Click here if you’re unable to view the photo gallery on your mobile device.OAKLAND — Left-hander Sean Manaea, in just his second start after a year on the shelf following shoulder surgery, struck out 10 batters and allowed just one run in seven innings Sunday as the A’s beat the Detroit Tigers 3-1 in front of 24,550 at the Oakland Coliseum.Manaea didn’t allow a hit through five innings before Christin Stewart homered on a 3-2 pitch to open the sixth. Manaea allowed just two hits, equaling …
This article is only available to GBA Prime Members UPDATED on August 22, 2017 with a new author’s postscript.Longtime readers of GBA know that I get frustrated by exaggerated energy savings claims. A glaring example is the statement that “a Passive House building uses 90% less energy than a conventional building.” A variation on this claim: “A Passive House building uses 90% less energy than a code-minimum building.”It doesn’t, of course. The oft-repeated falsehood is based on a boast made by Wolfgang Feist in the 1990s. Back then, Feist claimed that a new Passivhaus residence needed 90% less energy for space heating than a “conventional” residence in Germany. (It’s important to remember that space heating energy is just one small part of the energy-use pie.) The “conventional” residence that Feist was talking about was an average German home, not a new house meeting modern code standards. (Many German homes are decades, or even centuries, old.)These days, Dr. Feist and the Passivhaus Institut are usually more careful in their statements than many of their enthusiastic followers. That said, it’s easy to find a Passivhaus Institut document online that includes the boast, without any qualifications about space heating or the age of the housing stock that is used for comparison. Here are two sentences from a Passivhaus Institut press release published in December 2015: “Feist built the world’s first Passive House almost 25 years ago. Still today, this terraced house in Darmstadt (Germany) consumes about 90 percent less energy than conventional buildings.”As I said, it doesn’t. Let’s peel the onion and figure out why.Let’s say that a young couple has money in the bank and wants to build a new energy-efficient home. The couple is weighing the added cost of meeting the Passive House standard (either the European standard or the new PHIUS climate-specific standards).This… Sign up for a free trial and get instant access to this article as well as GBA’s complete library of premium articles and construction details. Start Free Trial Already a member? Log in
Here are a few different ways the GorillaPod can help you capture those elusive shots when nothing else at hand seems to work.Top image via Cinecom.net.The GorillaPod has been around for a few years, and it has risen in popularity thanks to big-time vloggers like Casey Neistat working with the tripod on a daily basis. This piece of equipment is cheap, reliable, and extremely versatile for any up-and-coming filmmaker or daily vlogger. Perhaps the best feature about the tripod is its shape-shifting capability.These different ways of using the GorillaPod are great if you have a small DSLR or mirrorless camera setup. I’m sure this might seem obvious, but do not put your giant telephoto on the camera while using this. It will tip over. It will give you a mini heart attack. I do not recommend doing this. 1. Creating a JibObviously, this is not a traditional jib that gives you the freedom to control your camera angle any way you’d like. But what else do you want from a moving shot other than controlled stabilization? Even if you’re only moving about a foot, this move is perfect if you’re ever shooting small products for a corporate client. The movement will give the shot some life in what can be an otherwise boring video. Jordy from Cinecom recommends rolling the camera angle with the last knob closest to the camera, using your thumb.2. Mini SteadicamWhile it might seem counterproductive, flip your GorillaPod upside down, stretch two arms to the side, and hold on to the middle leg. For walking shots, this will provide decent stabilization, with the two legs acting as counterweights to minimize shakiness. Naturally, the footage will be upside down, so flip it right-side up in post-production by using the Rotation tool, and throw on some warp stabilizer (because why not).3. Going Hands FreeFor your POV shots, consider just bending the back leg across your back and let the front legs rest on your chest. This might seem a little precarious, and it is. But just make sure to tuck the back leg into your clothes so it won’t slip out. I wouldn’t recommend running or doing any action-based recording like this. Rather, this is perfect for anybody without access to a GoPro — or if you’re shooting with a big rig and need a quick mirrorless camera shot.4. Wrap It UpThe most effective and practical way to use a GorillaPod is by playing with the legs as they were meant to played with. Wrap them around everything — tree limbs, poles, lamps, anything! You can now get those weird Breaking Bad–type shots up in the rafters or on the side of your car. The best part about owning a GorillaPod is playing around with it because you never know what type of shot you can get. In the Cinecom video, Jordy wraps it around a branch, then holds the branch to create a makeshift drone shot.5. Ditch the CameraThe last least obvious way to use your GorillaPod is to not attach your camera to it. You can use the tripod to mount a light or microphone so you can work in a small area with limited access. Alternatively, you could use the device to hold a microphone next to you while you record a tutorial or stream gameplay on Twitch. The possibilities are endless with this wonderful, little device.Here are a few other ways to pull off seemingly impossible camera moves on a tight budget:3 Tips for Using Aerial Footage in Your Video5 Ways to Use a Gimbal to Capture Cinematic FootageLone Operator? Make Your Next Purchase a Motorized SliderMaster the Secrets of Time Lapse Video
Get the Free eBook! Want to master cold calling? Download my free eBook! Many would have you believe that cold calling is dead, but the successful have no fear of the phone; they use it to outproduce their competitors. Download Now When I started back in the family staffing business, my sales manager gave me a list of companies I was forbidden from calling. She and her sales reps were worried about one of the owner’s sons being given preferential treatment, and they wanted to protect their turf.Honestly, they didn’t have a firm grasp on how a family business works. In most family businesses you are expected to do more than anyone else, whether or not it is “your job,” and regardless of what you are paid—or not paid. That is exactly the preferential treatment I was given, and I never expected anything different.The list they handed me had all of the most well-recognized companies in and around Columbus, Ohio. You would still recognize many of these names. They cherry-picked what they believed to be the biggest and best prospects, and they walled them off from me. At the time, I didn’t think anything of it.Not being able to call on what everyone else was calling on forced me to call on companies with names no one would know. The Internet wasn’t what it is now, and I dialed through the business pages of the phone book. I literally started at the letter A, and I dialed number after number, unless it was clear that we couldn’t serve them. I skipped churches, auto repair shops, and day care centers.I got a lot of appointments. When I got to M, I found a company called Murfin. Murfin was tucked away on the middle of a road that had a gas station at one end and apartment complexes on the other. Because the building was surrounded by residential areas, you would never suspect a plant to be located deep in the neighborhood.The small building that housed the business was no indication of what they spent. They were spending millions of dollars on temporary employees. No one would ever happen upon this client by chance. I won their business because I was ridiculously disciplined about cold calling.On the way out of Murfin, I noticed another building across the street. I wrote down the name, Weathersfield, and upon arriving back at my office, I called them and scheduled an appointment. Weathersfield was spending a couple million dollars when I won their business. Two hidden companies resulted in millions of dollars in business.These two companies became anchor accounts for our office. I would not have found them had I not called companies without knowing whether they used a service like mine. I turned over a lot of rocks to find these accounts, because a lot of prospecting is simply turning over rocks to see what lies beneath.You should have a list of known targets. You should have another list of your dream clients. But you should also turn over rocks to see if there is anything there. You never know what you’ll find.Maybe right now you should call all of the leads that you haven’t yet tried.
Geje Eustaquio thinks he won 3rd fight vs Adriano Moraes And then, after returning to the court, Osaka turned it all around just as quickly as she had dropped 23 of 27 points. Refocusing and reasserting herself, Osaka edged Petra Kvitova 7-6 (2), 5-7, 6-4 on Saturday night to win the Australian Open for a second consecutive Grand Slam title.“I felt like I didn’t want to have any regrets,” Osaka said. “I think if I didn’t regroup after the second set, then I would have looked back on this match and probably cried or something.”FEATURED STORIESSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSUrgent reply from Philippine football chiefSPORTSWin or don’t eat: the Philippines’ poverty-driven, world-beating pool starsOn top of that, Osaka will rise to No. 1 in the rankings.“Amazing achievement,” two-time Wimbledon champion Kvitova said. “Definitely she is a great one. We’ll see what the future will bring.” LATEST STORIES Lacson backs proposal to elect president and vice president in tandem Oil plant explodes in Pampanga town That allowed Kvitova to come back and make a match of it, reeling off five games in a row to take the second set and go up 1-0 in the third.At that point, Kvitova would say later, she figured it was going to keep going her way.“In the end,” she said, “it wasn’t.”After Kvitova double-faulted to offer up a break point at 1-all, Osaka converted it with a cross-court backhand winner. There was still more work to be done, of course, and some additional drama when it began raining at the changeover right before Osaka tried to serve for the match at 5-4 in the third set.This time, Osaka would not falter. She would not let this lead disappear.“I knew that Petra couldn’t keep it up for that long if Naomi could just manage those emotions,” said Osaka’s coach, Sascha Bajin, “and she did that beautifully.”Osaka was born in Japan — her mother is Japanese, her father is Haitian — and she moved to New York at age 3. Now she’s based in Florida and has dual citizenship. Osaka already was the first player representing Japan — female or male — to win a Grand Slam singles title. Now she also is the first to top the WTA or ATP rankings.At 21, Osaka is the youngest No. 1 in nearly a decade; Caroline Wozniacki was 20 when she first ascended to that spot in 2010.And to think, a year ago, Osaka was ranked 72nd.What a climb. What a quick climb. PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games PLAY LIST 02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games02:11Trump awards medals to Jon Voight, Alison Krauss Kvitova was playing in her first Grand Slam final since winning Wimbledon in 2014 — and the first since she was stabbed in the hand by an intruder at her home in the Czech Republic a little more than two years ago.Kvitova needed surgery, missed the first 4½ months of the 2017 season, including the Australian Open, and couldn’t be sure she’d ever get back to the top of tennis.“You’ve been through so much,” Osaka told Kvitova during the trophy ceremony. “I’m really honored to have played you in the final of a Grand Slam.”On a somewhat cloudy, rather comfortable evening, with only a slight breeze and the temperature around 75 degrees (25 Celsius), both women hit the ball as hard as can be. Exchanges were mostly at the baseline and filled with flat, powerful groundstrokes that barely cleared the net and made retrieving and replying as much about reflexes as anything.Here’s one measure of how even it was: Each finished with 33 winners.Points were swift and blunt; of 86 in the first set, only four lasted nine strokes or more. There was plenty of strong serving, clean hitting and good movement.It was Osaka who was the first to get ahead, tearing through the tiebreaker by grabbing five points in a row — four via winners — to go up 5-1. When Kvitova sailed a backhand wide moments later, ceding a set for the first time all tournament, Osaka pumped her fist and screamed, “Come on!”How pivotal was that moment? Kvitova had won her last 22 Grand Slam matches after winning the first set. Osaka, meanwhile, entered the day having won 59 matches anywhere after going up by a set.When Osaka broke to lead 3-2 in the second set, and then got to 5-3, the outcome seemed to be a foregone conclusion. Turned out, that wasn’t the case. Not at all.All that really matters, of course, is that Osaka righted herself in time to win. “It didn’t really take that long,” she said. “I didn’t have a choice.”___Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Naomi Osaka. APMELBOURNE, Australia — So close to victory, Naomi Osaka suddenly was letting the Australian Open final slip away. Three championship points? Gone. A sizable lead? Soon all gone, too.She was playing poorly. She yelled at herself. Slammed a ball. Tugged at her visor’s pink brim. Trudged to the locker room between sets with a towel draped over her head.ADVERTISEMENT Grace Poe files bill to protect govt teachers from malicious accusations Osaka added the Australian Open trophy to the one she collected in a U.S. Open final last September that forever will be remembered for the way runner-up Serena Williams was docked a game after arguing with the chair umpire.Unlike that day, there was no jeering from the confused crowd. No controversy. No chaos. No sharing the spotlight.Clearly marking herself as tennis’ bright new star, Osaka is the first woman to win two major championships in a row since Williams picked up four straight in 2014-15.Almost didn’t happen.Osaka held three match points in the second set at 5-3, love-40 as Kvitova served. But Osaka couldn’t close it out. Instead, she completely lost her way.ADVERTISEMENT ‘We are too hospitable,’ says Sotto amid SEA Games woes US judge bars Trump’s health insurance rule for immigrants SEA Games hosting troubles anger Duterte Private companies step in to help SEA Games hosting MOST READ Oil plant explodes in Pampanga town View comments Don’t miss out on the latest news and information.
The 2014 World Series begins Tuesday night, featuring a pair of unlikely combatants in the 89-win Kansas City Royals and the 88-win San Francisco Giants.How unlikely? The Royals rank as the third-most unexpected pennant winner since 1969 — trailing only the 2008 Tampa Bay Rays and 2006 Detroit Tigers — according to our Weighted Average Loss Total metric. And while the Giants have won a pair of championships in the last five seasons, their cumulative record over the past two seasons has barely cracked .500.The fact that San Francisco and Kansas City combined for just 177 regular-season wins this year, the fourth-fewest by any pair of World Series opponents ever, has not been lost on the blogosphere. Amid the usual TV-ratings-fueled hand-wringing over whether baseball is or is not dying (it’s not), the Internet also spent the past several days worrying about whether this is the worst World Series ever (or, alternatively, angrily defending the matchup, or just wondering why we care about the teams’ regular-season records in the first place).For the statistically inclined, it’s an interesting series, if not simply from a philosophical point of view. It’s true that these teams probably aren’t the best two in baseball, and that has led to what Daniel Meyer of Beyond the Box Score called an “existential crisis” for some fans:“What is the point of it all?” and “Why even play 162 games?” are questions being thrown around as we all lament the reality of a World Series without Mike Trout or Clayton Kershaw.But in the same article, Meyer notes that Major League Baseball’s regular season (not even the playoffs, which are almost universally regarded as a crapshoot, but the 162-game regular season) is too short to definitively allow the best team to stand out from the pack. Even if MLB expanded to a schedule of 1,000 games per team (!!), the true best team in baseball would have less than a 54 percent chance of producing the regular season’s best record.Along the same lines, there’s the classic Bill James simulation from the 1980s estimating that the best team in baseball only wins the World Series a little more than 29 percent of the time. And more recent research by Dr. Jesse Frey of Villanova University found that in a typical MLB season we can’t be more than about 40 percent confident in the identity of baseball’s best team anyway.In other words, there’s a lot of ambiguity, from start to finish. While it seems unlikely that a team like the Royals or the Giants could secretly be baseball’s best despite unimpressive regular-season records, we don’t really know for sure — and besides, the playoffs aren’t a scientific experiment designed to conclusively identify baseball’s best team (otherwise, they’d look like this).Embrace the uncertainty, and just enjoy this World Series as a showdown of two good, evenly matched teams. After all, there’s a 100 percent chance this matchup will contain the 2014 MLB champion.
Move over John Wooden, you’re no longer the only college basketball coach with 10 national championships. Connecticut just won its tenth national title, completing a perfect record of 10 NCAA championship appearances and 10 wins.When the tournament started, our March Madness predictions model gave UConn a 74 percent chance of winning the title. That figure went as high as 86 percent before the national championship game against Notre Dame Tuesday night, which the Huskies won 63 to 53.We were initially shocked by UConn’s projected success, enough to make us go back and adjust our model, which gave St. Francis College a mere 1 in 2.5 million chance of beating the Huskies in the first round. But as the tournament progressed, we continued to watch closely and research UConn’s stats, and came to understand just how dominant this team really was.Emergency Hot Takedown Podcast: UConn’s Dominance and Auriemma vs. Wooden More: Apple Podcasts | ESPN App | RSS | Embed In the average regular-season UConn game, the Huskies were winning by 25 points at halftime, and they were ahead at the half by an average of 18 points in the tournament. Tuesday’s championship game was a little different: UConn was held to an 8-point lead at the half, thanks to Notre Dame’s strong offensive and defensive rebounding, 10 and 14, compared to UConn’s 8 and 11.But even Notre Dame’s strongest showing was no match for the best offense in the country — Moriah Jefferson and Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis scored 15 apiece Tuesday. Nor could the Irish get through the best defense in the country, led by forward and now three-time Most Outstanding Player award-winner Breanna Stewart, who had 15 rebounds in the game.Perhaps more importantly, we knew going into Tuesday’s game that UConn was twice as good as Notre Dame. Their matchup was still the best rivalry in women’s college basketball — but it’s hard to call it much of a rivalry when the Irish’s chances of upsetting UConn were 14 percent.Here’s a look back at our model’s predictions for the Huskies, which never fell below 74 percent at any point in the tournament:Round of 64: 74 percent chance to win the championship.Round of 32: 76 percent.Sweet 16: 77 percent.Elite Eight: 82 percent.Final Four: 79 percent.Finals: 86 percent.Tuesday night, 10:30 p.m.: 100 percent. By Allison McCann Embed Code