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 leagues in home runs at the All-Star break should
> tend to decline in the second half of the season. ...
> Of the 74 hitters involved (there are more hitters than years because of
> ties) only 12 equaled their pre-break production in the second
> half...
> I'd be curious if reduction in the 1st half leaders was comparable to the
> improvement in the 2nd half leaders.
> The link:
> http://slate.msn.com/math/01-07-12/math.asp
This hardly "PROVES" anything. It is more a statement about what has
happened in the past. Most people, including myself and probably the
author you quote, believe it is likely to happen in the future for the
exact same reasons as it did in the past.
So Bonds will "tend to decline" in the 2nd half...and lets see, the
record is 70, so if Bonds declines from 38 in the first half to 33 in
the second half, well...there's a new record. I didn't read the article
at SLATE, but based upon the quote you provide, you have gone way beyond
what the author intended with that quote.
--
Paige Miller
Eastman Kodak Company
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It's nothing until I call it!" -- Bill Klem, NL Umpire
"When you get the choice to sit it out or dance,
I hope you dance" -- Lee Ann Womack
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
