I don't see why you are casting this as a simplistic process vs. uncertain outcome question and equating it to plane crashes. There are good methods for predicting plane crashes and bad methods, along with the basic uncertainty of outcome. Of course I understand what a projection is. I also understand what standard errors are. Without knowing standard errors, there is no way to distinguish between the process being wrong, and typical variation within outcomes. They are, by virtue of using statistics, making assumptions about the underlying distribution of the observations, which is always a leap of faith unless you are looking at games of chance or other special cases. Just because they are wrong doesn't make their process bad...but if your prediction goes from 48% to 7%, it might be fair to question the process a little bit, too. Perhaps they were assuming that the Twins would continue their insanely high BA w/ RISP, and that Perkins would save 100% of the rest of his opportunities for the remainder of the year? My main point is that these are interesting to discuss, but we don't have enough data to determine whether they are actually very useful. They might be, but how would we know? We could play the same season over again 50 times, that would be a start. It's just fodder for discussion.