It's
sounding to me as though there's a notion that the reduction in games won (by
the Yankees) is either due to regression towards the mean, or to some other
identifiable cause. But regression is merely a statistical phenomenon, not an
actual cause in itself. The fact that the number of games won by the Yankees
this year will be less than last year's extreme is surely due to a large number
of actual causes, and yet reflects the statistical regression phenomenon. The
fact that they won so many last year was surely due to a large number of factors
going their way all at once. Many of those factors were beyond their control,
and not surprisingly, didn't go that way (at least as strongly) this year.
-----Original Message-----Forgive the bandwith use but if you look closely there IS a point about statistics herein:)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tim Shearon
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 5:22 PM
To: Bill/Hank/et al
Subject: RE: Regression to the mean
Marty-
Just goes to show that bad pitching can overcome regression to the mean. Course, regression to the mean is a statistical tendency and thus a good bet. But, why would we be willing to bet a whole $2.35 on an extreme regression to the mean. Did the Yankees really regress. Probably some but the arm problems on the staff and the illness by the coach probably account for more of their losses. The Braves- they may well loose in the first round (regression to the mean since they haven't lost a GAME in a first round series before this year)? Nah... The Braves have been doing it with mirrors and _this year_ is probably their extreme score (i.e., a lot of the wins were "lucky" ones). (And I'm a long time Braves fan. No team has any right to be even winning games given the losses of THREE closers, two of the three best hitters and a fourth (of the best five) has an injury that he's playing through but can barely hit the ball out of the infield. Go Braves- but we love what's been accomplished so far and will be shocked by any more!!!
Tim S.
>So, the fact that Mark McGwire "only" hit 65 home runs and Sammy Sosa "only"
>63 must be two other manifestations of regression, eh? Or, in McGwire's
>case, maybe because he stopped taking Andro. I almost bet my life savings
>($2.35) that Mcgwire would hit fewer than 61 home runs this year, counting
>on good old regression to the mean. Whew!
_______________________________________________________
Timothy O. Shearon, PhD
Albertson College of Idaho
Department of Psychology
2112 Cleveland Blvd
Caldwell, Idaho
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
208-459-5840
