Non-Theoretical or Hypothetical Poll #1

[Guest]

There were 14 players who had 300AB in each season from 2006-2009 and had increased batting avg from 06 to 07 and 07 to 08.

The cumulative AVG of the group of 14 was .277 in 2006, .290 in 2007, and .302 in 2008.

What do you think the AVG of the group was in 2009?

[Shyguy30]

I chose .277. I've never been one to count on continuance of a trend like this. Now that I have become more familiar with analyzing the underlying stats, and familiarized myself with regression analysis, I understand a little better what my gut used to tell me. Batting average, in particular, is subject to so many variables that it is extremely difficult to project from year to year. Even if you received the batted ball data for a particular player for a given year, it is still difficult to come with 15-20 points of the actual batting average. I'm really curious what the correct answer is...

[viper]

I voted for .290 because .294 wasn't available. Without any other information at all, I would tend toward a weighted average, in this case 3-2-1.

That said, I don't think you can judge BA just based on past results. There are a number of things that go into those calculations. And that is your jobs to provide them for me.

[Todd Zola]

I voted .302 but if asked to guess a number with no choices, it would have been about .298.

I think the group that accomplished this is completely arbitrary, and therefore are subject to what would happen to any group from one year to the next. I think some guys will get lucky, some will get unlucky, some will improve, some will decline and the end result is right back where you started. I have studies that show 70% of players decline in HR and SB from one year to the next, which is where I base my .298 on, a small decline.

With all that said, I am not at all sure that there is a "logical" explanation regardless of the answer considering the sample is only 14 players.

[Todd Zola]

upon further review, I'm wondering if it is .308 as the pool is not totally arbitrary so the non-arbitrary part goes up while the others stay the same.

[AllstonRockCity]

I chose .290, but I am NOT a big 3-yr avg kind of guy. I expected that the group would regress, 300 wasn't enough regression, and the next lowest choice was too much regression for my liking.

[kjduke]

I'd say the most probable outcomes would be in the range of 290 (3yr avg) to 308 (moderate growth).

Since growth generally isn't linear, I'd rule out 314. Because growth was consistent over the last 2 years, I'd also rule out both a full retracement to 277 and a fall below the average to 283.

[Guest]

For these 14 guys the answer was .283. Not scientific by any means.

I just like highlighting that growth trends typically are more important for people needing to fill column space than for helpful forecasting.

Usually these guys get to equilibrium and its one step forward, one step back. Hard part is just finding equilibrium.