See copyright notice at the bottom of this page.
List of All Posters
Banner Years
October 31, 2002 - Stephen Hobbes
I disagree with your assessment of the great players. 3 years at 149 followed by a year at 142, and you think this means they were lucky for three years and then we see the actual value of them? Isn't it more likely that they were unlucky the 4th year? I think it is most likely that after a few years of high performance they were just getting older and starting to decline slightly. Attributing this to luck has no factual basis.
I'm really not sure what to think about the rest of it either. The extremely small sample sizes leads me to believe the parameters need refined. There have to have been more "career" years than that to study. Where'd they go?
Banner Years
October 31, 2002 - Stephen Hobbes
MGL - The flaw in your argument is with us knowing the population. All the baseball players may regress to 100%, but the elite players, the ones who compose the 149 group, may only regress to 130% for instance, compared to the average. I think it's a mistake to consider their base talent level the same way. I'm not clear that 142 becomes the "true" assessment after 3 149's, (especially when this is all we have). Also, since "true" talent values vary constantly, and for most people not named Bonds decreases as they age into their 30's, while he may be a 142 at the end, couldn't he have been a 155 having slightly off years for awhile?
I have to agree with RP, that comparing the "banner" year to the league rather than to the player himself is a mistake. If you have an 80, who suddenly sports a 120, wouldn't that be a banner year? Also, the same thing applies north of the border. Is a 130 player, always having a banner year, or only when he spikes to 160?
I think comparing to the player rather than the league will also help alleviate the 142 as "true" issue.
Banner Years
November 1, 2002 - Stephen Hobbes
MGL - Well of course you're correct, the idea of regression to the mean was not what I was questioning. I probably did a poor job explaining it, but what I was getting at was what you mentioned in your caveat. Once the smaller "elite" group was taken out of the main, I don't feel that it is accurate to then compare them to the same 100% level. The mean for the elite group is going to be much higher, but I don't know the actual numbers. My point is that then you have a completely different percentage. While 7 out of 49 is about 14%, if the elite mean was 120, then you have 7 out of 29 for that grouping, which is 24%. Much different, but also more accurate for this caliber of player.
To take it one step further, how do we know that the elite group's mean isn't actually 160? Total baseball population may have a 100 mean, but within this group, based upon the info provided, all we really know is that the elite group is not going to be 100 (well, at least it shouldn't be). IF, and that's a big hypothetical if, that was the case (a mean of 160), then we would actually expect the next season to be higher to approach the mean right? I'm not saying this is what happened, just that it is a theoretical possibility based upon the information provided.
I guess I'm really just not happy with the idea of comparing an individual's season to the league when considering "his" banner season. At least not totally. I guess it is needed for the context of the "banner" season (1987 for example probably had quite a few banner years), but if you're trying to gauge a player's talent level, as far as rising and falling, it really can only be gauged against the player, with the league averages being used only as a modifier. If the league did 3% better the second year, then take his expected performance plus 3 and compare. That way you are actually seeing the talent level of the player, since any league effects have been removed. If the player jumps 30 points, but the league jumps 10, then he's up a net 20. If the league drops 10 though, then he's really probably just using a corked bat or similar. Then again, this was really a fairly narrow analysis. Lets take fairly average players that had one very good year out of 4, and prove that they really are basically average players. Nobody, except apparently some GM's, really fails to understand that principle. It is always nice to see something that is expected to be a certain way proven out though.
I think I just wanted this analysis to be more than it was, and then wasn't happy when it wasn't. Fool that I am.
Copyright notice
Comments on this page were made by person(s) with the same handle, in various comments areas, following Tangotiger © material, on Baseball Primer. All content on this page remain the sole copyright of the author of those comments.
If you are the author, and you wish to have these comments removed from this site, please send me an email (tangotiger@yahoo.com), along with (1) the URL of this page, and (2) a statement that you are in fact the author of all comments on this page, and I will promptly remove them.