Originally Posted by kittle42
By the technical definition, yes, if you take what you say as the case in each situation, but the analogy is horrible because your first example is a terrible one. No one in the first situation would "forget to consider" that a die only has 6 whole numbers. The relevant statistic is that there is a 1/6 chance that any number will come up on any roll. An average number there has zero bearing at all on prediction of results. Thus, you are saying two non-analogous situations are analogous.
It's supposed to be hypothetical. Of course no one is that stupid. If you can't see past that, then let's say the person chooses 3 or 4 every time because they are "closer to the average". Honestly, I should not have even used another example involving numbers because it caused everyone reading it to not be able to see the forest for the trees. The analogy was meant to be much broader. Let's try this again. Relying on PECOTA is like a person sitting in an airport all last week, noticing a pattern in the arriving flights, and then attempting to predict when the next flight from Boston will land on Friday evening, all the while forgetting to take into account that there is a huge blizzard in Boston. Just like the person with the die forgetting the rule that an arithmetic mean doesn't predict the next roll, or the person who perhaps assumes that Robin Ventura's inexperience automatically makes him a worse manager than Ozzie Guillen would have been in 2012, thereby underestimating the White Sox for that season. That person has forgotten that Guillen had a downside despite his experience and familiarity with the club. The theme is "person forgets to take something into account; gets his prediction wrong". Don't call the analogy bad just because you fail to read it with the proper perspective.