InmanRoshi;2457976 said:
Because a 16 game season of of is not a one time event where there is no force that biases any particular outcome
Of course there are forces that bias the outcome for one team relative to another. Things like the quality of the training staff, teaching proper tackling technique, appropriate practice schedules, and the age of the players will influence a team's injury total.
In other words, that's nice that you flipped the coin heads 90 times in a row, but it's highly atypical.
What I actually said was 90 of 100 results were heads, but either way, how can you say that it is atypical unless you have some specific knowledge about the probability of each result for a given flip?
Are you willing to put money down that you're going to be able to flip it heads again 90 times in a row?
I'm talking about having a preconception (that a coin is fair) and being presented with a data set that refutes that preconception. In such a case, you are wise to challenge your preconception. So, given the data set that I proposed, I would be willing to put money down that the result of the next flip would be heads, as long as the odds I was asked to lay were favorable relative to my estimation of the probability of flipping heads, probably 4:1 or better.
In terms of your argument, your hypothesis is that all teams are equally likely to experience an average number of injuries. I'm suggesting that data indicating that a particular team experienced well below that average for several years in a row ought to make you question that hypothesis (see Bayesian inference).
