Better than Pro-V1*?

With many of the major golf retailers having sales on golf balls, I took the pleasure in trying out a new brand and model recently. I finally got to play it Sunday at the Wilds in Prior Lake.

The ball I tried is the Bridgestone B330-S. I've been pretty loyal to the Titleist Pro-V1* over the years, but am always willing to try new ones. I like the Callaway Tour i and Tour i-x line, among others, but always seem to go back to the Pro-V1*.

I may, however, stick with the B330-S for a while. I had a nice round going with my Pro-V1*, but after back-to-back doubles on 14 and 15 (two of the three most poorly designed holes on the course, IMHO), I found my nice round turning into an average round.

So I pulled out the B330-S on the drive-able par four 16th, drove the greenside bunker left of the green, and got up and down for bird. On the par five 17th, I hit what should have been a dreadful, low, snap-hook OB, but the ball didn't hook nearly as much as I was expecting after I hit it. I was able to lay up on my second shot, knock a wedge to the green, and two-putt for par.

On the tough finishing par four 18th, a flushed a 3-wood about 290 (slightly aided by a soft breeze), and knocked a wedge to ten feet, which I made to complete the round birdie-par-birdie, and finish with a nice 77.

What I loved about the ball, as evidenced on all three holes, was the lack of spin on the driver and 3-wood (for example, the 290-yard 3-wood was probably only about 250 yards of carry). The wedges I hit with it felt wonderfully soft, and they grabbed the greens perfectly. Further, unlike with the brand-new Pro-V1* on the very first hole, the grooves on the wedges didn't mutilate the cover.

This ball is designed exactly for my game. On the Bridgestone site, it says it is for swing speeds between 103 and 115 mph. The Pro-V1*, on the other hand, may actually be better suited for longer hitters than I normally am, and I've found the regular Pro-V1 to spin too much for my taste. My average driver swing is 105-110, depending on the wind. ("When it's breezy, swing easy.")

(I top out at 120 when I really go for it, but that's about once every four rounds; 125 on the range is the absolute best I can do, but I look awfully silly doing it.)

I recommend going to the site and trying their online ball-fitting resource. I give a huge thumbs up for this ball, but of course, like the guy who is batting .500 after 72 at-bats, it's too early to get too excited. I'll keep you updated.

Give Me One Large Enough, and I Can Move the World

We white collar types who sit in too many meetings each day all have our pet peeves, but I am really beginning to hate the word "leverage," particularly when used as a verb.

Leverage as a business term is fine as a metaphorical noun. Usually. If you are utilizing something as a tool with which to gain leverage, i.e., multiply your power/ability to perform a task, it works just fine to say you've gained leverage.

Leverage should not be used as a word to simply replace the word "use." Or should I say, it should not be leveraged to simply replace the word "use."

"Let's leverage that spreadsheet to improve the process." Uggh.

I guess I should be thankful I have a job that pays me relatively well, and allows me to use such language, excuse me, leverage such language, without having to actually add any intellect to my intelligence-based (allegedly) job.

I think I'll call a meeting to brainstorm around this a little more.

More Mauer Thoughts

With Joe Mauer's average down to .384 (before going 1-for-2 so far tonight), I am compelled to note an observation or two.

Part of the reason he is "slumping" is that he has lost just over 1% of his strength since he came off the DL.

How do I figure?

Consider tonight he hit a double off the top of the wall in left. A month ago, that ball lands in the second row. Of course, that helped his average, but last night he flew out to that same wall. A month ago, that ball lands in row one.

We're talking about as little as a four-foot difference in power. Those four feet cost him two home runs in as many nights. That's just a little over 1% on a 370-foot-or-so fly ball.

Some wise physics guy might correct my math, and calculate the actual percentage of strength necessary to equate 1% in distance. But you get the idea.

Some wise guy might also suggest that maybe he just didn't "get" those two pitches. I dunno...I have seen him fly out deep to the opposite field quite a bit lately. I can't help but wonder how many more home runs or doubles he would have had he not lost that 1%.

(Right now, Mauer just singled to left, and is 2-for-3 on the night.)

I look at it as more evidence Mauer doesn't use steroids (not that I needed any). More than just helping build muscle, steroids help maintain it by eliminating the effects of "over-training." Mauer got stronger while resting from his injuries. Now that he is playing and traveling long and odd hours (cutting into vital sleep, no doubt), he is likely losing some of that strength.

Twins' TV commentator Roy Smalley had a nice-sounding theory about Mauer's early-season power surge, which was basically that sometimes good hitters just "find their swing" that turns deep flies into home runs, almost subconsciously, without even trying. I like my theory better.

One thing's for sure, and I noticed this when I saw him fly out deep to left twice against Boston at the dome earlier this year: if Mauer were ever to play for the Bosox while still in his prime, he'd be a surefire .400 hitter. All three of the fly outs I've mentioned tonight (plus the double), and many others I've seen this year, would have at least clanked off the Big Green Monster, if not cleared it altogether.

OK, maybe not "surefire," because he wouldn't have the advantage of artificial turf-aided singles. It would be interesting to anecdotally tally how many Green Monster hits Mauer loses in the dome, vs. hits gained from the turf.

Let's hope that deal never happens, though. Boston has taken many of our pro sports heroes; but Mauer was home-grown, so I don't think it will.

(Update: Of course, a half hour later, Mauer just hit one in the third row to left field. I stubbornly contend that would have been row five a month or two ago. At least I've anti-jinxed him now. (But re-jinxed him with that comment.))

Does Grandma Have Caller ID?

I just saw a story on the news about a young woman facing felony charges for alleged prank calls she made to her grandmother. Forty-five of them.

"We were bored one night," she said, and at the time thought it would be fun. Things like death threats...yeah, a real hoot.

I did something similar, once. Something the neighbor kids remembered for years, and every time people hear the story, they laugh like it's the most hilarious thing they ever heard. There are many to this day who remember me pretty much only for being the kid who did this.

I egged my own house.

(Let's pause a bit while you clean up the Coke Zero off your monitor.)

Now, to be fair to myself, I was about six I suppose, and didn't quite understand what it meant to egg a house, nor the difficulty in cleaning up the mess. Some random person had done it, and I thought it would be funny.

What's not funny about breaking eggs for reasons other than cooking or baking? Don't you crack a smile just thinking about Ralph Macchio taking an egg to the face as he danced with Elisabeth Shue in "The Karate Kid?"

I'm sure my dad wasn't too proud of me, but unlike phone-prank lady, I learned my lesson young. And it was only one egg.