Tony Gwynn isn't lacing up the cleats anymore. Tony Gwynn's mean career BABIP is 0.341. The article clearly says he didn't regress to to the mean, but yet his career BABIP regressed to 0.341. The article even says Tony Gwynn's career BABIP is 0.341, but it said in the previous independent clause he didn't regress to his mean (0.341). When the article says "Tony Gwynn never did" it is trying to say, in my opinion, Tony Gwynn's career mean BABIP never regressed to the league mean BABIP. Why would an awesome hitter regress to league mean? Tony Gwynn is not a league average hitter and clearly has a different mean BABIP than the league. It is a strawman argument against regression to the mean that utilizes a mean that does not accurately represent the data sets in question. For small sample sizes, league mean BABIP can be used to augment an estimation of a "mean" for a player still playing. This is just an estimate and not the "mean" for a player. Tony Gwynn's mean career BABIP is easily calculated. There is no point in estimating it. And if someone did estimate it...any projection of Tony Gwynn's mean career BABIP worth its weight in salt is going to be 1*0.341 plus 0 times the league mean BABIP.
I understand what you are saying now. The article is making a poor comparison to suggest that Altuve won't necessarily regress due to his BABIP dropping to league average by saying Gwynn finished with a career .341 BABIP. I get what the author was trying to convey, though, that Altuve is great and should be immune to having last year's great season discredited based off of BABIP. Gwynn did have a 60 point BABIP drop from 97 to 98, though, which I hope does not happen to Altuve.
You are reading way too much into the article (his point is the same as yours, even if you can't read it that way). It is saying not everyone regresses to the overall mean because some players have skills that allow them to be greater than the overall mean (conversely there are players like Matt Dominguez that offset those guys with low BABIP). The mean is merely an average, but not all players are average.
If the player is not average, the mean for that overall data set does not apply to the player. While I agree with the overall point of the article was trying to convey, I do not think he explains the part about regression to the mean accurately. For me know good with words, I apologize.
I feel like Joe Joe is just arguing that math exists. That the mean for a player is a mathematical fact and all players regress to that point somewhere down the line. We don't know necessarily what that mean is right now, because he hasn't finished his career yet. But when all is said and done, he will have regressed (or progressed? *fingers crossed*) to his mean. The thing is, I don't think the article is actually suggesting that Altuve's career is going to break math. Maybe they didn't word it correctly, but I think the suggestion is that everyone's assumption is Altuve's mean is significantly lower than what he did last year. But that may not necessarily be so based on Altuve's approach and skillset. They author understands when all is said and done Altuve will have regressed to his mean. They are arguing maybe that mean is not as low as most assume/predict at this point.
But that’s the thing: There’s no actual law that says Altuve will regress to the mean -- it’s within his control to execute his plan in his at-bats and keep doing what he does well, within the range of results he can deliver.
Screw this article! Gimme more Stros smear pieces with authors cherry picking data and using quotes from 18 year olds to validate the astros evil empire campaign.
So you believe that the intent of the article is that Altuve will somehow defy math and logic, or do you think that perhaps it wasn't worded properly and the author is just arguing that the predicted mean of Altuve's career is not quite as low as many believe?
I think the author is using words/math improperly. It is inappropriate to use the mean of an inapplicable data set and then say, "see, regression to the mean didn't happen here".
No joke. Are we really arguing about Christina Kahrl's interpretation and use of the words regression and mean?
Jose is so great for the city. His batting title broke a Houston-barrier and he brings more to the game than merely hits. Great to have him.
