A Matter of Taste

As a whole, Americans don't take pride in many things. Strangely, that doesn't stop us from being the best in the world at them. Take cycling for example. Americans could not care less about cycling, but we love Lance Armstrong. We don't love him because he's a great cyclist or because we derive any nationalistic pleasure from watching him win; We love him because he beats the pants off the Europeans at a sport they actually care about. That was the best part about the Ryder cup this past weekend: Americans turned on their televisions on Monday and said, "Oh. Cool. We won." Meanwhile, thousands of Europeans spat bitterly in their coffee as they watched a Hillbilly from Florida act a fool (Note to self: I am not hip enough to say "act a fool".) on the putting green, as he celebrated his victory with the Happy Gilmore Bull Dance.

Following the embarrassing defeat, one bitter European sports writer, Phil McCauley, took solace in one thing he claims Europeans still do better then Americans: make beer. Now, I would never engage in a pissing match about golf, because, frankly, I don't really care about golf. I view golf the same way I view Spencer and Heidi's relationship; It's more funny then entertaining and I'll tune in for brief spurts, but if I had to watch it for more then 30 minutes, I might set myself on fire. But beer? Now that's another story. Insulting America's beer is like insulting an Italian's food or a Southerner's family or a Samoan's anything. Don't expect to get away without a fight.

Now, if Mr. McCauley had simply said something like "European's Make Better Wine" or "Europe makes a few beers that are better than some American beers, but in general we're all a bunch of panty wearing sissy boys", I would have let him get away with it. But he threw down the gauntlet when he said, "[America's] way behind on taste", flippantly dismissed American beer as "tasteless fizzy water", and finished it off with "given the choice, who would go for [an American Beer] over, say, a bottle of the German favourite Beck's? (really, Germany's Favorite Beer is Beck's...Really? I remain skeptical) Or the Dutch of class that is Amstel? (Amstel? Seriously, I'm not sure this guy's even from Europe.) Or the reassuringly expensive Stella Artois? ("reassuringly expensive," I don't even know what that means.) There's no competition!".

I simply can't ignore someone who champions European beer using Beck's, Amstel and Stella. Really? That's the best you can do? You're calling out the US on account of Beck's, Amstel and Stella? That's like calling out the Beatles with Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers. Beck's tastes like pasteurized moose piss, Amstel is only slightly less offensive then it's pussified metrosexual cousin Amstel Light and Stella...oh, don't even get me started on Stella.

Stella Artois is the beer of choice for college aged yuppies with tapestries of Che Guevara on their walls who think their two week summer vacation to Europe made them hip and worldly (hint: it didn't). You can easily spot these assholes, because they're sporting a faux-hawk, Cuban dictator hat, hemp necklace, and a wooden peace bracelet and as soon as they enter a bar, they'll turn to their friends -- who, conveniently, are wearing the same pretentious loser uniform -- and say "Dude, they have STELLA!"

No European has ever walked into a bar in Europe and said "Dude, they have STELLA!" (Presumably because they wouldn't be speaking English, but go with me on this one.) That's like walking in to a bar in the states and saying, "Dude, they have COORS LIGHT!". In fact, Europeans don't even drink Stella. When you visit a bar in Europe, you'll notice that the only people drinking Stella are American tourists, who then go home and piss their pants in gleeful excitement when they see it on the shelf at their local Safeway. Congratulations, you traveled 3,000 miles to the culinary epicenter of the world to imbibe a bland pint of skunk musk you could have enjoyed from the comfort of your own couch. Nice work, champ.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that Europe has terrible beer (it doesn't). In fact, Europe makes some of the best beer in the world. Belgian Trappist ales are a thing of beauty and the full range of dark German beers is sublime. But when it comes down to the nitty gritty, no one can match the vast range of incredible U.S. microbrews. Sierra Nevada, Anchor Steam, Fat Tire, Mendocino Brewing Company, Rogue, Deschutes and that's just scratching the surface. The same ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit that led the US to the forefront of the world economy has turned the United States into the best beer producer in the world and, frankly, it's not even close.

In addition to brewing better beers, America also stands at the forefront of alcohol marketing. The United States transformed the beer commercial from an advertising tool into a comic art form. From the Bud Bowl to the Budweiser Lizards to the Real Men of Genius, U.S. breweries market their beers better than anyone. Need proof? Even though it has a flavor that mildly resembles stale jock sweat, people drink more Budweiser then any other beer in the world. How you like that proof?

(That said, I have to take my hat off to this ad from Guiness, which, hyperbole not withstanding, may be the best beer ad in the history of the world...)

[Author's Note: I have since been informed that this ad was not, in fact, made by Guinness. It was a joke ad created by... wait for it... wait for it... AN AMERICAN! The best Guinness ad made by an American? Brilliant! ]

Let's recap, shall we? America has better beer, better beer commercials, better golf and...am I forgetting something?

Oh yeah. We have better sports blogs too.

Suck it, Europe.

A thin correlation between love and hate

WARNING: Reading the following article will make you an asshole. Not quite a just-finished-reading-Atlas-Shrugged asshole, more like a guy-at-the-office-who-explains-why-you-paid-too-much-for-your-new-car asshole. So, if you don't want your friends to hate you because of your new found proclivity for bloviating about statistical misconceptions, you may want to skip this week's article.

Consider yourself warned.

(Yeah, I just said bloviating. That just happened).

I love the start of the Football season. The pageantry of the college game, the intensity of the NFL, and, most of all, the idiocy of football commentators. It would seem, the only qualifications for discussing football on TV, radio or in print are a lukewarm knowledge of the game, a below average intellect, and a penchant for making controversial statements. (Yes, I do realize the inherent irony of that statement coming from me.) Furthermore, since so many people discuss football, everyone tries to come up with new, original insights, no matter how absurd, just so they can claim the idea as their own.

If Carson Palmer completes 73.275% of his passes, the Bengals will win tonight.

If Georgia turns the ball over less then three times, scores more then 26 and three quarters points and limits USC to 316 passing yards or less, they will definitely win.

As long as Jon Gruden finishes his grilled cheese sandwich by half time, Tampa Bay should win on Sunday.

I'm confident that if the University of Hawaii scores more points then San Jose State, they'll have a good chance to win.

I find this unendingly funny, because football is, inherently, a simple game. The team that controls the line of scrimmage and protects the ball usually wins. Other then that, you're splitting hairs and over analyzing a game between twenty-somethings with a ball that doesn't bounce straight.

That's not to say that there aren't valid statistical indicators. How well a team runs the football, how well a team stops the run, and a team's turnover margin, all provide quality insight about a team. But, outside of those, which, as you may have noticed, simply indicate how well a team controls the line of scrimmage and protects the ball, most other statistics are simply flashy numbers that commentators misinterpret to prove their own preconceived notions.

My favorite statistic, bar none, that commentators routinely misinterpret is the correlation between how many rushing yards a team gets and whether or not they win.

Today, while predicting the outcome of various college football games on his radio program, Colin Cowherd said the key to the Florida-Tennessee match up, is who does a better job running the football. Colin came to this conclusion because the team that rushed for more yardage won the last six match ups.

Wow.

That's amazing.

Unbelievable, really.

I think my mind exploded.

It's brilliant, except, of course, for the fact that it's not at all true.

What Colin failed to realize is the distinction between correlation and causation. Correlation says whether or not two things are related, like rushing for more yards and winning football games or watching sports on my couch drinking beer and having the day off. Causation, on the other hand, says whether or not one thing causes the other. You see, just because I'm typically watching sports on my couch drinking beer on my days off, does not mean that watching sports on my couch drinking beer causes me to have the day off. (Believe me. I've tried.) Simply that the two occur simultaneously with relative frequency. Similarly, that fact that teams that rush for more yards typically win football games, does not mean that rushing for more yards then the other team causes teams to win football games. In fact, it's the other way around.

When teams have the lead, they typically rush the football to take time off the clock and protect the ball. Conversely, when teams are behind, they typically throw the football to try and score as fast as possible. Because of this, teams that win, typically have more rushing plays, ergo, bingo bango, more rushing yards. Rushing more then your opponent doesn't cause you to win. In general, winning causes you to rush for more then your opponents.

I sincerely apologize for bringing this to your attention. From now on, you will officially be "that guy", whenever someone claims tells you that their team needs to get their running game going. But, hey, don't blame me. I tried to warn you.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a date with my couch, a Cubs game and a six pack of Heineken. Because, you know, never hurts to double check...

We Believe

Easy there, Chicken Little.

The sky isn't falling, just the sale of pink Patriots jerseys. The Patriots chances of winning haven't plummeted, only the NFL's viewership among women. As much as I would love to tell you that Tom Brady's season ending knee surgery effectively ended the Patriots season, it's simply not true. They're too deep, too talented, too driven and too professional to let an injury to one player, no matter how important, derail their season. They're no longer the favorite, but that doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. In fact, I'm here to tell you that, without a doubt, the Patriots will make the playoffs for the following three reasons...

1. Bill Belichick

My feelings on Bill Belichick are well documented. I think he's a liar, a cheater and a jerk. That said, I'd still want him coaching my football team every Sunday. He'll have to scale back his offense to account for the loss of his Hall-of-Fame signal caller, but the loss of Brady has no effect on his defensive game planning. Belichick will reach deep within his playbook, continue to utilize the talent at hand better then anyone in the league and the Patriots will most likely revert to a more conservative, ball control offense and rely on their defense to to win games 21-10 instead of 52-0. This leads me to my next point...

2. They have the best supporting cast in the league

No team has more talent and depth then the Patriots. They have one of the top 5 defenses in the league, the best offensive line in the league, the best receiving corps in the league and a solid cadre (yes, that was just an excuse to say cadre) of running backs to pick up the slack in Brady's absence. That's not to say Matt Cassell will pick up where Brady left off, just that no quarterback in the league will have to do less in order to lead his team to victory week in and week out then Matt Cassell. Hell, the Patriots supporting cast is so good, they could score 10 points with me playing quarterback. (They'd undoubtedly revert to an all running attack, which, between the solid play of their defense and special teams could undoubtedly get me close enough to the end zone to punch in one touchdown and kick one field goal. Plus, since Belichick knows the opponents signals beforehand...ok, ok, I'll let the Spygate jokes go. For now...)

3. No one believes in them

Over the last 8 years, no team has done a better job then the Patriots of finding some way to convince themselves that they've been disrespected and using that supposed disrespect as motivation. No matter that they have won more games, more championships and garnered more respect, both on and off the field, then any other team in the league. No matter that the Patriots claiming that no one believed in them is like WalMart claiming that no one believed they could outsell Old Ferguson's Corner Store or Michigan claiming that no one believed they could beat Appalachian State (oh...wait.). According to the Patriots, no one ever believed in them. Even last year, amid discussions that they were the best team in the history of the NFL, the Patriots rallied around the belief that no one respected them in light of the Spygate controversy. I thought that after they went 16-0 in the regular season, they'd finally lose the ability to play the lack of respect card, but now that the Patriots have lost the services of Tom Terrific for a season (I'm sorry, I tried to say to say it, but I can't. Tom Terrific sounds like Gary and Ace's long lost brother, not one the greatest NFL quarterbacks of all time.), I have no doubt that we'll hear a steady stream of "no one believes in us" coming from the Patriots camp.

So no matter what you do over the next few weeks, believe in the Patriots. Tell your friends you think they're going to win the Super Bowl. Call up the team and let them know that you never stopped believing. Send letters to Belichick to let him know you never lost the faith. Because a motivated Patriots team is a dangerous Patriots team.

So if you're listening, Bill; If you can hear me, Tom; If you get the message, Mr. Moss;

We believe. Now more then ever.

A Matter of Perspective

In 2004, Ken Jennings won a virtually unbelievable 74 games of Jeopardy in a row. This unprecedented run of success garnered Jennings pseudo-celebrity status, talk show appearances and even a running segment on SportsCenter. Millions around the country tuned in every day to see if Jennings could continue his streak and people began to float the notion that Jennings was the smartest man in the world.

Nonsense.

Jennings was not the smartest man in the world; he simply knew more inane trivia then any other Jeopardy contestant. Don't get me wrong, if I get to pick a partner for Trivial Pursuit, Jennings is the first man I dial. But if I need to solve a real world problem, I'm picking Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or Stephen Hawking.

This leads me to Michael Phelps.

Michael Phelps is, without a doubt, the most dominant swimmer in the world today, but if I hear one more person say that he's the best athlete in the world, I'm going to set myself on fire. In fact, I'm not willing to say he's the best Olympic athlete of all time (a title I'd reserve for Carl Lewis). I'm not even ready to say that he's the best Olympic swimmer of all time. Mark Spitz won almost as many gold medals as Michael Phelps and won his individual events by a bigger average margin of victory (1.44% vs. 1.07% for Phelps: See WSJ article for more details). I'm not saying I believe Spitz was a better or more dominant swimmer; only that it's up for debate.

Supporters routinely point to Phelps' record 14 gold medals as proof of the claim that he is the world's greatest athlete. While winning more gold medals then any athlete in history is impressive, it does little to prove that Phelps is the greatest athlete of all time. It proves that he is the most decorated Olympic athlete of all time, but greatest? Even if we conveniently put aside the ambiguity of the word "greatest" and the inherent subjectivity of comparing athletes in different sports, using total medals as a baseline for comparison is absurd. Depending on their sport, athletes have anywhere from one to eight chances to win a medal. There's a reason four of the ten most decorated Olympians were swimmers: Swimmers have more opportunities to win medals then any other athletes. Michael Phelps had eight chances to win a medal, whereas Kobe Bryant only had one. Both athletes won 100% of their possible gold medals in dominating fashion. Am I supposed to discount Kobe because the Olympics doesn't recognize 1 on 1, 3 on 3, the dunk contest, the 3-point shooting contest, H-O-R-S-E, P-I-G, and quitting on your teammates in the NBA Finals as Olympic events? (Sorry, I had to go there.)

Don't get me wrong; I am a huge Michael Phelps fan. In fact, watching Phelps compete was, far and away, my favorite non-Alicia Sacramone related part of the Olympics (My God, she is hot.). Furthermore, the Men's Swimming 4 x 100 meter final was one of the most exciting sporting events, of any kind, I have ever witnessed. In fact, I was rooting for Phelps to win the 8 gold medals. Watching Phelps swim is like watching Michael Jordan dunk or Tiger Woods swing. It's not just sports, it's an act of beauty. I don't mean to hate on Michael Phelps, I simply want to put his accomplishments in perspective and quell the unrealistic proclamations of his athletic supremacy.

I mean, Phelps is my boy and all, but winning 8 gold medals isn't going to make me to lose my mind. You want to impress me, Mr. Phelps? Try beating Ken Jennings at Jeopardy.