A vs B

The winner of Group A will play the 2nd place team from Group B and vice-versa in the round of 16. I originally noticed that Spain could face Brazil in the Final or as early as the first knockout match. After Spain's first loss that seemed very much in play. Now they're eliminated. But there is a very interesting situation still brewing.

First let's look at Group A.

Brazil 4
Mexico 4
Croatia 3
Cameroon 0

Since Brazil is playing Cameroon you would think Brazil will win and win the group. But you never know. The possibility is there that they could play to a draw like they did against Mexico. Mexico vs Croatia should be for second place, Mexico only needs a tie, Croatia a win.

At this level of analysis, it's not just if you advance, but who wins and who finishes second because of the powers looming in Group B. If Brazil draws, either Mexico or Croatia could win the group and Brazil could finish second. (If Croatia wins by a goal, and Brazil would need to lose to Cameroon by 3 to not advance. So yeah.)

We'll come back to the winner of this group in a moment.

- - -

Here's Group B at the moment:

Netherlands 6
Chile 6
Australia 0
Spain 0

You would think there's no drama here. We know who's advancing. But Netherlands vs Chile is quite important. It determines who wins the groups and therefore, which opponent they'll get in the round of 16. And despite Brazil having less points than either of these two teams, the home country in the knockout round is not your preferred choice. I think either NED or CHI would be favored against MEX or CRO but an underdog against BRA.

So it's simple enough, we'll know who won Group A and assuming it's Brazil, then Netherlands vs Chile will be for the right to avoid them...except it's not.

I'm assuming because of time zones, the Group B matches are before the Group A matches. (3 of the other days are out of order: BA, DC, FE, GH.) So we'll know who wins Group B. And then we get to see the Group A matches.

Which brings strategerie to Brazil. If I'm them, I want to avoid the Netherlands. Perhaps Chile is just as strong, but I think the Netherlands could reach the Finals. If NED wins, extra motivation for Brazil to win their group. Say Chile wins but on a fluke penalty and NED again looks like one of the best teams. I would be very tempted to merely draw with Cameroon to get Chile.

the best microbrew...sodas

So we buy all our baby clothes at Carter's. And just a few stores away from Carter's is Rocket Fizz. So now it's a tradition for Brit to go buy clothes and I take the boys to the candy and soda shop. And I usually end up buying a soda. Here are the best brands.

Sprecher - Their root beer, cream soda, and cherry cola are all superb. Their puma kola isn't for me.

Boylan - Big fan of their root beer, creme and black cherry. Avoid the shirley temple.

Hank's - I've tried their Philadelphia root beer and their black cherry and both were good.

The Search for Denver's Best Burrito: Bocaza

This is the third installment of this series that I explained fully here.

Denver Burrito #3: Bocaza
1740 E 17th Ave

Boca means mouth. Bocaza means big mouth. If I place were to open up in say, Iowa, called Big Mouth Burritos, I would probably think it a bit lame. But Bocaza as a name works just fine by me.

There is a method to my madness. I started an authentic hole-in-the-wall that allegedly served a California burrito. Then I tried a smothered burrito. One of my strongest recommendations, I've saved for the #4 spot, so I could have a better foundation to judge.

#3 however, is the only mission-style burrito I could find at a semi-authentic place. Not only that, but they offer a fajita burrito with peppers and onions in place of beans. The place itself is not a hole-in-the-wall but also not as pristine as a Qdoba. It's clean, simple. They had one television on Univision playing the Netherlands-Australia highlights. I learned that in Spanish, Netherlands is "Holanda."

In addition to burritos, they offered tortas and other more authentic specialties. But I'm here for the burrito. They offered three kinds of tortillas (I chose the simple flour) and two kinds of rice, spanish and cilantro-lime. I went with cilantro-lime but perhaps spanish would have been better. I debated between barbacoa and carnitas, and was swayed by their menu board that seemed to highlight the barbacoa.

I chose medium salsa (which was green, same as Chipotle) and cheese and sour cream. In short, this is an exact replica of my order at Chipotle. Same size, same shape, same foil wrap.

I had high hopes. My previous two experiences had shown me that authentic places make better meat than Chipotle. So if I found a place that serves the same ingredients, but they can make them better, than this would trump Chipotle, no?

Well. As it turns out, the barbacoa was not up the standards of the previous two Denver burritos. Nor was it as good as Chipotle's. It was a little bland. Likewise, the peppers and onions weren't as good. They weren't cooked as much, which did give them a good crunch, but they didn't have hardly any flavor. The rice was about as good, but still maybe lacking a bit in flavor.

I swear I saw her put sour cream in the burrito, and yet it seemingly disappeared into the ether. Or more realistically, into the rice.

The one thing that Bocaza's burrito did better than Chipotle's was the tortilla.

This is a fantastic tortilla. It wasn't too thick yet still held together. It was soft yet had a bit of delicious crunch to it. Probably the best tortilla I've had anywhere.

I would be interested in going back some time, trying the spanish rice and something other than the barbacoa.

So now we get to ratings. I know it wasn't as good as Chipotle. I think it's proabably on the same level as yesterday's, just a completely different style.

Chipotle 8.5
Bocaza 7.5
El Tepehaun 7.5
Tacos Rapidos 7

Week 7

Week 0: 200
Week 1: 195.5
Week 2: 194
Week 3: 191
Week 4: 190
Week 5: 189
Week 6: 186
Week 7: 186

This is a bit frustrating because I was really good this week. I went out for barbecue on Father's Day, but then ate super under Monday and Tuesday. I even saw 187 when I woke up, but weighed myself later and saw 186. 

(I did have that burrito yesterday, but I had a small breakfast and that was lunch & dinner.) I didn't eat before my soccer workout last night but then had a carnitas soft taco at home afterwards. Perhaps that was my downfall. 

It's not the worst. It's still an average of a pound and a half over the last two weeks. If last week I saw 187, this would be no big deal. So hopefully I can at least be 185 or below by next week. 

The Search for Denver's Best Burrito: El Tepehuan

This is the second installment of this series that I explained fully here.

Denver Burrito #2: El Tepehuan
3457 S Broadway

One of the things that was implied but sort of went unsaid is that this burrito search will take me to places I've never been, but more than that, the kind of places that I've never been. Hole in the wall, authentic, taquerias and restaurants, mostly run by people that speak Spanish and serve to Spanish-speaking clientele.

This is a modest sit-down restaurant with three TVs--two flat-screens and one SD television sitting on a tall beer cooler. I happened to go during the Brazil-Mexico game and it was on all three TVs. It was surprisingly unobsessed with the soccer game. Two of the employees were wearing Mexico flag shirts and there were enough people sitting at the tables, but very quiet.

This place serves the opposite of Mission-style burritos. They are served on a plate covered in green chile. I came here second because I wanted to get one of these under my belt quickly, to have a better frame of reference for judging other burritos.

I ordered the Adovada burrito, no beans. I realize this whole "no beans" thing may be affecting the process. The description on the menu said "marinated pork, beans, smothered with green chile." So I was axing half of the interior ingredients. The thing is, I just dislike beans enough that I prefer burritos without them. Since this is a sit down restaurant, tax and tip brought this burrito to over 11 dollars.

So it comes just like you'd expect. It's rolled but open on both ends. The burrito is smothered with green chile overflowing onto the plate and then topped with shredded cheese. Lettuce and tomato are piled on the side, but I ignore them.

I used my fork to cut off a piece and stir in some of the pooled green chile for my first bite. The pork is outstanding. I look inside and it really is the only thing inside the burrito. So it's a pork and cheese burrito with green salsa, except the last two ingredients are outside the tortilla.

One of the knocks against the smothered style is that your tortilla will likely suffer. It's not going to have any of that griddled flavor. It probably has to be thick enough to handle the sauce. And even if you serve a good tortilla, it will probably get soggy and overwhelmed. The tortilla at El Tepehaun does suffer from all of these mentioned, and yet it's still pretty good.

The pork is the real star of the show. As I take more bites I discover there are bits of pineapple mixed into the small cubes of pork. The color of the meat is a rich burnt orange. Again, it tastes authentic--heavily seasoned, probably cooked on a grill that has accumulated it's own seasoning profile. The pork even has crunchy bits of char that are delicious and make up for the fact that the tortilla has not been crisped. (The tortilla did seem to have a bit of crispiness on the inside, though the green chile was wet enough to counteract that.)

The green chile was pretty darn good, but not mind-blowing. It had a good heat level, good flavor. Solid but not that memorable.

I find myself drawing many similarities to the hand-held burrito I had last week at Tacos Rapidos. In both cases, they were full of meat and hardly anything else. Luckily the meat was very good. But both are missing the range of flavors that I've grown to expect in a burrito.

I think that today's was superior to my first outing. Trying to assign these burritos number ratings has been harder than expected.

At the moment, I'm thinking:

Chipotle 8.5
El Tepehaun 7.5
Tacos Rapidos 7

But all of these ratings are still fluid and may rise or fall.

USA scenarios

Germany plays Ghana Saturday. I will assume Germany wins. Here are the three tables following USA-Portugal on Sunday.

with USA WIN
Germany 6
USA 6
Ghana 0
Portugal 0

with USA DRAW
Germany 6
USA 4
Ghana 0
Portugal 1

with USA LOSS
Germany 6
USA 3
Portugal 3
Ghana 0

A win clinches a berth in the knockout round.
A draw doesn't clinch, but is pretty close because USA has a +5 goal differential over Portugal.

A loss leaves work to do, hoping to best Portugal's fate against Ghana.

In short, win or draw vs Portugal and we're sitting pretty.

Way too premature and unrealistic guide to the U.S. advancing

I mean, the US will probably finish the bottom of the table. But still...

With Germany holding at 3-0 lead at halftime and one of Portugal's key defenders being sent off (and therefore will miss the game against the U.S.) here's an optimistic way this could shake out.

Germany. They will get the 3 points against Portugal. They will likely get all 3 against Ghana next.

They're in. That leaves one extra spot.

Let's say the US and Ghana draw today. 1 point each.

Then let's say the US beat the Pepe-less Portugal in the jungle.

The table looks like this heading into the last game:

Germany 6
US 4
Ghana 1
Portugal 0

At that point all the US would need is a draw against Germany, or even it a loss to minimize the damage and advance over Ghana on goal differential, assuming they can earn 3 against Portugal.

Okay...so that requires a win over Portugal... what if...

the US draws instead with both Ghana and Portugal...

The table looks like this heading into the last game:

Germany 6
US 2
Ghana 1
Portugal 1

If Ghana and Portugal draw, it's the same situation for the US. Draw and you're in. Otherwise just minimize the goal differential.

It's totally possible. Both of these scenarios are based upon a draw vs Ghana today. Win vs Ghana and they're sitting prettier. Lose against Ghana and then a win against Portugal is necessary. Here's that table:

Germany 6
US 3
Ghana 3
Portugal 0

At that point, it still doesn't look good. Germany wouldn't even be clinched so they would come out with full intensity.

Basically, it all comes down to today. Draw Ghana and you're okay. Win is great. Lose, means you're looking at 2018.

One-Hit Wonders at Golf's Majors

It had seemed to me that in the Tiger Woods era, either it was Tiger (or Phil) winning a major. Or it was a guy you had never heard of. And the best way for me to quantify "if you've heard of them" is if they've won a major before.

So let's start with the numbers.

1950-1959: 27/40 won by multiple major winners
1960-1969: 24/40 won by multiple major winners

1970-1979: 33/40 won by multiple major winners

1980-1989: 32/40 won by multiple major winners

1990-1999: 26/40 won by multiple major winners

2000-2009: 25/40 won by multiple major winners
2010-present: 9/18 won by multiple major winners

The first thing that sticks is out that the 70's and 80's were dominated by big names, more so than the two decades before or after. The 90's and 00's are surprisingly consistent with the 50's and 60's.

Yes, the current decade is on pace for 20/40, but let's not jump to conclusions. Because of the way this is setup, yesterday's win counted for two points in this decade. (Kaymer has now won majors in 2014 and 2010.)

Let's take a look at the previous decades counting only the first 18 majors of the decade.

2000s: 10/18 (Can't count Phil's first)

1990s: 10/18 (Can't count Olzabal's or Els's first)

1980s: 14/18 (Can't count Crenshaw's first)

1970s: 14/18 (Can't count Irwin's first)

So there you go. This decade's pace is slightly lower than the previous two decades. Across 40 years of data, we can expect that about one more person that won their first major this decade, will win another. The candidates include: Scott, Rose, Dunfer, Simpson, Schwartzel, Clarke, Bradley, McDowell, Oosthuizen. 

Was Rooney shit or shite?

In case you missed it, (spoiler alert) Italy defeated England 2-1 and Rooney in particular was awful. I went to twitter to search two strings without quotes: Rooney shit and Rooney shite. I thought that I would be able to do a simple count and compare, say 34 to 16 or something, which adjective people who follow the English team use.

Well there's upwards of thousands of both. But the initial sampling suggests that shit is perhaps twice as popular as shite.

Though this much is clear. Rooney is shit and shite.

My previous post was supposed to be about how I think the Netherlands are always really good in the World Cup and I picked them to advance, while others were picking Chile. They've advanced in the three other World Cups I've watched, and made it to the Finals in 2010 and the Semis in 1998.

How the World Cup intersects life

(I touched on this a bit previously, but let me do a better job...)

The World Cup first mattered to me in 1998. Summer is amazing when you're 14. You're not old enough to have a job, but you are old enough to know what you're doing and appreciate the time off. Virtually every morning that summer, I woke up and watched Patrick and Olbermann do SportsCenter. I listened to Hello Nasty and watched the video for Intergalactic. And I watched the World Cup.

This commercial was the greatest thing I had ever seen.

From the beginning, the World Cup was not about the knockout rounds for me. I fell in love with the group stage. The round robin where wins and ties matter and scenarios unfold over the course of weeks. And each game is on one at a time. So you watch Brazil and France, but also Iran and Japan.

This was my first World Cup. I was just a boy.

Four years prior, I was a ten-year-old who knew nothing. The World Cup was actually in America. I remember being on vacation and for some reason, I was wearing a Germany t-shirt for no reason. I suppose I thought it was neat. Anyways, we were at a restaurant and the waiter asked if we where there for the World Cup.

By the 2002 World Cup, I had already completed a year of college. Perhaps I was still a boy, but I had a summer job. And with the time zone difference between South Korea and Peoria, the games were on at 2 and 4 am. I tried to watch a U.S. game but have little memory.

In 2006, I fell in love with again, for good. And I have Ted Grossman to thank. This was my first year in the workforce. We were working together and he was super into the World Cup. He talked me into cutting out of work for a long lunch to watch some games. We went to this Irish pub down the street. I believe we watched Netherlands defeat Ivory Coast, 2-1. We watched a lot of games. It was pretty fantastic. I watched the U.S. lose twice and draw once.

So 2010 was really only my third World Cup. I was already 26. I had been married for four years. We were trying to have a children. Perhaps I was still a boy in some aspects, but I was also sort of grown up. I was still at the same agency as 2006, but now in a different building. Our company had merged since the last Cup. This agency knew that people wanted to watch, so instead of having hundreds of people stream the games across their network, they happily set up a viewing room. There would always be a few people there, sometimes as many as 20. A lot of Spanish speakers. Watching the World Cup with rabid fans is far more satisfying than watching by yourself. This was the year that the U.S. won their group and it was pretty amazing.

Which brings us to today. Only my fourth World Cup. I'm 30. I have two kids. I have a house.  I've changed jobs and moved across state lines. There's no viewing room here, but we're making it work. It really is a special tournament, that sort of lives outside of sport and in this strange place where the world can come together and agree that even though it doesn't really matter, it's all that matters for the moment.

The possibility just opened up for what I mentioned previously. The overwhelming favorite and host could face the #1 team in the world and defending champion...not in the Final but in the first game of the knockout stage. (This will happen if Brazil finishes first in Group A and Spain finishes second in Group B.)

I predict the next three games of the NBA Finals will be won by the home team. Game 7 will be won by Miami.

Week 6

Week 0: 200
Week 1: 195.5
Week 2: 194
Week 3: 191
Week 4: 190
Week 5: 189
Week 6: 186

This number might be deceptive. On Monday I was 187.5. Tuesday I was 188. So this was a two-pound drop in a day, that just happened to be my weigh-in day. Tomorrow I could see 187 or 188 and not be too surprised. 

Yesterday we had a salsa taste test contest at work. (I made a salsa. It was not too bad but not as good as some others.) The way it worked out was that I skipped lunch because I wasn't hungry, which may have been the first time in history. I'm not sure why I wasn't hungry. I did eat a lot of salsa/chips but it was my lunch and dinner. 

And then last night I did another soccer workout. The morning after I do a soccer workout, for two consecutive weeks, I feel incredibly lighter. Sure enough the scale reflected that today. (Last week the scale didn't show any weight loss from the workout for a couple days, and who knows if that was related.)

Feeling good. 180 is my wedding/college weight, so that's always a nice milestone. Maybe this time I can actually cross it and stay on the other side for a while.

Lyrical Analysis

This post is about the lyrics of a band called New Found Glory. But my findings can be extrapolated across a lot of other bands, particularly in this genre.

I've always noticed that their songs all seem to be about the same thing: relationships. Not only that, their songs seem to use the same structural technique of addressing an unnamed female as "you."

Example lyric: "Distance means nothing to me, it only makes me want to see you longer."

There's nothing notable or wrong with this lyric in theory. It's just that it seems that every song they write does this. So I thought I would crunch the numbers. How many of their songs are about relationships? And how many address the subject of the song as "you."

There you have it. 90% of their songs are indeed about relationships. And all but two are ostensibly from the lead singer to some girl directly. Those two are "Vegas" and "Boy Crazy." Both of those use "you" talking to guys about girls.

One of the eight that didn't count as being about a relationship is called "Failure's Not Flattering." It uses the "you" structure and you could make the case that it's referring to dating, but since it wasn't obvious I didn't count it.

These results can only lead to so many conclusions.

1. The singer is writing songs that are fictitious.
2. The singer has written multiple songs about the same girl.
3. The singer has been in 75 different relationships.