Word reaching the media about Patriots fumble stats

[Ruminator]

Something's definitely up. Brady's damn-they're-onto-us-crap-what-do-I-say nervous laugh the first day media broached him on the subject still echoes in my mind.

 

[Hawks46]

What is it with Patriots fans calling everyone kiddo ?

Or is it the same guy with a different user name.

If that is the same guy, why the hell are you trying so hard, on an opposing fan base's site ?

Personally, I could care less about it. If the NFL punishes them, cool. If they don't, so what. It won't affect this game. All I care about is the NFL watching the Pats to make sure they don't try anything for this Superbowl. After that, so what.

Go back to your own fan site where you can get a much more receptive audience.

 

[Sports Hernia]

What is it with Patriots fans calling everyone kiddo ?

Or is it the same guy with a different user name.

If that is the same guy, why the hell are you trying so hard, on an opposing fan base's site ?

Personally, I could care less about it. If the NFL punishes them, cool. If they don't, so what. It won't affect this game. All I care about is the NFL watching the Pats to make sure they don't try anything for this Superbowl. After that, so what.

Go back to your own fan site where you can get a much more receptive audience.

Same guy, different name. He failed trolling 101.

 

[2_0_6]

PowerRun is a fraud.

 

[Rex]

More Cheatriots disinfo. Anything to hide or deflect their addiction to cheating.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Already debunked.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-thos ... 1681805710

Debunkers debunked totally, completely and with a slam dunk:

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/

"This article is so disingenuous it makes stat guys look bad and I don't like it...To be clear, the Regressing article is problematic. Bad models, bad numbers, bad assumptions, bad logic."

- Brian Burke, the man the authors of your article "encouraged" readers to follow up on if they wanted the truth.

Why was this piece so viciously attempting to disprove something, when the data they introduce themselves actually appears to (without saying) concur with my primary conclusion? While at the same time agreeing with another article which is (essentially) providing an identical conclusion to mine? I cannot speculate as to that reason.

I can. Paid by NFL.

 

[Rex]

More Cheatriots disinfo. Anything to hide or deflect their addiction to cheating.

 

[Rex]

More Cheatriots disinfo. Anything to hide or deflect their addiction to cheating.

 

[hawknation2015]

If the Patriots have been cheating for the last several years by deflating balls, this is the kind of out-of-the-norm trend you would expect.

However, just because there is an out-of-the-norm trend does not mean they have been cheating. To assume that would be a logical fallacy, specifically a converse error. Sometimes teams are just that much better at things than other teams.

Having said that, my gut tells me the Patriots have been cheating over by deflating balls over the years. Brady has a stated preference for "deflated balls." Belichick's own explanation implies that their pre-game prepping has led to negligently playing with under inflated balls for who knows how long. The ball attendant taking the balls into the bathroom with him after inspection may evidence a more direct form of ball deflation. We will see what else the league can dig up.

 

[Rex]

If the Patriots have been cheating for the last several years by deflating balls, this is the kind of out-of-the-norm trend you would expect.

However, just because there is an out-of-the-norm trend does not mean they have been cheating. To assume that would be a logical fallacy, specifically a converse error. Sometimes teams are just that much better at things than other teams.

Having said that, my gut tells me the Patriots have been cheating over by deflating balls over the years. Brady has a stated preference for "deflated balls." Belichick's own explanation implies that their pre-game prepping has led to negligently playing with under inflated balls for who knows how long. The ball attendant taking the balls into the bathroom with him after inspection may evidence a more direct form of ball deflation. We will see what else the league can dig up.

What the league can dig up? On the Cheatriots? Revisit their handling of the SpyGate scandal where we are left with taking their word for it since they destroyed all evidence. Cheatriots stole super bowls and I hope they don't get away with it this time too.

 

[Recon_Hawk]

Hmm, kiddo... where have I seen that used? Mods, mind comparing IPs to the banned list?
Wasn't this guy banned? I mean, what are the odds of every knuckle dragging pats fan using the term, "kiddo"?

Good catch Laloosh. Same old arguments. Same use of wording. Yeah, 100% same guy.

Your D scares no one, kiddo. No one is afraid of your overrated physicality. No one is afraid of your speed. Your secondary is awesome, but that's not the way to beat Brady and this offense. The way to beat it is with a strong Dline that can get interior pressure. You can't do that.

The match up just isn't in your favor. You had a successful season last year but this year your time is up.

Better luck next year.

No one is afraid of your overrated physicality (it's nothing unique, we've seen far more physical teams than you this season) or your speed (we've seen far quicker teams than you this season) or your defense (your stat padding during the regular season against poor competition is akin to Peyton Manning's.)

You've got a lot of talent in the secondary, but that will be irrelevant this game, as Belichick will game plan around it. You've also got vulnerabilities up the middle, and a power running back can exploit that.

Most importantly, your Dline is not built to create pressure up the middle which is the Achilles heal of this team and Brady.

Real SB was played between Baltimore and NE.

 

[vonstout]

What the hell does this mean - from the Debunkers.

"But statistics is hard, and this can lead to deception, either willful or otherwise."

"hard" ??

So they passed math class... so what. I was academically taught how to debunk stats, and the best way is by debunking the graph. The issue ain't the graph design, the numbers are the numbers.

Passed math class? They are PhDs in Statistics, kiddo.

They may be PhD's but they must have sent in an application for the diploma's online. And I see you never responded to what I wrote in your thread you started:

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.
Amendola 10 fumbles in 4 years with Rams; 0 fumbles in 2 years with flat balls.

Explain that.

 

[Rex]

What the hell does this mean - from the Debunkers.

"But statistics is hard, and this can lead to deception, either willful or otherwise."

"hard" ??

So they passed math class... so what. I was academically taught how to debunk stats, and the best way is by debunking the graph. The issue ain't the graph design, the numbers are the numbers.

Passed math class? They are PhDs in Statistics, kiddo.

They may be PhD's but they must have sent in an application for the diploma's online. And I see you never responded to what I wrote in your thread you started:

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.
Amendola 10 fumbles in 4 years with Rams; 0 fumbles in 2 years with flat balls.

Explain that.

That is easy. CHEATING!

 

[Lords of Scythia]

Already debunked.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-thos ... 1681805710

"Statistics can say whatever you want it to"

That's the first line of the story, and that's what they are doing--warping stats. It's funny how people reveal their hidden motivations. There's a name for it: Projection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Next the Patriots are going to accuse the Seahawks of cheating.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

What the hell does this mean - from the Debunkers.

"But statistics is hard, and this can lead to deception, either willful or otherwise."

"hard" ??

So they passed math class... so what. I was academically taught how to debunk stats, and the best way is by debunking the graph. The issue ain't the graph design, the numbers are the numbers.

Passed math class? They are PhDs in Statistics, kiddo.

They may be PhD's but they must have sent in an application for the diploma's online. And I see you never responded to what I wrote in your thread you started:

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.
Amendola 10 fumbles in 4 years with Rams; 0 fumbles in 2 years with flat balls.

Explain that.

You see.. it all starts with the open stadium and beautiful Foxboro weather especially this time of year. :sarcasm_off: