It might have been more fitting to title this post "Oktoberfest: The Letdown," because the end result of my quest is the realization that I simply don't like this style. I was disappointed with the offerings from otherwise solid breweries, such as Berkshire Brewing Company, Opa Opa and Geary's, although the latter was actually an Autumn Ale rather than an Oktoberfest. Another disappointment was that I was unsuccessful at tracking down Victory Festbier, the recommendation of one of my faithful readers. In fact, last weekend I went on their web site to try and locate stores in my area that carry their products.
Practically right down the street from me is Ball Square Fine Wines and Liquors, who had what seemed like every brand that I've ever heard of that Victory brews—including HopDevil, Prima Pils, Golden Monkey, Storm King Stout, Hop Wallop and Victory Lager—but no Festbier. In hindsight, I guess mid-November is probably too late for most fall styles, unless they're not big sellers and have been sitting on the shelves all season.
So, despite not getting to taste one of the fall beers that I most highly anticipated, I'm going to summarize. I honestly didn't find a single Oktoberfest that really made a positive impression on me. Even those that I thought were pretty good at first ended up wearing out their welcome before I'd even finished one, generally due to their overbearing sweetness. For that reason, I've come to a conclusion that's the beer-tasting equivalent of "it's not you, it's me." That is, I'm just not the right person to evaluate this style, because it's just not my thing.
That said, there were a few non-Oktoberfest fall brews that I really liked, so I'm going to rate my three favorites here. Unfortunately, you may have to wait until next September to get your hands on these.
Southern Tier Harvest Ale - Southern Tier Brewing Company is located in the village of Lakewood, in the southern part of western New York commonly referred to as the Southern Tier. I've seen their beers on draft around town occasionally, and even tasted their IPA before, but this fall they've become one of my new favorite breweries. This dry-hopped ale has a wonderfully hoppy aroma—unusual, of course, for a fall style—is nicely balanced and goes down smoothly. Grade: B+
Southern Tier Pumking - This one practically knocked me over with its powerful aroma, which is pumpkiny, of course, but also reminds me of gingerbread. At 9% ABV, you would think a brew of this variety would be overly sweet, but it's not. It's only a little hoppy, but that's just enough to offset its pumpkin-spiced sweetness. This is absolutely the best pumpkin ale I've ever tasted. Grade: A
Dogfish Head Punkin Ale - Not nearly as pumpkiny as Southern Tier, Dogfish's attempt at this style is a mildly spiced—with hints of cinnamon and nutmeg, as well as pumpkin—and mildly hoppy brown ale. In my experience, everything that Dogfish brews is excellent, and Punkin Ale is no exception. Grade: A-
Finally, here is the list of all the fall brews I tried this season (Oktoberfests unless otherwise indicated): Hacker Pschorr, Paulaner, Harpoon, Samuel Adams, Blue Hills Okto-brau, Southern Tier Harvest Ale, Gritty's Halloween Ale, BBC, Southern Tier Pumking, Shipyard Pumpkin, Geary's Autumn Ale, Leef Peeper Lager, Dogfish Head Punkin Ale, Opa Opa.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Music in the Key of Life
I recently came across a mix tape I made in 1999, which was aptly named "Welcome to Sorryville." The title was borrowed from the opening lines of Chris Knight's "It Ain't Easy Being Me," which went something like this:
"There oughta be a town somewhere named for how I feel. Yeah, I could be the mayor down there and say 'Welcome to Sorryville.' It wouldn't be on a map nowhere, you might say that it don't exist. But, if you make enough wrong turns, it'd be hard to miss."
In addition to the title track, that mix included songs such as "Everything is Wrong" (Gigolo Aunts), "My Old Friend the Blues" (Steve Earle), "Desperate Ain't Lonely" (Whiskeytown), "There is No Hell Like the Hell on This Earth" (Scud Mountain Boys), "Dying on the Vine" (The Jayhawks), and "Over the Cliff" (Old 97's). You get the theme, right?
Back in those days, when I was still relatively new to the Boston area, el-squared and I were frequenters of the Cambridge music scene. We virtually had the exact same taste, and often talked about the mood of the type of music we listened to. Depressing is the obvious word that comes to mind, particularly back then, when alt-country was our main thing and much of what was on our respective playlists tackled the subject of heartbreak.
After he met, and became happily involved with, the woman who is now his wife of ten years, he seemed to be of the opinion that he could no longer really relate to that sort of music. I didn't necessarily agree that people's life circumstances preclude them from empathizing with sentiments they've felt before. But, I do agree that one's current perspective can have a major impact on the way he or she feels about music. Personally, I know a lot has to do with whether or not I'm "feeling it." In fact, this concept applies more to shows, especially now that I'm a little long in the tooth. If I'm not in the mood, it just isn't happening for me.
But, now that I'm nearing the completion of the rare calendar year during which I've actually been in a relationship for the entire annum, I'm wondering if my year-end review of the albums I've really enjoyed this year will confirm my friend's theory or not. I've already said that 2009 didn't really measure up in comparison to prior years. Could it possibly be because I'm still in the process of making a transition, and that I wasn't really seeking out the right music that properly fit my mood this year?
I'm not sure that I really need to defend myself here, but the aforementioned mix did include a few songs that had a somewhat hopeful tone. Idaho's "Alive Again" and The Byrds' "I Trust" are a couple examples of that, although both of those songs do kind of imply getting beyond more difficult times. Anyway, not really being conscious of this angle during the year means I'm going to have to work my way through my 2009 catalog before passing judgment on whether or not my musical mood has been getting brighter.
Maybe some of you can let me know what you think after comparing this year's compilation to those from the past. I have a feeling there won't be a noticeable difference, but I'll let you decide for yourself if you're so inclined.
"There oughta be a town somewhere named for how I feel. Yeah, I could be the mayor down there and say 'Welcome to Sorryville.' It wouldn't be on a map nowhere, you might say that it don't exist. But, if you make enough wrong turns, it'd be hard to miss."
In addition to the title track, that mix included songs such as "Everything is Wrong" (Gigolo Aunts), "My Old Friend the Blues" (Steve Earle), "Desperate Ain't Lonely" (Whiskeytown), "There is No Hell Like the Hell on This Earth" (Scud Mountain Boys), "Dying on the Vine" (The Jayhawks), and "Over the Cliff" (Old 97's). You get the theme, right?
Back in those days, when I was still relatively new to the Boston area, el-squared and I were frequenters of the Cambridge music scene. We virtually had the exact same taste, and often talked about the mood of the type of music we listened to. Depressing is the obvious word that comes to mind, particularly back then, when alt-country was our main thing and much of what was on our respective playlists tackled the subject of heartbreak.
After he met, and became happily involved with, the woman who is now his wife of ten years, he seemed to be of the opinion that he could no longer really relate to that sort of music. I didn't necessarily agree that people's life circumstances preclude them from empathizing with sentiments they've felt before. But, I do agree that one's current perspective can have a major impact on the way he or she feels about music. Personally, I know a lot has to do with whether or not I'm "feeling it." In fact, this concept applies more to shows, especially now that I'm a little long in the tooth. If I'm not in the mood, it just isn't happening for me.
But, now that I'm nearing the completion of the rare calendar year during which I've actually been in a relationship for the entire annum, I'm wondering if my year-end review of the albums I've really enjoyed this year will confirm my friend's theory or not. I've already said that 2009 didn't really measure up in comparison to prior years. Could it possibly be because I'm still in the process of making a transition, and that I wasn't really seeking out the right music that properly fit my mood this year?
I'm not sure that I really need to defend myself here, but the aforementioned mix did include a few songs that had a somewhat hopeful tone. Idaho's "Alive Again" and The Byrds' "I Trust" are a couple examples of that, although both of those songs do kind of imply getting beyond more difficult times. Anyway, not really being conscious of this angle during the year means I'm going to have to work my way through my 2009 catalog before passing judgment on whether or not my musical mood has been getting brighter.
Maybe some of you can let me know what you think after comparing this year's compilation to those from the past. I have a feeling there won't be a noticeable difference, but I'll let you decide for yourself if you're so inclined.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Four Yorkshiremen
My comments have been getting spammed a bit lately. The last time this happened, I posted the Monty Python spam sketch. So, since spam now reminds me of Monty Python, I thought I'd share another classic video. Enjoy!
Friday, November 13, 2009
Common Misconceptions, Part 1
A couple of the umpiring controversies from this postseason, as well as last year's, got me to thinking about a post I originally planned to do over a year ago. Unless you're new here, you probably know that I attended Brinkman/Froemming Umpire School in 1994. My "dream" to become a professional baseball umpire died pretty quickly after that, but this and my 10+ years of umpiring experience give me a slightly different perspective than your average fan and/or amateur player.
So, the idea is to write about common baseball rules misconceptions. That is, interpretations of rules that, over the years, have come to be considered common knowledge, despite the fact that they may or may not be correct.
The first of these is possibly the most earth-shattering. Maybe you've heard the phrase "tie goes to the runner" a time or two before. Well, it's not true. First of all, the word "tie" isn't even mentioned in the rule book, except in reference to the score of a game. But, you probably knew that, and you probably could guess that no experienced umpire would ever use that as the reason to rule a runner safe, anyway. What you probably don't know is that, according to the rule book, whether or not a tie goes to the runner or the fielder actually depends on the circumstance.
I'll start with the situation that confirms our long-standing belief. Rule 6.05(j) states, "A batter is out when...after a third strike or after he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he touches first base." The requirement that he or first base must be tagged before he reaches means that if the two events occur at the same time, the requirement is not satisfied. Therefore, he's not out. So, in this example, he's safe in the case of a tie.
However, rule 7.08(e) states, "Any runner is out when...he fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags him or the base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner." The requirement here is that he reaches the base before he or the base is tagged. Therefore, if the two events happen at the same time, the runner has failed to reach base before the tag, and he is out. So, in the case of a force play on a runner other than the batter-runner, according to the rules, the tie goes to the defensive team.
Now that I've covered the force plays, and thoroughly confused the issue, I still need to address tag plays. Well, rule 7.08(c) declares that, "Any runner is out when...he is tagged, when the ball is alive, while off his base." So, if he reaches the base at the same time as he is tagged, then he is not off base. Therefore, he is safe. In this case, once again, tie goes to the runner.
In two of the three relevant circumstances, tie does, in fact, go to the runner. However, this hardly reinforces our accepted understanding. So, does "tie goes to the runner" hold true, or does it really depend on the circumstances? Further muddying the issue is MLB.com's Ask the Umpire page. When asked about this particular rule, the umpire responds, "There are no ties and there is no rule that says the tie goes to the runner. But the rule book does say that the runner must beat the ball to first base, and so if he doesn't beat the ball, then he is out." This umpire is clearly wrong, unless the wording of the rule has been changed since this Q&A was written. The umpire in question, incidentally, is none other than Tim McClelland.
I do recall, though, being taught that the exception to the "tie goes to the runner" concept—so worded because I would be incorrect to call it a rule—is the play on the batter-runner at first base. That backs up what McClelland says, so maybe I shouldn't be too quick to rush to judgment by saying he's flat-out wrong. But, the phrasing of the rule book does not reinforce my memory.
So, where does this leave us, and what wisdom do I think I'm imparting on my readers? That is, if any of them are still reading at this point. I guess it's that "tie goes to the runner" is a myth, and if anyone uses that phrase in your presence, you're now fully prepared to call them out on it.
So, the idea is to write about common baseball rules misconceptions. That is, interpretations of rules that, over the years, have come to be considered common knowledge, despite the fact that they may or may not be correct.
The first of these is possibly the most earth-shattering. Maybe you've heard the phrase "tie goes to the runner" a time or two before. Well, it's not true. First of all, the word "tie" isn't even mentioned in the rule book, except in reference to the score of a game. But, you probably knew that, and you probably could guess that no experienced umpire would ever use that as the reason to rule a runner safe, anyway. What you probably don't know is that, according to the rule book, whether or not a tie goes to the runner or the fielder actually depends on the circumstance.
I'll start with the situation that confirms our long-standing belief. Rule 6.05(j) states, "A batter is out when...after a third strike or after he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he touches first base." The requirement that he or first base must be tagged before he reaches means that if the two events occur at the same time, the requirement is not satisfied. Therefore, he's not out. So, in this example, he's safe in the case of a tie.
However, rule 7.08(e) states, "Any runner is out when...he fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags him or the base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner." The requirement here is that he reaches the base before he or the base is tagged. Therefore, if the two events happen at the same time, the runner has failed to reach base before the tag, and he is out. So, in the case of a force play on a runner other than the batter-runner, according to the rules, the tie goes to the defensive team.
Now that I've covered the force plays, and thoroughly confused the issue, I still need to address tag plays. Well, rule 7.08(c) declares that, "Any runner is out when...he is tagged, when the ball is alive, while off his base." So, if he reaches the base at the same time as he is tagged, then he is not off base. Therefore, he is safe. In this case, once again, tie goes to the runner.
In two of the three relevant circumstances, tie does, in fact, go to the runner. However, this hardly reinforces our accepted understanding. So, does "tie goes to the runner" hold true, or does it really depend on the circumstances? Further muddying the issue is MLB.com's Ask the Umpire page. When asked about this particular rule, the umpire responds, "There are no ties and there is no rule that says the tie goes to the runner. But the rule book does say that the runner must beat the ball to first base, and so if he doesn't beat the ball, then he is out." This umpire is clearly wrong, unless the wording of the rule has been changed since this Q&A was written. The umpire in question, incidentally, is none other than Tim McClelland.
I do recall, though, being taught that the exception to the "tie goes to the runner" concept—so worded because I would be incorrect to call it a rule—is the play on the batter-runner at first base. That backs up what McClelland says, so maybe I shouldn't be too quick to rush to judgment by saying he's flat-out wrong. But, the phrasing of the rule book does not reinforce my memory.
So, where does this leave us, and what wisdom do I think I'm imparting on my readers? That is, if any of them are still reading at this point. I guess it's that "tie goes to the runner" is a myth, and if anyone uses that phrase in your presence, you're now fully prepared to call them out on it.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Thrill vs. Agony, Part 2
I didn't intend to write a part two to this post—actually it's probably better described as an addendum—but a reference to it over on a site that I read regularly and contribute to irregularly, Pickin' Splinters, reminded me of another angle. That is, the idea that the success of one of your teams can go a long way towards softening the blow from the failure of another. A prime example of this is summed up by my current facebook status:
"I feel like a kid again...the Yankees are champions and the Giants suck."
Of course, this is not to mention the fact that the Rose Bowl hopes of my alma mater, Penn State, were crushed—as was the team—by Ohio State this past weekend, 24-7. Between that and the Giants' dismal loss to San Diego, which drops them to 5-4 after a 5-0 start, it was a pretty rough weekend for my football teams. But, it still doesn't feel all that bad.
Check back with me in a couple weeks on this one, though. I'll have a better idea by then how long this "honeymoon" will last.
"I feel like a kid again...the Yankees are champions and the Giants suck."
Of course, this is not to mention the fact that the Rose Bowl hopes of my alma mater, Penn State, were crushed—as was the team—by Ohio State this past weekend, 24-7. Between that and the Giants' dismal loss to San Diego, which drops them to 5-4 after a 5-0 start, it was a pretty rough weekend for my football teams. But, it still doesn't feel all that bad.
Check back with me in a couple weeks on this one, though. I'll have a better idea by then how long this "honeymoon" will last.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
The Thrill of Victory vs. The Agony of Defeat
Is it just me, or does every serious sports fan agonize over their teams' losses far more than they celebrate their wins? Only a few days after my team once again became champions of the baseball world, it already seems like old news. On the other hand, I'm still sometimes haunted by the memories of the 9th inning of Game 7 of the 2001 World Series (not to mention the 2004 ALCS). In fact, I still have that game on VHS, and for years I've been curious to go back and see if Scott Brosius really could have turned a double play on Jay Bell's failed sacrifice attempt, but I probably never will. Still, I never taped over it because it was the final game of one of the most exciting World Series in baseball history.
I sometimes wonder if Red Sox fans realized this after the 2004 World Series. A few hours of partying it up, a day of suffering through a terrible hangover, and one parade through the city later, and I'm pretty sure they discovered that their joy paled in comparison to the pain they felt from the previous season's ALCS loss and all the heartbreaks that came before. If anyone feels otherwise, I'd love to hear what you have to say.
The pain of losing, of course, is only half the story. There's also the level of stress that we experience during and between games. As an example, just hours after the Yankees' impressive 9th inning versus Brad Lidge gave them a commanding 3-1 lead in this year's series, I woke up worrying that their plan of pitching Burnett, Pettitte and Sabathia on three days rest for Games 5 through 7 was going to backfire.
I sometimes wonder if Red Sox fans realized this after the 2004 World Series. A few hours of partying it up, a day of suffering through a terrible hangover, and one parade through the city later, and I'm pretty sure they discovered that their joy paled in comparison to the pain they felt from the previous season's ALCS loss and all the heartbreaks that came before. If anyone feels otherwise, I'd love to hear what you have to say.
The pain of losing, of course, is only half the story. There's also the level of stress that we experience during and between games. As an example, just hours after the Yankees' impressive 9th inning versus Brad Lidge gave them a commanding 3-1 lead in this year's series, I woke up worrying that their plan of pitching Burnett, Pettitte and Sabathia on three days rest for Games 5 through 7 was going to backfire.
So, why is this? Why are we as fans better able to live vicariously through our teams' losses than their wins? Or, is it just me who feels this way? Lastly, if you do feel the same as I do, is it all worth it? I still say it is, although I'm not really sure I could explain why.
That said, I'll close this post with a list of my all-time top five favorite sports championships:
- Super Bowl XLII (2008): New York Giants 17, New England Patriots 14
- 1996 World Series: New York Yankees 4, Atlanta Braves 2
- 1987 Fiesta Bowl: Penn State 14, Miami 10
- Super Bowl XXV (1991): New York Giants 20, Buffalo Bills 19
- 1980 Winter Olympics: USA Hockey Gold Medal
Thursday, November 05, 2009
That Old Familiar Feeling
If you're at least a semi-regular reader of this blog, you probably know that I'm a New York Yankees fan, but that I write more about baseball in general than I do about the Yankees. So, I'm not going to turn into a cheerleader now and talk about how psyched I am that they finished their run to the World Series yesterday, ending a "drought" of eight seasons without winning one. But, the title of this post seems appropriate, this being their 27th championship overall and seventh during my lifetime.
I will say, though, that it didn't really feel all that special, other than the fact that KJ put aside her Red Sox loyalties and watched several of the games with me. It did feel a little more exciting than 1999, when the Yankees completed their second consecutive sweep of the World Series and it seemed they would never lose again. Of course, we know that they did—lose again, that is—and that they are far from achieving the status of dynasty again. But, they were expected to win, and when you're expected to win, it's just not as fun as when you're not. As far as I'm concerned, there probably will never be another 1996.
Then, there's the backlash I'm hearing and reading about, mostly from bitter fans of other teams who just can't seem to put the return of the World Series championship trophy to Yankee Stadium in perspective. I have no problem with Yankee haters. I've said before that I almost always root for the underdog, unless of course, the favorite is my team. So, I expect the rest of the country to root for the Yankees to lose. But, there are a lot of people out there who seem to be mad at the Yankees, as if they consider it their responsibility to make sure the playing field is level. I've got news for you, folks. If the Yankees limitless budget is ruining baseball—which it's not—then it's Major League Baseball's responsibility to do something about it.
Besides, if the past eight years have proven anything, it's that you can't buy a championship. You can buy a contender, and I won't try to dispute that's what the Yankees have been doing, but throwing money at players doesn't guarantee anything beyond that. I've also said this before, but I'm all for a salary cap in baseball. There are a lot of constraints making it difficult to imagine that it will ever happen, though. I'm not going to get into a discussion of the economics of baseball, but there will still be the "haves" and the "have-nots." There's no getting around that fact, and it shouldn't be news to Red Sox and Phillies fans that they're in the haves category, whether they want to cling to their idealized self-images as underdogs or not.
I'm not sure if I have a real point to make here. These are just my thoughts following the completion of a really interesting 2009 baseball season. It's hard to believe this was the outcome of the same season that I was writing things like this about superstitions. Let's also not forget that it was only April of 2008 that I was warning Red Sox loyalists against messing with a good thing. Maybe I was right about that.
I will say, though, that it didn't really feel all that special, other than the fact that KJ put aside her Red Sox loyalties and watched several of the games with me. It did feel a little more exciting than 1999, when the Yankees completed their second consecutive sweep of the World Series and it seemed they would never lose again. Of course, we know that they did—lose again, that is—and that they are far from achieving the status of dynasty again. But, they were expected to win, and when you're expected to win, it's just not as fun as when you're not. As far as I'm concerned, there probably will never be another 1996.
Then, there's the backlash I'm hearing and reading about, mostly from bitter fans of other teams who just can't seem to put the return of the World Series championship trophy to Yankee Stadium in perspective. I have no problem with Yankee haters. I've said before that I almost always root for the underdog, unless of course, the favorite is my team. So, I expect the rest of the country to root for the Yankees to lose. But, there are a lot of people out there who seem to be mad at the Yankees, as if they consider it their responsibility to make sure the playing field is level. I've got news for you, folks. If the Yankees limitless budget is ruining baseball—which it's not—then it's Major League Baseball's responsibility to do something about it.
Besides, if the past eight years have proven anything, it's that you can't buy a championship. You can buy a contender, and I won't try to dispute that's what the Yankees have been doing, but throwing money at players doesn't guarantee anything beyond that. I've also said this before, but I'm all for a salary cap in baseball. There are a lot of constraints making it difficult to imagine that it will ever happen, though. I'm not going to get into a discussion of the economics of baseball, but there will still be the "haves" and the "have-nots." There's no getting around that fact, and it shouldn't be news to Red Sox and Phillies fans that they're in the haves category, whether they want to cling to their idealized self-images as underdogs or not.
I'm not sure if I have a real point to make here. These are just my thoughts following the completion of a really interesting 2009 baseball season. It's hard to believe this was the outcome of the same season that I was writing things like this about superstitions. Let's also not forget that it was only April of 2008 that I was warning Red Sox loyalists against messing with a good thing. Maybe I was right about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
