Maybe it’s because you don’t know what Paul Tompkins writes about that you got confused what @Limiescouse was talking about.
He meant that usually Tomkins throws around a mountain of stats and doesn’t always use them wisely or draw proper conclusions from them. And many times the stats are not fit for the interpretations that he makes from them. But in this particular case the stats are undeniable and Tompkins conclusion is correct. I hope that makes it clear.