Babe Ruth and Regression to the Mean

By -
Before Babe Ruth, the highest number of home runs hit by any major league player in a season was 16. When Ruth hit 29 home runs in 1919, it would have been quite sensible to predict that he would regress to the mean and hit fewer the next season. But if he had, "regression to the mean" would not have explained how many home runs he hit. That could only be explained by analyzing each at bat that season, and understanding why Ruth was or was not able to drive a ball out of the park during that at bat. (Of course, we could have a more general explanation as well, e.g., "Ruth was ill," or "Ruth was going blind.")

In fact, the next season Ruth hit 54 home runs. Wow, now he really "ought" to have regressed to the mean, and dropped way, way down.

Instead, the following season he hit 59 home runs. What was happening was the Ruth was ushering in a new era of home run hitting, such that 16 home runs (the previous all-time high before Ruth) would come to be viewed as a very mediocre season for a slugger. Ruth was the leading edge of a movement in the mean. Nevertheless, regression to the mean still has held true, since something will simply cease to be the mean unless it is regressed to. Regression to the mean is a tautology, not an explanation.

Comments

  1. todd ingalls10:46 PM

    Gene - I have been reading your blog for a long time but never commented....

    I thought you might enjoy this article, hope you can access jstor - http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40285901?uid=3739552&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101634704331

    Why Do Skips Precede Reversals? The Effect of Tessitura on Melodic Structure
    Paul Von Hippel and David Huron
    Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal
    Vol. 18, No. 1 (Fall, 2000), pp. 59-85

    Huron has a fascinating book on the subject, but I do have a little problem with the explanation that 400 years of melodic practice largely comes down to regression towards the mean!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more