You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


Moneydisc, Pt. 1: The Value Of Screen Time

Back in the late 1980s, the Oakland Athletics (often shortened to just "the A's") were one of the best teams in baseball. They appeared in three straight World Series, from 1988 to 1990, winning in 1989 with a sweep of their rivals from across the bay, the San Francisco Giants. But all that winning came at a cost, and in 1991, the A's had the highest salary in Major League Baseball (MLB).

At this point, we just want to tell those who might be worried: Yes, this all leads back to disc golf.

When A’s owner Walter Haas passed away in 1995, the team had to suddenly shift to money-saving mode, and the new owners ordered the front office to cut player salaries.

With their backs against the wall, the A’s started looking for exploitable inefficiencies in the player market, players who were undervalued based on traditional methods of player evaluation. They peeled away the layers of stats that were flashy but didn’t matter and found undervalued players who contributed to winning. This helped the A's be a successful team in the early 2000s despite having one of the lowest payrolls in the MLB.

As the disc golf world heads into the 2019-20 offseason, it would be valuable for manufacturers who sponsor professional disc golfers to think like those mid-90s A's. But what things in disc golf establish real value, and what players should be they be looking at? The Moneydisc series—a name derived from the bestselling book Moneyball that told the A's story to the world—seeks to help answer just those sorts of questions.

In part one, the focus is on players making it onto tournament coverage videos. How valuable is it, and which players are doing it more often than anyone else?

The Value Of Coverage

Catrina Allen getting some time on camera at the 2019 PDGA World Championships. Credit: Alyssa Van Lanen

For the most part, this is pretty simple. Players at the top of their fields like Paul McBeth and Paige Pierce are probably going to sell discs. But those players also come with a hefty price tag. Like the A’s, we’re looking for players who are good in the ways that matter, but are undervalued in the ways in which we traditionally measure players.

Let's start with an impressive number: YouTube view counts from major sources of disc golf tournament coverage have totaled over 43.5 million so far in 2019. That's up from the around 30 million last year, and there's still more than a month until 2020.



But even with the growing audience, we don’t have the resources to follow the entire field right now in disc golf media. Even at the biggest tournaments, we’re covering a max of 12 Open players and eight Open Women players during one round. That means in a typical field of around 100+ players for Open, and 25+ for Open Women, only about 10% and 33% of the field are going to get eyeballs. If a player doesn't get on coverage, their sponsor misses out on the products they've supplied a player with being seen and discussed by commentators during a portion of those 40+ million views. That makes it pretty clear why players who appear on coverage are almost always far more valuable than players who don’t.

This creates an interesting dynamic where a more inconsistent player who is occasionally fantastic can be more valuable than a player who is consistently good. For example, 15th in Open at a National Tour event is a really strong finish. However, in terms of actually selling discs, it probably doesn’t matter as much as spiking one good round, being temporarily in fourth, showing up on lead card coverage, and then blowing up and finishing 50th.

And recently we've learned that JomezPro, the most-watched provider of disc golf tournament footage, is covering all Open lead cards for PDGA National Tour and Disc Golf Pro Tour events in 2020. That should make an Open player's ability to spike onto lead cards at big events even more valuable to potential sponsors as they eye potential new recruits this offseason.

With all this mind, it's time to look at more specific numbers on exactly who's making lead cards most often.

Open

Most of the discussion in this section will focus on two tables. The first, below, shows the 25 players who most often made lead and/or chase cards when they played events using UDisc Live in 2019. UDisc Live was used at all DGPT, PDGA National Tour, and PDGA Majors that included an Open field, as well as several large A-tier events. This stat is interesting because it points towards the capability of players to make lead/chase cards no matter if they tour a lot or a little.

Name Lead Lead+Chase Paul McBeth 67.4% 82.6% Eagle McMahon 54.1% 67.6% Ricky Wysocki 47.7% 61.4% Bradley Williams 33.3% 66.7% Simon Lizotte 32.7% 61.2% James Conrad 29.8% 46.8% Emerson Keith 29.0% 41.9% Kevin Jones 27.1% 41.7% Nolan Grider 25.0% 25.0% James Proctor 25.0% 25.0% Jalle Stoor 23.1% 23.1% Calvin Heimburg 22.9% 37.5% Anthony Barela 21.9% 37.5% Chris Dickerson 21.7% 60.9% Jesse Nieminen 20.0% 60.0% Cale Leiviska 18.8% 37.5% Nikko Locastro 16.7% 30.0% Garrett Gurthie 15.7% 27.5% A.J. Risley 14.0% 18.6% Nate Sexton 13.3% 43.3% JohnE McCray 13.0% 21.7% Thomas Gilbert 12.8% 20.5% Chris Clemons 12.5% 22.9% Joel Freeman 12.0% 36.0% Dustin Keegan 12.0% 16.0%

The second table shows the top 25 Open players in order of appearances on lead/chase cards by pure amount. The slight differences in ranks and players included here as opposed to the table above show how players with lower percentages of making lead cards can play more events and up their chances of getting on coverage. Conversely, it also could mean that some players in the top 25 by percentage may simply have played few tournaments but done well there (e.g., Bradley Williams).

Name Lead Chase Paul McBeth 31 7 Ricky Wysocki 21 6 Eagle McMahon 20 5 Simon Lizotte 16 14 James Conrad 14 8 Kevin Jones 13 7 Calvin Heimburg 11 7 Emerson Keith 9 4 Garrett Gurthie 8 6 Anthony Barela 7 5 A.J. Risley 6 2 Chris Clemons 6 5 Joel Freeman 6 12 Chris Dickerson 5 9 Nikko Locastro 5 4 Thomas Gilbert 5 3 Alex Russell 5 5 Nate Sexton 4 9 Seppo Paju 4 4 Adam Hammes 4 2 Matt Bell 4 2 Nathan Queen 4 3 Jalle Stoor 3 0 Cale Leiviska 3 3 JohnE McCray 3 2

The top of both tables makes one thing extremely obvious: Paul McBeth, Eagle McMahon, and Ricky Wysocki are very good and very valuable. No one in Open made a lead card more than one-third of the time except for those three. McBeth, in particular, made lead card an insane two-thirds of the time. But those aren't the players this series is looking to analyze.

Emerson Keith putting in front of the gallery and cameras at the 2019 PDGA World Championships. Credit: Alyssa Van Lanen

Looking further down we see some interesting names. Emerson Keith is a name that stands out on this list. Keith didn’t break the top five for lead card percent or totals, but he was probably one of the most surprisingly valuable players of 2019 after his breakout Worlds performance. Keith was on every Worlds lead card following the first of the tournament's five rounds. Worlds was the most-watched tournament of the year, and his presence on the final round lead card alone has advertised Latitude64’s products every one of the over two million times coverage of that round has been viewed.



It's not surprising that Latitude64 quickly got Keith to ink an extension before other teams could go after him in the offseason and offer more money.

Another player who’s high up on this list relative to his current 1022 rating is Anthony Barela, which makes sense if you’ve gotten a chance to watch him play. Barela has a ton of power and explosiveness, but he's not perfect at reining in those weapons in yet. He's a good example of a high-volatility player who's going to make a lot of lead cards and sell plastic even if he doesn't always finish well.

Still, a player rated over 1020 isn't exactly a diamond in the rough, but two players on these lists who aren't at that mark are A.J. Risley and Thomas Gilbert.

A.J. Risley, shown here at the 2019 Glass Blown Open, made lead and chase cards more often than many with higher ratings. Credit: Alyssa Van Lanen

Risley is rated 1014 but made 2019 lead cards at a higher clip than more established players like Seppo Paju, Jeremy Koling, Drew Gibson, and Gregg Barsby. Dynamic Discs just lost Paige Pierce, and dropped Jordan Castro, so they have sponsorship dollars to spare. Risley, currently part of the Dynamic team, is coming off an injury, but the data suggests it could be in Dynamic's interest to use a portion of those freed-up funds on keeping Risley.

It’s the same story with Gilbert. Much like Barela, the 1012-rated Canadian young gun has elite level distance that he occasionally has a hard time keeping in check. Gilbert is only on Innova’s Crew team, but with numbers like these, it might be worth Innova’s while to lock him into a long-term deal now.

Open Women



Just like in the Open section above, we have two tables looking at the rate of lead/chase cards made and pure total of lead/chase cards made by the Open Women field in 2019 at events that used UDisc Live. Here, we narrowed it to the top 20 given the smaller size of the Open Women field.

Rate of making lead and chase cards:

Name Lead Lead+Chase Catrina Allen 81.3% 91.7% Eveliina Salonen 77.0% 100% Paige Pierce 70.6% 84.3% Henna Blomroos 66.7% 88.9% Kristin Tattar 65.2% 87.0% Jennifer Allen 47.8% 73.9% Sarah Hokom 42.6% 78.7% Paige Bjerkaas 35.3% 58.8% Jessica Weese 33.3% 62.8% Rebecca Cox 29.6% 61.4% Elaine King 28.6% 78.6% Karina Nowels 22.2% 22.2% Madison Walker 20.6% 38.2% Hannah Leatherman 20.0% 40.0% Cynthia Ricciotti 18.2% 18.2% Vanessa Van Dyken 17.5% 42.5% Christine Jennings 16.7% 25.0% Maris Perendi 16.7% 33.3% Kathryn Mertsch 16.7% 33.3% Heather Young 16.7% 50.0%

Total number of lead and chase cards made:

Name Lead Chase Catrina Allen 39 5 Paige Pierce 36 7 Sarah Hokom 20 17 Jessica Weese 17 15 Kristin Tattar 15 5 Rebecca Cox 13 14 Paige Bjerkaas 12 8 Jennifer Allen 11 6 Eveliina Salonen 10 3 Madison Walker 7 6 Vanessa Van Dyken 7 10 Henna Blomroos 6 2 Lisa Fajkus 6 8 Hailey King 5 5 Elaine King 4 7 Hannah McBeth 4 6 Holly Finley 4 10 Zoe Andyke 3 4 Missy Gannon 3 6 Lauren Butler 3 5

Again, we'll start by taking a moment to reflect on the top of these lists. Allen made the lead card of an event she played 81% of the time. That’s roughly 10% more often than Paige Pierce and the highest mark by any player this season in either division. As far as getting eyes on products goes, Allen was a gold mine in 2019.

Henna Blomroos, who recently announced she was parting ways with former sponsor Prodiscus, also stands out as a very important name. Before Paige Pierce announced her decision to leave Dynamic, Blomroos had the highest lead card percentage of any unclaimed player by far, making the lead card two-thirds of the time she had the chance. Eveliina Salonen, another Finnish superstar and one of Blomroos’ closest friends, is already on team Innova, and locking up another potential superstar in Blomroos would put Innova’s stamp on the future of the Open Women division.

If a company is willing to invest in Finn Henna Blomroos, shown above, touring more in the states, the investment would most likely pay off in a high number of lead card appearances. Credit: Alyssa Van Lanen

Note that Blomroos and Salonen made a higher percentage of lead cards than Jennifer Allen, Innova’s highest ranked American. The issue with the trio of Blomroos, Salonen, and Allen is that they don’t play all the big events. Unless Innova wants to see its Open Women market share taken by other brands, they should figure out a way to make it financially viable to either sign Blomroos and bring her and Salonen stateside more often or help Jennifer Allen hit events outside the Southwest corner of the country.

One potentially important macro piece of analysis from the Open Women data: Because Open Women fields are smaller, there’s a lot more potential to break onto a lead card. In Open, there were only three players able to make lead cards at a rate of 33% or higher. In Open Women, that number went all the way up to 12.

This is another potential inefficiency in the current market. There are way more men sponsored than women on tour, but based on this metric, if a sponsor cares about getting their players on coverage, sponsoring Open Women players is likely marginally more valuable than sponsoring Open players right now.

The Bottom Line

Round coverage is the most-watched disc golf media in existence. That means that, at least until resources develop, if you’re not making a lead or chase card, you will rarely get seen playing disc golf. In most cases, sponsors simply won't get as much advertising value for players who aren't making coverage. And because of that, it's important not just to pay attention to ratings and tour points, but how often players are making it onto lead and chase cards at big events covered by popular disc golf media outlets.

But as important as screen time is, there are a lot more factors that go into what makes players valuable. Read our other entries in the Moneydisc series to dive even deeper into this fascinating topic:



Read: Moneydisc, Pt. 2: The Value Of Fans



Read: Moneydisc, Special Edition: The Value Of Paige Pierce





Note: The stat tables only included players who had nine or more chances to make lead or chase cards after the first rounds of tournaments that used UDisc Live.