Regress toward the mean

[Scott G. F.]

For those that down know what this means "Regress toward the mean" is a statistical fact. Most teams will be within .500 at the end of the year. The Reds, Astro and Cards are off to a smoking start. I don't believe any of them will continue on there current pace and will regress toward the mean. The mean being .500.

 

If the Cubs can eek out at around .500 until Wood and Prior and D Lee/(Any help) then they have a nice chance of getting that bounce in wins.

 

The offense is in a bit of a tailspin right now and the "go-to guy" doesn't seem to be coming up at the right time.

 

These things will happen to all teams this year mark my words. It's just happening now to the Cubs. So don't get down, or give up. All teams must work through these times to see who will step up and begin to deliver.

 

I'm glad Wood is pitching soon in Peoria. I get the feeling he isn't rushing back this time and will stay once up in the majors this time.

 

The season is early. Relax and have an Old Style enjoy the season and don't get bent out of shape when the Cubs lose because some times they will. I just hope it's not very often.

[IUBrian]

Ah, a nice fresh breath of optimism.

 

Thanks Scott, it was much needed! Go Cubs.

[CubinNY]

It was a nice post and I agree for the most part, but the statistical analysis analogy isn't even in the ball park.

 

The mean isn't .500. There is no mean in this case.

[neely crenshaw]

yeah...i remember how the cards and the astros have regressed toward the mean the last 2 years.

[TB_11]

The teams that don't regress to the mean are usually the ones that make it to the playoffs.

[Rob]

It was a nice post and I agree for the most part, but the statistical analysis analogy isn't even in the ball park.

 

The mean isn't .500. There is no mean in this case.

 

True, but players will regress towards their established levels of performance.

 

Brandon Phillips and Bronson Arroyo wont help keep the Reds on top all year long to the degree that they're doing now.

[Soul]

Trouble is, if we don't stop this slide we're going to regress much further than the mean...

[cl smooth]

True, but players will regress towards their established levels of performance.

 

Brandon Phillips and Bronson Arroyo wont help keep the Reds on top all year long to the degree that they're doing now.

 

to play devil's advocate...didn't we all say that about chris carpenter in '04 and '05?

[ManCrushOnNomar]

True, but players will regress towards their established levels of performance.

 

Brandon Phillips and Bronson Arroyo wont help keep the Reds on top all year long to the degree that they're doing now.

 

to play devil's advocate...didn't we all say that about chris carpenter in '04 and '05?

exactly what I was going to say.

[Backtobanks]

yeah...i remember how the cards and the astros have regressed toward the mean the last 2 years.

 

I do think teams and players do regress toward the mean. You have multiple players hitting .340 - .350, Pujols is on a pace to hit over 100 HRs, and teams playing .750 ball. Obviously, some teams are better than others and may regress to .600 ball instead of .750, but it is a regression. The same goes for the players.

[soccer10k]

The Cards might not "regress to the mean." They are only on pace for 98 wins which they could easily end up with. However, the Reds and Astros are on pace for 110 and 108 wins respectively. They will drop of and I think the Reds will more than the Astros.

[abuck1220]

who says the mean is .500?

[Soul]

who says the mean is .500?

 

I'm probably going to reveal my math ineptitude here, but oh well...

 

 

Doesn't the mean have to be .500? If each game always results in a win and a loss, and there are X number of games, then there will always be just as many wins as losses each season leaguewide. Now---in each division it's not necessarily the case of course.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

All teams are not created equal.

[abuck1220]

who says the mean is .500?

 

I'm probably going to reveal my math ineptitude here, but oh well...

 

 

Doesn't the mean have to be .500? If each game always results in a win and a loss, and there are X number of games, then there will always be just as many wins as losses each season leaguewide. Now---in each division it's not necessarily the case of course.

 

no, the mean doesn't have to be .500. you're telling me that if the yankees and the royals each played 1,000 games w/ their current rosters, they'd both eventually settle around .500? no way.

[CubinNY]

who says the mean is .500?

 

I'm probably going to reveal my math ineptitude here, but oh well...

 

 

Doesn't the mean have to be .500? If each game always results in a win and a loss, and there are X number of games, then there will always be just as many wins as losses each season leaguewide. Now---in each division it's not necessarily the case of course.

 

No. The mean is the average. The median is the middle and the mode is the number that comes up at the highest frequency.

 

When people talk about regression toward the mean it means that the performance is likely to revert either up or down to an historical average .

 

For example if St. Louis regress toward the mean of the last 5 years, this year they will likely win 96 games (100,105,85,97,93/5).

 

Not so good for us Cub fans.

Edited May 4, 2006 by CubinNY

[Soul]

who says the mean is .500?

 

I'm probably going to reveal my math ineptitude here, but oh well...

 

 

Doesn't the mean have to be .500? If each game always results in a win and a loss, and there are X number of games, then there will always be just as many wins as losses each season leaguewide. Now---in each division it's not necessarily the case of course.

 

No. The mean is the average. The median is the middle and the mode is the number that comes up at the highest frequency.

 

When people talk about regression toward the mean it means that the performance is likely to revert to an historical average.

 

For example if St. Louis regress toward the mean of the last 5 years, this year they will likely win 96 games (100,105,85,97,93/5).

 

Not so good for us Cub fans.

 

Ouch. Let's find a string of seasons where St. Louis was terrible and call that their historical average instead! :D

[Lefty]

For those that down know what this means "Regress toward the mean" is a statistical fact. Most teams will be within .500 at the end of the year. The Reds, Astro and Cards are off to a smoking start. I don't believe any of them will continue on there current pace and will regress toward the mean. The mean being .500.

 

If the Cubs can eek out at around .500 until Wood and Prior and D Lee/(Any help) then they have a nice chance of getting that bounce in wins.

 

The offense is in a bit of a tailspin right now and the "go-to guy" doesn't seem to be coming up at the right time.

 

These things will happen to all teams this year mark my words. It's just happening now to the Cubs. So don't get down, or give up. All teams must work through these times to see who will step up and begin to deliver.

 

I'm glad Wood is pitching soon in Peoria. I get the feeling he isn't rushing back this time and will stay once up in the majors this time.

 

The season is early. Relax and have an Old Style enjoy the season and don't get bent out of shape when the Cubs lose because some times they will. I just hope it's not very often.

 

Unfortunately you don't know when the regression will play out. The 2005 White Sox proved that a baseball season may be too short a time.

 

Either way I figured the Cubs for mid to upper 80s in wins this year. Lee's injury is costing us about a game a month. So now we are looking at low to mid 80s. I think Wood will be great this year and Marshall or Miller could be great surprises. I haven't thrown in the towel yet.

[CubinNY]

who says the mean is .500?

 

I'm probably going to reveal my math ineptitude here, but oh well...

 

 

Doesn't the mean have to be .500? If each game always results in a win and a loss, and there are X number of games, then there will always be just as many wins as losses each season leaguewide. Now---in each division it's not necessarily the case of course.

 

No. The mean is the average. The median is the middle and the mode is the number that comes up at the highest frequency.

 

When people talk about regression toward the mean it means that the performance is likely to revert to an historical average.

 

For example if St. Louis regress toward the mean of the last 5 years, this year they will likely win 96 games (100,105,85,97,93/5).

 

Not so good for us Cub fans.

 

Ouch. Let's find a string of seasons where St. Louis was terrible and call that their historical average instead! :D

 

I get what Scott is saying, but really there is no mean in this instance. Each season is a discrete data set when talking about a team metric. The analogy just doesn't work becuase too many variables are different so as to make it impossible to use one season as a bench mark for the next in this instance (even though fans like to do that sort of thing).

[rocket]

Regressing to the mean is what Greg Maddux's last start was.

[Fred Hornkohl]

who says the mean is .500?

 

I'm probably going to reveal my math ineptitude here, but oh well...

 

 

Doesn't the mean have to be .500? If each game always results in a win and a loss, and there are X number of games, then there will always be just as many wins as losses each season leaguewide. Now---in each division it's not necessarily the case of course.

 

No. The mean is the average. The median is the middle and the mode is the number that comes up at the highest frequency.

 

When people talk about regression toward the mean it means that the performance is likely to revert to an historical average.

 

For example if St. Louis regress toward the mean of the last 5 years, this year they will likely win 96 games (100,105,85,97,93/5).

 

Not so good for us Cub fans.

 

Ouch. Let's find a string of seasons where St. Louis was terrible and call that their historical average instead! :D

 

Here is such a string of seasons........

 

          1876 thru 1925                            World Series
team                        W       L     pct    PA     W     L

Chicago Cubs             3712    2890   0.562     5     2     3
St. Louis Cardinals      2100    2878   0.422     0     0     0

[neely crenshaw]

unless everyone in the central reverts to a mean of about 75 wins..we will be out by july1.

[Scott G. F.]

For those that down know what this means "Regress toward the mean" is a statistical fact. Most teams will be within .500 at the end of the year. The Reds, Astro and Cards are off to a smoking start. I don't believe any of them will continue on there current pace and will regress toward the mean. The mean being .500.

 

If the Cubs can eek out at around .500 until Wood and Prior and D Lee/(Any help) then they have a nice chance of getting that bounce in wins.

 

The offense is in a bit of a tailspin right now and the "go-to guy" doesn't seem to be coming up at the right time.

 

These things will happen to all teams this year mark my words. It's just happening now to the Cubs. So don't get down, or give up. All teams must work through these times to see who will step up and begin to deliver.

 

I'm glad Wood is pitching soon in Peoria. I get the feeling he isn't rushing back this time and will stay once up in the majors this time.

 

The season is early. Relax and have an Old Style enjoy the season and don't get bent out of shape when the Cubs lose because some times they will. I just hope it's not very often.

 

Unfortunately you don't know when the regression will play out. The 2005 White Sox proved that a baseball season may be too short a time.

 

Either way I figured the Cubs for mid to upper 80s in wins this year. Lee's injury is costing us about a game a month. So now we are looking at low to mid 80s. I think Wood will be great this year and Marshall or Miller could be great surprises. I haven't thrown in the towel yet.

 

 

Good, don't throw in the towel at all! I hesitated writing this thread thinking I might be talking over some heads. Some arguments are decent. Look at the total population of teams and baseball and average there record. That's the mean. The Gaussian peak is usually around .500. All teams will regress in that direction. Some one mentioned the Sox last year. Look at the last month. They sure began to regress but the season ended just in time.

 

The Cubs got off to a credible start but then lost D. Lee. I believe they'll get a boost during the mid season months and be in the thick of it at the end if only they can be within +/- 3 games of .500. They'll ensure at least a wild card chase.

 

Hang on Cubs fans because that's what we do!!!!!

[Pinktermite]

George Will, I believe, once wrote that the "law of averages" doesn't apply to baseball. As proof he cited the Chicago Cubs, and then said, "Need I say more?" The season is a long one, we all know the Reds aren't as good as they are and we all know that Atlanta won't be under 500 because they have Bobby Cox. The Cubs? It's not over yet, there is always hope. (Did I just say that?)

[cubbieinexile]

Some one mentioned the Sox last year. Look at the last month. They sure began to regress but the season ended just in time.

 

Yeah and then went 11-1 in the playoffs.

 

They went 19-12 in the last 31 games, a .613 winning %, for the season they had a .612.