Stealing Second
LATE OCTOBER and early November mean two things to me. First, I spend a lot of money on trenta-sized pumpkin-spice cold brew at Starbucks. Somewhere, Suze Orman is no doubt cringing in horror. But that���s not what this post is about.
Second, late October usually means I���ve moved on to other pursuits���because the sports teams I follow either have a terrible record or have been eliminated from tournament play already.
Except this year. The Atlanta Braves are still alive and competing in the World Series. Which is, in a word, amazing.
I haven���t tuned in to watch much baseball over the past several years. I was reserving my mental bandwidth for things that brought me happiness. Or, at the very least, weren���t depressing. But now that baseball has once again captured my attention, I was surprised to hear an announcer explain why players don���t steal bases as often as they once did.
Apparently, defensive players have become so skilled against the steal that basic math now defines the outcome. Quick pitchers will have a consistent time of just 1.1 to 1.29 seconds to home plate.��The average catcher can throw to second base in just two seconds. Add these together, and it means a base stealer has only 3.1 to 3.29 seconds to reach second safely.��Not much time.
Because of the recordkeeping now common in baseball, managers know right away whether their baserunner is fast enough to steal second successfully. Once a player reaches first base, it���s a foregone conclusion whether he���ll steal second.
The parallels with saving for retirement are striking. The statistics on retirement are also formidable. It���s easy to predict how much the average investor needs to save���and when she can retire successfully���using Monte Carlo��simulations.
But unlike today���s base stealing, the odds of success are harder to figure out, thanks to the average investor���s saving and investing (mis)behavior. Some investors play the equivalent of mistake-free modern baseball. But most are still mired in the game of chance that I grew up watching a few decades ago.
Second, late October usually means I���ve moved on to other pursuits���because the sports teams I follow either have a terrible record or have been eliminated from tournament play already.
Except this year. The Atlanta Braves are still alive and competing in the World Series. Which is, in a word, amazing.
I haven���t tuned in to watch much baseball over the past several years. I was reserving my mental bandwidth for things that brought me happiness. Or, at the very least, weren���t depressing. But now that baseball has once again captured my attention, I was surprised to hear an announcer explain why players don���t steal bases as often as they once did.
Apparently, defensive players have become so skilled against the steal that basic math now defines the outcome. Quick pitchers will have a consistent time of just 1.1 to 1.29 seconds to home plate.��The average catcher can throw to second base in just two seconds. Add these together, and it means a base stealer has only 3.1 to 3.29 seconds to reach second safely.��Not much time.
Because of the recordkeeping now common in baseball, managers know right away whether their baserunner is fast enough to steal second successfully. Once a player reaches first base, it���s a foregone conclusion whether he���ll steal second.
The parallels with saving for retirement are striking. The statistics on retirement are also formidable. It���s easy to predict how much the average investor needs to save���and when she can retire successfully���using Monte Carlo��simulations.
But unlike today���s base stealing, the odds of success are harder to figure out, thanks to the average investor���s saving and investing (mis)behavior. Some investors play the equivalent of mistake-free modern baseball. But most are still mired in the game of chance that I grew up watching a few decades ago.
The post Stealing Second appeared first on HumbleDollar.
No comments have been added yet.
