But I thought that the whole point of why regression to the mean occurs was
BECAUSE it would take a serendipitous combination of multiple variables to
produce extreme scores, thus making it less likely that the scores will be
as extreme on another occasion.
Marty Bourgeois
University of Wyoming
> ----------
> From: Paul C. Smith[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 4:24 PM
> To: 'T I P S'
> Subject: RE: Regression to the mean
>
> 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-----
> 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
>
>
> Forgive the bandwith use but if you look closely there IS a point
> about statistics herein:)
> 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
>
>
>
>
