On 23 Sep 2001 14:12:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (EugeneGall)
wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote
>
> >Yike, Rich. Are you still sore that Bonds left the Pirates? Go
> >back and check the entire thread. This thing started because on
> >July 13, Eugene Gall quoted an article in "Slate" that invoked
> >regr
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 21:15:25 +0200, Robert Chung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[ snip, some of mine, and his comments]
>... My main point was and
> still is that the Slate author used RTM in a sloppy way. That's
> what I meant by "cavalier."
I never read the Slate arti
Robert Chung wrote
>Yike, Rich. Are you still sore that Bonds left the Pirates? Go
>back and check the entire thread. This thing started because on
>July 13, Eugene Gall quoted an article in "Slate" that invoked
>regression to the mean to "prove" that Bonds wouldn't hit 70.
I did post the origina
"Robert Chung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[bits previous deleted]
> --Robert Chung, who hasn't done much tap-dancing
> since that unpleasantness involving the newly-waxed
> floor and the too-tight pants.
So you experienced regression to the
Rich Ulrich wrote:
> After getting called on mis-attributing Bonds's homers to being
> a new, easy home stadium, RC tap-dances some and then adds
> an oddity -
Yike, Rich. Are you still sore that Bonds left the Pirates? Go
back and check the entire thread. This thing started because on
July 13,
After getting called on mis-attributing Bonds's homers to being
a new, easy home stadium, RC tap-dances some and then adds
an oddity -
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:14:06 +0200, Robert Chung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[ snip, a bunch]
>
> My main point was not about baseball or Bonds. It was about th
>
>My main point was not about baseball or Bonds. It was about the
>cavalier way that people toss around the phrase, "regression to
>the mean," as if it were an immutable law that trumped all other
>differences in conditions.
>
>--Robert Chung
right ... reg. to the mean is not a cause of anythin
Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 21:32:02 +0200, Robert Chung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> [ snip, earlier comments on Barry Bonds's home runs,
> then at 56, now at 63.]
> >
> > Hmmm. I would have suggested that Pac Bell Park was much more
> > conducive to a power-hitting lefty th
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 21:32:02 +0200, Robert Chung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[ snip, earlier comments on Barry Bonds's home runs,
then at 56, now at 63.]
>
> Hmmm. I would have suggested that Pac Bell Park was much more
> conducive to a power-hitting lefty than Candlestick was, sorta
> like the
Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2001 06:38:49 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dennis Roberts) wrote:
>
>
>>SO, when bonds hits 73 ... what will people say vis a vis regression to the
>>mean?
>>
>
> "... steroids ..." ?
> (have to guess that for the 56 he already has.)
Hmmm. I would have suggested
On 28 Aug 2001 06:38:49 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dennis Roberts) wrote:
> SO, when bonds hits 73 ... what will people say vis a vis regression to the
> mean?
"... steroids ..." ?
(have to guess that for the 56 he already has.)
--
Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/in
SO, when bonds hits 73 ... what will people say vis a vis regression to the
mean?
At 11:40 PM 8/27/01 -0400, Stan Brown wrote:
>Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in sci.stat.edu:
> >This was a topic a month ago. Just to bring things up to date
__
Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in sci.stat.edu:
>This was a topic a month ago. Just to bring things up to date
>
>Barry Bonds hit 38 homers in the first half of the season (81 games),
>a record pace. Should we expect his performance to "regress to the
>mean" sufficiently that he wou
This was a topic a month ago. Just to bring things up to date
Barry Bonds hit 38 homers in the first half of the season (81 games),
a record pace. Should we expect his performance to "regress to the
mean" sufficiently that he would not break the season record of 70?
BB had never hit 50 i
- I am taking a second try at this question from dmr -
On 17 Jul 2001 15:23:29 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
> At 04:08 PM 7/17/01 -0400, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
> >But, so far as I have heard, the league MEANS stay the same.
> >The SDs are the same. There is no preference, t
On 17 Jul 2001 15:23:29 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
> At 04:08 PM 7/17/01 -0400, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
> >But, so far as I have heard, the league MEANS stay the same.
> >The SDs are the same. There is no preference, that I have ever
> >heard, for records to be set by half-s
At 04:08 PM 7/17/01 -0400, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>But, so far as I have heard, the league MEANS stay the same.
>The SDs are the same. There is no preference, that I have ever
>heard, for records to be set by half-season, early or late, team
>or individual. My guess is that association between "ta
On 16 Jul 2001 09:31:08 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
[ snip, RTTM is about 'relative' values ... ]
>
> the issue that has to be raised with respect to the baseball example is ...
> are the two halves PARALLEL HALVES? ... like, parallel tests given at
> essentially the same
Paige Miller wrote:
>EugeneGall wrote:
>>
>This hardly "PROVES" anything. It is more a statement about what has
>happened in the past.
"Proves" was in the original article. I'm assuming Ellenberg, a mathematics
prof, was using 'proves' in a tongue-in-cheek fashion. However, he was serious
in
I'd like to note that Ellenberg is really "off base" into thinking that Galton
was fooled by RTM into thinking that breeding would reduce diversity. As
Stigler's "Statistics on the Table" documents, Galton was initially fooled by
RTM, but then worked out the mechanism behind RTM and showed that r
regression to the mean has NOTHING to do with raw numbers ... it ONLY has
to do with relative location withIN a distribution
example: i give a course final exam the first day ... and get scores (on
100 item test) from 10 to 40 ... and an alternate form of the final on the
last day ... and get
On 14 Jul 2001 00:26:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (EugeneGall)
wrote:
[ snip, about Bonds and home runs, and Regression to the Mean ]
> I'd be curious if reduction in the 1st half leaders was comparable to the
> improvement in the 2nd half leaders.
Huh?
If you are asking what I think you are ask
EugeneGall wrote:
>
> Jordan Ellenberg, in today's Slate, PROVES that Bonds won't break the
> HR record because of regression to the mean. The argument is a
> little sloppy, but there is definitely some RTM involved:
> "If our discussion above is correct, then hitters who
>lead the major l
the real question is ... which ONES???
At 12:26 AM 7/14/01 +, EugeneGall wrote:
>Jordan Ellenberg, in today's Slate, PROVES that Bonds won't break the
>HR record because of regression to the mean. The argument is a
>little sloppy, but there is definitely some RTM involved:
> "If our discus
Jordan Ellenberg, in today's Slate, PROVES that Bonds won't break the
HR record because of regression to the mean. The argument is a
little sloppy, but there is definitely some RTM involved:
"If our discussion above is correct, then hitters who
lead the major leagues in home runs at the All-
25 matches
Mail list logo
