In a project I am working on I need to persuade people of the truth of a little story I made up. It would be easier though if I could tell them some key phrase that they could then look up on Wikipedia or some such...
So the story...
Say that you were a golfing coach that was training a collection of young golfers to enter next year's World Hole In One championships. The format of the contest is that each entrant would have 1000 shots and the winner is the one that got the most holes in one. Judging by previous years, the winner would get perhaps two or three.
Your task is to select which one of your young players you should select to send to the contest as only one is allowed. Now you can use one of two methods to choose your entrant.
Method A. Let all of your young golfers play 1000 shots and then select the golfer with the highest number of holes-in-one (probably of the order of 1 or 2).
Method B. Let all your golfers play just 100 shots and select the one with the smallest average distance from the hole.
It is my feeling that the players selected using method B would stand a better chance of winning the world hole in one championships than the golfer selected by method A. This may appear paradoxical to some people because I am valuing a "proxy" for winning over and above the "real" test. Assuming I am correct (and feel free to tell me I'm wrong), is there some name I could give to this effect? Or a chapter in a book that tells an analogous tale.