Lets Ponder the Patriots Deflationgate Issue

[Doomsay]

Good stuff.

I think the key now is for some to be aware of the new news....that only one ball was 2 psi below, a few more were about 1 psi, and the rest were just "a tick below" legal.

All science still applies though.

I'm curious how this'll turn out.

But I always thought it was a bit shameful to be a part of the lynch mob before getting all the facts.
I guess the Pats history set much of that up though.

The backtracking on the individual ball inflation sounds akin to the destruction of the videos in spygate, especially when ian the stooge insider is "hearing things" from a supposedly confidential inquirery. This whole thing should have taken 5 days to conclude, but the NFL didn't want to hurt their rep or revenues before the SB, so the whole thing will just have to go away now or the league will look incompetent or culpable, IMO.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

Honestly, this is getting tiresome.

The existence of an anomaly does not imply that cheating has occurred.

I am not saying his numbers are off. Some have critiqued that, and he has acknowledged that his numbers could have been better after factoring in plays with the "K" ball. Even if his numbers were 100% on point, I feel there are more rational explanations than than the Patriots having gotten away with playing with deflated balls for almost a decade.

His data does not "show" anything other than what has occurred. It doesn't (because it can't) say why things may have occurred. The big problem is that he feels his data actually does show that the Patriots have been playing with deflated balls.

It doesn't.

So there's basically nothing "data" driven that would change your mind? I'm certainly open to anything that can be presented but I think a better explanation for what has been presented is simply QB play.

yes im open. but it would have to have open dialogue going back and forth with sharp's analysis. he refuted and mentioned some major counter points people were making on his data/analysis. if there are new counters id like for him to see them and maybe offer some words. im sure he is open to figuring this out too.

Bogus.

I have presented plenty of data on how similar the Patriots are to other teams when you exclude fumbles from QB.

okay present the data in some concise graphs/spreadsheets maybe lets see what it looks like.

In the audio clip posted earlier he said there's a correlation. He says he believes they have been playing with deflated balls.

His "what" is the deflated ball.

"that said THE DATA alone does not tell us obviously that they were holding on to the football soley because they were deflating footballs since 2007"

yeah correlation not causation in the DATA. i guess one could say that he PERSONALLY feels that there is correlation. i will take that.

Two questions strictly about data.

1. Have you seen any reason why indoor teams should be excluded that isn't entirely an assumption?

2. Do you know what happens if indoor teams are included?

but i see that keeping the data to open air teams is imperative. One starts comparing apples to oranges when we start deviating from conditions that certainly make a difference. Comparing the drag from a truck vs. a corvette then arguing that the trucks bed is whats creating the drag is whats being avoided. If you compare a corvette's drag to say a viper's drag, you're getting a more accurate portrayal of the impact of the drag to the cars performance. It's in essence saying one should judge a rabbits intelligence by its ability to climb a tree.[/quote]

 

[khiladi]

Basically your obsessive hatred of all things Patriots clouds your vision from realizing that about 2 dozen owners have played 1 city against another sometime in the past quarter century or so (including some that are ongoing right now).

But, for some reason, you consider Kraft to be a despicable human being for doing something tons of other owners do while all the rest are just smart businessmen.

Played cities by reneging on contracts and that too a contract to fit the entire bill? So basically, just because other owners are scum that makes Kraft justified? And you wonder why the owners and NFL didn't actually want to properly deal with Spygate.

 

[khiladi]

yes im open. but it would have to have open dialogue going back and forth with sharp's analysis. he refuted and mentioned some major counter points people were making on his data/analysis. if there are new counters id like for him to see them and maybe offer some words. im sure he is open to figuring this out too.



okay present the data in some concise graphs/spreadsheets maybe lets see what it looks like.





"that said THE DATA alone does not tell us obviously that they were holding on to the football soley because they were deflating footballs since 2007"

yeah correlation not causation in the DATA. i guess one could say that he PERSONALLY feels that there is correlation. i will take that.





but i see that keeping the data to open air teams is imperative. One starts comparing apples to oranges when we start deviating from conditions that certainly make a difference. Comparing the drag from a truck vs. a corvette then arguing that the trucks bed is whats creating the drag is whats being avoided. If you compare a corvette's drag to say a viper's drag, you're getting a more accurate portrayal of the impact of the drag to the cars performance. It's in essence saying one should judge a rabbits intelligence by its ability to climb a tree.

[/quote]

Sharp speaks about not just dome teams specifically in another analysis and still proves anomaly.

And in his Twitter he actually sarcastically questions those that tried to argue why he took out dome teams by posting a series of charts of the Patriots versus Atlanta, the best non-fumbling dome team and takes into account weather.

Check it out.. It makes those defending the Patriots look even worse.

 

[Rogah]

Played cities by reneging on contracts and that too a contract to fit the entire bill? So basically, just because other owners are scum that makes Kraft justified?

When I see you singling out one owner for criticism over an issue that about 25 owners have engaged in, I see a hater's agenda in play, not a legitimate attempt to discuss NFL ownership behavior with regards to new stadium deals.

 

[khiladi]

When I see you singling out one owner for criticism over an issue that about 25 owners have engaged in, I see a hater's agenda in play, not a legitimate attempt to discuss NFL ownership behavior with regards to new stadium deals.

So Kraft reneged on a contract right? Lance Armstrong complex..

 

[Rogah]

So Kraft reneged on a contract right? Lance Armstrong complex..

He exercised an escape clause, which was 100% within his rights to do.

Most people criticize owners like Irsay and Modell for uprooting their teams and abandoning long-time, loyal fan bases. I think you are the first person I've seen so obsessively criticize an owner who did what he did to *stay* in the same market.

 

[khiladi]

He exercised an escape clause, which was 100% within his rights to do.

Most people criticize owners like Irsay and Modell for uprooting their teams and abandoning long-time, loyal fan bases. I think you are the first person I've seen so obsessively criticize an owner who did what he did to *stay* in the same market.

Really, Kraft wasn't criticized for his play? Is that why Hartford was seriously considering suing him?

Of course he issued an escape clause, among the countless ridiculous one's set up. You do know what negotiating a contract in good faith is, right?

Your defense of the tactics are not surprising. All hail Kraft for having a bunch of measly lawyers good at what they do.

 

[Rogah]

Really, Kraft wasn't criticized for his play?

He was criticized in Connecticut and celebrated in Massachusetts.

Is that really your big smoking gun here? That he alienated the city of Hartford, Connecticut?

I wish Jerruh built his new stadium the way Kraft built GIllette, because then I'd still be 10 rows from the field in the corner end zone, instead of being priced out of the first 3 tiers.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Sharp speaks about not just dome teams specifically in another analysis and still proves anomaly.

And in his Twitter he actually sarcastically questions those that tried to argue why he took out dome teams by posting a series of charts of the Patriots versus Atlanta, the best non-fumbling dome team and takes into account weather.

Check it out.. It makes those defending the Patriots look even worse.

It reminds me a bit of when Nate Silver projected Obama to handily beat Romney and so many statisticians, particularly from Ivy League schools, attacked Silver's sexuality and his statistics. What was crazy were those statisticians that still projected Obama to win, but by an even bigger margin than what Silver had. They questioned Silver's methodology of using certain polls despite having an incredible accuracy rate in the 2008 election. In the end, Silver was correct and IIRC, outside of a congressional seat in North Dakota, nailed every electoral pick.

One of the first statisticians that came out against Sharp just so happened to be an admitted Patriots fans. But, he claimed that had nothing to do with his criticism of Sharp.

Sure.

When I first read this, I didn't see any glaring errors in Sharp's work. But, some on the internet were so eager to stick up for their favorite team or debunk Sharp's work (for whatever reason) that they just ran with whatever a few fanboys gave them.

Like Silver, Sharp has to deal with those eager to prove him wrong despite faulty mathematical logic because they want to make a name for themselves and protect their favorite team. I expect them to try to pinpoint inaccuracies that have nothing to do with Sharp's main point in order to make it appear that they have a valid argument.





YR

 

[Rogah]

It reminds me a bit of when Nate Silver projected Obama to handily beat Romney and so many statisticians, particularly from Ivy League schools, attacked Silver's sexuality and his statistics. What was crazy were those statisticians that still projected Obama to win, but by an even bigger margin than what Silver had. They questioned Silver's methodology of using certain polls despite having an incredible accuracy rate in the 2008 election. In the end, Silver was correct and IIRC, outside of a congressional seat in North Dakota, nailed every electoral pick.

One of the first statisticians that came out against Sharp just so happened to be an admitted Patriots fans. But, he claimed that had nothing to do with his criticism of Sharp.

Sure.

When I first read this, I didn't see any glaring errors in Sharp's work. But, some on the internet were so eager to stick up for their favorite team or debunk Sharp's work (for whatever reason) that they just ran with whatever a few fanboys gave them.

Like Silver, Sharp has to deal with those eager to prove him wrong despite faulty mathematical logic because they want to make a name for themselves and protect their favorite team. I expect them to try to pinpoint inaccuracies that have nothing to do with Sharp's main point in order to make it appear that they have a valid argument.





YR

Interesting that you seem to be a fan of Silver's but completely ignore the fact that Silver's website totally pwned Sharp's ridiculously sloppy, cherry picked analysis and faulty conclusions. The article wasn't written by Silver himself but was on 538.com.

I guess you only like Silver when it fits your narrative.

 

[DFWJC]

LOL

Now the script is almost flipped!

Not did Ian Rapport (NFL Network) report that only were 10 of the 11 balls in question now reportedly only a "tick" below 12.5 psi, but the one ball that was reported to be 2 psi below was the one supposedly confiscated by Indy after the interception.
lol
In other words, now Indy is being accused of manipulating that ball.



Who knows what's real but this is funny stuff.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

LOL

Now the script is almost flipped!

Not did Ian Rapport (NFL Network) report that only were 10 of the 11 balls in question now reportedly only a "tick" below 12.5 psi, but the one ball that was reported to be 2 psi below was the one supposedly confiscated by Indy after the interception.
lol
In other words, now Indy is being accused of manipulating that ball.



Who knows what's real but this is funny stuff.

That is funny... And smart. Sounds like a real defense lawyers handy work. Lol

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Interesting that you seem to be a fan of Silver's but completely ignore the fact that Silver's website totally pwned Sharp's ridiculously sloppy, cherry picked analysis and faulty conclusions. The article wasn't written by Silver himself but was on 538.com.

I guess you only like Silver when it fits your narrative.

Nice try.

I like statistically accurate information. No statistician is flawless 100% of the time.

Silver comes from a baseball background which he was excellent at. He then moved to political elections which he is also great at. But when it came to football analytics, not so much.

Neil Payne wrote the 538 article. He's a basketball analytics guy (and a good one). But, all he did was more or less point out the articles that refuted Sharp's analysis. So you're claiming that I 'only like Silver when it fits your narrative' is just your typical trolling. I still like Silver. But, he didn't write the article, the article more or less just showed articles refuting Sharp's claims and the attacks on Silver were on his sexuality and that he couldn't be right because of his sexuality. And in the end, Silver was 99.9% correct.

I don't see Silver or 538 making a personal attack against Sharp. And even if it was Silver writing a piece against it, he's still wrong. It doesn't mean I don't like him anymore.

One of the main gripes I have against the Sharp critics is that many of them wanted to eliminate the QB fumbles.

Really?

What's worse is that the explanations behind the QB fumbles were terribly misguided. Sure, Peyton Manning isn't likely to fumble as much as say Michael Vick, but if we look at an individual QB like Brady whose fumbles go way down suddenly in the prime of his career, then QB fumbles should be allowed in there.

Then there is the different sample sizes that these professors were using often basing it on 1-year data for a team instead of Sharp's 5-year span. I think Sharp should have broke it down into 1, 3, and 5-year splits with trends throughout just to make double sure. Of course, many of the critics that are professors should know that as well...but as the old saying goes...those that can't; teach.

As a statistician I was more or less dismayed by the statistics professors work the most. What was just flat-out weird was they would come up with reasons for Sharp possibly being wrong, run the calculations and show that Sharp was right, but not as right as he claimed and then called out Sharp for having some agenda to push while the first professor readily admitted he was a Patriots fan. If that doesn't sound like those that opposed Silver projecting Obama to beat Romney, I'm not sure what does.

It's like they say in Moneyball, the first one to go thru the wall always gets bloodied. Too bad for Sharp he was done in by fellow statisticians that couldn't put the pom-poms down for a second and objectively refute his argument.





YR

I work as a statistician and I also have my own statistical consulting business.

 

[Rogah]

Nice try.

I like statistically accurate information. No statistician is flawless 100% of the time.

Silver comes from a baseball background which he was excellent at. He then moved to political elections which he is also great at. But when it came to football analytics, not so much.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..... so you like him when he supports your narrative, but you discredit him when he doesn't. Got'cha.

I work as a statistician and I also have my own statistical consulting business.

If that were true then you would know just how pathetic and sloppy the original analysis was.

You would also know the #1 rule of statistical analysis is that correlation does not imply causation. But that doesn't fit the narrative either, does it?

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..... so you like him when he supports your narrative, but you discredit him when he doesn't. Got'cha.
If that were true then you would know just how pathetic and sloppy the original analysis was.

Obviously, you refuse to read or you're just blatantly trolling. I said I still like Silver, that Silver didn't write this and I'm not discrediting him. And all Neil Payne did was more or less point out the articles that were critical of Sharp's work.

But as a statistician there are some parts of analytics that all statisticians are not their strong point. It's like a French master chef that can cook French and Italian cuisine really well, but if they were trying to cook Indian food they may know the basics that applies to all cooking, but the actual food would leave a lot to be desired.

Sharp's work wasn't sloppy either. You're just parroting what the first professor (I believe his name was Matthews) said and he was a self admitted Patriots fan.

And he didn't even go into *why* Sharp's work was sloppy. Instead he just wanted to take out all dome teams, all QB fumbles and use 1-year analysis versus 5-year splits (or as I suggested, use 1, 3 and 5-year splits and trendlines over that time).

The only argument they had worth merit was the fumbles on kickoff/punt returns. But, I don't think it would take a football expert to figure out that given the large discrepancy between the Patriots plays per fumble and the rest of the league...that fumble and kickoff returns were not going to make up much of a different. Furthermore, it may have helped support Sharp's cause if the Patriots fumbled more often with the K-ball than when they had their own footballs.

Essentially, many of the critics manipulated the data to try and show that there was no difference and their reasons for manipulating the data made little or no sense. And even when they did manipulate the data, it still showed that the Patriots have a significantly lower fumble rate than the rest of the league. It just wasn't as significant as Sharp's original data.

Even Brian Burke agreed with Sharp in his take and then mysteriously posted on Twitter that it was bad. Aaron Schatz didn't disagree with Sharp's data, but just said that because there is an outlier it doesn't mean that something must be up (which is true).

You would also know the #1 rule of statistical analysis is that correlation does not imply causation. But that doesn't fit the narrative either, does it?

Sharp didn't say there was a causation. He specifically said that he wasn't stating that the fumble rate was due to deflated footballs. That's what is partly disturbing about the critics' refutation of Sharp's work. They assumed Sharp said that the Patriots footballs were underinflated and therefore went out of their way to manipulate the data which only showed that Sharp was STILL CORRECT.

Their reasons for manipulating the data were insufficient, illogical and contradictory and because they assumed that Sharp was saying that deflated footballs caused the lower fumble rate, it shows their agenda that for whatever reason, they wanted to protect the Patriots and the NFL.

That's the problem with your posts....you don't read and you make stuff up like "the Patriots fully admitted that they were spying on teams."






YR

 

[Rogah]

Sharp's work wasn't sloppy either. You're just parroting what the first professor (I believe his name was Matthews) said and he was a self admitted Patriots fan.

Yes it was sloppy - so sloppy that it looks more like he was being deliberately misleading.

The primary graph all the haters latched onto was mislabeled. It said "fumbles" when it should have said "fumbles lost." When the #1 piece of evidence used to support a thesis is mislabeled, that's a pretty big deal.

I hope you're not as sloppy when preparing reports for your clientele or else you won't be in the business for long (but you probably already know that).

Then that raises the natural question of why any statistical analysis would focus on fumbles lost instead of fumbles. What, do deflated balls magically help the Patriots recover those fumbles?

Oh by the way: Correleation does not imply causation. If you were half the analyst you claim to be, you would know that.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Yes it was sloppy - so sloppy that it looks more like he was being deliberately misleading.

The primary graph all the haters latched onto was mislabeled. It said "fumbles" when it should have said "fumbles lost." When the #1 piece of evidence used to support a thesis is mislabeled, that's a pretty big deal.

I hope you're not as sloppy when preparing reports for your clientele or else you won't be in the business for long (but you probably already know that).

Then that raises the natural question of why any statistical analysis would focus on fumbles lost instead of fumbles. What, do deflated balls magically help the Patriots recover those fumbles?

As I stated, when they looked at Sharp's data, they still found that the Patriots had a large discrepancy in fumbles. From Brian Burke at Advanced Football Statistics:

Whoa. In this case NE is at the top of the list, and the next best team is a distant second. Notice how the second team (BLT) through the second to last team (PHI) have rates that are within 1 or 2 plays of each other. NE, however, is better than the next best team by 20 plays per fumble. - Brian Burke

Burke also had negative things to say about Matthews' work

I actually mis-read Burke's comments at first. But, he clearly supports Sharp's claims of there being an outlier and condemns Matthews' and Lopez's work. Again, Matthews was a self admitted Patriots fan like yourself.

Sharp looked at individual players that left the Patriots. Once the return fumbles were taken out, their fumbling rate (whether lost or not lost) went up by 23%. And the rate of the main players that touched the ball in New England that left (Woodhead, Welker, Maroney, Green-Ellis) had a fumble rate (lost or not lost) that was 38% higher with other teams.

Oh by the way: Correleation does not imply causation. If you were half the analyst you claim to be, you would know that.

This is where you are wrong.

Correlation *can* imply causation.

Correlation does not automatically mean that there is a causal relationship between variables. However, there are causal relationships that are indicated by mathematical correlation all around us.

For example, we know that there is a strong correlation between ball speed and how far a golfer can hit a golf ball. Not every golfer that generates more ball speed will hit it further than a golfer that generates less ball speed (some of it is due to launch angle, spin, etc). But there is a mathematical correlation between the two and we can't just state 'well, correlation doesn't imply causation so there is no relationship.'

Sharp never said that the outlier between the Patriots fumbling rate and the rest of the league was due to deflated footballs. However, it provides evidence that perhaps something could have happened.

The argument using Sharp's (and Burke's) statistics would have less merit if the Patriots had not had 11 out of 12 footballs under-inflated by halftime and the Colts had 0 under-inflated footballs. And if the Ravens had not tipped off the Colts beforehand. But since there is proof of the Patriots having under-inflated footballs for at least one game and suspiciously more, the argument using Sharp's and Burke's statistics is compelling.






YR

 

[Rogah]

Correlation *can* imply causation.

Correlation does not automatically mean that there is a causal relationship between variables. However, there are causal relationships that are indicated by mathematical correlation all around us.

For example, we know that there is a strong correlation between ball speed and how far a golfer can hit a golf ball. Not every golfer that generates more ball speed will hit it further than a golfer that generates less ball speed (some of it is due to launch angle, spin, etc). But there is a mathematical correlation between the two and we can't just state 'well, correlation doesn't imply causation so there is no relationship.'

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were a statistician but this paragraph proves you're just a wannabe that has no clue what he is talking about.

What you just described isn't a statistical analysis, it is a cause and effect. If a pro golfer hits a ball off a tee at 100 MPH and I hit it off the tee at 50 MPH, with all other factors being equal, then yeah his ball will go farther than mine (duh!). That's cause and effect, not a statistical correlation.

The fact that you don't know the difference shows how clueless you are about this subject.

This is the last I will say on this subject now that you have proved your obscene ignorance. I know your childlike mind demands you have the last word so go ahead and have it.

Oh BTW, the #1 rule of statistical analysis: Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[BoysFan4ever]

So what's the holdup NFL?

Give them their slap on the wrist ASAP. All the parades are over.