Football fumbles are not random events, therefore, they are not be expected to follow a normal distribution. There is too much intervention by technique and training.
The author lays out a basic assumption right at the outset, and it is incorrect, and then he goes on to bamboozle the lumpen readership like a good Gruber would.
It’s not important if you think the Patriots are innocent or guilty. What’s important is that you don’t let people slip beliefs past your rational gate without you knowing that you just got tricked, like those poor fools in Ferguson, or like an Obama voter.
That’s what Liberals do ... and on this subject, what a lot of posters here have been up to without themselves even knowing it. Too emotional in their hatred for the Patriots, so it feels good, but makes them stupid.
I hope conservatives come into power. But if this idiotic feeding frenzy and triumph of jealousy and emotion over critical thinking is how they’ll (we’ll) think and govern - why bother? This is what we already have.
That’s why it’s ... disturbing.
I posted an excerpt of the article. The article doesn't start out with the assumption you point to and the assumption isn't a basic one. The basic assumption the author relies on is the fact that the New England Patriots have averaged one fumble for every 187 plays since 2010 while the league average is one fumble for approximately every 100 plays. So in saying that the author is bamboozling his 'lumpen' readers, are you saying that that statistic is factually incorrect?