in "Slate" that invoked
> >regression to the mean to "prove" that Bonds wouldn't hit 70.
> I did post the original article on Barry Bonds and the placebo effect, by
> Jordan Ellenberg, still available on slate
> http://slate.msn.com/math/01-07-12/math.asp
>
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
"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
use 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
only entered the thread a month later when you said that Bonds
must be on steroids, and pointed out that looking at Bonds' past
history w
nds. 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.
>
You know, I have never seen that. To the best I recollect,
I have never seen people toss
>
>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
re
> > conducive to a power-hitting lefty than Candlestick was, sorta
> > like the short right front porch at Yankee stadium. Matter of
> > fact, if Hank Aaron had played half his games in Candlestick
> > while Willie Mays had played half his in Atlanta...
> >
> &
k was, sorta
> like the short right front porch at Yankee stadium. Matter of
> fact, if Hank Aaron had played half his games in Candlestick
> while Willie Mays had played half his in Atlanta...
>
> Discussions about regression to the mean (and comments that Bonds
> has never be
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 fo
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.
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 th
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
ism behind RTM and showed that regression to
the mean doesn't imply a loss in diversity.
=
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=
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 th
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 h
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 in
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
constant ... that
> is ... some % value is that amount that increments their salaries ...
< snip, other stuff based on this misreading >
And Dennis quotes the material --
> At 05:07 PM 1/25/01 +0000, wrote:
> >Avid regression-to-the-mean watchers may be interested to
In article <94qi92$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman Rubin) writes:
>
>This has nothing to do with regression to the mean.
>The people in the top 10% and the bottom 10% have changed.
I see "regression to the mean" and "the people in the t
Dennis,
I agree with all your points; I thought the news report was a nice
example related to regression to the mean and of attempting to prop
up a (nearly certainly true) statement using invalid statistics -
note that the report appears to refer to the *current* top & bottom
10% and what t
In article <94pmgo$rn7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Avid regression-to-the-mean watchers may be interested to know that,
>according to yesterday's summary of the growing rich-poor divide
>(on teletext news), the current top 10% of earners have
ll be quite high) ... thus, there still will be
SOME regression to the mean that is ... if we isolate the top 50 ... and
the bottom 50 ... and look at their percentile ranks (or mean z scores)
from this year to next ... you will still see that the lower 50 have
relatively higher percentile ranks
Avid regression-to-the-mean watchers may be interested to know that,
according to yesterday's summary of the growing rich-poor divide
(on teletext news), the current top 10% of earners have had
a higher percentage increase in income over the past x years
(for some x that I've forgo
My response is about regression to the mean generally, which got done
over a little over a week ago.
It occurred to me recently that you could reduce the
regression-to-the-mean effect by using the subjects' least-squares
means to divide them (the subjects) up into quantiles for sep
testing example when there is a less than
>> perfect r between the two sets of "test" measures ... would qualify for
>> being a context in which to illustrate RTM?
>
>Not at all. If there's a perfect r you _won't_ see regression to the
mean! What it means
>is that
On 17 Jan 2001 08:31:09 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
>
>if you are thinking about regression to the mean in the typical way ... how
>come this "regression reversal" seems to have occured?
First of all your data are contrived as an example of what
divide at the midpoint of the pretest to form two equal size groups.
At 01:37 PM 1/17/01 -0500, you wrote:
>At 12:28 PM 1/17/01 -0600, Paul R Swank wrote:
>>But if you group the subjects on the basis of their pretest scores, the
>>lowest group gains 23.1 points while the highest group only gains
Paul R Swank forwarded Dennis' scattterplot:
> > - *
> > post - * *
> > - *
> > - 2 *
> > 80+ * 2 *
> > - 2 * * *
> > - * * *
> > - * *
> > - * *
> > 60+
> > - * *
> > - * * *
> > -
> > - *
> > 40+ *
> > -
> > -
> > +-+-+-+-+-+--pre
> > 10.0 15.0 20.
t" measures ... would qualify for
> being a context in which to illustrate RTM?
Not at all. If there's a perfect r you _won't_ see regression to the
mean! What it means is that not everything which expands or compresses
the
At 12:28 PM 1/17/01 -0600, Paul R Swank wrote:
>But if you group the subjects on the basis of their pretest scores, the
>lowest group gains 23.1 points while the highest group only gains 19.2.
>Looking at the graph, I note that the person who scored 34 on the pretest
>did not increase as much a
f RTM?
perhaps you could clarify what is and what is not ... RTM?
> Thus it
>hides the effect of regression to the mean; however, we may guess that
>the size of the improvement is somewhat reduced.
>
> -Robert Dawson
>
>
>
49
> 11 2829
> 12 2862
> 13 2712
> 14 2741
> 15 2654
> 16 25 54
> 17 2554
> 18 2457
> 19 2446
here are some of the actual reported galton data ... scatterplots between
fathers' and sons' heights ... interesting tidbit about these data ...
clearly, some fathers sired not only sons ... but also daughters ...
S ... for the case of daughters ... the value that was imputed was
a mul
J. Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Would this not
: be the same as the offspring of either the very tall or the very short
: among us moving toward an arithmetic average? Is it inconceivable
: that a pair of dullards could produce a Beethoven or a Fermi for
: example? Frankly, I believe old
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Bob Wheeler wrote:
> I've heard this before -- probably read it in stat
> books. It isn't true. Galton worried over the
> problem until he understood the statistical
> mechanism.
you may abe right; that's why I said apparrently
===
Dennis Roberts wrote (after an example)
> if you are thinking about regression to the mean in the typical way ... how
> come this "regression reversal" seems to have occured?
Regression to the mean was first observed in a _stationary_ process -
one fitting a mode
what happens to me??
same thing in reverse for the same reason.
>
> as i have said before ... regression to the mean is a feature of relative
> position ... and not necessarily RAW scores ...
YES
=
Instructions for joinin
PM 1/17/01 +, you wrote:
>On 17 Jan 2001 01:49:33 GMT, Elliot Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
> >There seems to be some confusion about what regression to the mean
> >means. Noone is penalized (or advantaged) because of regression to the
> >mean. Yo
24 2255
25 2231
26 2142
27 2032
28 2024
29 1439
30 11 43
if you are thinking about regression to the mean in the typical way ... how
come this "r
I've heard this before -- probably read it in stat
books. It isn't true. Galton worried over the
problem until he understood the statistical
mechanism. He even designed a device (the
Quincunx) to demonstrate how it works. Steve
Stigler has a section on it in his new book.
>
> Thus Galton found
At 01:49 AM 1/17/01 +, Elliot Cramer wrote:
>There seems to be some confusion about what regression to the mean
>means. Noone is penalized (or advantaged) because of regression to the
>mean. You ALWAYS have RTM in a population whether everyone improves or
>gets worse. It is a
On 17 Jan 2001 01:49:33 GMT, Elliot Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>There seems to be some confusion about what regression to the mean
>means. Noone is penalized (or advantaged) because of regression to the
>mean. You ALWAYS have RTM in a population whether everyone improves
There seems to be some confusion about what regression to the mean
means. Noone is penalized (or advantaged) because of regression to the
mean. You ALWAYS have RTM in a population whether everyone improves or
gets worse. It is a property of standardized scores only for a
population. The
51 matches
Mail list logo
