Originally Posted by Whitesox029
Situation one: Die
-Has a person who bases his decision purely on statistics
-Person gets prediction wrong because he forgot to consider another factor
Situation two: PECOTA
-Has people who base decisions purely on statistics
-People get prediction wrong because they forgot to consider another factor
This makes it a valid analogy. That is what an analogy is.
Your idea of a valid analogy is evidently one in which everything is exactly the same: "People who base decisions on weighted statistical models are just like people who base decisions on weighted statistical models because both of them base decisions on weighted statistical models." or, "A zebra is just like another zebra because they are both zebras."
These statements are meaningless.
Calling someone a buffoon just because he paid attention in English class in high school and knows what an analogy is meant to convey is typical--among high school students. Not adults.
This is what you are simply not understanding, your situation 1 is NOT "BASED ON STATISTICS."
Just because something has numbers and you use big college-type words like "average" doesn't make it a statistical model. Only a complete idiot would do what you are proposing. To say that invalidates the work of brilliant minds would be to say we should outlaw NASCAR because my cousin got drunk this weekend, tried to drive home, and ended up splitting his car on a telephone pole. Just because some people are too stupid to drive a car (or, understand stats) doesn't mean that people who are really, really good at it aren't correct. It just means the world is populated by troglodytes who think you can roll a 3.5 on a dice.
To be a proper analogy, the two situations have to have something
in common, which these do not. And if you think they do, well, this is a good place to start