If you haven’t noticed, I’m a huge fan of FC Barcelona’s style of play. If you’ve seen them play before but never understood how they obtained the successes they have on the field, here’s a great article about how they’ve found that success through manager Pep Guardiola. (via Kottke)

Driving these days has become somewhat of a necessity for some people, unfortunately. With the gas prices going upwards to about $4.17 here in Seattle, it’s definitely a burden on one’s wallet. So being able to save money on gas is rather important. So when you see two gas stations kiddy-cornered to one another, one with $4.17 (the cheapest between 87, 89, and 92) and the other being $4.03, your first instinct is “Hey, let’s go to the one that’s $4.03 because I’d save $0.14 a gallon”. Right?

But is this really the case? If I were to see a Chevron for $4.17 and an Arco for $4.03, I actually would hesitate to go to Arco. I’ve actually told people to not go to Arco lately because of the logic I’m about to write here. Let me explain…

It’s really just some simple math. Now, let’s assume that you go fill up your car’s gas tank, which holds about 17 gallons of gas at the prices I’ve listed.

Chevron - $4.17/gallon x 17 gallons = $70.89

Arco - $4.03/gallon x 17 gallons = $68.51

So just looking at this math, it’s pretty clear that you save around $2.38 by filling up your tank. This is pretty good, right? Well, there’s something we’re forgetting. How much mileage you’re going to get out of that tank of gas.

Now, this is where I’m going to claim that “all gas is the same” is false. Something I’ve noticed when I’ve filled up my gas at various places (like Chevron, 76, Shell, Arco, and other places), is that I don’t exactly get the same amount of mileage on that tank of gas. Now you’re going to have to take my word on this for the sake of this argument. At places like Arco, I’ve actually gotten upwards of 60 miles less per tank of gas compared to filling up at places like Chevron or 76. Also, keep in mind that I am driving primarily on the freeways around Seattle to go to soccer games or to head down to UW, not driving around the surface streets. So my mileage on my tank of gas is maximized to its full potential for the most part.

But how does this affect the costs?  On my Camry, getting 60 miles less per tank of gas by filling up at Arco is upwards of two gallons of gas, as I can get around 26-30 miles per gallon on the highway (going to be on the high side of my mileage and to make Arco look a little better). Now, if you do the math… Losing two gallons of gas times the $4.03 per gallon of gas is roughly $8.06 lost because I didn’t get those 60 miles out of my tank. Basically what this means is to meet the potential mileage from Chevron by filling up at Arco, I’d have to spend an additional $8.06 to make up for those 60 miles.

So how does the math look now?

Chevron - $4.17/gallon x 17 gallons = $70.89

Arco - $4.03/gallon x 17 gallons = $68.51 + $8.06 = $76.57

Now this looks a lot different from what we had. Instead of saving $2.38 for a fill-up, I’m actually losing roughly $5.76 per fill-up. And if I have to fill up every two weeks, while the immediate savings of $2.38 is there, the long-term loss doesn’t seem to make it worth going there if I’m going to lose out on $5.76. The loss of two gallons of potential mileage means you have to go to fill-up more often, which in itself is bad since it requires more driving to get to the gas station.

Now, obviously, there’s a point where the tradeoff between the money you save from taking the cheaper gas immediately versus the money you’d lose because the amount of mileage you’d lose due to using the fuel that doesn’t burn as well will be zero. To calculate that, it takes some simple algebra. We know that it costs $70.89 for a tank of gas at Chevron, which has the better efficiency. To make up for those two extra gallons, we know that the cost of it will be 2 x $Y, where Y is the cost of the cheaper gas per gallon. Add in the 17 extra gallons with those two gallons and you get:

$Y x 19 gallons = $70.89

$Y = $70.89 / 19 gallons = $3.72 / gallon

So the price at which the cost to fill up the tank itself at Arco and the money lost due to lost mileage being equal is $3.72… Good luck finding a place like that around Seattle.

Now obviously there’s definitely some flaws to this argument. The case that I’m making about not all gas being the same definitely could be argued. Does each supplier have the same composition of gasoline? It’s definitely possible. Places like Chevron make the claim that their fuel burns more efficiently than others due to certain additives and chemicals, so to have the same composition would be kind of misleading to the consumer public. I also never really investigated this further to make sure that all the suppliers have different compositions to make this actually matter. This only comes from my observation of filling up at the gas station at the various places and keeping track of how much mileage I get from driving on the tank of gas that I filled up at.

Also, one could argue that my numbers are made up. Sure, I don’t have the receipts on me and mileage amounts. It would definitely strengthen my argument for sure, but you can do one of two things, you can either (1) don’t believe me and continue to go to Arco or the cheaper, less efficient places, (2) take my word for it, or (3) test it out yourself.

In times like this though, that amount that you save is pretty significant over time, assuming that not all the gases are the same. If you can save $5.76 per fill-up by going to the more expensive gas station, imagine how much you’d save over a year because of it, especially at these current prices. What it really comes down to is efficiency and the amount of mileage you get out of your tank. If your tank is giving you a lot less mileage, then you’re actually spending more to make up for the amount of miles you’ve lost for taking the cheaper, less efficient gas. So basically, just because it’s cheap doesn’t always mean it’s better.

Try out this experiment. Test it out for yourself and see if this is true for you.

Here’s a great article from ESPN’s Soccernet with regards to a team from Switzerland, FC Basel, and two of the members of the team: One of them being a South Korean, and the other a North Korean. It’s quite an interesting story, as the politics from their countries do have an impact on their footballing careers. Yet, they still can go above that and work together.

I was kinda saddened to read this article. I was hoping to build a Death Star someday. Oh well, at least there’s still hope for a Star Destroyer. (via Kottke)

Found this video from one of my classmates in my department at UW. It’s a cover for the Beatles song “Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da” by MercyMe, as well as a few other groups.

Here’s an interesting story. Could the growing rate of concussions in football (American, not association) result in eventual end of the NFL? ESPN’s Grantland writers tackle the topic. (This isn’t the first time ESPN writers have brought it up.) But it will be something of concern in the years to come as more and more concussions happen, as well as what would happen to cities across the U.S. if the NFL were gone.

I’m not a huge fan of OK Go’s music as I am of some of their music videos. However, this might be one of the most creative music videos I’ve seen. It’s just jaw-dropping what they did. If only they could have played it during half-time and not point people to the video, it could have won a lot more acclaim (or at least I think it could have).

Oh. And if only they used something other than a Chevy…

In the time that Jose Mourinho’s been at Real Madrid, he’s won only once versus Barcelona, that being the Copa del Rey final where they won 1-0 off a Cristiano Ronaldo header. That might not seem bad, except that they’ve eight times now. Three times in the Copa Del Rey, three times in La Liga, and the two legs of the Champions League last season. Now that’s a problem if you’re a Real Madrid supporter. But what is to explain for their struggles against Barca?

I think the easiest one to point out is the poor defending. While they arguably have one of the best goalkeepers in the world, every combination of their back four has been poor. You can argue “They have Sergio Ramos, Carvalho, Marcelo, Coentrao and so many other start players that can play defense. How can it be bad?” The problem that their line has is in actual defending and focusing on the various runs from Barca players.

Here’s a video of the highlights on the latest match in the Copa Del Rey match:

Here’s one example where there’s poor marking. Realize that Alexis himself is a fairly short player. Yet, somehow, he manages to be the one to get a head on the ball versus Coentrao and Ramos. Here’s another example:

The problem is that they’re not tracking Iniesta, who makes the run. They came out lucky to not have had a tied game because of that series of passes. Then comes the two goals:

Here are two prime examples of poor defensive play from Real Madrid. What’s interesting is that both of the scores are coming from defenders. The first goal, Puyol gets the goal somehow while Pepe is a complete spectator to the run. In the second, Abidal runs into open space and toe pokes the ball into the goal. More so, the fact that Barcelona had been putting balls over the Madrid back four more often than usual (remember that Barca is a considerably shorter than the average side) should have been a clear warning to mark after runs by various midfielders and defenders. They saw the flaw in the lack of marking from the midfield and defense and exposed it easily.

But then how did Mourinho do it with his squad in Inter, when they won the aggregate against Barca? Simply put, they had a better defense. Walter Samuel, Lucio, Zanetti, and Maicon are better defenders when they need to be. They lack the pace and athleticism that Madrid’s defenders have, but they have a considerable amount more discipline. This itself changes the entire gameplan for Inter, compared to Real Madrid’s.

Because of the weaker defense in Madrid, Mourinho has to compensate for this by readjusting his midfield. If you don’t have confidence in your back four, Barca’s midfield will have a field day with you and beat you with through balls and intricate passing drills to get around your defense. So, to make up for it, you put in more holding or disruptive midfielders to stop their midfield, rather than have productive playmakers to assist and score goals. That is why it’s been so common for Mourinho to start sides of Alonso, Diarra, and Pepe (who’s usually a central defender) in the central midfield to try to interrupt Barca’s passing play.

This leads to something not talked about as often: attacking Barca’s defense. One of the things about Barcelona’s play is that they’re just as susceptible in the back. With Alves running forward, sometimes, he doesn’t track back and that leaves Puyol, Pique and Abidal to defend. But for Real Madrid, they’re typically only attacking with two or three players. Even with Ronaldo on your side, if Barcelona has all four back, it’s still going to be a challenge to get through and score a goal with only one or two other players with you. There’s two clear ways to beat the Barca defense:

1. Play the aerial game and try to head in a goal.
2. Send in more attacking players.

Given that Barcelona’s team is shorter, the first option seems very logical. If you have a clear height advantage over them, use it. Pique, Puyol and Busquets are typically their best aerial defenders, with possibly Abidal on that list as well. But beyond that, their midfield is pretty undersized. Madrid needs to take advantage of this more. They did for much of the second half with a few key chances by Benzema, but he failed to capitalize on this.

The other option might be a little tougher for Madrid. Let’s go back to the game in which Inter won 3-1 versus Barcelona in the San Siro (pardon the French commentary):

In each of the goals scored by Inter Milan, there were usually four or five players in attacking positions or making attacking movements, one of which included Maicon, one of their wingbacks. Because of the steady defense that Inter has, it allows them to run with a more attacking midfield. Usually, they’d send in Sneijder or Motta to go forward with Cambiasso holding in front of the back four. As a result, it keeps the Barcelona defense honest.

As you watch games by Real Madrid, keep an eye out on how many players they have coming forward. Usually, it’s not enough to pressure the Barca defense, and as a result, they can remain comfortable and easily get out of the situation and restore the momentum back in their favor. But, if they can find a way to get more players forward, they may have a shot at beating Barcelona. Until then, players like Ronaldo have to remain patient and not get frustrated because all he’ll get in terms of support will be Higuain and Benzema.

So long story short, how do you fix this Real Madrid team to beat Barcelona? Fix the defense. Make it stronger and more disciplined. This will free up your midfield to allow for more attacking players and force Barcelona to have make good defensive stands. Use this knowledge with the ability to win and score goals in the air, and you have the equation to beating Barcelona.

EDIT – One other thing that I failed to mention was the possibility of using one of Barca’s own tactics against them: pressing. Mourinho has used it several times to good effect. But the side effect of it is fatigue on the players. Because Barcelona’s ability to make mistakes in their own third of the field is so uncommon, the players will typically have to chase for long periods of time. And as a result, that will tire them out quickly and will play into Barcelona’s hands. One goal was scored as a result of an error from Valdes, but other than that, they’ve been mistake free in the back. So while it may be effective in disrupting their game, it doesn’t provide as many opportunities to score and one would hope. It’s the question of figuring out the risk and reward for getting a goal off Barcelona’s errors passing in the back versus potential fatigue later in the game.

So it’s 2012 now. And we all have our new year’s resolutions. Work out more, eat healthy, be on Facebook less. It’s all stuff we want to improve on… Or at least say we’re trying to do. But how about trying different endeavors… Like programming? Codecademy has a concept that surely will interest some people. And it’s worth trying, whether you’re a nerd or not.

A friend sent me a link to this new programming course called Code Year. Basically, it’s a one lesson a week course that started earlier this week. It teaches people how to program in JavaScript. And if you’re curious, it’s actually a useful programming language… You’ve probably used it while surfing the web. In any case, you get a lesson plan that teaches you some basics and you follow that up with a little “challenge” or application to what you’ve learned.

I decided to try it out myself since I’ve always wanted to learn JavaScript (but just been too lazy to actually buy a book and read up on it or ask my buddy Benji to borrow one of his books). One of the first things that stood out is that it starts users with a console instead of just an empty area to write a block of code. This allows you to see immediate results from what you’ve coded. It also makes finding errors a breeze. Try finding an error in a block of code as a beginner, to only find out you were simply missing a semicolon.

In any case, the early lesson plans are suited for the beginner. So for those with programming backgrounds, it’ll be somewhat boring and quick to complete. You go through the basics of what a programming language is capable of doing and then proceed to learn the syntax and other capabilities of the language. Afterwards, you get the opportunity to apply what you’ve learned through writing your own first application (and thus facing the arduous task of reading and writing a block of code). However, it’s worthwhile and pretty fun to complete.

Code Year definitely opens up an avenue for many people who haven’t even considered with free programming lessons for the masses. But it also opens up even more than just the ability to program. Farhad Manjoo of Slate.com wrote this in his article of Code Year:

But knowing how to code will improve your life even if you don’t ever program anything useful. I learned the Basic programming language when I was a kid, and then I sharpened my programming skills in high school and college. I am by no means an expert programmer, and I rarely take up coding in my job, but I learned enough to alter the way I approach problems. And that’s the most interesting thing about taking up programming: It teaches you to think algorithmically. When faced with a new challenge—whether at work or around the house—I find myself breaking down the problem into smaller, discrete tasks that can be accomplished by simple, repeatable processes.

I think he is accurate on this. I know when I took programming classes in high school, it made me think more “algorithmically”, that is, looking at a problem logically and attempting to solve it in a specific way. In essence, it helps improve our ability to approach problems that we might encounter, whether around the house to a specific task on the job. It makes us think differently about how we see those problems. I don’t just go about things in a guess-and-check methodology these days. It’s analyze the situation and work through it step by step. It also improves your efficiency as well, which is crucial in a day and age where you can’t be wasteful with your time.

Overall, Code Year definitely provides an opportunity to learn to code and does a good job of it for the person that has never touched programming in his or her life. Code Year won’t make you an expert programmer and get you a job at Google after finishing it by the end of the series (though that would be awesome). But it does allow you to think differently and enables people to learn how to program. For some people, they might find their calling and actually enjoy programming. From there, learn Python, Java, C#. Then you potentially get a job at a huge company like Microsoft or Google. Who knows? Anything’s possible right?

I’d hate Tom Brady too if I were this kid. Kinda. Maybe. Not really (since (1) I’m not a Philly fan and (2) Steelers beat the Patriots earlier this year).