predicted second-round scores for a player who shot 80 in the first round and for a player who shot 70. The mean second-round score for all players was 75.02. So, a player who does well in the first round is predicted to do less well, but still better than average, in the second round. In addition, a player who does poorly in the first is predicted to do better, but still worse than average, in the second. (Comment: This is regression to the mean. If you select individuals with extreme scores on some measure, they tend to have less extreme scores when measured again. That's because their extreme position is partly merit and partly luck, and the luck will be different next time. Regression to the mean contributes to lots of "effects." The rookie of the year often doesn't do as well the next year; the best player in an orchestral audition may play less well once hired than the runners-up; a student who feels she needs coaching after taking the SAT often does better on the next try without coaching.)