When I’m not busy helping people build long-term wealth via evidence-based investing, in my daydreams, I’m a starting pitcher in the major leagues.

Admittedly, if my dreams ever come true, I’ll probably throw out my shoulder on the third pitch, after giving up a couple of home runs. But besides that technicality, there actually are a number of similarities between my real day job and my fantasy career. I know this, because the Astros general manager Jeff Luhnow happens to be a fan of Matt Hall’s Odds On book. He even wrote an endorsement for the book, and he has stayed in touch with us ever since.

As we’ve covered before, author Michael Lewis published his now-iconic book Moneyball in 2003. Both the book and the award-winning motion picture showcase how Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane employed empirical evidence over expert opinion, studied patience over rapid reaction, and cost control over splashy spending to take his underdog team in a dramatically new direction on a shoestring budget.

Sounds a lot like what we aim to do for investors, doesn’t it? But a happy Hollywood ending is one thing. Can the strategy really work over time in baseball, or was it a sensational flash in the pan?

That’s where additional data points from Luhnow come in, when he chose to take Beane’s analytical approach one step further with “extreme Moneyball,” as described in this 2014 Bloomberg piece. Similar to the A’s, the Astros were underperforming at the time – big time. They literally had the worst record in baseball EVER during the first two years of Luhnow’s tenure.

Then came his fresh, evidence-based approach. The Astros made the American League playoffs in 2015 and, as I draft this piece, this recent Wall Street Journal piece describes Luhnow’s data-driven shift to maintain the team’s home run averages while reducing its strike-outs. The results so far? The WSJ reports: “More than 40% of the way through the season, the Astros own the best record in the majors, blitzing the competition with a lineup that defies all logic.”

Well, not all logic.  The article also describes Luhnow as the “architect of perhaps the sport’s most data-driven organization.”

If you ask me, that probably explains it. Will the Astros take their first World Series in their 55-year history? Either way, come what may, I look forward to seeing what they have in store for 2017!

In the horse-and-buggy days, it was common to put blinders on your trusty steeds. It helped them narrow their frame of reference to the job at hand … or at hoof.

Even today, blinders remain a great strategy for those Budweiser Clydesdales. But for us humans, a similar behavioral bias known as narrow framing is more likely to knock us off-course than keep us sensibly invested.

What am I talking about? UCLA’s behavioral economist Shlomo Benartzi recently published an insightful Wall Street Journal piece on the subject. In it, he describes narrow framing as “a tendency to see investments without considering the context of the overall portfolio.”

Benartzi explains:

“The first [narrow framing] mistake involves people taking too little risk, which often leads to lower investment returns. When we engage in narrow framing, we tend to focus on short-term losses. … The second mistake involves people taking on too much risk without realizing it. When we don’t think about our entire portfolio, it’s easy to overlook the fact that many of our different investments might fall or fail for similar reasons.”

In other words, overly narrow framing can result in ignoring instead of accurately assessing your own and the market’s landscape of inherent risks and potential rewards. You end up investing like a horse with blinders on – but nobody is steering the cart.

Fortunately, Benartzi offers a few practical solutions, which just happen to coincide with our way of doing business here at Hill Investment Group.

“Rely on information that reflects the biggest possible picture,” he advises, but “remember not to look at it too often.” Sounds a lot like our motto: Take the Long View®, don’t you think? Helping families view their big picture is core to our approach.

Benartzi also notes that today’s aggregation software – like our recently released HIG’s Client Portal – makes it easier than ever to see the grand scheme of things at a glance.

If you’ve never had the chance to catch the Budweiser Clydesdales in action, I recommend it highly. (No, a Super Bowl commercial doesn’t count.) But when it comes to your investments, let your advisor and today’s technological tools help you eliminate your narrow-framing blinders. Being blinded will only lead you astray.

We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: Individual investors become their own worst enemies when they choose to play in financial markets instead of investing in them.

But here’s an interesting wrinkle. In one of his recent posts, Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Zweig shared a seemingly contradictory stat on that, in which do-it-yourself investors came out ahead of their advisor-assisted counterparts.

What’s up with that? Are we wrong??

Let’s take a closer look at the case. Zweig’s illustration compares investor experience in two virtually identical Fidelity biotech funds – except one is designed for direct investment and the other caters to investors being served by financial advisors.

You’d expect those who invested directly would engage in ill-advised market-timing and more severely underperform what the fund actually returned, compared to those who were advised to patiently buy and hold. Instead, investors in the advisor-tailored fund did worse in Zweig’s illustration. How come?

The illustration Zweig used may well have been a case of some market-timing investors getting lucky during a specific timeframe. But another culprit to consider may be the “advisors” recommending the advisor-tilted fund.

Zweig describes: “Not all advisers chase performance, but all too many still do. Buying what’s hot and dumping what’s not, they are no less human than their clients.”

In describing what a good advisor should be doing for you, Zweig quotes Dimensional Fund Advisors’ co-CEO Dave Butler: “Advisers [should] provide a human element that gives clients confidence and comfort in not deviating from a plan.”

Zweig elaborates:

“[Y]ou should hire an adviser not for his or her investing prowess, but to help organize your finances, prioritize your goals, minimize your taxes, and navigate the shoals of retirement and estate planning. Done right, those services can make you far richer — and happier — than the pipe dream of investment outperformance is likely to.”

In short, we believe a good advisor should help you avoid, not enable, your “worst enemy” tendencies. Plus, they should be even more disciplined than you are at ignoring any market-timing habits and stock-picking cravings to which they themselves may be vulnerable.

The defense rests.