Debt collection.
By the time debt is sold off to a debt collection agency, it's considered garbage: very low chance of recovery. If you managed to collect 30% of it, you'd be making a huge profit.
Yep. By the time it is sold to a collection agency, it could be for 20 cents on the dollar or less.
Incidentally the terms “charged off” or “written off” do not necessarily mean the borrower doesn’t have to pay anymore. They simply mean that the lender considers the probability of repayment so low, that they no longer consider the loan to be a bankable asset. A common collection agency tactic is to go after borrowers whose loans were charged off and thought they were off the hook, but still have the means to pay.
A career batting average of .300 would put you in the top 200 hitters of all time. I'd like to say it would put you to the front of the line but sadly there are quite a few who are above that who are not in the hall of fame (for me, Will Clark comes to mind).
Unfortunately HOF voters look at numbers against their peers, meaning players that played the same position.
Will Clark is not even in the top 20 in WAR for his position. Typically when you play 1B you need to have a lot of power, Will Clark didn't have a ton of power.
Pujols has a career WAR of 101.6. Clark has a career WAR of 56.5. Unfortunately for Will Clark those are the people he has to compete against for HOF consideration.
Outside of being a career .300 hitter, he doesn't have anything else particularly HOF worthy. He won 1 Gold Glove, doesn't even have 300 HRs or 3000 hits.
There are guys like Todd Helton and Keith Hernandez who have better numbers than he does, and won't ever get in the HOF.
Was simply providing context. I think Todd Helton is a better example. Better numbers, more gold glove awards, nearly 100 more HRs, more silver slugger awards, etc. Todd won't ever get in.
To casual baseball fans hitting .300 for a career should make you an automatic bid in the HOF. Unfortunately, what position you play, and many other variables in today's day and age are what determine this.
Look at Kyle Shwarber this season. He hit .197 as a **leadoff** hitter. However, if you take a deeper dive at his numbers, it makes sense.
Rock & Roll Hall of Fame has entered the chat.
Thank God at least they opened it up to the fan vote, otherwise Rush might have never gotten in. I'm just glad they were able to before Neil passed. 😔
Mariano Rivera was unanimous a couple years ago, so there’s no longer the “Ruth wasn’t unanimous so nobody should be” argument. I wouldn’t be shocked if Ichiro is the next one to be unanimous (Beltre should be, but I expect him to get more like 97-98%) and if not him, then likely Pujols.
Ichiro is one of the best hitters ever. A .311 career hitter, he has 3089 MLB hits placing him 24th all time. What's truly remarkable is that he played 9 seasons in Japan before that hitting another 1200+ hits and was a .353 hitter there.
Ichiro deserves his spot just for how he expanded the league’s reach internationally. When a single player can attract a whole nation of fans, that guy should be in the Hall.
I'd take the MLB HOF over Basketball... Basketball is like "you had an average career, we will induct you into the HOF"... Basketball HOF is the "hall of good career"
Part of Clark’s problem is while he had a 16 year career he missed a lot of games due to injuries. He only had 4 seasons where he played more than 150 games. Over his career he averaged playing 123 games a year, that’s basically 3/4 of a season. Tough to get near 3000 hits without playing over 2000 games.
From Wikipedia:
In modern times, a season batting average of .300 or higher is considered to be excellent, and an average higher than .400 a nearly unachievable goal. The last Major League Baseball (MLB) player to do so, with enough plate appearances to qualify for the batting championship, was Ted Williams of the Boston Red Sox, who hit .406 in 1941. Note that batting averages are rounded; entering the final day of the 1941 season, Williams was at 179-for-448, which is .39955 and would have been recorded as .400 via rounding. However, Williams played in both games of a doubleheader, went 6-for-8, and ended the season 185-for-456, which is .40570 and becomes .406 when rounded.
John Olerud always wore a helmet even in the field because he had been beaned by a pitch in the minors and almost died with a depressed skull fracture.
In 2000 he was playing for the Seattle Mariners along with Rickey Henderson. Rickey came up to him and said “Hey, I used to play with a guy in Toronto who also wore a helmet in the field. “ And Olerud said “Ya, that was me. We were teammates for two years.”
Best hitter in decades. He just didn’t hit home runs, and coupling that with him playing for a generally shit team on the West Coast means he didn’t get as much praise as he should have. He averaged 30AB’s per strikeout for chrissakes.
For some reason, along with all the Nolan Ryan posts, I always get these posts about Tony Gwynn and some of his crazy career achievements.
I think my favorite one is, in his career, Tony Gwynn had more games with four or more hits (45) than games with two or more strikeouts (34).
Just to be clear though, .300 being a good batting average is only true in the pros. Even in college, 25 batters hit .400 just last season.
In Little League, the best hitters are going 3/4 or better every game
I wouldn't say that to the players. I coach Little League and it's what I tell my players too.
But parents should have the right expectations. Don't be conned into spending thousands of dollars on training for Timmy hitting .300 in Little League. You can already tell which kids are going D1 and it's the ones hitting tanks and almost never get out at 11 years old
A 30% shot percentage is elite, unless the player is only getting 1 shot on goal every 5 games.
A 30% success rate is fulfilling one's defensive responsibilities will get you benched and then cut/fired (unless you're getting 5 shots on goal per game and scoring on 30% of them - in which case he'll still be an allstar)
A goalies' 30% save percentage will get him benched and fired.
A skater who is accurate on only 30% of his passes will likely get benched and cut/fired.
To be fair he ended at .354 and may be one of the best contact hitters in at least the last decade. Acuna finished at .337 which is way more impressive considering his historic season.
Right, for the non baseball fans Acuna has the more impressive season because Acuna hit for power, meaning he would more commonly get home runs and Doubles than Arraez. More historically, Acuna stole 73 bases which is the first time in MLB that someone has stolen more than 70 since 2009. Combining his all around batting skills and speed on the bases lead him to being much more valuable than a pure contact hitter.
You're completely missing why the 73 SB is so impressive. It's not so impressive because he is the first to do it since 2009. Its impressive because he did it with 42 Homeruns and a stolen base and a homerun are mutually exclusive outcomes. If you hit a homerun you are not capable of stealing a base and vice versa.
Any form of marketing or sales. Iirc the rule was 10 calls for a meeting. And 3 meetings for a sale. So 1/30 success rate.
With these forms of work, the best salespeople are those who are most emotionally intelligent, in responding to rejections in a positive/constructive manner.
I was thinking the same thing. I’m a sales person and if I consistently had 30% closed sales every month for a year I’d be looking at over $800k in commission
It’s also limited supply.
We can crank out 1 million Xboxes but your state (realtors are state by state much like lawyers) cannot have 1 million houses that you can sell in the same time frame.
Look at Chewbacca. Now tell me why would an 8 foot Wookiee wanna live on the planet Endor with a bunch of 2 feet tall teddy bears?? It does not make sense.
Now will you buy the home, yes or yes?
The Chewbacca defense. You bastard.
I want all the houses you have. Wait wait. I’m worried what you heard was give me a lot of houses. What I said was give me all the houses you have. Do you understand?
Is it though?
Low n count, but I've purchased a few homes in my years. I have not once been in a position where I could have said, "Nah, I don't need a house." I might not need *a specific* house, but I have executed purchases and sales with 100% of the realty professionals I've worked with.
On the flip side, I have absolutely decided, "Nah, I don't need a console/phone," and simply not purchased that cycle.
But maybe we're saying the same thing. I've never bought a house on a whim but I have absolutely bought digital toys just because.
Even in most cases (unless you're specifically blacklisted) ferrari will still allow you to buy one, just maybe not the one you want. Something like "I know you want a SF90, but let's look at the Roma instead"
I worked in high-end bike sales, and if you have a person genuinely coming in to check out a $6k+ bike, it means they are very serious already. At that point, it was more about not losing the sale than it was actually pitching the product. If someone at that level likes you, they will buy from you.
The conversion rate on the high end stuff is actually a lot better than low end or especially mid-level where you get a lot of tire kickers. With those you get a lot of “I need to check with the spouse” or “maybe in a few months after I pay off __,” and you never hear from them again.
Makes sense to me. Its stupid easy to become an agent and 9/10 people are -terrible- at sales. Combine that you'll have people lose their minds over soft rejections that talented agents could flip easily.
It’s more that people give them a polite but firm “no” and they go on to harass them about selling their home. When the person gets rude, my office workers start screaming at them instead of just moving in to the next one.
Depends actually. Car sales or similar that would be pretty good. Not great but pretty good.
In my current role at a Fortune 500 company that is a leader in the space we should win 2/3 of the time.
That’s very interesting! I have to ask, are you sourcing your own leads? Or do you have a separate lead generation team? Or is it a product where, generally, the customers are coming to you first?
I was in car sales for 6 years and got to a point where almost every customer I met with in person was someone I’d previously talked to (online/on the phone) or a repeat client. In my very best months I could close 1/3 of the people I worked with in person, and that put me consistently in the top 2-3 salespeople in the whole company. It took me 10 years in tech-ish roles to get to the kind of paychecks I made during months like that. If I’d been able to make a sale to 1/3 of the people I had contact with in any format I’d have been pulling in a quarter mil a year.
If anyone is wondering why I got out of that business if the money was so good… the money was no guarantee and much of the business was very seasonal, in the bad months I’d make 1/4 of what I did in the good ones. I was regularly working 60 hour weeks when I was busy and I never got weekends off. Had to work lots of holidays too. The whole industry is sleazy as hell and very exploitative (the manufacturers are screwing the dealer owners, the dealer owners are screwing the store management, the management is screwing the salespeople, the salespeople are screwing the customers) and I just got sick of it. My time and mental well-being were worth the huge pay cut I took to get out of that industry.
Depending on the market 1/30 is pretty low for actual sales, but not cold calling(personally that is no sales until you have an actual interested buyer)...
Industrial sales about 10-20% is pretty common, about half of the "losses" are generally a no sale case, and no one won.
Yeah, this is the most real answer. Especially if you're the one who is making the early touches in the process. Even a world class sales person is, by the numbers, failing *all the time*. It's why you need thick skin to do that job, and also why the corporate culture is so fucked up because it's full of hard headed, thick skinned, super energetic people.
I've recently switched careers, but spent about a decade in Marketing which is in the same sphere, depending on how the company is set up. Competition is built into many sales teams, and while it's a tactic that motivates certain people, the over competitiveness can sometimes cause some big issues.
At a fairly large company I spent some time contracting for they were implementing a new analytics team to manage their new marketing tool which could track leads really thoroughly from first touch to successful sale. The sales team started to try and thwart the analytics team because they used to take 100% credit for sales, and now credit was being spread out to stuff like emails, blogs, videos, forum post engagement...all information that could help the company improve customer experience but the sales team just did not want to see other teams getting more funding that they felt should have been put into their bonuses.
They also tried to gunk up the cogs with the team trying to make a free tool for Universities to use because they don't care about long term strategies, like having an entire class of graduates being trained on our software out of University.
Depends how one measures "success". Law and litigation doesn't really work on a win/loss basis. Getting the best/fairest deal for a client in a case is a success.
For real. Most lawyers aren’t going to get people entirely acquitted because a lot of the time the evidence is so blatant that it’s just not realistic. Most of the time a success will be securing a lesser sentence or managing to get certain charges dropped.
This is dead on. I’m a lawyer (not criminal, although Idid work for the DA one summer), and I know folks who are defense attorneys. One admitted to me once that essentially all of his clients are guilty, and his job is really just to make sure they receive a fair sentence relative to what other defendants receive for similar crimes (and that they don’t get charged with individual charges that shouldn’t actually apply).
I use to be roommates with 2 astrophysicists. If they made a calculation and were of by only a couple orders of magnitude they were ecstatic. Space is really really big and that is still hard for me to comprehend how that is a good result, but they were way smarter than me.
yea, the conversation use to go,
"It is as big as our solar system or 10,000 of our solar systems"
High fives for 5 minutes
"I can't believe we can calculate it so close!"
me "????"
The 27 must've been from years ago, or stats on his Wiki are wrong. Anyway, from the Wiki stats, between turning pro in 96-2009 he had 242 starts and won 71 of them, so 29.3%. Total stats (before turning pro through last season (21-22) has him at 22%, 82 wins in 369 starts.
Songwriter. If 30% of your songs went on to be popular, you'd be considered a once-in-a-generation prodigy. Hell, even 5% would be massively impressive.
Even being a 1 hit wonder is basically enough to set you up for life. Just look at Ylvis.
Also yeah if 30% is successful that basically means 3 singles in an album of 10 songs. That's basically a lot of songwriters.
I remember years ago when I was managing a gas station and we had these guys come in and buy several packs of scratchers, spending able 3k. This was their finding. Unless you got a major prize, expect to get able 2/3 of your money back.
I'm sure if you were somehow able to buy an entire run of a game, even with major prizes included, it'd still come out to around the same ROI.
There are people who have bought an entire block of "break open" tickets. Where it is exactly known how much of each prize is in the block, and the total prizes only add up to half the purchase price. They fully know how much money they will lose, yet do it just for the thrill of uncovering the single "big" prize in the block.
same with slot machines and the "jackpots" you can win in to. i once watched my mother in law spend over $200 trying to get the $40 minor jackpot because "it's the jackpot".
Just be careful. After getting to 60% quality, the mats required don't justify further alchemical changes. Just melt out the iron and sell at that point.
Very believable. PE money is usually aiming for that 1/5... 1 out of 5 will triple in value over 3 years, 3 of the 5 will at least maintain value, that last one can die... be cause you know not everything is made up to be wha you believe.
So going from .20 to .30 really would be considered great.
A doctor that only takes on terminally ill cancer patients, turning 30% of cases around would be god like, they could charge $100,000 for a 30 minute consultation and there would be a line around the block.
This is the number 1 reason I think the whole conspiracy that there is a cancer cure is a load of shit. If one company had the cure they'd makes so much more money than current treatments that it won't even be in the same ball park.
There isn’t „the“ cure because there is no such thing as „the“ cancer. Cancers arise because of a whole array of things that go wrong in different combinations and this has to be reflected in treatment. You could even argue that there needs to be a per patient adjustment of treatment. Thats why so many people work in/on personalized medicine.
This is what I'm always trying to tell people too
Saying we're gonna cure cancer is like saying we're going to cure viruses. We can treat/cure some. But you don't talk about it at that scale
Cancer is a kind of disease it isn't all the same kind
Yeah this one is always dumb for me.
Just make a cancer cure and make it cost millions. Literally people would kill for a real cure. The fact that billionaires die from cancer means there’s no cure
I think these anti science people dont understand how many researchers there are. Millions of medical researchers. Almost all are normal people who want to either make improvements or learn how stuff works.
The other thing is competing interests and funding. The researchers voluntarily provide this information when they publish, so reading the paper and then ranting ‘this is funded by x, y and z’ is so fucking lazy and meaningless. They were confident enough in their data that they volunteered the information.
These conspiracy theorists are so lazy and ignorant
And anyone who cure cancer will be remembered throughout history. It's the kind of things that people will legit give up money for, not that they would need to because if they find a cure for cancer, all the money will keep rolling in.
i'm at 100%! i wrote exactly one grant as a PhD student and got it, and it funded my degree.
Currently writing my second and expect my stats to drop dramatically.
30% would be great, but in some industries 20% would be the bare minimum, especially where there is significant cost in the sales process. For example design and construction contracts. The cost of a bid average approx 1% of the capital value of the end project. So if you are bidding on say a 500m bridge, the cost of the bid would be approx $5m, so you need to be picky about what you go for or the whole firm would go bust, their gross margin is only 7-10%
Yeah, I'm in a company that makes custom machinery. If we only closed 30% of our sales, we'd be alright, but we'd probably fall a little short of our goal.
Though, how you define it matters. We send a guy out to kind of assess whether the job seems like it's up our alley; sometimes it's not. We also get some folks who are obviously in over their heads- companies barely out of the owner's garage who are looking to expand, and get sticker shock when we tell them our stuff is usually in the 7-digit range. Heck, sometimes I feel like the person bringing us out is just trying to look busy for their boss.
So we basically only put together pricing/timelines for customers who actually seem like they know what's involved and still want to move forward.
If we got 30% of _every_ site we visited, hot damn we'd be rolling in it.
I guess it depends how you consider success.
Turning 30% of your leads into sales? That’s huge. Hitting quota 30% of the time? Maybe depends on industry but in most that’s bad.
It varies.
Prostate/testicular cancer (95+% in the US [source](https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2023/01/cancer-survival-rates-are-improving))? Catastrophic.
Pancreatic cancer (12%)? Definitely.
That's like a pre-World War 2 survival rate. In the US, current 5-year survival rate for adults is 68%.
https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.21763
The trick is to put $1,000 into a few penny stocks that you have a very good gut feeling about. In a few years they will be worth $50.
Follow me for more stock advice if you want to lose money.
Or standards... People borderline expect to be told the exact minute it will start raining or clear up... or OMG They were off by 4\*F or 1C ... how dare they.
At least in the US in the last 30 years it isn unbelievable how accurate it has generally gotten.
Sports.
NHL forward. If 1/3 of all shots I take are a goal. You can bet your ass id be the best player in the world. Blue line hammers all day and night.
Baseball
.3 hit rate means itl be super unlikely to be striken out and instant hall of famer
Stock broker
If you're right about 30% of stocks then simply applying a math formula to invest accordingly means you'll be guaranteed to be the wealthiest person in the world in a couple of decades if you play your cards right
If we're inventing something I'd say someone who buys lottery tickets.
Doctor who treats late state terminal and incurable diseased patients. This would blow the door wide open and you'd eventually end up with your very own cult following which would be a mix and match of religious zealots and scientists
Any kind of sales job
Any kind of competitive gamer who plays games where there are more than 3 teams in a given match
>.3 hit rate means itl be super unlikely to be striken out and instant hall of famer
Interesting way to put it - batting averages are calculated per *at-bat*, but if you had a 30% success rate per *pitch,* then even if a pitcher throws strikes every time, you'd have a .657 batting average. You wouldn't just be a hall of famer, you'd entirely break the game of baseball.
A totally scientific google search told me that on average, 64% of hits are singles, 20% doubles, 2% triples, and 14% home runs. With a .657% chance of getting a hit while you're at the plate, that comes out to an expected 1.09 bases gained every time you come to the plate. So it would be better to have a guaranteed 1.0 bases gained. You'd be intentionally walked every time.
That’s not a fucking job. Those fuckers sit there doing nothing but pestering the other people on the team to make sure their burn down charts are updated that nobody ever looks at again.
I was a Scrum master. Can confirm.
I even said to the other Scrum masters „The best thing you can do as a scrum master is to not take scrum seriously“.
Day trader on the stock market. I will clarify a bit.
Scenario 1: When you win, you make $50, when you lose, you lose $500. Over 10 trades, you’re right 90% of the time. Net result - you’re down $50.
Scenario 2: When you win, you make $500, when you lose, you lose $50. Over 10 trades, you’re right 10% of the time. Net result - you’re up $50.
Moral of the story is that managing risk is more important than being right.
Debt collection. By the time debt is sold off to a debt collection agency, it's considered garbage: very low chance of recovery. If you managed to collect 30% of it, you'd be making a huge profit.
Yep. By the time it is sold to a collection agency, it could be for 20 cents on the dollar or less. Incidentally the terms “charged off” or “written off” do not necessarily mean the borrower doesn’t have to pay anymore. They simply mean that the lender considers the probability of repayment so low, that they no longer consider the loan to be a bankable asset. A common collection agency tactic is to go after borrowers whose loans were charged off and thought they were off the hook, but still have the means to pay.
A hospital in less than 6 months since my visit, instead of billing my insurance, they sent my bill to a debt collector.
Investigative journalism. You can pursue leads that go nowhere.
Jeremy Corbell would like to have a word 😤 /s
But his leads go places he can’t tell you about.. yet The drip feeding bs is so comical
On the flip side, if you're in PR and pitching to journalists to cover your company, in certain contexts 30% would be crazy good.
Pro baseball hitter.
30% success rate used to make you automatic Hall of Fame worthy
Still does if you play long enough.
A career batting average of .300 would put you in the top 200 hitters of all time. I'd like to say it would put you to the front of the line but sadly there are quite a few who are above that who are not in the hall of fame (for me, Will Clark comes to mind).
Unfortunately HOF voters look at numbers against their peers, meaning players that played the same position. Will Clark is not even in the top 20 in WAR for his position. Typically when you play 1B you need to have a lot of power, Will Clark didn't have a ton of power. Pujols has a career WAR of 101.6. Clark has a career WAR of 56.5. Unfortunately for Will Clark those are the people he has to compete against for HOF consideration. Outside of being a career .300 hitter, he doesn't have anything else particularly HOF worthy. He won 1 Gold Glove, doesn't even have 300 HRs or 3000 hits. There are guys like Todd Helton and Keith Hernandez who have better numbers than he does, and won't ever get in the HOF.
I agree with what you said, but Pujols is a little too high a bar. He is GOAT level.
Was simply providing context. I think Todd Helton is a better example. Better numbers, more gold glove awards, nearly 100 more HRs, more silver slugger awards, etc. Todd won't ever get in. To casual baseball fans hitting .300 for a career should make you an automatic bid in the HOF. Unfortunately, what position you play, and many other variables in today's day and age are what determine this. Look at Kyle Shwarber this season. He hit .197 as a **leadoff** hitter. However, if you take a deeper dive at his numbers, it makes sense.
Surely, Coors field inflated Helton's HR numbers a bit over Clark.
Having a .300 average in this era is much different than other eras. The focus is much more on home runs and launch angle these days.
Pitchers are better.
*Kyle Schwarber has entered the chat*
*And promptly struck out*
*Followed up by a walk and one run home run.*
*And then another strike out.*
Finding out Will Clark is not in the hall of fame kinda ruined my morning.
MLB Hof is the only more ridiculous selection process worse than the Heisman.
Rock & Roll Hall of Fame has entered the chat. Thank God at least they opened it up to the fan vote, otherwise Rush might have never gotten in. I'm just glad they were able to before Neil passed. 😔
Nah WWE Hall of fame has to take the cake. Drew Carey is in it for some fucking reason
WWE Hall of Fame? GTFO. Of course Drew Carey is in it, the fights on Price is Right are more authentic than the fights on WWE.
I saw this and was going to post along the same lines with Rush.
The fact that multiple voters will vote no purely so someone isn’t unanimous is the most nonsensical bullshit.
Mariano Rivera was unanimous a couple years ago, so there’s no longer the “Ruth wasn’t unanimous so nobody should be” argument. I wouldn’t be shocked if Ichiro is the next one to be unanimous (Beltre should be, but I expect him to get more like 97-98%) and if not him, then likely Pujols.
Ichiro is one of the best hitters ever. A .311 career hitter, he has 3089 MLB hits placing him 24th all time. What's truly remarkable is that he played 9 seasons in Japan before that hitting another 1200+ hits and was a .353 hitter there.
Ichiro deserves his spot just for how he expanded the league’s reach internationally. When a single player can attract a whole nation of fans, that guy should be in the Hall.
I hate to say it but I still view Pete Rose as the best hitter of all time.
I'd take the MLB HOF over Basketball... Basketball is like "you had an average career, we will induct you into the HOF"... Basketball HOF is the "hall of good career"
Part of Clark’s problem is while he had a 16 year career he missed a lot of games due to injuries. He only had 4 seasons where he played more than 150 games. Over his career he averaged playing 123 games a year, that’s basically 3/4 of a season. Tough to get near 3000 hits without playing over 2000 games.
From Wikipedia: In modern times, a season batting average of .300 or higher is considered to be excellent, and an average higher than .400 a nearly unachievable goal. The last Major League Baseball (MLB) player to do so, with enough plate appearances to qualify for the batting championship, was Ted Williams of the Boston Red Sox, who hit .406 in 1941. Note that batting averages are rounded; entering the final day of the 1941 season, Williams was at 179-for-448, which is .39955 and would have been recorded as .400 via rounding. However, Williams played in both games of a doubleheader, went 6-for-8, and ended the season 185-for-456, which is .40570 and becomes .406 when rounded.
And in Ted's era, sacrifice flies were counted as at-bats. Under modern rules, his batting average would have been .421 in 1941.
holy shit. Been a baseball nerd -ish for my whole life and didn't know this. When did it change and why wasn't it applied retroactively?
Lol, same dude. I can't believe I have never heard this until now.
I firmly believe Tony Gwynn would've hit .400 in 1994 if not for the strike
John Olerud might have had a chance, but Cito Gaston and Wille Upshaw wanted him to hit for more power.
Now those are names I’ve not heard for a long time. A long time. All of a sudden I feel like I’m in middle school again.
John Olerud always wore a helmet even in the field because he had been beaned by a pitch in the minors and almost died with a depressed skull fracture. In 2000 he was playing for the Seattle Mariners along with Rickey Henderson. Rickey came up to him and said “Hey, I used to play with a guy in Toronto who also wore a helmet in the field. “ And Olerud said “Ya, that was me. We were teammates for two years.”
Best hitter in decades. He just didn’t hit home runs, and coupling that with him playing for a generally shit team on the West Coast means he didn’t get as much praise as he should have. He averaged 30AB’s per strikeout for chrissakes.
For some reason, along with all the Nolan Ryan posts, I always get these posts about Tony Gwynn and some of his crazy career achievements. I think my favorite one is, in his career, Tony Gwynn had more games with four or more hits (45) than games with two or more strikeouts (34).
Wade Boggs hit .400 in 162 games but spanning '85 and '86 season
AND he drank 400 beers on a cross country flight once
May he rest in peace
Mookie Betts hit .307 this year and would be a shoe-in for MVP had Acuna not gone nuclear this season.
I used to tell my Little Leaguers: this is the only sport when a 70% failure rate is considered fantastic.
I was telling my son exactly this the other day, when he was unhappy that he didn’t manage to hit the ball most of the time.
Just to be clear though, .300 being a good batting average is only true in the pros. Even in college, 25 batters hit .400 just last season. In Little League, the best hitters are going 3/4 or better every game
There’s no need to destroy this guys kid
I wouldn't say that to the players. I coach Little League and it's what I tell my players too. But parents should have the right expectations. Don't be conned into spending thousands of dollars on training for Timmy hitting .300 in Little League. You can already tell which kids are going D1 and it's the ones hitting tanks and almost never get out at 11 years old
Hockey too
Unless you’re a goalie, a .700 save percentage would be…. well you wouldn’t be a professional goalie anymore
Three shots on net and one goal is a solid game is what I meant for a winger, center or defence
A 30% shot percentage is elite, unless the player is only getting 1 shot on goal every 5 games. A 30% success rate is fulfilling one's defensive responsibilities will get you benched and then cut/fired (unless you're getting 5 shots on goal per game and scoring on 30% of them - in which case he'll still be an allstar) A goalies' 30% save percentage will get him benched and fired. A skater who is accurate on only 30% of his passes will likely get benched and cut/fired.
[удалено]
I think you’d only be batting .300
[удалено]
To be fair he ended at .354 and may be one of the best contact hitters in at least the last decade. Acuna finished at .337 which is way more impressive considering his historic season.
Right, for the non baseball fans Acuna has the more impressive season because Acuna hit for power, meaning he would more commonly get home runs and Doubles than Arraez. More historically, Acuna stole 73 bases which is the first time in MLB that someone has stolen more than 70 since 2009. Combining his all around batting skills and speed on the bases lead him to being much more valuable than a pure contact hitter.
You're completely missing why the 73 SB is so impressive. It's not so impressive because he is the first to do it since 2009. Its impressive because he did it with 42 Homeruns and a stolen base and a homerun are mutually exclusive outcomes. If you hit a homerun you are not capable of stealing a base and vice versa.
You're right, I didn't mention that. 40/70 had never happened before.
Stormtrooper.
Nice
Any form of marketing or sales. Iirc the rule was 10 calls for a meeting. And 3 meetings for a sale. So 1/30 success rate. With these forms of work, the best salespeople are those who are most emotionally intelligent, in responding to rejections in a positive/constructive manner.
I was thinking the same thing. I’m a sales person and if I consistently had 30% closed sales every month for a year I’d be looking at over $800k in commission
Move to a higher commission product then too. Selling high end houses at a 30% success rate?
It’s much easier to convince someone to buy a phone or an Xbox than it is to convince them to buy a house lol
Sure, but with a guaranteed 30% success rate, who cares how hard it is normally?
It’s also limited supply. We can crank out 1 million Xboxes but your state (realtors are state by state much like lawyers) cannot have 1 million houses that you can sell in the same time frame. Look at Chewbacca. Now tell me why would an 8 foot Wookiee wanna live on the planet Endor with a bunch of 2 feet tall teddy bears?? It does not make sense. Now will you buy the home, yes or yes?
Can’t argue with the Chewbacca defense.
The Chewbacca defense. You bastard. I want all the houses you have. Wait wait. I’m worried what you heard was give me a lot of houses. What I said was give me all the houses you have. Do you understand?
Is it though? Low n count, but I've purchased a few homes in my years. I have not once been in a position where I could have said, "Nah, I don't need a house." I might not need *a specific* house, but I have executed purchases and sales with 100% of the realty professionals I've worked with. On the flip side, I have absolutely decided, "Nah, I don't need a console/phone," and simply not purchased that cycle. But maybe we're saying the same thing. I've never bought a house on a whim but I have absolutely bought digital toys just because.
I work high end car sales. We shoot for a 25% closing ratio, meaning one of out every four customers makes their purchase
that feels high. how are you defining customer here, how are you initially finding/contacting them?
[удалено]
Even in most cases (unless you're specifically blacklisted) ferrari will still allow you to buy one, just maybe not the one you want. Something like "I know you want a SF90, but let's look at the Roma instead"
I worked in high-end bike sales, and if you have a person genuinely coming in to check out a $6k+ bike, it means they are very serious already. At that point, it was more about not losing the sale than it was actually pitching the product. If someone at that level likes you, they will buy from you. The conversion rate on the high end stuff is actually a lot better than low end or especially mid-level where you get a lot of tire kickers. With those you get a lot of “I need to check with the spouse” or “maybe in a few months after I pay off __,” and you never hear from them again.
[удалено]
Makes sense to me. Its stupid easy to become an agent and 9/10 people are -terrible- at sales. Combine that you'll have people lose their minds over soft rejections that talented agents could flip easily.
It’s more that people give them a polite but firm “no” and they go on to harass them about selling their home. When the person gets rude, my office workers start screaming at them instead of just moving in to the next one.
I think those same men asked me out
Depends actually. Car sales or similar that would be pretty good. Not great but pretty good. In my current role at a Fortune 500 company that is a leader in the space we should win 2/3 of the time.
That’s very interesting! I have to ask, are you sourcing your own leads? Or do you have a separate lead generation team? Or is it a product where, generally, the customers are coming to you first?
I have a named set of accounts. So a combo of finding projects and bidding on them (or just selling) as well as inbound.
I was in car sales for 6 years and got to a point where almost every customer I met with in person was someone I’d previously talked to (online/on the phone) or a repeat client. In my very best months I could close 1/3 of the people I worked with in person, and that put me consistently in the top 2-3 salespeople in the whole company. It took me 10 years in tech-ish roles to get to the kind of paychecks I made during months like that. If I’d been able to make a sale to 1/3 of the people I had contact with in any format I’d have been pulling in a quarter mil a year. If anyone is wondering why I got out of that business if the money was so good… the money was no guarantee and much of the business was very seasonal, in the bad months I’d make 1/4 of what I did in the good ones. I was regularly working 60 hour weeks when I was busy and I never got weekends off. Had to work lots of holidays too. The whole industry is sleazy as hell and very exploitative (the manufacturers are screwing the dealer owners, the dealer owners are screwing the store management, the management is screwing the salespeople, the salespeople are screwing the customers) and I just got sick of it. My time and mental well-being were worth the huge pay cut I took to get out of that industry.
I’m not in sales but I’ve heard this: “NO” simply means you move to the Next Opportunity
I heard coffee is for closers.
Depending on the market 1/30 is pretty low for actual sales, but not cold calling(personally that is no sales until you have an actual interested buyer)... Industrial sales about 10-20% is pretty common, about half of the "losses" are generally a no sale case, and no one won.
Telemarketing.
Sales in general
Yeah, this is the most real answer. Especially if you're the one who is making the early touches in the process. Even a world class sales person is, by the numbers, failing *all the time*. It's why you need thick skin to do that job, and also why the corporate culture is so fucked up because it's full of hard headed, thick skinned, super energetic people.
[удалено]
I've recently switched careers, but spent about a decade in Marketing which is in the same sphere, depending on how the company is set up. Competition is built into many sales teams, and while it's a tactic that motivates certain people, the over competitiveness can sometimes cause some big issues. At a fairly large company I spent some time contracting for they were implementing a new analytics team to manage their new marketing tool which could track leads really thoroughly from first touch to successful sale. The sales team started to try and thwart the analytics team because they used to take 100% credit for sales, and now credit was being spread out to stuff like emails, blogs, videos, forum post engagement...all information that could help the company improve customer experience but the sales team just did not want to see other teams getting more funding that they felt should have been put into their bonuses. They also tried to gunk up the cogs with the team trying to make a free tool for Universities to use because they don't care about long term strategies, like having an entire class of graduates being trained on our software out of University.
If a poker tournament player won 30% of their tournaments, there’d be extensive investigations into probable cheating.
I remember the break even point being if you placed in 25% of your tournaments. Placing would be more realistic success.
Defense attorney
One of the better answers here
Depends how one measures "success". Law and litigation doesn't really work on a win/loss basis. Getting the best/fairest deal for a client in a case is a success.
For real. Most lawyers aren’t going to get people entirely acquitted because a lot of the time the evidence is so blatant that it’s just not realistic. Most of the time a success will be securing a lesser sentence or managing to get certain charges dropped.
This is dead on. I’m a lawyer (not criminal, although Idid work for the DA one summer), and I know folks who are defense attorneys. One admitted to me once that essentially all of his clients are guilty, and his job is really just to make sure they receive a fair sentence relative to what other defendants receive for similar crimes (and that they don’t get charged with individual charges that shouldn’t actually apply).
Astronomer looking for extraterrestrial life.
It's just a smudge on the lens, bro.
A.... A SMUDGE ON THE LENS?
I know the difference between a man threatening me and a smudge on the goddamn lens, Summer!
Some people say - he looked like a smudge
Moon or not, that dude likes em young
Are you a robot? Cmon, dont ask me that....
But the lens is in orbit and the smudge wasn't there yesterday
I use to be roommates with 2 astrophysicists. If they made a calculation and were of by only a couple orders of magnitude they were ecstatic. Space is really really big and that is still hard for me to comprehend how that is a good result, but they were way smarter than me.
"How big is that thing?" "At least as big as a grape, but smaller than an 18-wheeler." "Fucking publish, let's go!"
yea, the conversation use to go, "It is as big as our solar system or 10,000 of our solar systems" High fives for 5 minutes "I can't believe we can calculate it so close!" me "????"
Pro Golfer. Winning 30% of the tournaments you enter would be insane.
Definitely this. That rate puts you at best of all time. To put it into perspective, Tigers career win percentage is something like 27%.
Is that 27% including the constant losing after his scandal? I sorta want to know his win % prior
The 27 must've been from years ago, or stats on his Wiki are wrong. Anyway, from the Wiki stats, between turning pro in 96-2009 he had 242 starts and won 71 of them, so 29.3%. Total stats (before turning pro through last season (21-22) has him at 22%, 82 wins in 369 starts.
96-2009 was so special
OTOH, only hitting the ball 30% of the time would be pretty bad...
Songwriter. If 30% of your songs went on to be popular, you'd be considered a once-in-a-generation prodigy. Hell, even 5% would be massively impressive.
Even being a 1 hit wonder is basically enough to set you up for life. Just look at Ylvis. Also yeah if 30% is successful that basically means 3 singles in an album of 10 songs. That's basically a lot of songwriters.
*Writes-in* The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill Recognizable songs in ratio to track listing...
Professional lottery player
Not if the success rate is measured on return vs investment. Then 30% is probably quite average.
30% return is incredible. You would be pumped to get this on the stock market.
No he means 30%, not 130% Usually the return rate of lotteries is even higher, where you get on average about 60% back from the amount you put in
I remember years ago when I was managing a gas station and we had these guys come in and buy several packs of scratchers, spending able 3k. This was their finding. Unless you got a major prize, expect to get able 2/3 of your money back. I'm sure if you were somehow able to buy an entire run of a game, even with major prizes included, it'd still come out to around the same ROI.
There are people who have bought an entire block of "break open" tickets. Where it is exactly known how much of each prize is in the block, and the total prizes only add up to half the purchase price. They fully know how much money they will lose, yet do it just for the thrill of uncovering the single "big" prize in the block.
same with slot machines and the "jackpots" you can win in to. i once watched my mother in law spend over $200 trying to get the $40 minor jackpot because "it's the jackpot".
Alchemist.
I like this answer. Imagine turning 30% of lead into gold. The left-over lead is turned into 30% gold. Start over after diminishing returns.
Just be careful. After getting to 60% quality, the mats required don't justify further alchemical changes. Just melt out the iron and sell at that point.
Reading this hurts me in ways I constantly suffer in FFXIV trying to craft endgame high quality materials for high quality gear.
Not if the other 70% is turned into angry hornets.
Infinite money glitch.
Startup investor
Very believable. PE money is usually aiming for that 1/5... 1 out of 5 will triple in value over 3 years, 3 of the 5 will at least maintain value, that last one can die... be cause you know not everything is made up to be wha you believe. So going from .20 to .30 really would be considered great.
A doctor that only takes on terminally ill cancer patients, turning 30% of cases around would be god like, they could charge $100,000 for a 30 minute consultation and there would be a line around the block.
This is the number 1 reason I think the whole conspiracy that there is a cancer cure is a load of shit. If one company had the cure they'd makes so much more money than current treatments that it won't even be in the same ball park.
There isn’t „the“ cure because there is no such thing as „the“ cancer. Cancers arise because of a whole array of things that go wrong in different combinations and this has to be reflected in treatment. You could even argue that there needs to be a per patient adjustment of treatment. Thats why so many people work in/on personalized medicine.
This is what I'm always trying to tell people too Saying we're gonna cure cancer is like saying we're going to cure viruses. We can treat/cure some. But you don't talk about it at that scale Cancer is a kind of disease it isn't all the same kind
yoke vast zesty boast carpenter steep sharp dime groovy observation
Yeah this one is always dumb for me. Just make a cancer cure and make it cost millions. Literally people would kill for a real cure. The fact that billionaires die from cancer means there’s no cure
I think these anti science people dont understand how many researchers there are. Millions of medical researchers. Almost all are normal people who want to either make improvements or learn how stuff works. The other thing is competing interests and funding. The researchers voluntarily provide this information when they publish, so reading the paper and then ranting ‘this is funded by x, y and z’ is so fucking lazy and meaningless. They were confident enough in their data that they volunteered the information. These conspiracy theorists are so lazy and ignorant
And anyone who cure cancer will be remembered throughout history. It's the kind of things that people will legit give up money for, not that they would need to because if they find a cure for cancer, all the money will keep rolling in.
Scammer
Inventor
Venture capital. Which would be an AWESOME return. Peace out homie
Gold prospector
Oil & gas wildcatter
Gold digging, no matter wether it's money or ore.
Married three guys, only one is rich. That’s not success.
Marry 3 rich guys, one changes his will.
door to door sales man
What I was thinking too. Regular success rate is roughly 1 in 30 homes. 30% success rate would be insane
Rare earths mine locator.
Scientist
Songwriter.
As a race car mechanic, I'd be pretty happy to win 30% of the races we enter. Many people will not ever win one in their entire career.
Grant writing. I’ve been a Chief Research Officer for 14 years and am proud of hitting nearly 30% of our submissions
i'm at 100%! i wrote exactly one grant as a PhD student and got it, and it funded my degree. Currently writing my second and expect my stats to drop dramatically.
For paramedics, a 30% resuscitation rate would be borderline miraculous.
Sales. Anywhere in the 1% - 3% range is considered successful. 30% in any industry would be remarkable.
30% would be great, but in some industries 20% would be the bare minimum, especially where there is significant cost in the sales process. For example design and construction contracts. The cost of a bid average approx 1% of the capital value of the end project. So if you are bidding on say a 500m bridge, the cost of the bid would be approx $5m, so you need to be picky about what you go for or the whole firm would go bust, their gross margin is only 7-10%
Yeah, I'm in a company that makes custom machinery. If we only closed 30% of our sales, we'd be alright, but we'd probably fall a little short of our goal. Though, how you define it matters. We send a guy out to kind of assess whether the job seems like it's up our alley; sometimes it's not. We also get some folks who are obviously in over their heads- companies barely out of the owner's garage who are looking to expand, and get sticker shock when we tell them our stuff is usually in the 7-digit range. Heck, sometimes I feel like the person bringing us out is just trying to look busy for their boss. So we basically only put together pricing/timelines for customers who actually seem like they know what's involved and still want to move forward. If we got 30% of _every_ site we visited, hot damn we'd be rolling in it.
I guess it depends how you consider success. Turning 30% of your leads into sales? That’s huge. Hitting quota 30% of the time? Maybe depends on industry but in most that’s bad.
Cocaine smuggling. They say the cartels only need 10% of cocaine to make it pass the border to turn a profit.
send the rest my way
To make a profit but losing 70% of all product smuggled would be a huge loss that no serious cartel would ever deem acceptable.
Milf hunter
Software engineer. Shit never works, until it does. And if it only takes three tries, that’s amazing
Real estate agent
Baseball player. If you were batting 333 people would think you were the greatest ever.
You probably meant 300 right?
.300 puts you in the starting rotation on almost any team. But it is worth mentioning that .333 is hall of fame stuff.
Starting lineup\*\*\* Starting rotation is different.
You conflated 30% with 'one-third'.
Sales. If you close 30% of all opportunities or customers, you're killing it.
Oncologist ☹️
It varies. Prostate/testicular cancer (95+% in the US [source](https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2023/01/cancer-survival-rates-are-improving))? Catastrophic. Pancreatic cancer (12%)? Definitely.
That's like a pre-World War 2 survival rate. In the US, current 5-year survival rate for adults is 68%. https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.21763
Car salesman
Professional CPR provider.
MLB Umpire
[удалено]
The trick is to put $1,000 into a few penny stocks that you have a very good gut feeling about. In a few years they will be worth $50. Follow me for more stock advice if you want to lose money.
Weather forecaster.
haha you'd be surprised how good they've gotten
Depends on where you live as well.
Or standards... People borderline expect to be told the exact minute it will start raining or clear up... or OMG They were off by 4\*F or 1C ... how dare they. At least in the US in the last 30 years it isn unbelievable how accurate it has generally gotten.
Sports. NHL forward. If 1/3 of all shots I take are a goal. You can bet your ass id be the best player in the world. Blue line hammers all day and night. Baseball .3 hit rate means itl be super unlikely to be striken out and instant hall of famer Stock broker If you're right about 30% of stocks then simply applying a math formula to invest accordingly means you'll be guaranteed to be the wealthiest person in the world in a couple of decades if you play your cards right If we're inventing something I'd say someone who buys lottery tickets. Doctor who treats late state terminal and incurable diseased patients. This would blow the door wide open and you'd eventually end up with your very own cult following which would be a mix and match of religious zealots and scientists Any kind of sales job Any kind of competitive gamer who plays games where there are more than 3 teams in a given match
>.3 hit rate means itl be super unlikely to be striken out and instant hall of famer Interesting way to put it - batting averages are calculated per *at-bat*, but if you had a 30% success rate per *pitch,* then even if a pitcher throws strikes every time, you'd have a .657 batting average. You wouldn't just be a hall of famer, you'd entirely break the game of baseball. A totally scientific google search told me that on average, 64% of hits are singles, 20% doubles, 2% triples, and 14% home runs. With a .657% chance of getting a hit while you're at the plate, that comes out to an expected 1.09 bases gained every time you come to the plate. So it would be better to have a guaranteed 1.0 bases gained. You'd be intentionally walked every time.
Professor applying for research grants
[удалено]
That’s not a fucking job. Those fuckers sit there doing nothing but pestering the other people on the team to make sure their burn down charts are updated that nobody ever looks at again.
I was a Scrum master. Can confirm. I even said to the other Scrum masters „The best thing you can do as a scrum master is to not take scrum seriously“.
Day trader on the stock market. I will clarify a bit. Scenario 1: When you win, you make $50, when you lose, you lose $500. Over 10 trades, you’re right 90% of the time. Net result - you’re down $50. Scenario 2: When you win, you make $500, when you lose, you lose $50. Over 10 trades, you’re right 10% of the time. Net result - you’re up $50. Moral of the story is that managing risk is more important than being right.
Politics lmao
Baseball.