Whenever you're in the thick of major season, you're going to have a couple clunker fields in there because guys need to take some time off or travel for rest between majors, and it's going to happen. Happens to be this week where we have the clunker field of all clunker fields to the John Deere Classic at TPC Deere Run, and that can make things tough because it's a lot of guys who we may not typically use in DFS, but it also presents an edge. You are diving deep into these guys, identified golfers who stand out, who can be good in a lesser field, and I think that that's pretty fun. So it may not be the best field, but it's still the same prize pool, still the same amount of money, that money spends the same. So let's dive on in and get you set for the John Deere Classic this week. Welcome on into the Heat Check Fantasy podcast powered by Numberfire. That's right here on the FanDuel Podcast Network and Numberfire.com. My name is Jim Sonnis. I am a senior writer and analyst for Numberfire.com. Joined here as always by Brandon Gedula. He is the senior managing editor of Numberfire.com. And Brandon, I'm surprised you let me be on the show today because I feel like as I am our narrative research intern for the podcast, that is me, I overlooked the Xander Shafle one year wedding anniversary narrative this past week. We were high on him. He was a player pick for me. He was my win pick. We were high on him. But I feel like I should have been higher than I was because I overlooked this. So why are you still letting me on the podcast this week? Well, I feel like a wedding anniversary is one of those sort of things that people make. Oh, it's a wedding anniversary. So he's not going to play well. I think for some people they would say that, but for Xander. Trust the numbers. Trust the numbers. Look in the analytics. Why do you hate science people? I, obviously, done research on this. And an anniversary is actually a better narrative than a wedding narrative because there's less pressure around it. There is less stress. So the anniversary bump from a true strokes perspective per round, it's a bigger bump than you get for other ones. So I feel like I let us down last week. Yeah. I mean, if we're comparing the John Deere classic to a major, I think we can do that with like an anniversary. It's like the John Deere classic and the wedding is like a major with all that prep and all that stress. Yeah. Yeah. Well, like, but a major is the best players come to shine. So like, I don't know. I think we might have gotten a little bit lost there. With the wedding? Yeah. No, no, like, like the, the, the, the, the, the preparation it takes to like prep for a major way more than you. Sorry. So it goes hard for your anniversaries, bro. Sorry that you're slacking bad husband over here. Anyway, I apologize. Didn't you just say there was less, less stress for an anniversary than for a wedding? Don't use my words against me. Don't use no words against me. Okay. I promise to never make the same mistake again and overlook important narratives such as one year wedding anniversaries. And hopefully we can find some good narratives. Speaking of which brand, we got a homecoming narrative. Yeah, I played this week that I'll let you know about later on. It's going to be a lot of fun. This week, they are a TPC Deere run. It is the John Deere classic. We're going to break down what that homecoming narrative is and much more in just a second. But first, a quick reminder to make sure you are subscribed to the number fire daily fantasy podcast feed wherever you get your podcast. We of course have this PGA podcast every week, but also MLB DFS podcast every weekday, USC and NASCAR podcast each week as well. So search for the number fire daily fantasy podcast feed wherever you get your podcast, hit subscribe and you like what you hear. Leave us a rating and review as well. So this week's PGA Eagle contest on Fandall is just a $7 entry fee. With that, you're getting a shot at $100,000 in total prizes, including 20K to first place. More than 23% of the field will cash with this one. 150 entries max to get yourself enter. Go to Fandall.com or download the Fandall fantasy app. Eligibility restrictions apply. This will be a TPC deer run out in Illinois to 10,281 yards or 89 yards in a power 71. There was no event here back in 2020 due to the reshuffling of the schedule due to COVID-19. So course history limited to 2021 2019 and before that as well. The top 65 plus ties will make the cut after the first two rounds. So we do have a lot of course history here, despite the fact didn't have 2020. It does impact individual player stuff, but for the course of the whole, we know what to expect. Brandon, when you dig into the data, what do you see here at TPC deer run? Yeah, so it's pretty average in terms of our length relative to par width, green sizes. It's basically nothing stands out like in terms of things that we really change our opinion on based on, you know, these specific details just pretty run of the mill. So, you know, what do we do from there? Well, the one thing that does stand out is the scoring. The past five cut lines all at least two under past five winners all at least 18 under Michael Kim setting the course record 27 under in there as well. So you need birdies, you're going to need some scoring and anytime we really get low scoring courses. We deemphasize strokes getting around the green a little bit because you're not relying on the wedges to get up and down so much. If you're not hitting greens and having birdie punch, you're probably not relevant. So you can still make the case that around the green play matters. There's going to be a few holes where you do have to get up and down.  If we're being realistic, you know, we talk about this a lot lower the scores go more guys are in contention because it's just these guys can all make birdies on easy holes. It's whenever you stretch it out and make it difficult that they can't make par. That's what really separates. So this week I think we're going to see a lot of names in the mix, a lot of names that we're considering probably feeling a little bit less certain about the names that we do like in general. One thing that does stand out as well is that it's easy to lag put here data golf. They have their course table shows a whole bunch of stats relative to other shot link courses and it's very easy to lag put here. It's kind of easy to put overall. So maybe we get a little bit of a pre for some weaker putters. So for me, what I'm looking at is stroke scan approach is always stroke scan off the tee with an emphasis on driving accuracy. But I think I'm done just sort of making driving accuracy a key stat for me stroke scan putting and birdie or better rate in that order. Yeah, I do have good drives gained is being my off the tee staff for this week. Looking back to last year median ranks and different stats for the top 15 golfers across the entire year. Meeting rank for distance was 101st accuracy 78th so better off the tee 100th and then good drives gain though was good drive rate with 65th. So the best number by a pretty wide margin was good drive rates and that was also true back in 2019. So I want guys who can put it on the ferry when they need to or make up for when they can't and I think that that is what we saw last week too. So if you look at data golf course fit tool, it does show like similar courses and last week's course is actually up there. So there will be a lot of overlap in terms of stats we discussed between last week and this week, which could be good. We were on Xander last week. Half my head to head against you miss the cut those maybe it's not that good but I do think that playing up some short hitters this week maybe advantageous or guys who are not guys who typically can't hang in a longer course maybe better able to hang this week as a result of the way the course sets up. So let's talk about course history now and talk about golfers where shine a TPC deer on in the past starting off with Patrick Rogers. He is 10 is seven, which should tell you a little bit about the field here but Rogers a guy we've talked about before we talked about him as being a focal point at lower salaries. What's your read on him at this course in the past. Yes, I mean he's trending outright I think he could have made that made the list with current form, but in terms of past history it's also there. But I mean he's made six of seven cuts missing a memorial and if you look at the data he's losing around the Greens which I'm okay with but he's gaining a bit with the ball striking. He was 18th at the RBC Canadian Open 31st at the US Open. So that works but of course we're focused more on the past history here and he has been here eight times since 2012 and the past four years three top 30s with a runner up in 2017 loss approach in all of these. He's really sort of turned a corner with his iron play his ball striking in general. So it's a bit of a different golfer but I will say currently, even though the ball striking is better he is really putting kind of like above whatever baseline he might have long term. He's a good putter. He, you know, he sort of has a good short game and that's what's lifted him for a long time and now he's adding the ball striking but I am a little bit concerned because the putting is super good right now. But any thoughts for you on Rodgers at 10-7 because I think in a vacuum if he was maybe 9-7 we'd say yeah perfect but this is a very different setup this week and while Rodgers might have an edge above the other golfers let's say like 9-7 10-2 like those guys. Is he worth that much of our salary for this week is he that safe what are your thoughts here. Well I think the key is, can I get what he gets elsewhere in that range without doing some of the downsides and I think the answer is yes. Rodgers not a huge birdie maker. You mentioned the approach is getting better but it's still not like elite and the putting is good. I can check a lot of those same boxes while getting bigger birdie makers in the same range like Charlottesville the third, you know, pretty enticing in that same range. Neely is first in the field and birdies are better gained and he's right around that it's a little bit higher but like I'm going to pay that for him. So Rodgers gets a boost due to the field. But I think that we shouldn't just assume that nobody in that second tier can hang and everyone there is scrubs I think that'd be a false assumption. It's not a good like not good relative to what usually get in this range but I still think there are better guys there I'd rather use. So I can get what Rodgers gives me elsewhere without dealing with some of his downsides and I think I'd rather go that route in that salary tier for this week personally. Yeah, so over the past three months, according to DataGolf, they have a ninth in true strokes gained off the T, 37th in approach, which is solid but 12th in putting. For me, if I'm really looking at this tier, I prefer Scott Stallings for $100 cheaper in salary, Adam Long, even in that conversation at 10-5. So, you know, this isn't so much against Rodgers as it is more a broad conversation of like, you know, yes, he is salaried where he should be relative to this field but he's not your typical 10-7 golfer because this feels weak sometimes when we get fields like this, a little bit more balance makes sense because there is not really anyone worth spending up on. I'm not saying that's the case this week but you kind of have to ask yourself those questions when the field is this drastically different than what we've been seeing in recent weeks. I do think the flip side of that though is there's no difference between the low 9000s and the mid 8000s. And we'll talk about that later on but I think that's one thing to consider here as well because I don't see a difference between most of the guys in the low 9000s. Yeah, you got to figure out which one it is you're seeing. Is it worth 11-5 for Sikith Thigala? Like is he an 11-5 golfer or do you want to just sort of pepper that mid-range? Because there really aren't any, you know last week we had so many names we had FOMO on that we thought could win. You know that leaderboard by the end of it was Zander and a bunch of sort of values but Zander did win and that was very, very crucial. This week there's really not anyone who were saying you got to allocate 11-7, 11-5, something like that unless you think that there is. Talk about him later. He's 91, we'll talk about him later. That's not the same thing. No, it is, it is. He should be 12-1. Anyway, let's talk about Lucas Glover who we've not discussed in the show. Despite being a heat check favorite in like a decade it seems like but he is a defending champion at this event. Glover won it mostly by beasting on approach. He gained 7.1 there. He did gain in all four strokes game categories but like the approach was phenomenal. Glover was also 10th the year before that or two years before that I guess in 2019. He gained 7.2 on approach there. Glover's had good approach play for the most part recently too. He gained 7 at both the PGA championship and the players but the short game is never good for Lucas Glover but it's a nightmare right now. Like real bad. He's lost strokes putting in 10 of his past 12 measured events. He has lost around the green and 5 straight. So we want to play up approach. We want to focus on that. You know, we're trying to find guys who we can downplay around the green because you're not gaining strokes there anyway but we don't want guys who tank their entire rounds by losing around the green and Glover's been kind of doing that recently. So is the short game bad enough to push Glover out of consideration for you at 9-9? At what? 9-9. Sorry. I bet. I dropped the ball there. You're right. So he rates out as the best long term ball striker in this field which isn't that surprising relative to this field but 13th percentile adjusted short game for me which you don't really want to see and a big part of that is, you know, I can at least, I can look at like the expected putting for him and he is losing 0.55 shots putting per round. He should be a little bit better but still losing 0.44 because his splits from within 15 feet not good. Now the counterpoint is again these greens are easy to put on and that's likely what led to his win last year but overall I think there are, like you said with Rodgers, we have potential pivots at similar salaries. I like Christian Bazadenhout. If I'm really going to take a chance on a potentially good ball striker, Cameron Champ can definitely go low because his putter is quite good. Not accurate but long so I'm kind of interested in Cam Champ if I'm going to pivot away from Lucas Glover. Martin Laird as well might as well just take a $200 salary savings and play Martin Laird who's just as good with the ball striking and is actually best in overall C degree because the wedge play is not terrible. So I think I'd probably go Laird over Glover straight up. I think that this is where it's important to filter in total strokes game numbers because it helps account for the bad short game. I love Lover's ball striking but if you look at his total, his true strokes game of data golf, he's not grading out well relative to salary there. He's not a bad, bad, bad value but like you said you can find other guys who are going to grade out better and I think it's important to filter everything in. So it's kind of, I think in this field it's a play the best plays, play the best golfers kind of mindset for me and I want the best all around golfers and when you factor in the short game for Glover, I don't think he's going to be that in this tier. So I don't like, I wouldn't say like no, never because like the putting angle you discuss could wind up helping him quite a bit but I would bet I probably don't wind up on him personally. Not going to like talk out of him but like I don't think he's, I love Glover in general but like he's not the kind of guy I want to go to towards this week just because the short game has been hideous, hideous, hideous, hideous recently. So let's talk about kind of like the, you know, I know Glover won last year but like the poster boy for like, hey, it's TPC dear run, we go to Zach Johnson like that's kind of like the thing here and the homecoming narrative is not ZJ despite the fact this is right by Iowa. It is not him but Zach Johnson does get that kind of bump for this week at 88 and always plays well here no matter how bad his form may be. So what are we doing within this week? Yeah, I mean, it's a good conversation to have at a salary of 8800 because again, you can look at this field one of two ways and I think there's really no way to, like there's really no in between. It's, and I think a lot of it stems from whether you think Webb Simpson, Adam Hadwin, Zihi Figala, maybe like Matt McNeely are sort of can't miss, can't fade types of talents in this field which I like them, I don't think that there can't miss so you know, is it a little bit more balanced or does 8800 go a long way toward getting you an extra stud in that lineup. And so Zach Johnson doesn't really seem to matter how old he gets he plays the TPC dear run well. He could win four other top five since 2012 here in his past two starts to top 40s so could sort of if you pencil in a top 40 at 8800 are you ecstatic. Not quite are you disappointed probably not. Now the recent form is bad. He's 85th in T degree by data golf over the past six months with which does adjust for field strength. He's being carried by the short game, which is typical for him but it's, he hasn't really been playing that much differently now than he has in recent years whenever he's been able to top 40. There are, you know, you said Zach Johnson the poster boy we have another we have other guys who just play here have played here a lot. Who are out of their prime, but can still contend it a course like this so any thoughts for you on Zach Johnson at 88. And like, I don't think he's going to catch like a lot of steam in terms of roster rate. But I think the way I'm thinking about him for this week is this thing to sound very stupid but I'm thinking about him. The same way we often discuss Derek Henry, in the sense that what are the odds I wound up regretting not using Zach Johnson. You mentioned the top 40 finish. Do I regret not using a guy at 88 who finishes 35th. Can he make me regret not using him, maybe but the odds are not that high. So, I think for me, when I can have that kind of discussion and look at his current form data and see okay it's not ideal. I think that I think that allows me to just ignore him and go with guys with better current form despite the fact the course history is good. So that's where I'm at. Like I kind of have like the Derek Henry will he burn me for not using him discussion and the answer is no. So it's not quite the Derek Henry discussion because, you know, he typically does burn us. But I think that that's kind of the way I'm viewing it with him so no real FOMO with Zach Johnson. Is that kind of where you're at too. Yeah, if I'm going to, if I'm going to be in this range I have other names that I would prefer. Sometimes trusting the guy with good course history definitely can work out but I don't really think that it's the right play this week. I agree. So let's talk about Charles Howell III because this has been a good event for him traditionally and he's one of the few guys entering with pretty okay current form. Howell has played here 10 times. He has missed just one cut. He's been inside the top 25 six times and three of those were pretty recent. He was 23rd here last year, sixth in 2019, 19th in 2017. And coming up 35th that the travelers despite struggling with his approach and that's been a constant theme for him. He ranks 53rd and approached the past 50 rounds, but the other marks are all really good. So any interest for you and Charles Howell III at $10,800. I was scrolling down the list looking for his salary and he was right at the top. So, I mean, it's, it's fine. I understand the case for him. You know, good ball striking right now, not necessarily the best putting but not expecting him to regret. He is good in bank grass. So I see the case for it. I just think for me, I'm going to go with Maverick McNeely or Scott Stallings in that salary range. Do you want a Howell versus Stallings head to head? No, because I never win those and then that means that Stallings will do poorly relative to Howell. Oh, you bet. So yeah, okay. So, but I want this.  Well, I feel good about Stallings. So you're not going to take the head to head? I'm writing it down, Jim. Oh, okay. Cool. Okay. Good. I'm going to bully you into it. Yeah, you did. I usually try not to, but. Oh yeah, sure. I'm fine bullying you in this one instance. Never bullied you in the past. So, you know, throwing that out there. Okay. I think Howell works. I prefer McNeely as well by a pretty decent margin. He's only $300 higher salary than Howell. So it is like a, there is a cost there. But you know, I think that if I'm not on McNeely in a line or something like that, I could be okay going to Howell, but like, I like Howell more than Stallings. I like him more than Long personally. I like him more than Brendan Todd. He's also in this range. I like him more than Rogers. I think that I actually do like Howell relative to this tier of decent amount. So. So we'll talk about Rockshire construction later, I guess. Yes, we will. Let's first go to current form. And Sahitha Gala made some headlines on Sunday. He was pretty close to making it pop and a bit of a heartbreak, but you know, it comes back this weekend playing once again. He's 11 and five. What are you seeing with him recently beyond just that impressive Sunday? Yeah. I mean, he might have been about a foot, six inches, depending like on from winning the travelers. His tee shot rolled up too close to a bunker lip. He tried to make a, I don't know what ultimately he decided. I kind of was a little unclear to me. I think he was going for it. His shot ball stayed in the bunker, which I've never done, especially not in my most recent round, never, never once done that. Nope. But, you know, here we are. Sander was able to get that win. And I mean, but like we're also potentially one or two shots, obviously from the Gala coming in with a win. I think that the perception would be even greater, but it's probably not that dampened because look at the rest of this field at the top. So, you know, we've seen the Gala legitimately contend at the Phoenix open. The travelers, he was fifth at Memorial recently as well. And he has had at least 4.7 strokes gained from approach and two of his past three events. So Memorial and the travelers hasn't missed a cut since the players, which is always forgivable. He very easily has the case to like beat this field because he, you know, put on a good showing in a good field last week. Phoenix is definitely not a weak field either. You know, I talked about not having the fear of missing out on some guys. If there's one golfer who I'm not really on, who I do fear being low on, it's the Gala right now. Any thoughts for you on him for this week? Well, I think the reason you feel that way is because he can have spike weeks. And there aren't a ton of guys in this field who can have like true, true spike weeks where they just go nuts. And he's had those a couple of times recently. And even if you don't count Phoenix, the WM Phoenix open, you don't count that because it was so long ago. Like even recently he's had those spike weeks. So I think that for a cash game, no, I wouldn't go there. I'd rather go with Hadwin above him, McNeely below him, guys like that. But for a tournament, I'd be okay getting exposure and banking on those spike weeks. So I might be a little bit higher on him than you. But I'm not like, he's not a core play for me. He would be like a get 20 to 30% in case he has on the spike weeks because I think that that's like a very realistic scenario. I would not be shocked to be one of this event. So I think that's the way I'd view him is a rotational tournament play versus anything like a core or a cash gameplay. Yeah, I think I'll just fade him. Okay, fair enough. Buzzkill, it's not fun. Let's talk about Adam Hadwin. FOMO, yeah, sure. Hadwin leads the field and true strokes gained across the past 50 rounds or the past six months, I shouldn't say. So you should probably dig in to see if we should be equally high on him as data golf is. A lot of that came at the U.S. Open. Hadwin feasted with the short game there, finished seventh. That goes along with top 10 finish he had the players. Starting with the players, Hadwin has four top 10 finishes across his past nine individual events. He ranks eighth in approach, seventh and birdies are better gained. So he's 11 seven, really just web in terms of odds and salary. I kind of don't hate it though. I actually think it's probably justifiable. And I think I do like him. What are your thoughts on that, Adam Hadwin? Yeah, so there's not one thing that I'm looking for that had when lags in. So the question becomes, you know, is he on web Simpsons level, which we probably need to talk about at some point. I'm sure we can just talk about that in the bookmaker section. But look, Jim, give me a thumbs up for anyone not watching. We have this, we have great chemistry always picking up on, never interrupting each other, never interrupting, never not listening, never, never not repeating things that the other person just said. So, you know, just for all this stuff for sure. But yeah, I mean, with had one podcast of the year winners, you know, yeah, no interruptions. Yeah, so like again, for the fourth time, third time, Hadwin does all the things I'm looking for. I just don't know if he's quite on web's level because I'm, I'm okay buying in to web being healthy again from what I've seen from him. So from a DFS standpoint, I think the 300 is not enough to have had went over web for me. So I'm gonna stick with web, but that's not to say that I dislike had one. I don't think I want to do a head to head bet here, but I consider it. I wouldn't take it even though I like web plenty. I don't, I like had one enough. I would rather have had one over Fegala. Like if that was a head to head you were interested in, but I can tell you're probably not. I agree. I also think that for cash games and Michael had one over web. I think I probably just like having more is kind of, the way I'm viewing it. I think that we'll talk about web later on, but like I think that had one's pretty legit and I feel good about him. So had one to me actually is worth the salary and I feel good about him. Also, if we're talking about like from a betting perspective, I'd rather bet had one at 18 than web at 10. And I think that that can kind of play into DFS as well. So I actually do like had one more than I thought I would enter in the week. So would you give me a web versus had one head to head? No, but I thought about it. I think that it's close. I just don't feel conviction in had one over web. I think they're both pretty good. I just prefer have a nice image, but I think that not quite. And I won't like bait you or pressure you into doing one that you're on the fence about. Intimidate me. Yeah. So let's go from a golfer at 11 seven to talk about a golfer at $7600. It's Bill. Bill Haas. Bill Haas. I don't know the rest of the words because this song is not in English. Anyway, he's $7600. Brandon, what on earth? What are we doing here? Let's talk about Bill Haas. Yeah. So we've been talking around the idea of roster construction and like, okay, maybe we do like web and had one and like McNeely or whoever else. And we're just like, there's no difference between the values. I disagree with like going that heavy with the statement that the values don't matter because honestly, the low 9000 range is pretty appealing to me. But Bill Haas at $7600, you know, if you want to go that route, I think there are much worse weeks to do it in than at the John Deere. But Bill Haas 40 years old has two top 30s in his past two starts. He's made 12 of his past 15 cuts. Yes, the potter is good, but it's also good long term. So it's not necessarily random or fluky. He's coming off approach numbers of plus 4.6 minus 0.3 and minus 0.4. So those aren't phenomenal. The 4.6 is, but you know, neutral irons, good putting. That is not necessarily the worst recipe ever. He would open up a ton of salary. So the question is more about again, roster construction, which, you know, it's it kind of can feel like a little bit of a cop out to say, let roster construction sort of be the talking point this week. But I really think it should be rather than nitpicking between a few guys at the top of the field. I don't really think that that's the right case to be talking about. So are you tempted at all by what you're seeing from Bill Haas recently? It's such a low salary. Jim, Jim says no. No. So right when you started talking about it, my control left on data golf to see what Bill Haas is looking like. And I got down to McGirt right above Bill Haas. And I was like, no, I'm not doing this. So that was my deciding point there. No Bill Haas for me. Although McGirt did just finish eighth last week. So kudos to him. Can't throw shade there. What sample are you talking about? Six months. Yeah, McGirt's got half as many events in there. Yeah, I don't care. It's McGirt. I don't care. I mean, if he is above Haas in no matter what the sample may be, I'm just I'm good. I'm going to go ahead and pass on that one. But roster construction overall, I am receptive to rostering lower salary golfers in order to get more access to mid-range and top end plays. But I'd rather do it via the mid-8000 range. I think that range is really good this week. So and the low 9000 range. So I'm receptive to like a lineup where I have three guys at 10x and higher. I don't know what the x is something 10 something higher and having three golfers at like 94 or 91 or lower with two guys in the mid-8000 range. It's a very volatile approach. And it did not work well for me this past week. Like I said in our bubble hat, but very different field. Yeah. Exactly. So I think that's probably the way I'll go is like my default build this week is three guys in the 10,000 range, three guys at 94, 91 or lower with a couple in the mid-8000 or just because I think that they have good shots at upside this week. So I'm receptive to it just taking a different route to it than going with someone like Bill Haas. Yeah. If I start with my three preferred plays at the top, I'm around 87 and change for my final three golfers. I think that's very doable for this week. I agree. So let's talk about Taylor Pendrith. You said a couple of times that the low 9000 range is attracted to you. And Pendrith is in current form despite not having any current form because he broke a rib at the players and hasn't played since. But he was golfing decently well before that injury. He finished 13th at the players. He was 25th at the Honda before that. Also at the 16th at the farmers. The past 50 rounds, Pendrith ranks 29th and birdies are better games. He is 43rd in good drives games. He's a plus bentgrass putter. But the approach play has never been stellar. We don't know what kind of shape he's in, given that he has now played in a very long time. So any interest in even taking swipes at Pendrith here coming off the injury or are there enough guys we like in this low 9000 range to let the injury play itself out? There are enough alternatives. I have a lot of names highlighted in this range. I don't think I need to take a swipe at Pendrith. I think if he was more of a course fit maybe. Sure. But he's definitely long. I think he's the longest in the field off the tee. Not very accurate. I think that I'd rather go Adam Shank, Lonto Chez in that range. Time to go Adam Shank at a course where accuracy matters. You got to do it. That's the narrative we should be discussing. Is that a narrative? Sure. This broad net. I agree there are guys that like more. So I'm not going to Pendrith either, but thought he was worth discussing coming off the injury at 93. But there are other guys we like and we will talk about some of them in the bloke maker sections. Now, the runaway favorite for this week at Fandall Sportsbook is Webb Simpson. He is 10-1. Then it jumps down to Adam Haddon at 18-1. Jason Day and Cthigala are both 22-1 with Denny McCarthy at 25-1. There is a cluster of golfers at 29-1. Those guys are Maverick McNeely, Scott Stallings, Patrick Rogers, Nick Hardy and Charles Howell III. Brendan Todd rounds with the top group here at 31-1. So we can talk about Webb here. I think that for me, for a cash game, I'd rather save the 300 and go down to Hadwin. What about you for a cash game? Who do you prefer at the top? Webb. Okay. He has been, since the PGA championship when he was T20, he's finished T20, T27, missed the cut at the U.S. Open whenever he gained an approach, lost off the tee and with the putter and then T13 at Travelers. He's gained at least 0.6 strokes per round with data golf's field strength adjustments in approach alone. So he's been a plus with the Irons.  We know that he is a fantastic putter, specifically on basically all surfaces. So if I can get Pete, like not, again, not Pete Web Simpson, but if I can get a flash of like what his upside is, as much as I like Adam Hadwin, it's worth it for me, even in a cash game, to go with Webb over Hadwin. So I'm going to go Webb number one, and I still want to try to get some sort of head-to-head with you, but I understand if you won't take it. Fine, we'll do it, whatever. I bullied you in the other one. So we'll just do it. It's fine. Now Webb's going to like... This is me trying to win the bobble hat by blocking him via the head-to-head. This is good. After Webb and Hadwin, things get very flat. So what does that do for you in terms of Roth's reconstruction for this week?  If you say like... And I think my win simulations are higher on some other ones than I've seen, but I have Webb at 5.9% currently. I always fidget with stuff a little bit more. You know, after the show as I get more time to dig into things. Hadwin at 4.3%. Scott Stallings, 3.4%. McNeely, 3.2%. His rose on Scott Stallings. Is that what that was? I think she's very angry. You liked Scott Stallings. That was a growl. She's done on edge all morning. She had the gulpes earlier. We're doing everything here. But yeah, this is... He's been eating nails or trying to eat nails.  So we're having a time. But those are pretty low numbers. So I think that you just honestly... As much as roster construction is going to matter, popularity should matter too. If anyone's going to get chalky, I don't think anyone will though in this field. That's my thought at least. Outside of maybe Webb? Yeah, Webb is the highest salary and a pretty sizable favorite.  So for me, I think in terms of roster construction, I am trying to make sure that I still have a chance to hit winners with everyone in the field. So someone like Bill Haas might open things up for me. I don't think he's going to win. Zach Johnson probably not going to win. So I'm going to make sure that all six of my golfers have passed the upside in terms of winning. And so that's ultimately what my lineup is going to be based on. Making sure that even my guys in the 8,000 or low 9,000 range, I can envision them. They have the stuff. They have the wind juice for this week. Yeah buddy. Wind juice. Let's do it. I think that the guys in the 8,000 range I like, I can see having upside. So that's why I feel better about them making that my floor. Like $84,000 making that my floor. I think that that's probably where I want to live for the most part. Low 9,000 range, same thing. So I think that giving myself six darts to throw, try to identify a winner. I think that's the way I want to play things this week. So with odds movement, everybody moved once burger with Drew. So were there any moves to you that are more noteworthy than others if you count in the burger withdrawal? Yeah. So I scrapped everything once he withdrew and some stuff was shifted around. I think stallings felt a 41 to one, but things were still moving and moving around. And so I just kind of waited a few minutes for the dust to settle and then re-imported everything. And so after that, didn't see a whole lot of movement, but see he think all I did get back down from 27 to 22 on Fandle Sportsbook. And then a cluster to steal your word, Scott Stallings, Patrick Rogers, Nick Hardy, Charles Howell, all moved from 33 to 29. And that's it aside from two long shots who shifted around a little bit. So obviously not a lot of ton of money coming in for the John Deere Classic for this week. Big shocker there. Which lower salary golfers have had to stand out to you? Yeah. So Steve Stricker. I mean, we want to talk poster boys of the John Deere. Stricker still should fit that. He's 60 to one at 8,900. Mark Hubbard, Charlie Hoffman, both 65 to one at 9,000. Hank LeBiotis, 70 to one at 9,000. And then we have 12 golfers at 80 to one. I can read them all. Yes, I will. Let me know if anyone jumps out to you. Tyler Duncan, Ryan Armour, Chad Raimi, Nick Taylor, Andrew Putnam, Lee Hodges, Zach Johnson, Nate Lachley, Ryan Moore, Kramer Hickok, James Hahn, and Chesson Hadley. Nick Taylor, I don't mind. We'll talk about him later on. Can be okay with that. What are your thoughts on Hubbard at 9,000? I believe I'll talk about him in more detail later. When he said Charlie Hoffman was 65, I was like, oh, cool, we've loved Charlie Hoffman and not carelessly just in past. I didn't realize how bad the form had gotten. So talk myself out of that one. There's no protection out there. He's hitting it off a tufts of grass and stuff. Yeah. Putnam, I don't mind. Not like actively seeking out, but I don't mind him. So I think there's a lot of guys that don't mind. I think for me, the way I want to play things is have my core plays be my higher salary guys this week and then differentiate with the lower salary because there are enough down there I like where I don't feel like I need to lock myself into any one certain guy. But I think that's the way I view things this week. I want to call out Ryan Armour. He's an other for me, but super accurate and got good irons and wedges. He was very close to being a player pick for me. I went with Taylor over him, but he was very close to being in there too. I think they're both good at 86. I think that they're both fine options this week. Winds will be pretty high during the day on Thursday, but they'll be high for everyone. They'll start around 11 miles per hour and then they'll increase starting around 8 a.m. So pretty quick after the first round gets underway, they'll top out. I wrote down at 156 miles per hour. So stack the early tee times. 15 or 16 miles per hour. I think it was 16. I was going to make a windy city joke, but they're not that close to Chicago. It's also not named that because of the wind. I'm aware, but it is windy there. It's actually windy really feel today, Brandon. It's not named that for the wind, but it does have any windy at times. Anyway, 16 mile per hour winds around noon on Thursday. They declined a bit from 3 p.m. on. There's a chance of rain midday on Friday, which will bleed into the afternoon. Winds will start around 10 miles per hour and then decrease as the day goes along, which means that the early tee times Thursday have a wind advantage, but they're also more likely to deal with rain during the day Friday. Interpret that how you wish. I don't know. Great question. Don't know. Figure it out. I'm not sure. Weekend's pretty calm. So there could be advantages for certain tee times, certain waves, but I'm not sure which one will have the edge given that it could rain during Friday. So good luck. Godspeed. Figure it out. Let's dive into our player picks here with a John Deere classic starting off with the upper tier. Brandon, who are you targeting on FanDuel for this week? I'm going to go with Webb. I know the salary is highest, but we have plenty of value place to get to to Webb Simpson this week. He's just the best golfer in the field. I know that that's why he's such a heavy favorite. He was 12 to one with Daniel Berger when they were both in the field. But that, you know, that said, like, I think that there's realistic path to Webb still having high end upside three top 30s in his past. Four starts at some pretty sizable fields, including the PGA, you know, travelers. And he's doing it with good iron play. We also know that he is accurate off the tee struggled with that at the US Open, lost strokes off the tee, lost accuracy. But when he's able to hit fairways, he can hit his irons. He can put well. I kind of don't feel like there's any reason to be worried about Webb. If he's put together this string since the start of May in terms of getting back to full health. So I'm great with Webb. And as much as I think Hadwin's sort of on that tier, I do have like a half tier break between the two for this week. Okay, I don't. Which is why I wanted to go at the head to head between Hadwin and Webb. I like how you were just you were just so excited to take that from me. Yeah, I said they're on the same tier. I didn't say they were different tears. I said I said a half tier break. Yeah, I said I don't have a half tier break. That's all I said. I didn't say that it's definitively like Webb's dust. Webb dusts and Adam had to win or something like that. You know, we'll workshop it. We'll get the other interns, AKA me on this, but we'll figure it out. I think with Hadwin, I've spent a hard time pushing back, finding flaws in liking him. He's 26 and good drives gained. Eighth and approach. Seventh and Bernie's a better game the past 50 rounds. He's okay on bank grass, but I'll take okay in this field. He's put up good finishes against super tough fields. And this is not that. So I feel pretty safe in leading off a lineup with Hadwin, both for cash gains and tournaments. I do like him a lot. Who else do you like here in this upper range? It was a coin flip between Scott Stallings and Maverick McNeely, but I like Stallings at salary probably as much. And I knew you were going to talk Mav, so whatever. Okay. But Irons have been really good lately. He's gained at least 4.5 strokes from approach and three of his past five. That is enough of a sample for me to want to buy in. Good bank grass putting splits as well. And the underlying putting data is good for Stallings. Played here a ton in his career. Good form at the moment. And a good birdie maker as well. I am fine with Stallings is by having the Howell head to head with him. I think he's fine. But I'm probably going to have a tight core at the top. So Stallings and play for sure. I just prefer Howell to there and prefer both of them. Maverick McNeely. He is my second player pickup here. He is a big time birdie maker at 11-1. He leads the field and birdies are better gained the past 50 rounds. He gets there via good Irons and good putting on bank grass. McNeely has missed two straight cuts and he has not finished in the top 25 since the Genesis, which seems bad. But that's been in part due to implosions on the green. And like I said, he's a pretty good bank grass putter. So I'm fine betting on a bounce back here. Any concerns with you with McNeely, with the missed cuts recently or no? No, especially not relative to this field. I think that that's being a little bit too cautious. And he missed. He didn't really have the putter with him those weeks. Okay, let's move to the mid-range. Who stands out to you there? Your guy, Ches Reeve. He's back. I mean, you want to talk golfers that we boost up on accuracy setups. Ches Reeve is one of them. 99th percentile accuracy in terms of fairway scan over the past 50 rounds according to Fantasy National. 4th percentile in distance. It's got good Irons. One of the better Irons players in the field. The putting hasn't been quite what it could be. That's not to say that Ches is a phenomenal long-term putter necessarily, but our T18 here last year, again, just fits the mold of going to hit fairways, going to hit some greens because of the Irons and then should be able to make some putts. Yeah. So I'm really stretching the mid-range definition of our player picks here by going Cameron Davis because he's 10-3. So I'm cheating. But again, like, so you are you kind of envisioning like a had when McNeely Davis start to a lineup? By envisioning, do you mean have I built that? Yes. Okay. Why? I just like, I was just asking. Yes. I have that bill right now. I like it. So that's why I felt okay going with Davis in the mid-range because I'm going to be in this range. And I'd like him to be part of that. And the course fits bad. I will say that straight out. But most other aspects of Davis are good here. He is not super accurate. He ranks 119th in good drives, gained the past 50 rounds, but he's still 14th in birdies are better gained. The approach play and the putting help get him there. He ranks ninth in true strokes, gained the past six months, finished seventh in Charles Schwab, third at the RBC heritage. He's got upside. And I can live with that. Despite a bad course fit at 10 three. So I like Davis, but Brandon, I do want to check with you. Is the course fit bad enough to make Davis a non consideration for you? Probably not because you can still like fairway scan is never going to be good stat until we adjust it for like a per whole level or like when missing a fairway is by design. You know, part of that can be a little bit worked into to stroke hand off the tee. But there's no reason longer hitters can't club down and hit more fairways whenever they need to. Davis also one of the best putters from five to 10 feet specifically, which is a very, very key range for long term expectation. Good on bent grass. I see the case for Davis. I considered him. I just didn't quite get there because the overall course fit, but I really wouldn't talk you out of him. All right. Let's stick in the mid range. Who else do you like here? My guy apparently Adam shank. Good format. TPC near run. He's got two top six results in each of the past two years. He's played it. Wouldn't really stand out to anyone looking at like just the wind or that started the results. I wanted to call it the wind column, but it's not really the same in golf as it is. I guess maybe you could probably bank the case, the wind column, but ninth at the Wells Fargo. Top 30 at Memorial and the U.S. Open. So nothing necessarily to like jump off the page, but the putter should wake up soon. One of the best putters from inside 15 feet. He's good on bent grass. I think that he sets up for a lot of birdies. That is just one of the guys in the low 9,000 range that I'll have plenty of for this week. Anyone else stand out to you before I do mine? Um, Lonto, Lonto, Lipsky. Oh, um, I will say Martin Laird at 97. Like I don't want to name everyone, but if you want someone, he's the best T degree in golf or in the field. And it shouldn't be that hard to put. So I think Laird could be a little bit sneaky. Um, this week, if he doesn't get talked up, but honestly, this range in general, the low 9,000 rates is like where like you said, I'm going to lock in my guys at the top and then just try to shuffle in these guys and see if I can hit the right combos. I agree. Okay. So I do like Lonto at nine four, despite the fact he torpedoed me last week. It was really fun. Um, okay. It was shank as well, but Brandon, the homecoming narrative this week belongs to one David Lipsky. And I think this is Xander's one year anniversary narrative enabling me because it's not really a homecoming narrative. He's from LA. Uh, he went to college in Northwestern, which is three hours from TPC, dear one, but it's the same state. And Brandon, if we're going to stretch narratives, I'm going to stretch that baby until it's then his paper and we're doing that right here. So homecoming narrative and play for David Lipsky went to college in this state. They don't play no, no, no, lots. I got to get work with what I got. I do like him here at nine one, but also Lipsky ranks fit in the field and get drives gained. He is 10th and approach 18th and birdies are better game. That birdie number is despite some pretty poor putting numbers. You said putting may not matter as much this week. If there's not as much lag putting, he's had back to back miscuts. Those were fueled by some bad putting there. So I like Lipsky a lot at nine one. You said you mentioned his name and passing. Therefore I assume you adore him. Correct. I love the logic, Jim. I'm not going to. I mean, how can I argue that he went to college three hours away within the vicinity? Yeah. I mean, it's basically in Iowa. This event, but like, you know, we're going to count it. I prefer him because he's got 86 percentile adjusted T degree numbers. It's a lot of fairways. No one cares. Literally not a single person cares about that. So are you like building another Northwestern lineup? Absolutely not. Oh, so if you, if you did not go to Northwestern, would you care about this one bit? I guess Woo is in the field. I can go that. Donald's not. Maddie Fitz is probably golf party in somewhere. So I think it's just Lipsky and Dylan Woo this week. Brandon Woo. Wow. Dylan Woo. Dylan Woo. Oh, there are two woos. Huh. Anyway, so much. I know great, great loyalty, Jim, to your, to your school. Yeah. Lipsky actually is a pretty good play this week. I'll joke aside. I actually do like him quite a bit. So I'll be there for sure. And do like him quite a bit. What? We just talked about like, like Frank, four minutes about David Lipsky. Barely mentioned any stats and just said that you, he went to college nearby. Okay. If we're being serious, the Taylor stack is the way to go this week. Taylor Pendrith, Nick Taylor, Taylor Moravon, Taylor. I think that's the way to go this week. So just, there's no Gooch anymore, but like we can still get other Taylors in there. So just throwing that out there as the name stack of this week. Let's go to the value plays. We'll talk about a Taylor there in a second, but first Brandon, who stands out to you in this tier? Mark Hubbard, right at 9,000. He's got, he's the best golfer in the, the 9,000 and below range according to my long-term data. I think that while off the T play is important, it's not extremely vital because he's also like field average and accuracy. And so I'll take that. He's got 95th percentile, adjusted irons T 41 here a year ago. And he's been making the cuts despite poor putting. And so I think that while I don't really care about missed cuts, I think that that's got a factor in for some golfers. Cause I can't imagine they're all like when they miss a cut, they're like, well, didn't put well, like, and they know that they're, I'm sure that that, that factors in. So I like Hubbard at 9,000. I think you might be the best play at 9,000 or lower. Yeah. That's why I named it here. Yeah. Hubbard is a guy I considered. I considered armor and I think that's why I feel better about having my core be the top guys and rotating through here. Cause there are enough guys that like down here. Hubbard's one armors one. I want to go in with Nick Taylor as my, one of my value plays pretty well balanced. Relative to his salary. I use $8,600. He ranks 47th in good drives gain, 17th in approach, 66th in bentgrass putting, which helps him sit 30 second and birdies are better gained. Taylor is not long off the tee. So the birdie number could very well improve at this event. He's made three straight cuts at this event as well. So he knows the course. So I like Taylor at 86. What's your, what are your thoughts on him this week? Yeah. I mean, good, good form at the course, top 10 iron player in the salary range. I will take that. He's, he's very much in that consideration, but I don't think that I'll put him quite on the level of Hubbard, even at salary. Okay. So your second value plays another guy I thought about, didn't use. So I thought about a lot of guys. I didn't write them up, but Sam Ryder at 81. I dig this one. What puts you on Ryder? Yeah. T2, T18, T58 at TPC deer run since 2018. At this event. Good. Strokes gained approach numbers in, he's got positive numbers there with the iron play and five straight measured events. Missing a ton of cuts. So like the opposite of what we got with Hubbard, but I think that based on the research I've done, there's plenty of, that that's enough time to buy into the ball striking, being good. That I think eventually it's got a pan out and he exploded last week with 5.7 strokes gained from approach at the travelers. So I think that Ryder has a very good case at 81. It's a little bit lower than I typically go, but in a field like this, there's enough upside. And I asked like, can, can he win? I mean, he was T2 here before. That's not necessarily proof that he can win. I get that, especially because it was, you know, years ago, but yeah, overall, like, it's not, it's not, it's not, years ago, but yeah, overall, like, there's enough in the profile to be high on Sam Ryder at 81. Well, 81 is low, but like, again, it's the discussion we had before, like, what's the difference between Ryder and 81 and like, like Lipsky at 91. Like how big is the gap there? Not that big. Not as big as it is typically. Correct. So like, even though it's different than what we typically do, I think it makes sense to this field. So I, I'm into Ryder as well. We'll use him if I, like I talked about having Davis at 10-3, if I want to get up to Stallings or Howell, that might be a little aggressive, but like, if I want to get back up to them for my third golfer, I think Ryder would be the key guy I would turn to there. Other guy I like down here in the mid to low 8,000 ranges, Chris Godder up at 84. We've got a couple of events on him since he turned pro and he's looked pretty good at the US Open. Godder finished 43rd thanks to some sick irons there, brought those with him to the travelers too, finished 35th there. The one concern is accuracy. He struggled with that at the RBC Canadian Open, missed the cut there, but the overall profile looks pretty good at 84. So what are your thoughts on Chris Godder up this week? Yeah. I mean, the early returns are promising. I think that I can do a little bit better with a more established name, but I'm not going to, it's one of the spots where I'm not going to talk you out of them. I just think that there may be better cases for some golfers with a little bit more PGA tour data. Very fair. Okay. Let's finish up here with our win picks for this week. Ryden Hyatt, the Xander win this past week. Brandon, who do you have as your player pick or your win picks for this week? Based on the odds at Vandal Sportsbook. Maverick McNeely and Scott Stallings at 29-1. Okay. Do I block you at McNeely or pick two other people? Did everyone? Hedge time. I bet McNeely. So, if I go with Hadwin as my win pick, I can be happy either way. So, I'm going to go out of Hadwin, 18-1 to win this week. I'll go with that. The second one. I was waiting for Gene to pick. A guy we never talked about. Even though we talked about 900 golfers in this field. Oh, no. We talked about him, Brandon. The homecoming narrative is too strong. David Linsky, 65-1 guaranteed victory for this week. He's got the Xander profile that we had last week. Good drives game. Approach makes birdies. He can't fail. It's guaranteed.  That's not the point, just to be clear. The intention here is not to make up ground. Because I'm close enough within striking distance where I don't need to be desperate. But I do think that McNeely is probably the better routes to take here. But let's have some fun. I'm going to go with Adam Hadwin and David Lipski as my win picks for this week. Speaking of making up ground and everything, we've got four of the past five winners. And the one we didn't hit was Los Altos at the U.S. Open, which very narrowly missed. You had JT at the PGA. I had Burns at the Charles Schwab. Okay. You had Rory at Canadian. Then we had both on Zalatoris. And I had Rory too at the U.S. Open. He was incontention-ish. Patrick Cantley went on the final group last week and looked like me out there. And now I'm out here dropping David Lipski.  So, I mean, it's been a, you know, that's sort of how things go in every bet is sometimes it just comes in clusters and we're both up on the year with these picks like that. Pretty good. I like that. We get two per week. Yeah. I'll take it. Which means that David Lipski is going to win this week. I'm so excited for it to happen. It's going to be great. That is all that we have here for this week on the Heat Check Fantasy podcast for the John Deere Classic. But hey, like I said before, it's not a great field, but it gives a leg up to people who do their research who dig in, identify guys who are under salaried better compared to this field, stuff like that. So there's still money to be won. I think that it's a pretty logical way to win it too. So I do still like DFS this week, even if I don't like the field for this week. Do not forget to subscribe to the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed wherever you get your podcasts. And of course we got MLB UFC and NASCAR podcast there as well. So hit subscribe. And if you like what you hear, leave us a rating and review as well. Brandon, if people have questions for you on Twitter, where can they find you there? I'm at Cadulla13, G-D-U-L-A-1-3. And I'm on Twitter at Jim Sonnis, J-I-M-S-A-N-N-E-S. You can also follow the FanDuel Podcast Network at FanDuel Podcast. Big thank you to everyone for tuning in for this week. Good luck to you, dear DFS liners. The John Deere Classic. We'll talk to you once again next week. This has been the Heat Check Fantasy podcast powered by Number Fire.


The Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Mohammed, says it is not the responsibility of the federal government to prosecute suspected kidnappers and bandits. He said kidnapping and banditry were not rather federal offences. Mohammed said this at the press conference in Abuja. He was responding to statements credited to the opposition People's Democratic Party on the security challenges facing the country. The minister said the PDP alleged that kidnappers and bandits are not being brought to justice. This is apparently aimed at the federal government.


Alrighty, so we're getting closer to Canada's Wonderland's opening day potentially, I don't know why I pronounced potentially that way, potentially, but nonetheless it's getting exciting. So a lot of you know that Stage 2 has begun for most of Ontario with the GTA being excluded from that, and will be about a week behind the rest of the province. We did learn today, based off of things we're hearing, that Stage 3 in Ontario should begin around June 26th, thus meaning Wonderland should be ready to open around June 26th. That being said, Wonderland has already started prepping for the opening, we have been able to see employees return to work, we've seen some of them cleaning queue lines and railings by the looks of it, sweeping, nothing else outside of that, and I'm assuming training is going to start. We're actually by the looks of it a week ahead of Kings Island and Cedar Point in terms of training and cleaning the park, so that's a really good sign because those parks have announced that they're going to open up first week of July, thus the July 1st forecasted opening for Canada's Wonderland does still fit. Now that being said, Behemoth does look like it could potentially, it's not confirmed, have some construction going on with those circular discs that we have seen stored in the park since last season. The Mountain Bay Cliffs is well along the way on construction, they've started attaching the pieces, the whole bottom section and starting of the midsection has started. So when we film our construction update today, we should have a really awesome update for you guys as well. Nonetheless, I'm trying to think of everything I just totally forgot. And Mountain Bay Cliffs is on the way, I got Behemoth, there's no signs of re-tracking on Mindbuster, no signs of painting on Behemoth, and yeah, that's pretty much it. It does look like Splashworks is going to get ready to open against what we had previously said in a previous video, so I do want to correct myself. It does look like Splashworks will open with the park. I'm going to assume it's going to be out a week, a week and a half after the park opening if the park does open July 1st. If not, then it should open with the park around the second week of July. That being said, it looks like based off of other Cedar Fair Park's announcements, we're not going to see virtual queuing coming to Cedar Fair. We're going to see you guys lining up with the stickers, the social distancing stickers in the queue line. So that's really cool. And that's all the information I have currently. The Santa Claus has been removed from the top of Frank Gate, so that's good news. And cars are being cleared out of the parking lot. Just wanted to provide you guys with a quick construction update at Canada's Wonderland. Almost all the coasters are ready to go. And yeah, super exciting. Hopefully you guys are as excited as I am for the park. I know there's a few that don't want to risk their family getting sick, and that totally makes sense, not speaking out against you guys. But I'm excited to go to the park, and I know a lot of people are. So hopefully we have a really good 2020 season as a lot of these Cedar Fair and Six Flags parks open up. Thanks so much for watching, guys. Have a good one. Bye.


Okay, Type-C. All right. Hi. Hi. Please introduce yourself. Okay, my name is Richard and I'm from Elka. And I'm going to introduce our latest product for HDMI cable. And this is our new product for Type-C to HDMI. And which supports 8K cables. And we do have some HDMI solutions for customers. So we also provide the power travel sets that include HDMI Type-C. And also the Type-C dongle with that. So the customers during the traveling, they can easily have a meeting with the customers using our dongles. And we have series of dongles with carry HDMI Type-C. Also USB Type-C. And this is 8-in-1 motor adapters that is for the traveler and the guy sells person for the meetings. How stable is this? Super stable. Super stable. You have a good chipset in there. Yeah, we have quality. Yeah, we have very, for the SD cards and USB ports and HDMI ports. Hi, Benwith. Hi, Benwith is HDMI 2.1 supports 8K. Type-C supports to Gen2. Make up it per seconds. And this is our USB 4C to C cables. This is up to Gen2. And supports up to 240W cables. And it's supplied to the PD 3.1. And also supports DP alternate mode. So this is the KO-1 cable that supports high speed transfer, 8K image transmission, and power up to 240W. Power developed. Is that the 240W? Yes. Is that the new biggest standard? Yes, that's the new biggest standard. USB is trying to supply more power to the electrical bike or some large battery charging. So you can charge your scooter with the USB? Yes. And this Elka is famous. We are the cable assembly brand, but we all do the OEM products and projects. We don't have our own brand on the market. You cannot find Elka, but we are very professional cable assemblies. We do have HDMI, Type-C, and DP, all the interfaces that we can supply to our customers. So that means customers need to place a big order? Not really. We also accept low-quality but high-mix products. Our talk is that customers can just one-star service for our value. Customers can buy all kinds of interfaces in Elka. So one-stop, they come to Elka and you can supply the whole... Everything they want, all the connections. So here the USB 40, 20, and 10, you have the whole... How serious? USB, I have certified cables. Do you do USB 80, not yet? Not yet. It's on the way because USB, I haven't released the test certifications right now. But our cable actually is ready and we're just waiting for the final test requirements. And here's a 200-watt GAN charger. Yeah, this is the world charger that's surprised. Actually, multiple functions. You can charge your laptop, your cell phone, and also if you have some cable with USB-A. So you can multiply for four devices charging together. 200-watt, it's a lot. Yeah. And then you do also... The car charger and 40-pd. This is a kind of bundle business that we do with Walmart. It's a world charger and carry our Type-C or C2 Lightning cables. All right. Where are you based? We're based in Taiwan and our headquarter in R&D in Taiwan and our factories in China, Dongguan. How is the R&D... What do they work on, the R&D guys? R&D guys are working on developing the cables and co-working with associations like HDMI, USB, and DP as well. And they do most of our engineers doing W.E. W.E. Engineering. What is that? It's electrical engineering. So we do have the ability to co-work with other OEM customers. We can discuss the signals and the problem-solving for our customers. And then you have big factory? Our factory is around 500 people, but we have two factories. One in Malaysia and another one is in China. So our alcohol group is about 1,000 workers in the world. And it says since 1974. What is happening in the beginning, 1974? We start our business as a trading company. We source a lot of materials in Taiwan and our 100% of business is to sell products to overseas. Like USA and Europe is our main market. Here, Computex 2023.  There's 4K 120. And all these new TVs can come with HDMI 2.1. And there's a whole bunch of updates that I'm going to be filming at the Computex 2023 with the HDMI licensing administrator, which are organizing all the display makers, the cable manufacturers, and making sure that they are compatible with each other. There's a stable performance. There's no interference. And there's a smooth 8K future with 48 gigabit per second support. And there's the whole infrastructure for certifying, for testing, for making sure there's no interference with the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth and stuff that people have. So thanks a lot for watching. Check out my HDMI playlist in hdmi.charbacks.com.


This may sound crazy, but God told me who I would marry. The day I met my wife, I said to a friend of mine, I don't know why I'm saying this, but today I'll meet the one I married. And I'll say, on January 1st, 2012, I met my wife. After I said that, we went on with the day and later that night, a friend of mine was having a birthday dinner. And sure enough, Jessica walked in. We had never met before, but I was immediately drawn to her. And as we spoke, I could feel an inner witness, confirmation from the Holy Spirit. There was a strong connection and later she told me that she had immediately felt it too. Today, Jess and I are married and have a beautiful daughter. Your story will be different, but rest assured, God will help you find your spouse. The Holy Spirit will guide you.


Welcome to MOOC course on Introduction to Proteogenomics. Interpretation of mass spectrometry data is very challenging. There are many softwares which are commercially available or open source softwares which make our job relatively very easy. However, the basic knowledge of mass spectrometry data and its interpretation becomes very crucial. In the last lecture, you were introduced to the basic concepts of mass spectrometry and sample preparation. Today, we have a hands-on session which aims to provide some basic knowledge required for the manual interpretation of mass spectrometry data. Let us welcome Dr. Karl Klauser for today's hands-on session. Now, other than to say that we are going to try to assign fragment ion types and these are the things you should keep in mind for the various fragment ion types. One of the things I did not mention so far is that there are ammonium ions which give you composition information, but they do not give you stoichiometry. So, if you see a 120 ion in your spectrum, that is a good indication that you have phenyl alanine, but if you have a really tall 120, it does not mean you have two or three of them. So, you do not have the stoichiometry information. In order to form an ammonium ion, the fragmentation has to occur in two places along the peptide backbone and it includes the side chain that is unique to the amino acid. By the techniques that we are going to be using in the spectra that are being shown, the ammonium ions that are likely to be present are shown in green. The ones that are shown in black are essentially not, you can only form those if you have a high energy collision type of instrument, which is not the same as saying at HCD. So, actually from a terminology standpoint that is a distinction between the manufacturers. So, if you have a QTOF instrument that comes say from Psi X or from Agilent or Brooker, they might call that fragmentation technique CID. That fragmentation is exactly the same thing as what thermal calls HCD and the reason is that before thermo created the current instruments, they had ion trap fragmentation that was resonance excitation and they called that CID, ok, all right. So, they had to have another name for when they did it the same way as other people, ok, all right, next, ok. These are the amino acids. If you knew these by hand by heart, it would be easier for you to look at the mass differences if you had the opportunity to print them, that would be helpful. So, these are some things that is particularly helpful for you to know that we will make use of in interpreting the spectrum, ok. So, an A ion is 28 Daltons less than a B ion and if you can't decide whether an ion is an A or a B or a Y and if it has something that is 28 Daltons less, then you can probably call it a B, that is why it is useful, ok. All right, if you know your amino acid masses and you just add them all up and add one, that will give you the mass of the B ion. If you add up all your amino acids and add 19, that will give you the mass of the Y ion, ok. And then if you fragment between two amino acids, B ion is going to go one way, Y ion is going to go to the other. If you add them back together, you would have the whole peptide, right, ok. But when you fragment, so I am always going to talk about the prerent masses being singly charged, ok. The B ion is singly charged, the Y ion is singly charged. So, if you add the two together, you get the M H plus plus 1, ok. And those are complementary ions as shown up here. So, B ion plus Y ion is the same thing as M H plus plus 1, ok. Some software packages, they will strip out the charge, I think that is silly, ok. Because we measure ions, we do not measure masses, right. And furthermore if you, when you are dealing with high accuracy masses, you have to trust that they have built the, to subtract the right amount, because it is not 1.0, it is 1.0078 minus the mass of the electron, ok. And these things matter, right. So, I think it is easier just to think in terms of ions, ok. All right. So, I keep the charge, all right. Those are the useful things to know. What kind of spectrum would you call this? This would be on the quiz, come on, what, if you were to give it a cute little name, what kind of, you want to call it a white picket fence. I was going to call it a royal infield, ok, right. So, this is, this is a relatively beautiful spectrum. It is going to have, you can see it has got ions that span the mass range, they look nicely spaced, ok, all right. So, before you start doing some, some math, ok, so the M H plus is 1,000, ok. This right here is at 500, ok. So, if you look, you will see some nice symmetry. Lycine has a Y1 ion that is 147, ok. Arginine has a Y1 ion that is 175. You should now be able to tell me what the C-terminal amino acid of this peptide is, if you are looking at the spectrum, all right. So, if this is the, where the precursor mass is, and I, you can see that there is some symmetry, right. So, these, these two peaks are about equidistant from the center, and that, so that means they are probably a BY pair, ok. So, I am just going to do this kind of thing here, then I bet you if you look, where the red, where the red carrot is, ok. All right, and yet, so the other thing you can do to check, if you can't really tell the symmetry, you are going to add up the masses, 414 plus 587 should be equal to 1001, all right. So, similarly, we can go like this, ok, those are going to be symmetric, I already told you that if, if it is a tryptic peptide, Y1 is 175, which would be consistent with that being an arginine at the C-terminus, right, ok. And if you, that Y1 would be symmetric with 826, that means this should be a B-ion, ok. And then, there is probably a couple others in here, so 230 going all the way to 771, ok. So, you can see there is lots of symmetry present, all right. Now, let us do some, let us do some arithmetic. My advice, whenever you are going to start doing arithmetic is, and you have to choose where to start, make one of two choices. Start with a big peaks or start at an end, ok, I am going to go with big peaks, but and when you start at an end, it is helpful to, it is nice to have one that you already have an ion type for, one of the things I try to resist doing is starting at the low end, ok. Because there is more often going to be multiple things happening at below the precursor mass, you are going to have multiply charge things, there is going to be internal ion fragmentation, usually have a cleaner spectrum up at high mass, all right. So, now, let us just do some arithmetic, ok. So, this mass gap here is 101, no, 58, 13, 71, ok. This mass gap here is 113, ok, then 587 to 513 is 74, that is not an amino acid mass, 488 to 587 is 99, that is an amino acid mass, ok. 488 to 414 is 74, that is not an amino acid mass, ok. Let us go 826 to 727, that is 99, ok, 727 to 612 is 115, ok, 612 to 513 is 99, ok, 513 to 414 is 99, ok, all right, can we go 414 to 353, that is 71, right, 343 down to 230, 113, so now then I would go 175 to 274 is 99, ok, 115, all right, then can I go up here, 99, ok. If this is a Y ion, this should be a Y ion, this should be a Y ion, if this is a B, that should be B, B, B, B, ok, valine, oh, let us do one other thing, this is mass 100, 1000, sorry, can you read that, that is not a fake peak, we know that that is reasonable because we measured the precursor mass before we did the MSM spectrum, the precursor mass is 1000, ok, all right. So, and then if it is 1000 we can go from here with 129, precursor mass is like Y ion, it is like the last Y ion, ok. So, now we could write down the sequence and if we go with Y ions, we would write down the sequence backwards, ok, arginine already, 99 is valine, isolucine is 113, oh no, wait a minute, ok, what, lucine is 113, but yes, so when you do de novo sequencing, usually if we cannot tell, we just choose lucine and I think the simplest reason is that there are 6 codons for lucine and 3 codons for isolucine, so if you cannot tell, might as well go with a chance that it has got more codons, right, but at the end of the day, no, I cannot tell that it is lucine rather than isolucine, ok. 115 is aspartic acid, ok, 99 is valine, ok, where are we here, 71 is alanine, ok, 99, so there is a bunch of valines here, right, alanine, 115 is aspartic acid, that is valine and this is glutamic acid, 129 is E, ok. Alright, there is a whole lot of junk on the spectrum on the page now, but if I follow it carefully, this 99 would be valine and it would be aspartic acid and it would be another valine and then another valine and alanine, lucine and glutamic acid and now if we try to read off the BINs, let us see if we get the same thing, so we got lucine, no, lucine, alanine, valine, another valine, aspartic acid D and then valine and then we would go all the way to here in the arginine, so it looks like there is something that is not quite right, ok, so what do we do wrong, so I said E, L, A, V and oh is it going to be, I got it partly backwards huh, no V, D, V, D, V, V, A, L, E, ok, so the E, the E is not right, should be N, D and why is that, alright, the E, how did I have the, oh that is, so I cannot do my, bad math, ok, so this is, this is 229, alright, it is not 129, ok, so we need and that is right, that matches our, this B1 ion here, ok, so we have some combination of amino acids that adds up to 229, ok, ok and there is a couple of ways you can do that, you can do 115 plus 114 and that is D and N, ok, so if we now take a look at the way that this spectrum is labeled, we do not have fragmentation between N and D, so this would start at 230 and then this last gap here is 129, ok, so the sequences is complete with exception, we do not know the order of N and D, ok, so from a pure de novo standpoint, we do not know whether it is N, D or D, N, ok, but if we then add the requirement that this peptide has to come from the human proteome, turns out one of the, only one of those two choices is present, ok, right and so it is the N, D part, alright, so let us go to the next one, so this one is going to be easy because there is not very much to work with, alright, so you take a look at the spectrum, there is not a lot of symmetry, but there is, if you look at this, this is doubly charged, ok, 2 times 480 would give you 960, right, there is two charges on this, there is only one charge on this, alright, what else have we got, ok, this is 1220, is there any symmetry here, 262 to 959, that should be a BY pair I think, right, 221, ok and then the mass difference between these two is 26, is 28, alright, what is the ion type of the peak at 262, ok, this was the one of the things I gave you of useful information, the difference between a B ion and an A ion is 28, so we could assign that as A and that as a B ion, if this one is a B then that has to be Y, ok, what else can we do here, so then that would mean that this is Y doubly charged, ok, then if we take a look at this mass gap that is 97 and that mass difference is 25 is 87, ok, that is searing, proline, alright, alright, there is not a whole lot else here, so we do not have down to low mass, ok, but if we, so at some point there is some sequence here that is PS and then the distance here is something that adds up to 261 and the distance out to here would be 775, this is, this one comes from a triptychpeptide experiment and it, so there should be either an arginine or a lysine here, ok, that is about all the information there is in that spectrum, ok, there is the PS part, that is about all the information there was, that information all together is enough to produce that one answer as a peptide from the human proteome. In today's hands-on session you are introduced to the fine points of mass spectrometry based data interpretation, the spectra they are having all the information, but how to get the most relevant information, think about if you are locating even the post-translational modification such as phosphorylation or even glycosylation, the data interpretation becomes very crucial and very challenging. However, in today's hands-on session Dr. Klauser tried to explain you how to get the best interpretation from these complex spectra and even to glid into the PTM based analysis. As it was discussed in today's lecture, the B ions differ from the A ions by a mass of 28 Dertens. This observation helps in better understanding and differentiating various fragments. In the next session you will be provided with comprehensive information on interpretation of further more complex spectra. Thank you.


Well, you heard her name call many times the last couple years wearing the red and white Warrior Jersey. Grace White left her mark in the Red Lake Girls Basketball program, leading them to their first ever state appearance. Now she's the first ever Warrior Girls grad playing Division one basketball, a forward at the University of Denver. And even though it's been a challenging transition from day one, she's still very motivated to keep pushing hard and setting a good example. There's a lot of kids back home that constantly message me like how are you doing? How are you doing it? Like is it hard? And I'm like, yeah, definitely.  So I got to keep pushing things get hard. But when you fall, I got to get back up and doing what you want and living your dreams hard. But it's definitely worth it. If you enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax deductible contribution to Lakeland PBS.


five movies, I've had a lot of requests, some requests anyway to list some movies, and I have, you know, a whole bunch of movies on my site that I've listed there, but so I can't give you a top five movies because for me, the genres matter, the subject matters, right? So I just picked five war movies because these are, I've watched a lot of war movies in my life because it's related to politics, I guess, politics, economics, everything, analysis and sort of related to a lot of the board games I've played. So five unforgettable war movies, like really, okay. First one hands down, this is the one that if anybody, you know, asks me an amazing movie, this is one of the ones I list if they ask me for any political war based movie, society movie, this would be it which is Come and See by Alem Klimov. It's a Russian movie about the war on the Eastern Front, I believe it was Belarus. I've watched it, all of these movies I've watched multiple times and it came out in 1985, I think it came out in 1986 but for some reason the website was saying in 1985.  The second movie, War Movie, Paths of Glory by Stanley Kubrick and came out in 1957 and Kubrick also directed Doctor Strange Love, right? If you like your cult movies, Paths of Glory, what a powerful movie. It will make you angry. Apocalypse Now by Francis Ford Coppola, 1979. Overwhelming, powerful, powerful movie. Number four, Lawrence of Arabia by David Lean, directed by David Lean, it's Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif and a whole bunch of people. It came out in 1962. So that movie for a long time was my favorite movie of all time and it is still one of my favorite movies, just visually it's stunning. So Lawrence of Arabia and that just as a side note complimentary to that movie would be Doctor Zhivago and the same director. And the fifth movie is again Stanley Kubrick which is a full metal jacket. Vietnam War came out, the movie came out in 1987 and it came out around the same time as Platoon and Platoon was getting all the media attention. Full metal jacket was secondary but to me full metal jacket was blew away. Platoon is fantastic movie but full metal jacket was something else because it is Kubrick. And that's five more movies I can give you a recommendation of.