A New Deer Meme: The 2 of 7 Rule

[shaman]

So I finally made it down to camp over the weekend. There were 3 deer out in the back yard when I arrived. All told there were a dozen or more out in the field at sundown. The security camera showed one coming by my bedroom window at 0500 Sunday morning and looking in.
Another doe was waiting by the house when I came back from scouting turkeys. She made half-hearted attempt at escape. You could tell she knew where I was going, and only got out of my way enough to soothe her nerves.

 

[Oakseeds]

the 2 of 7 rule certainly is interesting in relation to major league baseball. If you are a 1 for 7 hitter, you won't be around very long; however, go 3 for 7 over a season and win a batting title. A nice 2 for 7 average (285) will ensure a lengthy career, good pay, and a shot at the HOF if your defense is solid.

The St. Louis Cardinals just signed a six year contract (worth 26 million with generous options) with their shortstop who hit 285 while playing less than a full year in 2017; his defense was solid even though his range is not like that of ex-Cardinal Ozzie Smith. The big question for some folks is whether he will suffer the sophomore jinks/slump that other shortstops like Trevor Story or Aledmys Diaz experienced after great early years. This question is related to issues regarding how people make judgments/decisions with implicit bias or errors. A couple of psychologists - Tversky and Kanhaman - are famous for starting this line of inquiry. One of the decision making heuristics they discuss - regression to the mean - pertains to the performance of the 3 athlete mentioned above. RTOM says any extreme event - either very good or very bad is more liokely to be followed by a less extreme event. Imagine you are a golfer with an 18-hole average of 106 strokes; today you shoot your best score ever of 74. How likely (the probability) is it that you will card a score of 74 or lower tomorrow. The regression to the mean heuristic argues that it is very unlikely you will match - or exceed (score lower) than the 74. Same holds for the other extreme - you shot a 157; probably won't card 157 or higher the next time out. If you are a 160 bowler and you roll a 279 for 10 frames, it ain't likely you will shatter the pins for a 291 the next time out. It remains to be seen if St. Louis made a good decision in that the shortstop will continue his solid play in 2018. Another heuristic mentioned in this thread concerns decisions made on limited observations (the issue of inadequate sample size) where a persons observes an event for a very limited number of times and concludes that it is likely the event will occur on a regular basis.
As far as golf and bowling, I tried to get one score down and one score up ... when they (average) met, I quit them both and focused on habitat development

 

[Osceola]

The St. Louis Cardinals just signed a six year contract (worth 26 million with generous options) with their shortstop who hit 285 while playing less than a full year in 2017; his defense was solid even though his range is not like that of ex-Cardinal Ozzie Smith. The big question for some folks is whether he will suffer the sophomore jinks/slump that other shortstops like Trevor Story or Aledmys Diaz experienced after great early years. This question is related to issues regarding how people make judgments/decisions with implicit bias or errors. A couple of psychologists - Tversky and Kanhaman - are famous for starting this line of inquiry. One of the decision making heuristics they discuss - regression to the mean - pertains to the performance of the 3 athlete mentioned above. RTOM says any extreme event - either very good or very bad is more liokely to be followed by a less extreme event. Imagine you are a golfer with an 18-hole average of 106 strokes; today you shoot your best score ever of 74. How likely (the probability) is it that you will card a score of 74 or lower tomorrow. The regression to the mean heuristic argues that it is very unlikely you will match - or exceed (score lower) than the 74. Same holds for the other extreme - you shot a 157; probably won't card 157 or higher the next time out. If you are a 160 bowler and you roll a 279 for 10 frames, it ain't likely you will shatter the pins for a 291 the next time out. It remains to be seen if St. Louis made a good decision in that the shortstop will continue his solid play in 2018. Another heuristic mentioned in this thread concerns decisions made on limited observations (the issue of inadequate sample size) where a persons observes an event for a very limited number of times and concludes that it is likely the event will occur on a regular basis.
As far as golf and bowling, I tried to get one score down and one score up ... when they (average) met, I quit them both and focused on habitat development

Great post, Oakseeds! I'm familiar with Tversky and Kanhaman's work as it relates to investor behavior. Great sports examples. We're all subject to these behavioral errors, but as least knowing they exist helps us make better decisions, in my opinion.

Since you appear to be a Cardinals fan, I will mention my former college baseball teammate is Mike Matheny. Looks like Mike may be on the "hot-seat" in 2018. He could use an extreme event (World Series Championship).

 

[Oakseeds]

Osceola ... with children devoted (strongly) to either the Cubbies or Redbirds, I survive best by proclaiming to be a ChiLouis fan. Don't make much sense, but it keeps me out of squabbles.