Originally Posted by blandman
Probably because most of the time they're right, and very rarely are they really off. Sounds familiar...
Any good modeler know the strengths and weaknesses of their model, whether it's a flood model that under predicts rainfall for El Nino years, a hurricane model that has trouble tracking hurricanes in the North Atlantic, a financial investment model that consistently loses money in the medical sector, or a statistical baseball model that perennially under predicts wins for the White Sox. That's just how numerical models work, they are finite representations of an essentially infinite system.
In addition, any good forecaster knows not to trust any single model due to these inherent weaknesses, rather using an ensemble approach that helps identify potential outliers. I'm sure someone, somewhere has a model that nails the White Sox, but misses the Brewers every year. A single data point (or analysis of a single model's results) means very little.
Hell, the inconsistency in the BP model provides forecasting guidance: BP predicts the 2013 Sox to have 77 wins, but everyone knows they always under predict the White Sox by 7 wins a year so we can qualitatively conclude the Sox will likely have somewhere around 84 wins.
I think people overvalue BP since they are the most established name in the field. While at the same time undervaluing other models out there since they aren't BP. At the same time, I don't think BP gives a **** what their model says since we've spent 400 posts here arguing about it (as I assume other teams' fans have been doing) and I would assume they love the attention, regardless of whether its positive or negative.