost of performing this contest is minimal. There are 13 grand prizes, and the total value of all the prizes was estimated at a little over $20k on the sweepstakes rules page.
So Microsoft basically threw together this contest, got a sponsor, and tested the registration system. If this was not just a test, I have to think this contest was a complete failure for two reasons. The first reason I've already mentioned. In order to properly advertise for their sponsor they need to make the sponsor visible. In this case, I had few opportunities to even find out who the sponsor was. Most promotions tend to drill sponsors into your head repeatedly. If I was Warner Bros., I'd be pissed if i paid any money for this at all.
Secondly, there must be something in it for Microsoft. They probably have two objectives: sell Xbox live and sell the game. By requiring public online play to gain entry to the sweepstakes, they force the player to partake online portion of the game. I had received the game for Christmas and had played through it, but had not yet tried the online matchmaking system. I believe this was also the case for Taeil. By being forced to play online, we discovered playing with the rest of the 'Gears' community. Xbox Live is a subscription service, and any impetus for the player to continue their subscription is revenue for Microsoft.
If this online play turns out to be an enjoyable experience, I may in turn dramatically increase my opinion of this game. By word of mouth, I will encourage others to buy this game and thus increase sales. I doubt anyone actually bought the game just to participate in the contest, but if I really enjoyed the game I can convince others to join me in my enjoyment.
The real problem with '13 Days of Gears' is that Microsoft is trying to sell something that's broken. I played the first Gears of War and had a great time with the campaign. I enjoyed it enough to justify buying the second at some point in time. I never enjoyed online play in the first as play seemed to be very linear. Little strategy was required, and the lack of respawning kept me out of action for most of my games.
The maps and game types in the second installment are much improved, but Microsoft is still trying to sell me a broken product. Whatever matchmaking algorithm the game uses to match players is extremely inefficient. Gameplay is better, but not more enjoyable than other options I have. The fact that matchmaking was broken is well documented and Epic, the developer, could have made an effort to fix it. By the end of the thirteen days, I was extremely sick of the hassle. I may have entered myself to win a spanking new tv, but I've also played myself out of Gears of War 2. In fact, I may never play that game again.
So I sincerely hope that this was just a test run for Microsoft. I fully expect more sweepstakes to pop up in the future, but hopefully they're for games I'll enjoy.
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/g/gearsofwar2/13daysofgears/default.htm
The gist of the promotion is that if you play a public matchmaking game everyday for thirteen days you will be entered in a chance to win a prize. In this specific sweepstakes there are daily prizes as well as a grand prize drawing; but realistically, everyone participating just wanted to win the Samsung LCD.
On the surface is appears to be a brilliant marketing campaign. What gamer doesn't want to play games to win prizes? This is like a carnival game you don't have to pay to play (other than buying the game). It isn't too much of a commitment because although you need to play for thirteen straight days, you only need to play a game a day. The fact that it requires any commitment at all leads the participant to believe that other players will drop out of the grand prize drawing.
This contest is obviously a test product for Microsoft. Although they have somewhat of a sponsor in Warner Bros., they did little to advertise the movie. The only time I heard anything about the movie was when I had to download the gamer pic required for registration. Taeil registered online and didn't even know that 'Friday the 13th' had anything to do with this promotion until I told him. The net cost of performing this contest is minimal. There are 13 grand prizes, and the total value of all the prizes was estimated at a little over $20k on the sweepstakes rules page.
So Microsoft basically threw together this contest, got a sponsor, and tested the registration system. If this was not just a test, I have to think this contest was a complete failure for two reasons. The first reason I've already mentioned. In order to properly advertise for their sponsor they need to make the sponsor visible. In this case, I had few opportunities to even find out who the sponsor was. Most promotions tend to drill sponsors into your head repeatedly. If I was Warner Bros., I'd be pissed if i paid any money for this at all.
Secondly, there must be something in it for Microsoft. They probably have two objectives: sell Xbox live and sell the game. By requiring public online play to gain entry to the sweepstakes, they force the player to partake online portion of the game. I had received the game for Christmas and had played through it, but had not yet tried the online matchmaking system. I believe this was also the case for Taeil. By being forced to play online, we discovered playing with the rest of the 'Gears' community. Xbox Live is a subscription service, and any impetus for the player to continue their subscription is revenue for Microsoft.
If this online play turns out to be an enjoyable experience, I may in turn dramatically increase my opinion of this game. By word of mouth, I will encourage others to buy this game and thus increase sales. I doubt anyone actually bought the game just to participate in the contest, but if I really enjoyed the game I can convince others to join me in my enjoyment.
The real problem with '13 Days of Gears' is that Microsoft is trying to sell something that's broken. I played the first Gears of War and had a great time with the campaign. I enjoyed it enough to justify buying the second at some point in time. I never enjoyed online play in the first as play seemed to be very linear. Little strategy was required, and the lack of respawning kept me out of action for most of my games.
The maps and game types in the second installment are much improved, but Microsoft is still trying to sell me a broken product. Whatever matchmaking algorithm the game uses to match players is extremely inefficient. Gameplay is better, but not more enjoyable than other options I have. The fact that matchmaking was broken is well documented and Epic, the developer, could have made an effort to fix it. By the end of the thirteen days, I was extremely sick of the hassle. I may have entered myself to win a spanking new tv, but I've also played myself out of Gears of War 2. In fact, I may never play that game again.
So I sincerely hope that this was just a test run for Microsoft. I fully expect more sweepstakes to pop up in the future, but hopefully they're for games I'll enjoy.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Charlie Trotter's Review
For the first time ever, Charlie Trotter's in Chicago was offering a $75 prix fixe menu for lunch. So this year, I chose to forgo the Valentine's Day dinner for the Valentine's Day lunch. First of all, I wouldn't recommend this; this was only possible because Valentine's Day was on a Saturday this year, but it's difficult to go to a fancy meal early in the day. It sorta worked out for us because we ended up turning the entire thing into a shopping date, but I think in general you appreciate the food less.
For some background, Charlie Trotter's is regarded as one of the finest restaurants on the world and possibly the finest in Chicago. All their various accolades can be found on their website:
http://www.charlietrotters.com/restaurant/
They offer only unique prix fixe menus that vary based on what the diner desires and how much they're willing to spend. Standard dinners probably consist of a tasting menu of close to ten courses. The Valentine's Day "Love Menu" was only four courses. I didn't really know this, but a tasting menu is precisely that. The portions per course are relatively meager, and offer little more than enough to satisfy your tastebuds rather than your stomach. As an example, my wife's scallop course consisted of two decently sized diver scallops.
I can't attest to how much the standard dinners cost, but it's been noted that you can easily spend hundreds per person and a grand per with wine pairings. Speaking of wine, their wine list is ridiculous. I don't know who the sommelier is, but I only had a moment to gloss over it before I was overwhelmed. This leads us to lunch date tip 2: Don't order alcohol. I'm sure some people can stomach it fine, but wine especially leaves you exhausted an hour later. I don't really have this problem with beer, but shortly after the lunch the two of us started crashing badly.
This was the most I had spent on a meal let alone a lunch. I won't get into how much that was, but the prix fixe was reasonably priced. It wouldn't have hit the wallet so bad if I had avoided the demi-botte of champagne. But I love champagne.
Enough of the semantics though, the real question is how was the food? Our four courses started with an oyster topped with guava. Followed by lobster with watermelon relish. The third course was a choice of sturgeon or squash custard. And the final course was a choice of diver scallops or ribeye. I've simplified these a bit since I can't remember the crazy descriptions the real menu had, and because I'll be describing the courses in more detail shortly. I went with the squash custard and ribeye while my wife had the sturgeon and diver scallops. I can't quite remember what our dessert was called, but whatever if was called was basically a fancy name for a mushy brownie and came with sherry ice cream on the side.
Our champagne was a very crisp Philipponnat. It has a subtle fruity aftertone, but was very dry and a good representation of a lighter brut. My wife would have preferred something a little lighter, and I would have preferred my Veuve Cliquot. But really, it was pretty good.
The first course was actually pretty amazing. Neither of us are particularly fond of raw oysters. It remains an acquired taste we haven't quite acquired, but the pairing with the gauva was perfect. We easily got past of the oysteryness of this course because of the chilled and fresh guava. I didn't know guava was that good. It was really sweet and almost icy in texture.
The lobster in the second course was perfectly cooked. Quantity wise, it was a claw with a few slices of the tail. The watermelon relish was more relish than watermelon although it had a bright pink color. The relish also had what I think was pickled radish on the side. The combination of the bold relish and radish with the light but rich lobster worked pretty well. It was creative, but probably not as good in practice as in theory. All things considered, I think we would've preferred our lobster pure.
The sturgeon my wife had was probably poached because I've never had whitefish so tender. It was light and very very delicious. Paired with it was a healthy does of creme fraiche and a couple bits of diced sea clams. I didn't get a chance to try the sea clams, but the creme fraiche went very well with the fish. However, the sturgeon was fine on it's own, and the creme fraiche did little to add to the experience.
My squash custard was by far the most interesting course. The custard itself was fairly light and came with a n extremely rich squash puree on the side. Bold flavors all around this dish, and although it was pretty good, it was easily my least favorite course and too flavorful to follow the watermelon relish.
My wife had diver scallops in some sort of nori sauce and abalone mushrooms. I'd never had abalone mushrooms before, but basically they're similar to oyster mushrooms except more delicious. The scallops were perfect and went extremely well with the nori. I had never had anything like this, and they were definitively the best scallops I've ever had.
The ribeye I had came with a sort of pomegranate reduction foam and another sauce with bits of pomegranate. The meat itself was once again perfectly cooked. Pink in the center with little flavoring. This course probably had the most disappointing serving size. The four slices couldn't have been more than three or four ounces. As far as the beef itself goes, it's not the best I've had, butI did enjoy the combination of pomegranate sauces.
The dessert was extremely rich. I loved the sherry ice cream, and enjoyed the brownie as well. The texture was interesting as it basically oozed chocolate. I probably would've liked this a lot more if I hadn't had half of a chocolate macaroon that morning. As for my wife, too much chocolate and alcohol in the ice cream aren't really her thing.
In conclusion, our experience at Charlie Trotter's was fun and delicious. Service was top tier yet a little slow. The the food was all very good, but hardly life-altering. The most enjoyable part of the meal was the creativity the various courses had to offer. Everything was perfectly cooked, yet other than the scallops, there wasn't anything to die for.
It was easily worth the prix fixe, and the experience was certainly memorable. I'm sure we'll be back again when it's within our budget; however, I'm also sure there are a handful of other chicago restaurants we'll visit a dozen times before we make it back to Charlie Trotter's.
For some background, Charlie Trotter's is regarded as one of the finest restaurants on the world and possibly the finest in Chicago. All their various accolades can be found on their website:
http://www.charlietrotters.com/restaurant/
They offer only unique prix fixe menus that vary based on what the diner desires and how much they're willing to spend. Standard dinners probably consist of a tasting menu of close to ten courses. The Valentine's Day "Love Menu" was only four courses. I didn't really know this, but a tasting menu is precisely that. The portions per course are relatively meager, and offer little more than enough to satisfy your tastebuds rather than your stomach. As an example, my wife's scallop course consisted of two decently sized diver scallops.
I can't attest to how much the standard dinners cost, but it's been noted that you can easily spend hundreds per person and a grand per with wine pairings. Speaking of wine, their wine list is ridiculous. I don't know who the sommelier is, but I only had a moment to gloss over it before I was overwhelmed. This leads us to lunch date tip 2: Don't order alcohol. I'm sure some people can stomach it fine, but wine especially leaves you exhausted an hour later. I don't really have this problem with beer, but shortly after the lunch the two of us started crashing badly.
This was the most I had spent on a meal let alone a lunch. I won't get into how much that was, but the prix fixe was reasonably priced. It wouldn't have hit the wallet so bad if I had avoided the demi-botte of champagne. But I love champagne.
Enough of the semantics though, the real question is how was the food? Our four courses started with an oyster topped with guava. Followed by lobster with watermelon relish. The third course was a choice of sturgeon or squash custard. And the final course was a choice of diver scallops or ribeye. I've simplified these a bit since I can't remember the crazy descriptions the real menu had, and because I'll be describing the courses in more detail shortly. I went with the squash custard and ribeye while my wife had the sturgeon and diver scallops. I can't quite remember what our dessert was called, but whatever if was called was basically a fancy name for a mushy brownie and came with sherry ice cream on the side.
Our champagne was a very crisp Philipponnat. It has a subtle fruity aftertone, but was very dry and a good representation of a lighter brut. My wife would have preferred something a little lighter, and I would have preferred my Veuve Cliquot. But really, it was pretty good.
The first course was actually pretty amazing. Neither of us are particularly fond of raw oysters. It remains an acquired taste we haven't quite acquired, but the pairing with the gauva was perfect. We easily got past of the oysteryness of this course because of the chilled and fresh guava. I didn't know guava was that good. It was really sweet and almost icy in texture.
The lobster in the second course was perfectly cooked. Quantity wise, it was a claw with a few slices of the tail. The watermelon relish was more relish than watermelon although it had a bright pink color. The relish also had what I think was pickled radish on the side. The combination of the bold relish and radish with the light but rich lobster worked pretty well. It was creative, but probably not as good in practice as in theory. All things considered, I think we would've preferred our lobster pure.
The sturgeon my wife had was probably poached because I've never had whitefish so tender. It was light and very very delicious. Paired with it was a healthy does of creme fraiche and a couple bits of diced sea clams. I didn't get a chance to try the sea clams, but the creme fraiche went very well with the fish. However, the sturgeon was fine on it's own, and the creme fraiche did little to add to the experience.
My squash custard was by far the most interesting course. The custard itself was fairly light and came with a n extremely rich squash puree on the side. Bold flavors all around this dish, and although it was pretty good, it was easily my least favorite course and too flavorful to follow the watermelon relish.
My wife had diver scallops in some sort of nori sauce and abalone mushrooms. I'd never had abalone mushrooms before, but basically they're similar to oyster mushrooms except more delicious. The scallops were perfect and went extremely well with the nori. I had never had anything like this, and they were definitively the best scallops I've ever had.
The ribeye I had came with a sort of pomegranate reduction foam and another sauce with bits of pomegranate. The meat itself was once again perfectly cooked. Pink in the center with little flavoring. This course probably had the most disappointing serving size. The four slices couldn't have been more than three or four ounces. As far as the beef itself goes, it's not the best I've had, butI did enjoy the combination of pomegranate sauces.
The dessert was extremely rich. I loved the sherry ice cream, and enjoyed the brownie as well. The texture was interesting as it basically oozed chocolate. I probably would've liked this a lot more if I hadn't had half of a chocolate macaroon that morning. As for my wife, too much chocolate and alcohol in the ice cream aren't really her thing.
In conclusion, our experience at Charlie Trotter's was fun and delicious. Service was top tier yet a little slow. The the food was all very good, but hardly life-altering. The most enjoyable part of the meal was the creativity the various courses had to offer. Everything was perfectly cooked, yet other than the scallops, there wasn't anything to die for.
It was easily worth the prix fixe, and the experience was certainly memorable. I'm sure we'll be back again when it's within our budget; however, I'm also sure there are a handful of other chicago restaurants we'll visit a dozen times before we make it back to Charlie Trotter's.
Friday, February 13, 2009
The Case for Modern Tennis
Anybody who follows tennis understands that the game has changed. The argument from tennis purists is that racket technology has sped up the game to the point that every pro is a baseliner, and matches are repetitive.
The truth is that racket technology has drastically changed the spins imparted on the ball. The larger sweet spots allow players to take huge swipes at the ball and still keep a great pace on the ball. This basically means you have much more topspin than ever seen before in the game. The ball naturally dips when a topspin shot is hit. The consequence is that athletes can now hit balls well above the net that still bounce in, and balls that clear just above the net will find areas of the court that couldn't be reached twenty years ago.
So what is really happening to the game? The new combination of spin and power opens up the court. Players drive each other back and forth able to win points without ever leaving the baseline. Players are less compelled to approach the net.
And that is why I remain a Federer fan. Historically, I don't root for the favorite. In sports betting, I prefer to take the underdog. The only other athlete I root for who's an overwhelming favorite is Tiger, but that's just because Tiger's too likable. You can't even say that Federer's the favorite anymore. Point is, everyone should be a Federer fan because his game is beautiful. He has every shot and the shot making ability to use them on the offensive. You can never count him out of a point, and you never know what kind of winner he might hit. In the age of topspin baseliners, he frustrates opponents by changing the pace on the ball and utilizing unexpected spins. In my opinion, Federer is the natural evolution of the game, the right way to use spin.
Read this article by the late David Foster Wallace if you need further convincing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html.
His recent frustration by way of Nadal is fascinating. Nadal has essentially turned himself into the ultimate baseliner. He's naturally right handed but plays southpaw. He hits a reverse forehand that puts 28% more spin on his ball than the second highest rpm forehand, Federer's. His backhand has less topspin, yet he hits it with almost as much power due to the fact that it's his dominant side. He plays way behind the baseline with the range and fitness to run down any ball. No other player is built like Nadal, and his style of play is physically matchless.
His game plan against Federer is simple and effective. Abuse Federer's backhand with his high spin forehand. Even on service, he serves almost exclusively to Federer's backhand. This is probably more because Federer's service return on his forehand side is deadly. He focuses on commanding the point by pouncing on a weaker backhand return rather than simply winning the point via serve. Something about the topspin doesn't allow Federer to rip his backhand winners. Federer doesn't have a weak backhand. Compared to his exceptional forehand, it's definitely his weaker side, but his backhand is still highly regarded. I can't say I know enough about the mechanics to know why he can't just rip the backhands when he knows exactly where the ball will be returned to.
This matchup will remain one-sided until Federer can solve Nadal's riddle. Nobody can replicate Nadal's forehand, so Federer can't really practice a counter strategy against anyone else. It's also clear that Nadal has gotten into his head a bit. A friend recently argued that Nadal-Federer is the greatest rivalry in sports. They're at the top of the rankings, and if they meet in a Grand Slam, it'll be in the finals. So almost every time they play each other it'll be for all the marbles...up to four times a year! Still, it's hard to see Federer beating Nadal until he figures out how to hit Nadal's forehand with his backhand. Even if he continues to stretch every match to an epic five sets.
For more on topspin studies visit:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/25/news/rwtechnic.php?page=2.
The truth is that racket technology has drastically changed the spins imparted on the ball. The larger sweet spots allow players to take huge swipes at the ball and still keep a great pace on the ball. This basically means you have much more topspin than ever seen before in the game. The ball naturally dips when a topspin shot is hit. The consequence is that athletes can now hit balls well above the net that still bounce in, and balls that clear just above the net will find areas of the court that couldn't be reached twenty years ago.
So what is really happening to the game? The new combination of spin and power opens up the court. Players drive each other back and forth able to win points without ever leaving the baseline. Players are less compelled to approach the net.
And that is why I remain a Federer fan. Historically, I don't root for the favorite. In sports betting, I prefer to take the underdog. The only other athlete I root for who's an overwhelming favorite is Tiger, but that's just because Tiger's too likable. You can't even say that Federer's the favorite anymore. Point is, everyone should be a Federer fan because his game is beautiful. He has every shot and the shot making ability to use them on the offensive. You can never count him out of a point, and you never know what kind of winner he might hit. In the age of topspin baseliners, he frustrates opponents by changing the pace on the ball and utilizing unexpected spins. In my opinion, Federer is the natural evolution of the game, the right way to use spin.
Read this article by the late David Foster Wallace if you need further convincing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html.
His recent frustration by way of Nadal is fascinating. Nadal has essentially turned himself into the ultimate baseliner. He's naturally right handed but plays southpaw. He hits a reverse forehand that puts 28% more spin on his ball than the second highest rpm forehand, Federer's. His backhand has less topspin, yet he hits it with almost as much power due to the fact that it's his dominant side. He plays way behind the baseline with the range and fitness to run down any ball. No other player is built like Nadal, and his style of play is physically matchless.
His game plan against Federer is simple and effective. Abuse Federer's backhand with his high spin forehand. Even on service, he serves almost exclusively to Federer's backhand. This is probably more because Federer's service return on his forehand side is deadly. He focuses on commanding the point by pouncing on a weaker backhand return rather than simply winning the point via serve. Something about the topspin doesn't allow Federer to rip his backhand winners. Federer doesn't have a weak backhand. Compared to his exceptional forehand, it's definitely his weaker side, but his backhand is still highly regarded. I can't say I know enough about the mechanics to know why he can't just rip the backhands when he knows exactly where the ball will be returned to.
This matchup will remain one-sided until Federer can solve Nadal's riddle. Nobody can replicate Nadal's forehand, so Federer can't really practice a counter strategy against anyone else. It's also clear that Nadal has gotten into his head a bit. A friend recently argued that Nadal-Federer is the greatest rivalry in sports. They're at the top of the rankings, and if they meet in a Grand Slam, it'll be in the finals. So almost every time they play each other it'll be for all the marbles...up to four times a year! Still, it's hard to see Federer beating Nadal until he figures out how to hit Nadal's forehand with his backhand. Even if he continues to stretch every match to an epic five sets.
For more on topspin studies visit:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/25/news/rwtechnic.php?page=2.
Marrying Early
OK, so nobody has really asked me this. Do I feel like I need to justify myself? Absolutely not, but I think I'll make a great case as an early marriage advocate. Also, my wife will love me more for this.
I've decided not to include any names in this blog yet (except mine which is conspicuously in the name and Taeil's which I used by accident and have no plans on editing out). As a result, I will be referring to my wife as 'my wife.' I'm fairly certain everyone will know who that is anyway.
TANGENT TIME:
'Anyways' is not a real word. I think technically it is part of the modern dictionary and can be found on Merriam-Webster online. Fact of the matter is it's not accepted grammatical practice. It shouldn't even be spoken, but I have an extremely difficult time weeding it out of my vocabulary. When I write, I read what I'm typing out loud in my head, and in the sentence previous to this tangent I said 'anyways' in my head.
My wife and I are college sweethearts and met each other Freshman year. I don't think I've ever referred to us as college sweethearts, and it makes me feel a little weird when I put it that way. We started dating after Sophomore year and stayed together post graduation and through my stint at grad school. After I graduated, I started looking for a job in New York and Chicago.
We both love cities, and in our opinion, there are only two real cities in the U.S. But that's a topic for another post. I grew up around Chicago and went to school relatively nearby. Recruiters from Chicago companies visited our career fairs, and I embraced the idea of finally living in the big city.
My wife had grown up in Queens, and I had spent a decent amount of time in New York City. New York was really an ideal location for a post college couple. A vibrant, exciting locale to begin a new life. I sent my resume all over New York and interviewed at a handful of companies. I was still mid-job hunt when I received a nice offer from a Chicago company and mulled over my options for a moment before taking the offer.
My wife hadn't any real career opportunities in New York yet; thus, she left to join me in Chicago. The majority of her immediate and extended family had left New York to return to their roots overseas, and there really wasn't much left in New York to keep her from making the jump to be by my side.
At this point, I'm sure it's fairly apparent how serious our relationship was. We had been dating for three years and had had a plethora of conversations about our future. After a year in Chicago, I popped the question on our four-year anniversary.
I've established all this background to lead you to the conclusion that with such a long and serious relationship, marriage was really the next logical step. She had made a complete move to be with me, and of course, I should make a similar commitment. But, I tricked you.
It's really convenient to tell people that marriage was the next logical step, and I felt I had to be responsible and make the commitment (I told my mother this). Truth is, this isn't why I did it at all. I was 23 when I got engaged and 24 when I got married. I married the first girlfriend I had in college. Needless to say, I had plenty of questions on whether or not she was the right one.
The circumstances of our relationship was such that I knew she wanted to marry me and would say 'Yes' the moment I asked. So really, it was all up to me. I had thoughts about looking around and testing the market to see what else was out there. Ultimately I never did because I felt this would compromise what we had.
In the end, all it really took was some introspection. Eventually, it came down to how happy I was. I didn't think I could be happier that I already was. I was sure nobody else could take care of my wife better than I could. And I didn't think we would love anyone else more than we loved each other. Once I came to this realization, the rest was cake.
I think I might get some tonight.
I've decided not to include any names in this blog yet (except mine which is conspicuously in the name and Taeil's which I used by accident and have no plans on editing out). As a result, I will be referring to my wife as 'my wife.' I'm fairly certain everyone will know who that is anyway.
TANGENT TIME:
'Anyways' is not a real word. I think technically it is part of the modern dictionary and can be found on Merriam-Webster online. Fact of the matter is it's not accepted grammatical practice. It shouldn't even be spoken, but I have an extremely difficult time weeding it out of my vocabulary. When I write, I read what I'm typing out loud in my head, and in the sentence previous to this tangent I said 'anyways' in my head.
My wife and I are college sweethearts and met each other Freshman year. I don't think I've ever referred to us as college sweethearts, and it makes me feel a little weird when I put it that way. We started dating after Sophomore year and stayed together post graduation and through my stint at grad school. After I graduated, I started looking for a job in New York and Chicago.
We both love cities, and in our opinion, there are only two real cities in the U.S. But that's a topic for another post. I grew up around Chicago and went to school relatively nearby. Recruiters from Chicago companies visited our career fairs, and I embraced the idea of finally living in the big city.
My wife had grown up in Queens, and I had spent a decent amount of time in New York City. New York was really an ideal location for a post college couple. A vibrant, exciting locale to begin a new life. I sent my resume all over New York and interviewed at a handful of companies. I was still mid-job hunt when I received a nice offer from a Chicago company and mulled over my options for a moment before taking the offer.
My wife hadn't any real career opportunities in New York yet; thus, she left to join me in Chicago. The majority of her immediate and extended family had left New York to return to their roots overseas, and there really wasn't much left in New York to keep her from making the jump to be by my side.
At this point, I'm sure it's fairly apparent how serious our relationship was. We had been dating for three years and had had a plethora of conversations about our future. After a year in Chicago, I popped the question on our four-year anniversary.
I've established all this background to lead you to the conclusion that with such a long and serious relationship, marriage was really the next logical step. She had made a complete move to be with me, and of course, I should make a similar commitment. But, I tricked you.
It's really convenient to tell people that marriage was the next logical step, and I felt I had to be responsible and make the commitment (I told my mother this). Truth is, this isn't why I did it at all. I was 23 when I got engaged and 24 when I got married. I married the first girlfriend I had in college. Needless to say, I had plenty of questions on whether or not she was the right one.
The circumstances of our relationship was such that I knew she wanted to marry me and would say 'Yes' the moment I asked. So really, it was all up to me. I had thoughts about looking around and testing the market to see what else was out there. Ultimately I never did because I felt this would compromise what we had.
In the end, all it really took was some introspection. Eventually, it came down to how happy I was. I didn't think I could be happier that I already was. I was sure nobody else could take care of my wife better than I could. And I didn't think we would love anyone else more than we loved each other. Once I came to this realization, the rest was cake.
I think I might get some tonight.
Lean Muscle Mass
Fitness has become fairly important to me, and I'm going to make an attempt to tackle a variety of questions I've had. The first is about lean muscle mass.
'Lean muscle mass' is a term commonly used to advertise workout programs, exercise equipment, and fitness supplements. If you just break it down by words, it's easy to tell why this marketing term works so well. To the layman, 'Lean muscle mass' simply refers to a physique with minimal body fat and toned muscular structure.
For a while now, I've been going to the gym to develop lean muscle mass, and I realized I have no idea what I'm trying to accomplish. The term 'lean muscle mass' seems to mean that there are muscle fibers that differentiate themselves from fat or bulk muscle fibers. This isn't true. There are different types of muscle fibers, but they only way they differ is the rate at which they fire. Slow twitch (Type I) muscle fibers are prevalent in endurance athletes. The use oxygen more efficiently and generate ATP to be used over an extended period. Consequently, fast twitch (Type II) muscle fibers fire more rapidly and use the same amount of energy only at a higher rate.
What people really want when they say they want 'lean muscle mass' is muscular hypertrophy. The higher your muscle density the more definition you have. The popular misconception is that this is done by performing excercises with low weights and high repetitions. Most people think that they don't want to bulk up and become oversized like body builders. But the truth is that body builders are ripped. They have a ridiculous amount of muscular hypertrophy. They also have a ridiculous amount of muscle mass. It takes an incredible amount of work to become that size, and the average person won't get there.
If you want to have a fit physique, there are two things you have to do: lose fat and gain muscle. Gaining muscle is actually important to losing fat as the more muscle you have, the more energy those muscles will expend. For fat loss, what you really need is a calorie deficit. Intake less than you expend, and you'll naturally have to use the energy stored in the fat you have. There are a large number of ways to accomplish both of these.
So why do some people perform sets of high reps and some of low reps. This has more to do with what type of muscle fibers you have. The ratio of Type I to Type II muscle fibers is largely hereditary. High reps with a lower weight will utilize your slow twitch fibers more effectively, and low reps will utilize your fast twitch. It's possible to alter the amount of one type of twitch fiber in comparison to the other, but that's not really the goal of the average gym-goer. For fitness, you should really be training for strength and endurance rather than the shape your muscles are.
Unfortunately, I'm hardly an expert. Please give me your opinoins.
Note: Many women naturally want to avoid the size that accompanies increasing muscle strength. This is probably where the idea of low weight high reps comes from. What they are really doing is inhibiting the potential of their muscle growth. They will get desired results, but of course, they won't obtain the same strength.
Muscle fibers:
http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/anatomyandphysiology/a/MuscleFiberType.htm
http://www.faqs.org/sports-science/Mo-Pl/Muscle-Fibers-Fast-and-Slow-Twitch.html
Hypertrophy:
http://strengthtraining.suite101.com/article.cfm/weight_loss_weight_training
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_hypertrophy
Others:
http://www.shawnlebrunfitness.com/building-lean-muscle-mass.html
'Lean muscle mass' is a term commonly used to advertise workout programs, exercise equipment, and fitness supplements. If you just break it down by words, it's easy to tell why this marketing term works so well. To the layman, 'Lean muscle mass' simply refers to a physique with minimal body fat and toned muscular structure.
For a while now, I've been going to the gym to develop lean muscle mass, and I realized I have no idea what I'm trying to accomplish. The term 'lean muscle mass' seems to mean that there are muscle fibers that differentiate themselves from fat or bulk muscle fibers. This isn't true. There are different types of muscle fibers, but they only way they differ is the rate at which they fire. Slow twitch (Type I) muscle fibers are prevalent in endurance athletes. The use oxygen more efficiently and generate ATP to be used over an extended period. Consequently, fast twitch (Type II) muscle fibers fire more rapidly and use the same amount of energy only at a higher rate.
What people really want when they say they want 'lean muscle mass' is muscular hypertrophy. The higher your muscle density the more definition you have. The popular misconception is that this is done by performing excercises with low weights and high repetitions. Most people think that they don't want to bulk up and become oversized like body builders. But the truth is that body builders are ripped. They have a ridiculous amount of muscular hypertrophy. They also have a ridiculous amount of muscle mass. It takes an incredible amount of work to become that size, and the average person won't get there.
If you want to have a fit physique, there are two things you have to do: lose fat and gain muscle. Gaining muscle is actually important to losing fat as the more muscle you have, the more energy those muscles will expend. For fat loss, what you really need is a calorie deficit. Intake less than you expend, and you'll naturally have to use the energy stored in the fat you have. There are a large number of ways to accomplish both of these.
So why do some people perform sets of high reps and some of low reps. This has more to do with what type of muscle fibers you have. The ratio of Type I to Type II muscle fibers is largely hereditary. High reps with a lower weight will utilize your slow twitch fibers more effectively, and low reps will utilize your fast twitch. It's possible to alter the amount of one type of twitch fiber in comparison to the other, but that's not really the goal of the average gym-goer. For fitness, you should really be training for strength and endurance rather than the shape your muscles are.
Unfortunately, I'm hardly an expert. Please give me your opinoins.
Note: Many women naturally want to avoid the size that accompanies increasing muscle strength. This is probably where the idea of low weight high reps comes from. What they are really doing is inhibiting the potential of their muscle growth. They will get desired results, but of course, they won't obtain the same strength.
Muscle fibers:
http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/anatomyandphysiology/a/MuscleFiberType.htm
http://www.faqs.org/sports-science/Mo-Pl/Muscle-Fibers-Fast-and-Slow-Twitch.html
Hypertrophy:
http://strengthtraining.suite101.com/article.cfm/weight_loss_weight_training
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_hypertrophy
Others:
http://www.shawnlebrunfitness.com/building-lean-muscle-mass.html
First
Hi nobody.
I finally decided to kick off this blog because I needed a forum to express my random thoughts. Contents of this blog should include various topics that I may or may not do research on. I was a little apprehensive about creating this blog in the first place, mainly because I'm afraid of the criticism I'm sure I'll receive.
Why did I finally take the plunge?
First of all, I am addicted to igoogle. I'm not sure why I didn't make use of the google reader before. My google account made it so easy to sign up on blogger that before I knew it, this was here (thanks Taeil). Speaking of which, what exactly is the difference between blogger and blogspot?
Secondly, I haven't written anything in a while. I can't say I particularly enjoy writing, but I do think writing skills are important. This is a great place to practice, and I'd appreciate it if anyone out there is willing to critique my writing skills.
I'm gonna make an effort not to be too personal in this blog. I don't really care what I broadcast, but I know my wife does. I put the over-under on her finding out about this blog at 30 hours. She knows I've been thinking about doing this.
Why 30 hours? That's about when my next post will be up; post Vday festivities.
I finally decided to kick off this blog because I needed a forum to express my random thoughts. Contents of this blog should include various topics that I may or may not do research on. I was a little apprehensive about creating this blog in the first place, mainly because I'm afraid of the criticism I'm sure I'll receive.
Why did I finally take the plunge?
First of all, I am addicted to igoogle. I'm not sure why I didn't make use of the google reader before. My google account made it so easy to sign up on blogger that before I knew it, this was here (thanks Taeil). Speaking of which, what exactly is the difference between blogger and blogspot?
Secondly, I haven't written anything in a while. I can't say I particularly enjoy writing, but I do think writing skills are important. This is a great place to practice, and I'd appreciate it if anyone out there is willing to critique my writing skills.
I'm gonna make an effort not to be too personal in this blog. I don't really care what I broadcast, but I know my wife does. I put the over-under on her finding out about this blog at 30 hours. She knows I've been thinking about doing this.
Why 30 hours? That's about when my next post will be up; post Vday festivities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)