Sunday, August 8, 2010
Blogging vs Working
When I conceived the idea for the Docisms blog back in May, I was busy building a Member section for my market blog. Given that trading is my job, the market letter naturally took precedence. I am happy to say the market letter has been well-received, and so my efforts have been fruitful. Nevertheless, I am anxious to write about topics other than stock and commodity trading, and I intend this blog to be the outlet for such desires, so check back soon!
Idea for a 9-Hole Golf Tournament
Occasionally, while trying to digest information (what psychologists like to call "incubation") before formulating my nightly market letter, I will fire up my Wii game console and play a round of golf. The game is quite relaxing, and the effort to divert my mind from market thoughts contributes to a more focused effort when the task of writing the letter is executed.
Now, I have the type of mind that is nearly always in a state of distraction. The downside to such a mentality is that I am usually not very sociable, as I prefer my own thoughts to the banalities others'. The upside is that once the seed of an idea is planted, my mind tends to run with the idea to the point of exhaustion. This ability to focus is quite a valuable trait when trading markets, and from time to time turns a frivolous thought, such as the idea for a golf tournament that struck me while playing Wii, into a creation.
In its simple form, the tournament would consist of two rounds of 9 holes, and could therefore be completed in a single day. The first round would see 16 players divided into four groups. The foursomes would play 9 holes with the winners of each group comprising the final foursome for another 9-hole round to determine the champion.
Obviously, groups of golfers with reasonably honed skills will produce a lot of ties through only 9 holes, and that's where the fun begins because playoffs are always more dramatic than primary rounds. Ties would be settled by a series of 3-hole playoffs, with each 3-hole set dropping any player who did not win or tie the set. The tournament becomes more thrilling if playoffs are necessary to determine winners of both the first and second rounds.
Finally, a bit more drama could be added if money is at stake. Have each contestant pay to play. The winners of each of the initial foursomes would get their money back, leaving the remainder to be awarded to first/second place in the final round.
I have to admit that such a tournament would not be very practical to organize independently from the management of a the golf course. Nonetheless, it would be a great way to add a little zest to a family reunion, run a quick charity event, or even promote a new course.
Now, I have the type of mind that is nearly always in a state of distraction. The downside to such a mentality is that I am usually not very sociable, as I prefer my own thoughts to the banalities others'. The upside is that once the seed of an idea is planted, my mind tends to run with the idea to the point of exhaustion. This ability to focus is quite a valuable trait when trading markets, and from time to time turns a frivolous thought, such as the idea for a golf tournament that struck me while playing Wii, into a creation.
In its simple form, the tournament would consist of two rounds of 9 holes, and could therefore be completed in a single day. The first round would see 16 players divided into four groups. The foursomes would play 9 holes with the winners of each group comprising the final foursome for another 9-hole round to determine the champion.
Obviously, groups of golfers with reasonably honed skills will produce a lot of ties through only 9 holes, and that's where the fun begins because playoffs are always more dramatic than primary rounds. Ties would be settled by a series of 3-hole playoffs, with each 3-hole set dropping any player who did not win or tie the set. The tournament becomes more thrilling if playoffs are necessary to determine winners of both the first and second rounds.
Finally, a bit more drama could be added if money is at stake. Have each contestant pay to play. The winners of each of the initial foursomes would get their money back, leaving the remainder to be awarded to first/second place in the final round.
I have to admit that such a tournament would not be very practical to organize independently from the management of a the golf course. Nonetheless, it would be a great way to add a little zest to a family reunion, run a quick charity event, or even promote a new course.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Ruthian
A frequent debate in which I find myself embroiled with other baseball enthusiasts is the subject of who is the greatest baseball player ever. The title of this post betrays my answer to that question, and frankly, I believe anyone who answers otherwise simply hasn't done their research.
The question, of course, contains the word "ever," which presents the dilemma of making comparisons across eras. That Babe Ruth was the greatest player of his own era cannot be challenged. His 714 career home runs stood double the total for any other player at the time. Ruth excelled at both pitching and batting, posting league-leading stats in both categories during his career. His very presence in baseball transformed the game and brought its popularity into mainstream America.
But to be labeled the greatest of all time, a player's presence must transcend his own era. Consider that in 1993 an AP survey reported Ruth as being tied with Muhammad Ali as the most recognized athletes, both having been identified by 97% of Americans over the age of 12.
It was not only his presence that transcended eras, but his stats. Ruth's record of 714 home runs stood 39 years before being broken by Hank Aaron. Ruth accomplished his total with 8,399 at-bats, or 11.7 AB per home run. Aaron required 12,364 at-bats, or 16.3 AB per home run, to accomplish his feat. Furthermore, a 2006 book by Bill Jenkinson analyzes Ruth's batting record. The book points out that until 1931, American League rules stated that balls that went over the fence in fair territory, but landed foul, were ruled foul balls. Additionally, Ruth's home park in the early 1920s measured over 500 feet to straight-away center. Jenkins concludes that under modern rules and park dimensions, Ruth would have hit 104 home runs in 1921 and would have easily exceeded 800 for his career!
Other feats that transcended his era include his career .342 batting average (10th all-time), a career .690 slugging average that still stands as the best of any player, and a record 60 home runs in 1927 that stood as the single-season for 34 years and was not touched again until the 1998 "juiced" season. Speaking of juiced, Ruth's 1920 slugging average of .847 stood as the single-season record for 81 years until a steroid-filled Barry Bonds slugged .862 in 2001. In fact, Ruth held the top three spots until Bonds' steroid years, and had been the only player to slug over .800, accomplishing the feat in both 1920 and 1921.
Reggie Jackson is famous for hitting three home runs in a World Series game in 1977, but what few people realize is that Jackson was the second player to accomplish the feat. Ruth was the first, of course, and he did it twice. Ruth is also tied for the most walks in a World Series Game (4), tied for most runs scored in a World Series game (4), and thanks to the home run record, tied for the total base record in a World Series Game (12).
What is so amazing about Ruth, however, is his overall prowess as an athlete. He was a phenomenal pitcher, posting a 1.75 ERA with 23 wins in 1916, beating the legendary Walter Johnson four times that year. The following season, Ruth posted a 2.01 ERA and won 24 games. He carried a no-hitter into the 8th inning during a game that season, and struck out Ty Cobb to secure the 1-0 victory. And speaking of transcending eras, in 1918 Ruth won two World Series games, pitching 29 2/3 consecutive scoreless innings... a record that would stand until Whitey Ford broke it 43 years later.
Here are a few more tidbits for the curious:
And then there is the legend. The Curse of the Bambino. The Red Sox punishment for trading Babe Ruth to the Yankees was to suffer a World Series drought. Now for all the superstition and the amazing twists of fate that tortured Red Sox fans over the 85-year span between World Series wins, the Curse is more impressive for the way it ended than the way it began. Never before had a team overcome a 3-0 deficit in a best-of-seven series to win. But that's exactly what the Red Sox did in 2004 on their way to a World Series title. And which team suffered the indignity of blowing the 3-0 lead? The Yankees, of course.
George Herman Ruth, Jr. is shrouded not only by his superhuman accomplishments on the field, but by legend and mysticism conveyed on no other player. His feats span eras and when measured by modern standards, have no comparison. He is the best baseball player ever.
The question, of course, contains the word "ever," which presents the dilemma of making comparisons across eras. That Babe Ruth was the greatest player of his own era cannot be challenged. His 714 career home runs stood double the total for any other player at the time. Ruth excelled at both pitching and batting, posting league-leading stats in both categories during his career. His very presence in baseball transformed the game and brought its popularity into mainstream America.
But to be labeled the greatest of all time, a player's presence must transcend his own era. Consider that in 1993 an AP survey reported Ruth as being tied with Muhammad Ali as the most recognized athletes, both having been identified by 97% of Americans over the age of 12.
It was not only his presence that transcended eras, but his stats. Ruth's record of 714 home runs stood 39 years before being broken by Hank Aaron. Ruth accomplished his total with 8,399 at-bats, or 11.7 AB per home run. Aaron required 12,364 at-bats, or 16.3 AB per home run, to accomplish his feat. Furthermore, a 2006 book by Bill Jenkinson analyzes Ruth's batting record. The book points out that until 1931, American League rules stated that balls that went over the fence in fair territory, but landed foul, were ruled foul balls. Additionally, Ruth's home park in the early 1920s measured over 500 feet to straight-away center. Jenkins concludes that under modern rules and park dimensions, Ruth would have hit 104 home runs in 1921 and would have easily exceeded 800 for his career!
Other feats that transcended his era include his career .342 batting average (10th all-time), a career .690 slugging average that still stands as the best of any player, and a record 60 home runs in 1927 that stood as the single-season for 34 years and was not touched again until the 1998 "juiced" season. Speaking of juiced, Ruth's 1920 slugging average of .847 stood as the single-season record for 81 years until a steroid-filled Barry Bonds slugged .862 in 2001. In fact, Ruth held the top three spots until Bonds' steroid years, and had been the only player to slug over .800, accomplishing the feat in both 1920 and 1921.
Reggie Jackson is famous for hitting three home runs in a World Series game in 1977, but what few people realize is that Jackson was the second player to accomplish the feat. Ruth was the first, of course, and he did it twice. Ruth is also tied for the most walks in a World Series Game (4), tied for most runs scored in a World Series game (4), and thanks to the home run record, tied for the total base record in a World Series Game (12).
What is so amazing about Ruth, however, is his overall prowess as an athlete. He was a phenomenal pitcher, posting a 1.75 ERA with 23 wins in 1916, beating the legendary Walter Johnson four times that year. The following season, Ruth posted a 2.01 ERA and won 24 games. He carried a no-hitter into the 8th inning during a game that season, and struck out Ty Cobb to secure the 1-0 victory. And speaking of transcending eras, in 1918 Ruth won two World Series games, pitching 29 2/3 consecutive scoreless innings... a record that would stand until Whitey Ford broke it 43 years later.
Here are a few more tidbits for the curious:
- Babe Ruth's 54 home runs in 1920 were more than any other team hit collectively.
- In 1927, one out of every 7 home runs hit in the American League belonged to Babe Ruth.
- Ruth was the winningest left-handed pitcher from 1915-17, helping the Red Sox win the World Series twice.
- In 1920, the year Ruth joined the team, the Yankees became the first club to surpass the one million mark in attendance, a total that was more than double that of any other team.
- Babe Ruth's final home run was hit on May 25, 1935. He hit three homers that day, and the last slug was the first ball ever hit completely out of Forbes Field.
- Ruth still holds the AL record for career RBI. He is exceeded for the major league record by only 96 RBI... by Hank Aaron.
- Ruth still holds the record for RBI titles (6) and most seasons with 100+ RBI (T-13).
- Babe Ruth base-on-balls records... most in a career, most in a season, most seasons leading the league, and most seasons with 100+... are all exceed by only one player: Barry Bonds.
- Ruth still holds the record for the most multi-homer games with 73... 2 more than Barry Bonds.
And then there is the legend. The Curse of the Bambino. The Red Sox punishment for trading Babe Ruth to the Yankees was to suffer a World Series drought. Now for all the superstition and the amazing twists of fate that tortured Red Sox fans over the 85-year span between World Series wins, the Curse is more impressive for the way it ended than the way it began. Never before had a team overcome a 3-0 deficit in a best-of-seven series to win. But that's exactly what the Red Sox did in 2004 on their way to a World Series title. And which team suffered the indignity of blowing the 3-0 lead? The Yankees, of course.
George Herman Ruth, Jr. is shrouded not only by his superhuman accomplishments on the field, but by legend and mysticism conveyed on no other player. His feats span eras and when measured by modern standards, have no comparison. He is the best baseball player ever.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Recipe: How to Make Butter
For years I've wanted to familiarize myself the complex, arduous task of making homemade butter. I finally got around to looking up the process only to discover the effort to be neither complex nor arduous. Finding a recipe with enough detail to proceed with confidence was actually more difficult than making the butter itself, and so I will attempt to simplify the instructions here.
What you will need:
Before delving into the process, a note about the cream: do not buy ultra-homogenized cream. The task of making butter basically involves separating the fat from the milk. Homogenization is a process that does exactly the opposite, so homogenized cream won't separate the way we desire.
At least six hours prior to making the butter, set your quart on the kitchen counter so it can reach room temperature. Don't worry... it won't spoil. Besides, butter is traditionally made from spoiled cream, so it won't matter, anyway.
Pour the cream into your blender, and now... here comes the really hard part, are you ready?... turn the blender on. The speed doesn't really matter. Some people make butter simply by putting cream in a jar and shaking it vigorously. The low setting on the blender should be sufficient, although I used a higher speed.
In the span of about 3 minutes, the cream will form what are called "peaks" which is a fancy way of saying it is thickening... forming whipped cream (surprise, surprise). Different stages of peaks are used by chefs for baking, pastries, and other goodies. We want to take the process a little further. As the mixture stiffens, you may need to pause the blending and stir things up a bit with your spoon. Then, in a moment that you will miss if you blink, the entire mixture collapses into a pale yellow liquid. At this point, you have a puree of butter and buttermilk.
About 20-30 seconds after the collapse, stop blending and pour the mixture into your bowl. We now need to give the fat globules (the butter) time to coagulate... about an hour or so. (You can speed this process by stirring the product in the bowl with a whipping utensil). You will know the coagulation is done when the product does not look fluid anymore. At this point, a bit of agitation with your spoon (in plain talk, that means stirring) will separate the coagulated butter from the buttermilk. Pour out the buttermilk (into a container if you wish to save it) and then repeat... stir and pour.
When it appears you have removed all the buttermilk, you haven't. You will need to rinse the butter with cold water to ensure all the buttermilk is gone. Otherwise, your butter will go rancid in a matter of days. Don't be afraid to apply a generous dose of water.. it won't mix with the butter no matter how hard you try. Stir the mixture up a bit and pour the water out. Repeat until the water remains clear after stirring.
The butter is obviously very soft at this point because it is at room temperature. If you want to salt your butter or add any other flavor, mix the spices in while the butter is still soft. Your final step is to scoop the butter into your desired container... tupperware, wax paper, whatever... and stick it in the fridge.
What you will need:
- One quart of heavy whipping cream
- One large blender
- A wooden spoon
- One large bowl
- Salt (optional)
Before delving into the process, a note about the cream: do not buy ultra-homogenized cream. The task of making butter basically involves separating the fat from the milk. Homogenization is a process that does exactly the opposite, so homogenized cream won't separate the way we desire.
At least six hours prior to making the butter, set your quart on the kitchen counter so it can reach room temperature. Don't worry... it won't spoil. Besides, butter is traditionally made from spoiled cream, so it won't matter, anyway.
Pour the cream into your blender, and now... here comes the really hard part, are you ready?... turn the blender on. The speed doesn't really matter. Some people make butter simply by putting cream in a jar and shaking it vigorously. The low setting on the blender should be sufficient, although I used a higher speed.
In the span of about 3 minutes, the cream will form what are called "peaks" which is a fancy way of saying it is thickening... forming whipped cream (surprise, surprise). Different stages of peaks are used by chefs for baking, pastries, and other goodies. We want to take the process a little further. As the mixture stiffens, you may need to pause the blending and stir things up a bit with your spoon. Then, in a moment that you will miss if you blink, the entire mixture collapses into a pale yellow liquid. At this point, you have a puree of butter and buttermilk.
About 20-30 seconds after the collapse, stop blending and pour the mixture into your bowl. We now need to give the fat globules (the butter) time to coagulate... about an hour or so. (You can speed this process by stirring the product in the bowl with a whipping utensil). You will know the coagulation is done when the product does not look fluid anymore. At this point, a bit of agitation with your spoon (in plain talk, that means stirring) will separate the coagulated butter from the buttermilk. Pour out the buttermilk (into a container if you wish to save it) and then repeat... stir and pour.
When it appears you have removed all the buttermilk, you haven't. You will need to rinse the butter with cold water to ensure all the buttermilk is gone. Otherwise, your butter will go rancid in a matter of days. Don't be afraid to apply a generous dose of water.. it won't mix with the butter no matter how hard you try. Stir the mixture up a bit and pour the water out. Repeat until the water remains clear after stirring.
The butter is obviously very soft at this point because it is at room temperature. If you want to salt your butter or add any other flavor, mix the spices in while the butter is still soft. Your final step is to scoop the butter into your desired container... tupperware, wax paper, whatever... and stick it in the fridge.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Recipe: The Best Avocado Sandwich Ever
One of the greatest conveniences brought to our lives by the Internet is free access to just about any recipe on the planet. I mean, if you want to know how to make anything from a chicken curry dish to homemade butter, the recipes are at your fingertips. No more slugging around in libraries and bookstores to waste hours of your life for the privilege of paying $25 for a recipe that may not be exactly to your taste. Now you can spend a half hour reading dozens of recipes and putting them together to make your dish just the way you like.
What's more, if you are so inclined, is the ability to share recipes. I happen to be one of those people so inclined, and so I offer the blueprint to construct a favorite sandwich: the avocado.
You will need:
First, the bread I use is very specific: the five-grain Italian bread made at Publix bakeries. I've tried several breads, both white and wheat, and none of them complement the other ingredients as well as this one. Second, apply the olive oil directly to the bread and spread it like butter. This direct application to the bread will help mix the flavors in the appropriate order when you bite the sandwich.
The choice of avocado is important, as well. I have found that Hass avocados offer the best combination of flavor and texture. You want one that is malleable when squeezed, but not too soft.
Also, go to your local farmer's market and pick out vine-ripened tomatoes, if possible. The finest quality of this sandwich is the mixture of aromas that hit your nostrils just before you sink your teeth into it, and the scent of a ripe tomato is crucial. Oh, and by the way, "fresh" basil means picking leaves directly from the plant. Using the dried variety is like adding dust to a sandwich.
Thinly-sliced cheese and a touch of sea salt are optional, depending on taste, but you will always find them on my own sandwich.
Bon apetit!
What's more, if you are so inclined, is the ability to share recipes. I happen to be one of those people so inclined, and so I offer the blueprint to construct a favorite sandwich: the avocado.
You will need:
- A ripe avocado
- A ripe tomato
- Swiss cheese
- Fresh basil
- Virgin olive oil
- Sea salt
- Whole grain bread
First, the bread I use is very specific: the five-grain Italian bread made at Publix bakeries. I've tried several breads, both white and wheat, and none of them complement the other ingredients as well as this one. Second, apply the olive oil directly to the bread and spread it like butter. This direct application to the bread will help mix the flavors in the appropriate order when you bite the sandwich.
The choice of avocado is important, as well. I have found that Hass avocados offer the best combination of flavor and texture. You want one that is malleable when squeezed, but not too soft.
Also, go to your local farmer's market and pick out vine-ripened tomatoes, if possible. The finest quality of this sandwich is the mixture of aromas that hit your nostrils just before you sink your teeth into it, and the scent of a ripe tomato is crucial. Oh, and by the way, "fresh" basil means picking leaves directly from the plant. Using the dried variety is like adding dust to a sandwich.
Thinly-sliced cheese and a touch of sea salt are optional, depending on taste, but you will always find them on my own sandwich.
Bon apetit!
Are Samoas Fattening?
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call them fattening. I mean, what's the cookie gonna do? It's Samoan.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)