Moderator: Moderators
Cool!Mothman wrote:
I agree that it has to be rare. I checked...... the 2002 chiefs are the only other team
[/quote]A Boston Herald sportswriter says that Robert Kraft only accepted the NFL’s punishment for the Deflate Gate scandal because Bill Belichick suspected Tom Brady was lying to him.
CBS Boston’s Michael Felger appeared on Sports Tonight and was of the opinion that neither Belichick or Kraft quite believed Brady was telling the truth about the alleged role he had in Delfate Gate.
After Kraft discussed matters with Belichick, they decided to concede defeat and accept the NFL’s punishment, albeit with great reluctance.
The Herlad’s Ron Borges, who also appeared on the show, corroborating Felger’s theory by adding that Belichick never believe Brady from the outset.
I never paid attention to the Sharp theory even though i may have referenced it in the past but reading the article DP posted, isn't Sharp trying to prove how much the Patriots improved after 2007? I don't think he saying they're the best at not fumbling, just the fact their numbers spiked (less fumbles) and stayed that way until now. Kinda like how you can tell when Bonds started juicing just by looking at his numbers.Mothman wrote: I think all that's really needed to debunk Sharp's conspiracy theory about this is a little common sense. For example, the Patriots have shown a great deal of consistency when it comes to ball security/fumbles since 2007 and have been among the league leaders in that category during that time. However, every year, there are teams that fumble at a similar or better rate. The difference is consistency over time and it doesn't take a conspiracy theory to account for that. Continuity, system, playcalling, coaching and disciplined play should be more than enough to explain it.
I love how on one of Sharp's graphics he refers to the rule change allowing each team to supply its own 12 balls for offense as "Tom Brady's rule" when, in fact, Peyton Manning championed the rule change right alongside Brady and they lobbied the league together. Sharp has made a big deal about how outstanding the Patriots fumble numbers have been since 2007, as if they represent something truly anomalous and are evidence of cheating. However, consider this:
During the 6 year span from from 2005 to 2010 (Manning's last 6 healthy years with the Colts—he missed the 2011 season), Indianapolis ran 6068 plays and fumbled 79 times. Over that 6 year span, they fumbled an average of 13.16 times per year and once in every 76.8 plays.
If we look at the Patriots numbers over the first 6 years after the rule change (2007 through 2012), thus comparing 6 years time spans for both teams (with some crossover), we find the Patriots ran 6488 plays and fumbled 84 times (once in every 77.2 plays).
The Colts numbers are better. Gee, what were the Colts up to and why was Manning lobbying for the same rule change Brady wanted? It's all highly suspicious.I don't actually find it suspicious at all. I think it can be explained by other factors, as I mentioned above. Put in the simplest terms: good teams take care of the ball.
Sharp went digging for a conspiracy and presented stats in a way that made his argument look credible but as I've pointed out regarding this subject before, if the theory is the Patriots were cheating and the rest of the league wasn't, thus giving the patriots a huge advantage that's reflected in the stats, why compare their numbers to league averages, averages for non-dome teams, etc.? Why not compare the best to the best? If the playing field has been rendered uneven because one team is cheating, shouldn't that put them in front of everyone else and on a pretty consistent basis? The truth is, the Patriots have been good enough to lead the league in fewest fumbles just once since 2007. Two other teams have done it twice in that span (I'll give you one guess which blue and white-clad team was one of them).
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
So they believed Mcnally and Jastremski but not Brady?Demi wrote:http://national.suntimes.com/nfl/7/72/1 ... -tom-brady
Bill Belichick never believed Tom Brady's story
One of his main claims is: "Whatever occurred caused the Patriots to shift from a team who fumbled the football the league average (in 2000-2006) to a team who was so superior when compared any other team the odds it was a mere coincidence are extremely unlikely" so he is saying that the numbers spiked after 2006 and that the Patriots are superior in that respect.808vikingsfan wrote:I never paid attention to the Sharp theory even though i may have referenced it in the past but reading the article DP posted, isn't Sharp trying to prove how much the Patriots improved after 2007? I don't think he saying they're the best at not fumbling, just the fact their numbers spiked (less fumbles) and stayed that way until now.
Thanks!The Breeze wrote:.....or maybe they can break the league record of 31 opponents fumbles recovered....set by the 63 Vikes. They forced 50 that year also a record.
good link for that stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Na ... %28team%29
How do you explain the fact that at least two independent researchers have come up with similar conclusions?Mothman wrote: One of his main claims is: "Whatever occurred caused the Patriots to shift from a team who fumbled the football the league average (in 2000-2006) to a team who was so superior when compared any other team the odds it was a mere coincidence are extremely unlikely" so he is saying that the numbers spiked after 2006 and that the Patriots are superior in that respect.
It's bad analysis and from what I've seen, bad analysis is his forte.
People support flawed analysis and flawed conclusions all the time.dead_poet wrote:How do you explain the fact that at least two independent researchers have come up with similar conclusions?
I don't see it as evidence that the flawed analysis was correct. Burke basically comes to the conclusion that the fumble rates are interesting but could just as easily be the result of good coaching as cheating.The article points out the obvious: the Patriots are good and have sustained excellence "for a historically unusual period of time."Small numbers don't break down into smaller numbers very helpfully. If we try to separate fumbles by weather conditions, for example, we quickly end up with over-granulated data: a game here and a game there, a fumble here and a fumble there—a data set that combines a few Patriots games with an end-of-season Browns game from three years ago and that weird Bears-Ravens game when a monsoon swept in near halftime but it was sunny in the fourth quarter (November 17, 2013). That's the kind of data that's easy to bruise and abuse.
Fragile data must be sliced or combined with care. One thing we don't want to do is magnify potential distortions by, say, expressing fumble data in a plays-per-fumble format. Most teams run about 1,000 plays per year. Divide them by a low figure like 10 fumbles and you get 100 plays per fumble. Divide by a league-average 16.55 fumbles and you get 60.44 plays per fumble. We just took a six-event swing and made it look like a 40-play difference: great for making differences appear dramatic. But the devil is in the denominator. If you want to make small numbers look vastly more significant, divide by them. The tables above are expressed in fumbles per 100 plays: It's a subtle difference, but it shows that fumble-prone and fumble-stingy teams are separated by increments, not dozens.
If you harbor the belief that the Patriots' 14 years of dominance are entirely the result of spying and squishy footballs, you might as well click away now. The Patriots are a great team and have been a uniquely great team for over a decade.
The data shows that the Patriots are significantly above the NFL average at avoiding fumbles and have been for a period of years. The Patriots are also well above NFL average in completion rates, yards per pass, yards per play, various defensive stats and just about any metric that can be used to measure quality over a period of years. Just about any NFL chart you create—whether you start in 2001, 2007 or 2012—will show the Patriots hovering near the top far more than you would expect an "average" team to do, because the Patriots are not average.
BAM! Sally Jenkins has written a superb indictment of Goodell and the way this whole mess has been mishandled. I was amused by this part:NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell predetermined guilt in DeflateGate; that’s clear now. He has smeared Tom Brady and the New England Patriots without proper evidence or a competent investigation and turned an unimportant misdemeanor into a damaging scandal as part of a personal power play to shore up his flagging authority. In other cases, he just looked inept. In this one, he looks devious.
The NFL created its own mischief here. It wrote a rule that says each team can use a dozen of its own balls and left it to the teams to inflate them, without providing any sort of regulation or consistent enforcement. Now, all of a sudden, what a year ago was the subject of a mere memo has become the subject of a months-long million-dollar game of Gotcha. Why?
Don’t tell me it’s because Tom Brady didn’t turn over his cell phone. Wells had all of the phone records and texts between Brady and equipment manager John Jastremski, and there was no communication at all with locker room attendant Jim McNally. The records suggest Brady’s not withholding; he’s just a union man who objects to the precedent of giving his private phone to a commissioner who comes on like J. Edgar Hoover.
And here again, Goodell is practicing selective punishment. Brett Favre didn’t turn his cell over, either, in a far more unpalatable case over sexual harassment in the workplace. Know what Goodell gave him? A $50,000 fine. With no suspension.
Nice research Moth.Mothman wrote:League leader— Vikings: 11 (2 lost) 981 plays
I guess where I fall on this is I just don't know. I don't want to come off as saying you're being dismissive (of the other reports), but I personally I can't rule it out, either. And they're not necessarily supporting Sharp's analysis at face value; they're doing their own independent research and coming up with similar findings that support Sharp's conclusions. Now, I haven't researched these guys much but I do know sites like FiveThirtyEight are pretty reputable when it comes to this type of stuff.Mothman wrote: People support flawed analysis and flawed conclusions all the time.
In what way? The years he chooses to analyze? He seems pretty clear why he chose those years.I'm not a statistician but even I can see that Sharp has cherry-picked his way to a conclusion.
He says in his latest article why they should be excluded and admits that even if they're included the conclusion doesn't change. He explained his reasoning here: http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/bl ... -last-timeHe throws dome teams out to make it work.
Interesting. I was of the impression he went into it with no preconceived opinions, just as other independent researchers did that led them to their own conclusions.It's painfully obvious that he went sniffing around for evidence of cheating and found a way to present the data that makes it look as if he found something terribly significant.
Now who's cherry picking?Heck, just look at it simply and compare the Patriots fumble numbers in 2005 (when they fumbled 19 times and lost 9) to their numbers in 2008-2009. We can see they fumbled 17 times in each of those two seasons, losing 10 and 9 respectively.
What were the fumble rates of the other 31 teams during that same time time period? And can we dismiss Sharp's conclusion entirely if it doesn't work for every year? And they did decrease their fumbles from 2008-2009 (by two each year), which seems to still favor the conclusion, even on a smaller scale. I mean, their fumble numbers didn't go up during that period.Are those numbers indicative of a big post-2006 spike?
I don't know how effective it was. First of all, it's hard to place much stock in a report written by someone that admits he's a lifelong Patriots fan. Even if he tries to be unbiased, I have a hard time believing he can be and several remarks in the article show me as much. Though he makes a few interesting points.For a less simplistic approach...
This guy takes Sharp's analysis apart effectively :
http://drewfustin.com/fumbles/
This is just lazy and dumb. Just because a player is better doesn't mean their grip wasn't improved by a slightly underinflated football.Anyhow, might I also suggest the following plausible explanations for drastic improvement?
Consider 2006: Reche Caldwell, Doug Gabriel. Now consider 2007: Randy Moss, Wes Welker. Same in 2008. You eventually get Rob Gronkowski, Julian Edelman, et cetera. Please don't make me compare Reche, Ben Watson, and Troy Brown (LOVE YOU, TROY!) to Gronk and Welker.
I fail to see how scheme has anything to do with fumble rates. Were the players touching the balls at different rates?The pre-2006 Patriots ran a completely different offensive set than the post-2007 Patriots. Remember the 2007 Patriots? The greatest offense ever assembled? They were the first Patriots spread offense. They still use that today.
Well, we're not talking about interceptions here so...yeah. I get the release time thing as it relates to sacks/fumbles. This is one area I have the biggest question. I think all fumbles coming from the QB getting hit with the ball only in his throwing hand should be omitted as I assume even if the ball was under-inflated by 50% that these hits would've resulted in a fumble. The thought that Brady now throws at the feet of receivers in traffic on crossing routes as to minimize fumbles on tackles is pretty loose in my eyes. I'm not sure that's A) true and B) necessarily results in fewer fumbles. Someone would need to do a whole study on that before I put any stock in that. If anything, it could lead to more fumbles since it takes longer to "secure" the football bringing it up from the feet to the chest and cradling it in the bicep instead of taking it from chest-level to the bicep. If anything, you'd think throwing it low at the feet would cause more incompletions.Tom Brady is simply better now. I remember watching Brady dink high passes off of receivers on crossing routes leading to tipped interceptions. I remember him being in the pocket too long. I now see him getting rid of the ball at nearly the fastest pace in the game. I see him intentionally throwing the ball at the feet of receivers in traffic and on crossing routes causing them to catch the pass on the way to the turf (thus not allowing fumbles on tackles).
Again, I don't know if there's any correlation between a guy's overall talent level and lesser fumble rates. Heck, Peterson has been one of the best football players on the planet since he stepped on the field (and has the hardest grip of anyone outside of Robocop) and he still had quite a few fumbles (for a RB) from 2007-2009. Fustin can keep harping on this but it's a weak theory with absolutely no basis.And why were they much more pedestrian in 2008 while still having the greatest offensive skill players in the league? Could it have had something to do with Bernard Pollard and Matt Cassel?
I linked to a FiveThirtyEight article a few posts up that that included links to several excellent rebuttals to Sharp's analysis and also had this to say:dead_poet wrote:I guess where I fall on this is I just don't know. I don't want to come off as saying you're being dismissive (of the other reports), but I personally I can't rule it out, either. And they're not necessarily supporting Sharp's analysis at face value; they're doing their own independent research and coming up with similar findings that support Sharp's conclusions. Now, I haven't researched these guys much but I do know sites like FiveThirtyEight are pretty reputable when it comes to this type of stuff.
The data science community responded with a number of rebuttals (I put together a roundup of my favorite ones below). Collectively, these posts did a great job of breaking down the Statistics 101 problems with Sharp’s original analyses. But even if Sharp had been less sloppy, it would have been right to take issue with the larger implication of his work — that any major outlier, if shown to be statistically significant, should be seen as evidence of rule-breaking.
His use of a 5 year rolling average is one example, as Drew Fustin articulated quite clearly. It's a point I made months agoIn what way? The years he chooses to analyze? He seems pretty clear why he chose those years.
I don't find his reasoning convincing. He's dealing with very small numbers and acting as if there represent very significant differences. He includes special teams fumbles in his warm weather/cold weather analysis despite the fact that special teams don't use the same footballs as offenses. He's explained his reasons for excluding dome teams but I don't think they hold up under scrutiny. In my view, it's more of a convenience used to reinforce his contention that the Patriots are an outrageous statistical outlier than anything else. In essence, it's more cherry picking.He says in his latest article why they should be excluded and admits that even if they're included the conclusion doesn't change. He explained his reasoning here: http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/bl ... -last-time
Interesting. I was of the impression he went into it with no preconceived opinions, just as other independent researchers did that led them to their own conclusions.
I don't think a 2 fumble difference is enough to favor his conclusion at all. Fumble rates for every team differ from year to year because they are impacted by all sorts of variables. The fumble rates for other teams, the stats are available on NFL .com and elsewhere. I'm sorry, I just don't have time to assemble them all.What were the fumble rates of the other 31 teams during that same time time period? And can we dismiss Sharp's conclusion entirely if it doesn't work for every year? And they did decrease their fumbles from 2008-2009 (by two each year), which seems to still favor the conclusion, even on a smaller scale.
It looks interesting that the Patriots were between 10th-19th from 2002-2006 and then in the top-5 every year save for 2013, which Sharp explains was the result of one bitterly cold Week 12 gave vs. Denver (I won't post his entire explanation but it makes sense when you read it). Fustin completely discounts this anomalous game, saying "and no, you can't just say 2013 doesn't count because of the 6 fumble Broncos game because you would then need to remove all bad games by all teams before making a comparison -- play fair!" I do agree that Sharp should also discount all bitterly cold games that resulted in high fumble rate anomalies. However I'm skeptical that even after doing this it would change the result.
It hadn't been debunked when he wrote that so how was he to know? I agree that the Patriots fan side of him comes out in some of his comments but it's the statistical argument he makes early in his rebuttal, as a data scientist, that I think hits home.I'm probably way off base but I'm starting to see this like the climate change argument: some politicians discount it completely because not every summer is the hottest on record and sometimes there are bad winters (how can there be climate change when we keep getting these December blizzards?!) when the cumulative data points to a shift in overall planet temperatures.
I also am disappointed that Fustin makes reference to the Vikings-Panthers game re: warming footballs when that has since been debunked.
Scheme could impact fumble rates by influencing the number of hits and sacks a QB takes. You made this connection, as did the well-written Bleacher Report article Sharp referenced (which I highly recommend). A scheme in which the QB is well-protected and is able to get the ball out of his hands quickly is likely to result in a reduced number of sack-related fumbles. That's probably one of the reasons the Manning-led Colts did so well with fumble rates over the years and it could easily be a big factor in the Patriots extended success too.I fail to see how scheme has anything to do with fumble rates. Were the players touching the balls at different rates?
Even the idea that deflated footballs provided the Patriots with a marginal competitive advantage over the years assumes they were deflating footballs for a period of years in the first place, which hasn't been established. I think you've touched on one of the bigger problems with Sharp's analysis and conclusions: there are too many variables and he doesn't account for enough of them. His use of that rolling average and his insistence on dropping dome teams, in particular, really undermine his case in my opinion. I don't feel he makes a compelling case for the latter at all.The bottom line for me is that this will never be answered. I'd want to dismiss all one-handed QB fumbles and also all fumbles where the ball-carrier is being careless with the ball (i.e. holding it wide, thinking he has a TD and not realizing someone was behind him who punched it out when he was relaxing, etc.). I think these fumbles would've happened no matter the inflation. The same is probably true for fumbles where a guy comes in full speed and puts his helmet on the ball. Frankly there are probably too many other variables. Ultimately I think it probably provided the Patriots with a marginal competitive advantage when it comes to fumble rates but not enough to really change their legacy from 2007-today as one of the best teams in the NFL.
Mothman wrote:I linked to a FiveThirtyEight article a few posts up that that included links to several excellent rebuttals to Sharp's analysis and also had this to say:
I understand that perspective but I don't buy it. It doesn't have to be so black-and-white as that. For example, there are countless examples of professional athletes that are in the record books for one reason or another. By the above "any major outlier if shown to be statistically significant should be seen as evidence of rule breaking" then you'd have to conclude that guys like Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron (or choose your greats in a sport) were cheating in some way. That doesn't mean that guys like Alex Rodriguez, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGuire aren't out there getting a competitive advantage illegally. It's not an "all or nothing" situation. The Patriots could simply be better at holding onto the football, however that doesn't absolve them from foul play as potentially getting a better grip on the football by deflating it below the regulated PSI, even if the intent was simply to provide Tom Brady with a better/preferred grip.The data science community responded with a number of rebuttals (I put together a roundup of my favorite ones below). Collectively, these posts did a great job of breaking down the Statistics 101 problems with Sharp’s original analyses. But even if Sharp had been less sloppy, it would have been right to take issue with the larger implication of his work — that any major outlier, if shown to be statistically significant, should be seen as evidence of rule-breaking.
I agree those should be excluded for that obvious reason.I don't find his reasoning convincing. He's dealing with very small numbers and acting as if there represent very significant differences. He includes special teams fumbles in his warm weather/cold weather analysis despite the fact that special teams don't use the same footballs as offenses.
He's explained his reasons for excluding dome teams but I don't think they hold up under scrutiny. In my view, it's more of a convenience used to reinforce his contention that the Patriots are an outrageous statistical outlier than anything else. In essence, it's more cherry picking.
I think he would say he went to see if there was a correlation and let the data define the narrative. Nothing in what I've read from him gives off a vibe that he was looking for evidence that supported a particular conclusion. Though he is going to great lengths to defend his analysis, which is to be expected.Deflategate reports were the impetus for his study. He obviously went looking for evidence to suggest the Patriots had been gaining some advantage from using deflated footballs.
True, but I don't think it disproves anything, either.I don't think a 2 fumble difference is enough to favor his conclusion at all.
That's an assumption. There's obviously no baseline to prove that hypothesis. It'll be interesting to watch their fumble rates over the next five years (or until Tom Brady retires and he's replaced with someone whose ball pressure preference will not be known right away) to see if they suddenly go back up with obviously newly-regulated ball inflation protocols.... and yes, if the Patriots have been gaining an advantage so significant that their fumble numbers are "nearly impossible", as Sharp contends, it's reasonable to expect that advantage to manifest itself clearly year after year and it seems like it would manifest itself much more dramatically than what we've seen.
True. 2013 does contradict his conclusions, though still not if taken collectively after 2006.... and yet, it probably would have some impact so Sharp really isn't "playing fair" with that data. However, even if you throw that game out, eliminating those 6 fumbles drops the Patriots total for 2013 to 18, placing them at #11 in the league that year along with 3 other teams. Not exactly a startling position that reinforces the idea they fumble at a "nearly impossible" rate.
Thanks, I didn't check the published date. But this section can be omitted now.It hadn't been debunked when he wrote that so how was he to know?
Some points, yes. Others not so much.I agree that the Patriots fan side of him comes out in some of his comments but it's the statistical argument he makes early in his rebuttal, as a data scientist, that I think hits home.
And that could be true, too. Which is why I'd think you should eliminate either all QB fumbles or QB one-handed fumbles. They hold the football differently than other ball-carriers.Scheme could impact fumble rates by influencing the number of hits and sacks a QB takes. You made this connection, as did the well-written Bleacher Report article Sharp referenced (which I highly recommend). A scheme in which the QB is well-protected and is able to get the ball out of his hands quickly is likely to result in a reduced number of sack-related fumbles. That's probably one of the reasons the Manning-led Colts did so well with fumble rates over the years and it could easily be a big factor in the Patriots extended success too.
IMHO the evidence points to Tom Brady liking softer footballs. He said so himself (using the phrase "I like deflated footballs") in that interview clip I posted recently when he was talking about Gronk's TD ball spiking. Obviously nothing is proven that he likes them below the legal PSI limit, which is where I get hung up because I there's no clear "smoking gun" evidence that proves this. Softer does not equal illegal.Even the idea that deflated footballs provided the Patriots with a marginal competitive advantage over the years assumes they were deflating footballs for a period of years in the first place, which hasn't been established.
Too many variables, so really this is just an interesting offseason topic of conversation because nothing will be done and nothing can be proven one way or the other (in my opinion) no matter how much stupid math tries to get involved to prove anything.I think you've touched on one of the bigger problems with Sharp's analysis and conclusions: there are too many variables and he doesn't account for enough of them. His use of that rolling average and his insistence on dropping dome teams, in particular, really undermine his case in my opinion. I don't feel he makes a compelling case for the latter at all.
I don't buy the argument that because the Patriots are dominant in a number of areas that would make them exempt from under inflating footballs. They were dominant in a number of categories in 2007 as well when they felt the need to record signals. And if another team was equally as dominant, and it was the team that also helped to champion the rule change, I'd want their balls checked, too (obviously one can't simply go back and look through a pre-game officials logbook to check Colt ball PSI). Peyton Manning and that franchise could be equally as guilty (if, indeed, anyone is guilty). I'll also say that it's possible that a lack of turnovers (because of a softer ball) would have led to more offensive plays, which in turn could have contributed to being better than league average in a number of statistical categories.I think that Bleacher Report article made a point that should be emphasized: the Patriots have been above average in many ways (especially by simply winning so much) for a long time. Consequently, why would we expect their numbers in such a crucial category to be close to the league average? What I find telling is that every year, there are teams whose fumble numbers are close to those of the Patriots, or just plain better, so clearly, on a yearly basis, what they do is nothing extraordinary by NFL standards. That essentially boils Sharp's argument down to an argument against their consistency. That's pretty weak, especially since the Colts showed similar consistency over a 6 year period under Manning to what the Patriots showed in the 6 years immediately following the rule change.
And then he rebuts the rebuttals and on we go.I just don't think Sharp has made a compelling case, as a chorus of quality rebuttals have illustrated.
I don't buy that any major outlier, if shown to be statistically significant, should be seen as evidence of rule-breaking either but that's essentially what Sharp is implying in regard to the Patriots. As for absolving the Patriots of foul play... I still don't think anyone has adequately demonstrated that they engaged in it in the first place when it comes to under-inflated footballs. The "deflator" text message is the best evidence and that's hardly conclusive, even though the explanation for it provided by the Pats lawyers isn't convincing at all.dead_poet wrote:I understand that perspective but I don't buy it. It doesn't have to be so black-and-white as that. For example, there are countless examples of professional athletes that are in the record books for one reason or another. By the above "any major outlier if shown to be statistically significant should be seen as evidence of rule breaking" then you'd have to conclude that guys like Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron (or choose your greats in a sport) were cheating in some way. That doesn't mean that guys like Alex Rodriguez, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGuire aren't out there getting a competitive advantage illegally. It's not an "all or nothing" situation. The Patriots could simply be better at holding onto the football, however that doesn't absolve them from foul play as potentially getting a better grip on the football by deflating it below the regulated PSI, even if the intent was simply to provide Tom Brady with a better/preferred grip.
If he was looking for a correlation in the data that would constitute further evidence of tampering with the football then he was, indeed, looking for evidence that would support a particular conclusion.I think he would say he went to see if there was a correlation and let the data define the narrative. Nothing in what I've read from him gives off a vibe that he was looking for evidence that supported a particular conclusion. Though he is going to great lengths to defend his analysis, which is to be expected.
It sure looks like he went searching for an answer to the question in bold and his methodology seems to reflect confirmation bias.According to the NFL, the New England Patriots were found to have introduced 11 under inflated footballs of the 12 they were required to provide during Sunday’s AFC Championship game vs the Colts. The footballs were said to be underinflated by two pounds per square inch. The incentive to having the Patriots offense play with underinflated footballs is that they are easier to grip, throw and catch as compared to properly inflated footballs.
Naturally, the immediate question arises: “How long have the Patriots been playing with underinflated footballs?” That’s impossible to know, but if the Patriots and Tom Brady believed it was to their advantage to underinflate the footballs for easier grip, presumably they would be doing it in wet weather, much like the weather in New England for the game vs the Colts.
That 2 fumble difference doesn't need to disprove anything. The default assumption should not be that the Patriots have been cheating since 2007 by tampering with footballs. Sharp's making the claim that what they've done is "nearly impossible" and that there's a marked difference between their fumble stats prior to 2007 and their stats after because "something happened". A claim like that needs to be strongly supported by evidence. A 2 fumble difference between those 2 seasons years and the 2005 season works against his assertion because a 2 fumble difference is too small to be considered statistically significant.True, but I don't think it disproves anything, either.
Do you see how that necessity to view the stats collectively becomes a problem? His argument only works if you look at the seasons that way. His contention that "something happened" to turn the Patriots into a much better team with regard to fumbles doesn't hold up very well if you look season-to-season. We see that in some seasons, NE wasn't much better (and in 2013 not any better) than in a pre-rule change season like 2005. As I said earlier, Sharp's argument here boils down to an argument against the Patriots overall consistency in this area since 2007 and that can be accounted for by other, wholly legal, factors.True. 2013 does contradict his conclusions, though still not if taken collectively after 2006.
It would be interesting to see what that did to the stats.And that could be true, too. Which is why I'd think you should eliminate either all QB fumbles or QB one-handed fumbles. They hold the football differently than other ball-carriers.
Exactly.IMHO the evidence points to Tom Brady liking softer footballs. He said so himself (using the phrase "I like deflated footballs") in that interview clip I posted recently when he was talking about Gronk's TD ball spiking.
Obviously nothing is proven that he likes them below the legal PSI limit, which is where I get hung up because I there's no clear "smoking gun" evidence that proves this. Softer does not equal illegal.
LOL! Right. Nothing can be proven without better evidence and I don't think Sharp's found it.Too many variables, so really this is just an interesting offseason topic of conversation because nothing will be done and nothing can be proven one way or the other (in my opinion) no matter how much stupid math tries to get involved to prove anything.
I don't think that's not the argument, or at least it's not the argument I'm making. My point is their stats can be explained without ever resorting to an explanation of illegal activity and they've been an above average team for a long time so logically, we should expect them to be above the league average in many statistical categories. That shouldn't necessarily be viewed as unusual.I don't buy the argument that because the Patriots are dominant in a number of areas that would make them exempt from under inflating footballs.
Everybody was recording signals. It's just that the rules required any video recording to be done in a location enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead. The Patriots continued a practice of recording from the sidelines, which they had done before the rules change, after it became illegal to do so. That was wrong (and foolish) and they deserved to be punished for it but I think people still have the idea that they were somehow unique in recording signals at all when it was actually a common practice at the time.They were dominant in a number of categories in 2007 as well when they felt the need to record signals.
... or they could just be a good football team that's benefitted from of a great deal of quality and continuity in a league where that combination can be pretty rare.And if another team was equally as dominant, and it was the team that also helped to champion the rule change, I'd want their balls checked, too (obviously one can't simply go back and look through a pre-game officials logbook to check Colt ball PSI). Peyton Manning and that franchise could be equally as guilty (if, indeed, anyone is guilty). I'll also say that it's possible that a lack of turnovers (because of a softer ball) would have led to more offensive plays, which in turn could contributed to being better than league average in a number of statistical categories.
