Fouling Off Pitches

ther than the tried and true cliches we hear from baseball players these days during post-game interviews, add, "I got a pitch in my zone" or "I stayed within my zone." In other words, he didn't swing at crap. He got a good pitch and he turned it into a hit. But, you know, it doesn't always work out like that even when we get a good pitch to hit.

The other day I met with a former executive director of a large city Junior Achievement (JA) branch. Above all others, this is the group I want to pick up Hooey Savvy because they specialize in financial literacy programs and already serve 4 million students in the U.S. every year. In other words, I dug in and figured I'd get a BP fastball that I'd smack out of the park. What I got was chin music.

I learned that JA creates its own materials, ie, its own books and programs on financial literacy. I also learned that local branches must buy these materials from headquarters and that these materials form the foundation off which the branches work. The branches can use materials that do not originate from headquarters, but only as supplemental material. In addition, I learned that JA is a big bureaucracy and only reviews the materials for specific grades once every three to six years.

For as thick in the head as I am, the prospect of getting dusted by JA for the next few years sounds about as much fun as a Nolan Ryan headlock beat down.

On the fridge I keep the following quote: "It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer" (Einstein). Consider Einstein the Paul O'Neill or the Johnny Damon of physics - fouling off pitch after pitch, staying alive, grinding down the pitcher, till he got one in his zone he could drive.

Which is where I am with Hooey. I've fouled off a few good pitches and I may have to foul off a few more. But the deeper I get in the at bat the better a feel I get for what's coming.

In other news, I am close to agreeing with an illustrator to ink up Cookie-Wise Pablo - the 32 page picture book version. She'll need a couple months, but hey, it might just be ready for the 2012 holiday season. Also, thanks to John Odell at the National Baseball Hall of Fame I have some leads on vendor and usher jackets from back in the day for The Boston Squeeze. Of the photos John and the Hall of Fame's photo department provided, this is my favorite.

Swinging at the first pitch

ince posting about the marshmallow test the other day, I've given it some more thought. Taking the first offer of a marshmallow is akin to taking the first pitch. (I know, a baseball metaphor, shocking.) And good hitters take the first pitch, right?

Not Derek Jeter. Jeter has 3,238 hits and counting. His lifetime average is .313. His lifetime average when he swings at the first pitch? .381. Significantly better. This is also true of Tony Gwynn (.338/.375), Wade Boggs (.328/.362), Albert Pujols (.325/.370), Miguel Cabrera (.317/.406) and Ichiro Suzuki (.322/.382). Even Don Mattingly, who seemed to take the first pitch religiously, did better (.307/.363). So why doesn't Jeter swing at the first pitch every time? Because if he did word would get around and pitchers would intentionally throw junk out of the strike zone for him to chase.

604 of Jeter's 3,238 hits (18.6%) have come on the first pitch. So when does he know it's a good idea to swing at the first pitch? As someone who tends to hit first or second in the lineup, part of his job the first time up is to take pitches so his whole team can see what the pitcher has. So maybe he takes the first pitch in the first inning more often than not. But when would he swing at the first pitch in the first inning? If he and his teammates are familiar with the pitcher or if there's a nervous rookie on the hill who just wants to throw strikes and not plunk the mascot.

So then Jeter's going to swing at the first pitch later in the game then, maybe the third time he's seen the pitcher because by then, we can assume, the team has a better idea of what to expect, so DJ can swing away. Perhaps. But later in the game, the pitcher's more tired. Maybe Jeter takes the first pitch to wear the pitcher down. Or, being tired, the pitcher throws more first pitch strikes for hitters like Jeter to pounce on.

In short, Jeter's no fool. He's likely done his homework and put his common sense to work to know when to swing at the first pitch based on statistical information and personal experience.

So when should Pablo take the first marshmallow offer? If he thinks the one offering it can only produce the one now and not the two later. If he thinks the one now will be fresh and the two later stale. Essentially, Pablo should take the first marshmallow if he doesn't trust the person offering it to come through with the second marshmallow.  Because why turn down a good offer for a less likely one? If he trusted the person to come through on the bigger payoff even if it meant he had to wait, he'd wait.

I presume that the person administering the marshmallow test in most cases is a well dressed adult who speaks well and appears credible. The kids who trust the tester wait for the second marshmallow. Maybe the kids who take the first marshmallow are impatient, short-term thinkers as they've been called. Maybe they don't trust the tester. Maybe they're just really hungry right now.

While I think the marshmallow test could use some more variables (namely, the presentation of the tester and the time when the test is given (is it right after lunch? has it been a while since the kids have eaten anything?), I do, on the whole, believe in its general finding that not jumping at the first thing offered is a good idea. Why? Because there's a lot of crap out there and as soon as people know you'll buy it without flinching or saying boo, they'll keep offering you more crap.

That being said, as someone who has personally far too often waited for the second marshmallow only for it never to arrive, the savvy child (or adult) should take each offer in context and not turn down the first marshmallow out of hand. Because you know Jeter would take that first marshmallow 18.6% of the time.

The Marshmallow Test

aking progress incrementally has never been my strong suit. I tend to jump ahead - way ahead. But it's getting better. Now that I'm aware of it, I can write down my distant goal and then work backwards to find all the steps necessary to achieve it.

Case in point: Hooey Savvy's Cookie-Wise Pablo. A children's book on financial education: 27 chapters, 80+ songs and one budget dance. It'll be one tome, I reasoned, so parents and librarians wouldn't have to buy 27 separate books, which they wouldn't do anyway, they'd buy two or three if I was lucky, but they'd miss out on 90% of what I wanted to get across and nothing would change.

So have I changed my tune? Kinda.

While re-reading it recently, I came across my favorite chapter which I named the book after. "Cookie-Wise Pablo" is the marshmallow test in story form. What's the marshmallow test? Hey kid, do you want one marshmallow now or two later? Test after test has shown that kids that take the two later, that delay gratification, that plan ahead and save, that wait for the better deal, do better in life in the long run. If I had to make one single point about personal finance it would be: Wait for the two marshmallows, kid.

So I've extracted that chapter from the book, introduced Pablo in simpler more general terms, and am going to go with my best foot forward: A more traditional 32 page picture book about the most important thing I can say about personal finance.

It's far easier to digest. And hey, if folks like it and they ask for more, there's another 26 chapters waiting.

I've also returned to writing The Boston Squeeze which is a project I just enjoy getting lost in.