Of course when Dr. D says that he takes a chess Grandmaster's intuition seriously, he is not saying that he overrules a 25-ply Rybka calculation with this intuition. In fact, this is one of the most delicious situations in chess study, when a GREAT chessplayer believes a certain thing, and then "Truth" (the Rybka chess engine) disagrees.
And Dr. D takes Bill James' sense of proportion seriously, but it goes without saying that James' intution does not override proof to the contrary.
Does Tango provide such proof here?
I did a very long post in comparing forecasts (2007-2010) by several prominent forecasters (PECOTA, ZiPS, etc), and I had broken it down in several ways. One of the breakdowns was based on "past MLB experience". And the average error in the forecasts for veterans was lower than that of part-time players which was lower than "pure rookies" (no MLB experience). In fact, the amount of error for the pure-rookies forecast was HIGHER than simply giving every pure-rookie an identical league-average forecast. It's extremely long, but this is about as detailed a test of forecasting systems that I've ever done. http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/testing_the_2007_...
Asked by: tangotiger
Answered: 12/14/2012
Thanks. I'll go look.