So much for "deflategate"

[Polaris]

It doesn't make the Pats look bad at all. Read the rule book. The onus is 100% on the officials to make sure the balls are properly inflated and approved for play.

Oh, hey! This means I can go rob a bank and blame it on the cops, right?
8)

If I am to understand several Flats fans on this board, you can do anything illegal you please unless you were caught on video doing it.

I wouldn't be too sure of even that (the italicized part of the above statement). Given the nature of the Pats fans that seem to post here, TMZ could come out with a video catching the Pats red-handed, and they'd claim it was doctored, anti-Patriot propaganda.

GEEZ! It's about as open and shut as it gets. The Pats game balls were properly inflated during the pregame inspection but 11 out of 12 flunked at halftime all while in the care (and responsibility) of the Pats. By contrast the Colts balls that underwent the same inspection and were subjected to the same conditions, were still all legal at halftime.

Occam's Razor strongly suggests that the Pats either doctored those balls or allowed it to happen (and it doesn't seem to be the first time)

 

[Anonymous]

Read them again.

The first one clearly states that refs do not log the PSI. So we have no idea what the PSI was during and immediately after the refs checked the balls. They were just approved for play.

Therefore, you also can't say how many lbs of PSI were lost.

No one needs to prove how many PSI were lost. All that matters is that when measured before the game they passed and when measured at halftime, the Patriots' balls failed while the Colts' balls still passed.

Since the balls were used under the same conditions, the Patriots' balls must have been tampered with subsequent to approval.

It doesn't even matter who did it - the Patriots were responsible for the footballs under league rules, so the Patriots should be punished for tampering with the footballs. It doesn't matter if is was Brady or a ball boy - punish the team and let them figure out who actually did it (like they don't already know). Even in the impossible event that the balls were not tampered with but somehow spontaneously lost pressure, it happened under the Patriots' watch so they are responsible.

I don't know why you guys keep posting this crap here. We all know what the Patriots did - the only thing that actually angers us is that the NFL is lightning-fast to fine Marshawn Lynch or test Earl Thomas for HGH, but glacially slow to punish the Patriots. Must be nice to be best buddies with the Commissioner - you get all this smokescreen of looking for the person who did it so that your punishment will fall after the Super Bowl.

I guarantee if Marshawn Lynch comes out on game day with the wrong coloured cleats, the NFL won't wait til after the game to do anything about it. Marshawn knows the allowed colours, so he knows better, right? Tom Brady uses underinflated balls knowing damn well they are underinflated - because he grips footballs for a living - so he knows better, right? Where's the swift and decisive punishment? Does the colour of cleats impact the integrity of the game more than how well a football can be gripped in inclement conditions?

Congratulations for being on the good side of NFL bias. Now please understand that none of your arguments change anything - the footballs that the Patriots were responsible for were illegal for use in an NFL game. Nothing more to prove or disprove there, it's fact. Now where's the punishment for it?

This post is lucid, and well-thought-out.

I award full points.

 

[ivotuk]

Both of you are missing the point. The 2 psi claim was not made by the league. It was made by a "source." We have no way of knowing how much the balls deflated because the refs do not log PSI.

They only approve the balls if they are between 12.5 and 13.5 psi. They check the psi, but they don't write down what the actual psi is though. No need to.

 

[Escamillo]

Jeff Howe @jeffphowe
Blandino said the referee does not log the PSI during the pregame ball check. They're either approved or disapproved.
https://twitter.com/jeffphowe/status/560903328268169216

Ben Volin ✔ @BenVolin
Blandino says that the NFL believes that the footballs were properly inflated and tested by Walt Anderson
https://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/560897389293469696

Ben VolinVerified account
‏@BenVolin
Blandino also said he was not told anything about deflated footballs in the Nov 16 game.

I lost interest in deflategate last week, but I'm not sure what your post is supposed to prove.
The referees not "logging" the PSI suggests that they measured the PSI, found it to be within the 12.5 to 13.5 specs, but did not record in a logbook what the exact PSI was (they didn't record in a logbook, "PSI 12.8", for example). Then at half time the balls were found to be 2 PSI below specifications, that is, 2 PSI below 12.5. None of your quoted tweets dispute that scenario, in fact they suggest it. Am I missing something here?

 

[JustTheTip]

Brady fumbles (total) first 6 years: 59; last 8years with deflated balls 36.
Brady picks first 6 years: 68; last 8 years with deflated balls 65
Kevin Faulk fumbles first 8 years: 23; his last 3 years with deflated balls 3
Wes Welker fumbles first 3 years:12; his last 6 years with deflated balls 12
BJ Green Ellis 0 fumbles in 4 years with deflated balls; 5 fumbles in 2 years with Cincy.

Explain that.

Put on top of Welker's stats that his receptions more than doubled and his fumbles were cut in half. So not just 1/2 the fumbles, but 1/4 of the fumbles.

 

[formido]

I don't REALLY care because I don't think it's going to be a factor in the game on Sunday, but I'm not sure if this proves anything, either way. It's circumstantial, but those fumble rate numbers are too staggering to be ignore. Never proved, but they don't look good.
.

Nah. That poorly conducted study was also debunked by someone who actually understands statistics.

The inputs used for the flawed study were flawed themselves. And plays per fumbles is not normally distributed as the author claims.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-thos ... 10/+kylenw

Do you know anything about statistics and probabilities? I do. I'm a mechanical engineer. When your cheating team doesn't get to tamper with the balls next year and your turnovers go back to where they were (near the league average), it will prove you were cheating. The guy trying to refute the plays per fumble article is a NE fan. He looks as pathetic as you do trying to defend your team.

I have a degree in mathematics. Mechanical engineers don't do any rigorous stats/probability courses. It's mostly application, which is useful, but doesn't lend to fostering an understanding of the theoretical underpinning of the subject.

Plays per fumbles don't follow a Gaussian distribution. What the other author did was look at fumbles per play, which do follow a Gaussian distribution, and assumed that the inverse is also. But if you know stats like you claim you do, you'd know the inverse need not have the same distribution.

He also uses fumbles lost, and not fumbles. And only uses stats for home games, which is irrelevant.

Try harder.

I'm sure you know Brian Burke. He's one of the ones who ushered in NFL analytics and is the long time administrator of Advanced NFL Stats, developed EPA and WPA, and etc. Here's what he had to say about that Deadspin article:

"This article is so disingenuous it makes stat guys look bad and I don't like it. http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-thos ... 1681805710 …"

"To be clear, the Regressing article is problematic. Bad numbers, bad model, bad assumptions, bad logic."

"I don't think the fumble numbers prove anything. I also disagree with the idea there's nothing to see here. More than warrants more digging."

Feel free to check his twitter timeline.

https://twitter.com/adv_nfl_stats

So, no one cares if the Pats will be proved to have cheated. The preponderance of the evidence suggests they were, however, whether it can be proved or not.

1. The Pats fumble rate dramatically improved in 2007.
2. In 2007 a rule was instituted allowing offenses to keep control of their footballs.
3. Brady was a lobbyist for this rule.
4. The Pats were caught with underinflated footballs, providing a plausible explanation for how the Pats fumble rate improved.
5. The Pats kick returners and punt returners fumble rates DID NOT improve: http://imgur.com/3ecTZlM. So, whatever mysterious technology Belichick discovered in 2007, he did not extend to the Pats returners.

Note that the Pats improved fumble rate was only discovered AFTER the underinflated footballs came to light. Someone had a hypothesis that the Pats might have had an improved fumble rate because of the underinflated footballs, and evidence for this hypothesis was found. That makes the evidence very convincing.

You can poke holes in any of these points individually, but together, as a Bayesian matter, an honest person's prior should move toward "Pats cheated".

Now, I don't give a flying leap whether the Pats get sanctioned. That they won't be able to cheat in this game is good enough for me, but that would have been the case anyway, since in the Super Bowl offenses don't get to keep their own footballs[1]. It's probably a moral victory that the Pats won't get to cheat in successive regular seasons, as I'm sure this rule will be changed.

Over the next two years, I expect the Pats fumble rate to revert to pre-2007 levels.

[1] You'll note that post-2007, the Pats offense has underperformed in the Super Bowl, by the way.

 

[PowerRun]

He provides such an excellent arguement. "This study is bad."

what's Brian Burke's background? All I know is he used to be a pilot. The author of the regressing article is a Statistics professor and a PHD.

Plays per fumble is not normally distributed. That's a fact. Therefore, to use z-scores based on a normal distribution table is flawed. NE had the best fumble rate over that period but it wasn't an outlier like the initial article claims.

 

[vonstout]

Common powerrun. Let's hear your response to the fumble stats I posted since you're the stats "expert" :sarcasm_on:

 

[Rocket]

I'd like to start a petition.

To wit: That Rocket can use the R word to describe Pats fans who attempt to put their soft balls to bed.

 

[Anonymous]

/signed

 

[Rocket]

I love the replies which state, in effect, that MY STATISTICIAN CAN BEAT YOUR STATISTICIANS MOMMAS ASS.
Pats fans, ya look desperate.

 

[rideaducati]

Deflategate is over...for now. The NFL is now finding more and more video evidence that this has been going on for a very long time which is why the investigation is taking so long. At first, they thought this was a one time thing and then they found evidence that is wasn't. Then, they probably thought is was just a bad weather thing but found evidence contrary to that too. Now they are going back and back and back and finding a long history of cheating.

Two months from now, they'll throw out their patsy and fines and suspensions for the owner and coach will be hefty.

 

[Rocket]

Therefore, you also can't say how many lbs of PSI were lost.

THe refs ensure the balls are between 12.5 and 13.5 psi.

AT BEST, the majority of the balls were all at LEAST two full psi short, a MINIMUM of 16%. Yet the 12th ball (no coincidence there) was within the 12.5-13.5 psi specified range.

BUT, you go on believing that OJ didn't hurt anyone cuz the glove didn't fit, Bro.

 

[Foghawk]

/signed

x2

How many of these guys are out there, basically? Their like a F'n cult.

 

[Rocket]

This is like talking to my kids, a bunch of circular logic nonsense.

Not for me, I have smart kids. Cute too.

 

[Rocket]

Oh, hey! This means I can go rob a bank and blame it on the cops, right?
8)

Bravo Stephen !!!

 

[Rocket]

1. The Pats fumble rate dramatically improved in 2007.
2. In 2007 a rule was instituted allowing offenses to keep control of their footballs.
3. Brady was a lobbyist for this rule.
4. The Pats were caught with underinflated footballs, providing a plausible explanation for how the Pats fumble rate improved.
5. The Pats kick returners and punt returners fumble rates DID NOT improve: http://imgur.com/3ecTZlM. So, whatever mysterious technology Belichick discovered in 2007, he did not extend to the Pats returners.

#5 is easy to explain. The return guys are returning the other teams balls and not the Patriots deflated balls.

 

[TAB420]

This is a weak defense on the Pat's part. It was already stated in a article at the beginning of the week, if the ball gauged in the 12.5-13.5 psi it was bagged until they had their 12 per bag. If the football was over 13.5 psi or under 12.5 psi it was tossed for one with the proper psi. Every ball in those two bags were between that mark. So were just to believe the refs misjudged, only the Pat's ball's? And it just happened to be every ball they misjudged, was by 2psi?

Seriously?

 

[morgulon1]

Post whatever you need on here to help you sleep at night Pats fans. The rest of the world knows that Belichick has never won a title without cheating, and cheating will always be a huge part of his legacy. Deflate gate only adds to it.

Can't wait.