I wanted to share a straightforward way I think about performance consistency using a basketball-style example.

During practice, each of us has a clear target:

• Player A: 20 points

• Player B: 15 points

• Me: 18 points

After the session, the results are:

• Player A scores 22 → 2 above target

• Player B scores 10 → 5 below target

• I score 16 → 2 below target

Instead of focusing only on totals, I look at how far each result is from the target.

Here’s a simple way to quantify that:

• A small gap of 2 becomes 4

• A larger gap of 5 becomes 25

• Another small gap of 2 becomes 4

When these are averaged, the overall consistency score is 11.

What this shows:

• Small differences have a limited effect

• Larger gaps have a much stronger impact

• One big miss can outweigh several small ones

In this case, the largest gap contributes most of the total impact.

Key takeaway:

I focus on staying close to expectations rather than just hitting high numbers. Consistent performance within a small range is more valuable than uneven results.

This approach is useful for evaluating accuracy, improving reliability, and tracking performance in a clear, measurable way.