[vbmoneyspender]

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.

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?

[tinyowl]

First of all - I just re-read the beginning of the article @ Weekly Standard. You're right, that wasn't his basic assumption. This was: "For starters, they're a bunch of cheats." I ALMOST rest my case right there.

But to our discussion:

This is an assumption: "Based on the assumption that fumbles per play follow a normal distribution"

But you say the following is the assumption. This is not an assumption, it is a statistic (or fact, if we accept these numbers, which we do.) "Patriots have averaged one fumble for every 187 plays since 2010 while the league average is one fumble for approximately every 100 plays."

The FACT, on it's own, is relatively unremarkable given the context of the quality of the Patriots play over the past 5 and more years - especially in that they are not only an excellent team, but one who's success is well known to be characterized by disciplining the basics (for example: holding onto footballs.) It is only made statistically remarkable if we accept the assumption that fumbles should be randomly distributed or at least follow a smooth curve.

There is an effort to say 'Ho! The Patriots are an outlier' - they must be cheating!' But the concept of 'outlier' is moot if you're not looking at a random sample of something that we would expect to behave on a smooth curve, especially for a team which IS an outlier when it comes to so many seasons of success on the back, specifically an notably, of disciplining the basics, like holding onto the ball.

"are you saying that that statistic is factually incorrect?"

NO! I'm saying

1. A statistic is not an assumption. (x fumbles) I'm perfectly happy with the statistic
   
2. The assumption is incorrect. (fumbles should be normally distributed)
3. If you accept the assumption then your led down the path that 'either the Patriots won the fumble lottery, or they are cheating.'

What I'm getting at is that he SLIPS the assumption past you, adds it to the fact and ... poof -> All white cops kill unarmed gentle giants as a matter of course, and the Patiorts cheat, as a matter of course.

Or, as he so elegantly states himself: "For starters, they're a bunch of cheats." ... and then proceeds to bamboozle the lumpen.