No new ideas presented here. I just remember that, back when I was first learning about regression, one of the things that stuck with me was seeing how the top batting averages in the league in Year X looked in Year X+1, so here's a similar concept with a different, more contemporary statistic. What you see below are the top 20 players in WAR in 2008 and how they then did in 2009. Accompanying them is an old friend.
Please try to keep this in mind if you notice that Franklin Gutierrez is having a tough time repeating as a superstar.
0 recs | 35 comments
Ha, oh the Mets....
Limerickx - November 3, 2009
And yet... Pujols.
Our Lord! Our Savior! He has returned to guide us to the promised land!
The Typical Idiot Fan - November 3, 2009
He plays for the Cardinals.
Matthew - November 3, 2009
And even he is overachieving a little bit
Jeff Sullivan - November 3, 2009
I would like him better had he done dick the last month of the season
Poochie - November 4, 2009
If going to LL 2.1 means front page giant Gerald Lairds then I don't want to go back
Nick S - November 3, 2009
Joe Mauer says fuck you to your point.
Gutierrez is going to pull off the 1/20.
CapSea - November 3, 2009
Technically Youkilis got better too but that was insignificant
Jeff Sullivan - November 3, 2009
Wow, Rios was replacement level this year.
Mariner John - November 3, 2009
And Chicago picked up his massive contract...
marc w - November 3, 2009
Regression works the other way, too.
b_rider - November 4, 2009
At nearly $50 million owed, they better hope he does more than regress towards his mean
marc w - November 4, 2009
Yeah, I didn't mean it was a good contract. But it's not likely he'll be replacement level again.
b_rider - November 4, 2009
Fair enough.
marc w - November 4, 2009
David Wright's regression came despite a .400 BABIP
stupidquestions - November 4, 2009
David Wright missed a ton of playing time
seattlebruin - November 4, 2009
Turns out I'm an idiot and thought he got beaned in the head much earlier in the season
your point stands
seattlebruin - November 4, 2009
Which isn't that high for him
He had hidden leg injuries all year that killed his UZR and power.
Sam Page - November 4, 2009
I'm not exactly sure what you mean
He’s never had above a .400 BABIP for a season.
stupidquestions - November 4, 2009
I get what you're saying but .400 is quite high compared to his career averages
You’re likely correct about the injuries causing his sudden and dramatic drop-off in power, though.
OlSalty - November 4, 2009
OK, now I've got a better idea what you meant
You’re right that a .400 BABIP isn’t really sky-high for him considering his usual high BABIP, but it is still something we should expect to regress back down next year. The other interesting thing is that his road ISO this year was only 8 points higher than his home ISO, so Citi Field didn’t really even contribute to the power loss.
stupidquestions - November 4, 2009
It's 60 points above his previous career average.
Matthew - November 4, 2009
It wasn't a mathematical argument that his avg wasn't going to regress
just a little context for non-Mets fans that David Wright tends to have above-average BABIPs
Sam Page - November 4, 2009
60 points above your career average is high.
Matthew - November 5, 2009
You're high.
Sam Page - November 5, 2009
I should have realized that I was arguing with a Mets fan.
My bad.
Matthew - November 5, 2009
We were arguing?
“High” is totally subjective. Yea it’s 60 points above his career average and will probably regress. My point was that his career average was .340, which is above average to start with. Why have a pedantic debate over what is the formal definition of “high” is?
Sam Page - November 5, 2009
Damn you Jeff.
On the crappy connection here at work, it took that image a second to load. But once it popped up on the screen it made me recoil.
Goose - November 4, 2009
Huh.
Somehow I didn’t even notice what the background was until reading that. I must be tired.
krb - November 4, 2009
This is fine.
However if it were sideways I wouldn’t be able to stop laughing for a good two minutes.
JY - November 4, 2009
Why has nobody run with Next Laird? Eyebrows is hampered by his employer, but
we’ve got to be able to make something out of the combination of both photos.
marc w - November 4, 2009
Gutz has many different ways of being a superstar whatever his performance on the field.
Decatur - November 4, 2009
His rugged good looks are also a powerful force.
And they can not be regressed….
“Handsome mean he looks at himself;
Rugged mean you look at him.” ~ Simpsons
Kunkoh - November 4, 2009
Now I'm confused as to the definition of regression again.
Regression is not the same as decline due to aging, is it? This is a serious question, not a set up.
Kermit. - November 4, 2009
No
Jeff Sullivan - November 4, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.