Lets Ponder the Patriots Deflationgate Issue

[Yakuza Rich]

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.

The issue is that you don't understand what that phrase means (so few non-statisticians really do).

In the golf example, I can absolutely prove a correlation. I can simply record ball speeds and distance traveled. I can then run a mathematical correlation and use a simple linear regression to project how far a golfer will hit the ball if they reach a certain ball speed. It's flat-out silly for you to claim that I can't prove a mathematical correlation.

In fact, I did a similar study of handicaps and club head speed this past year. The correlation coefficient was 0.9 which indicates a strong mathematical correlation. In fact, here's the linear regression formula that projects USGA handicap based on club head speed:

(Club Head Speed - 106.486783804431) / -1.38899923605806 = Projected USGA Handicap

Correlation is a symmetrical relationship.

So in the case of club head speed and handicap, you may run into a golfer that has significantly lower club head speed, but has a much lower handicap and vice versa. But when testing over 300 golfers from the Tour player to the 25 handicap, the sample size is large enough and it draws a very strong mathematical correlation of +0.93. So with a high degree of confidence we can say that the faster the club speed of a golfer the more likely they will have a lower handicap.

The same can apply with Sharp's statistical study. Obviously, the Patriots could still fumble a deflated ball just as there are going to be teams that will not fumble much with a properly inflated ball.

But, we can see a symmetrical relationship between their fumble rate and pre-2007 and post-2006. That coincides with the rule change that was proposed by Tom Brady. And that was the point of Sharp's article and backed up by Burke.

It was the critics of Sharp's work that jumped on the idea of deflating a football cause spikes in the Pats' fumble rate. The core of the problem is that we don't even know if deflated footballs will actually cause less fumbles because we've never tested out that theory. I just wouldn't ignore the stats that coincide right with that timeline.






YR

 

[khiladi]

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.

Really? Is that why Gilette stadium had plenty of protestors which is why he went to Hartford in the first place?

Is that why the NFL had to finabce over 150 million of it? And you wonder why they boosted up the Patriots.

 

[Rogah]

Really? Is that why Gilette stadium had plenty of protestors which is why he went to Hartford in the first place?

Gillette Stadium never had any protestors. The protestors were those who did not want him to get land and/or build on the South Boston waterfront, but once Gillette (nee CMGI) got approved there were no protests of any kind.

But good job showing you don't know what you are talking about.

Is that why the NFL had to finabce over 150 million of it?

You keep bringing up that the NFL helped finance that stadium as if it's a bad thing. That is a point that actually speaks to his favor. The NFL should help finance their own stadiums instead of forcing taxpayers to do so. He didn't get any public funding for the stadium (just public infrastructure improvements) and he didn't fleece his own fanbase with ridiculous PSL's - and he certainly didn't fleece his own fanbase with PSL's that expire after 30 years (taking the permanent" out of "permanent seat licenses).

I sure wish more NFL owners behaved in such a manner.

 

[Nightman]

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.

Slow clap........Rogah just got p3wned.....

 

[khiladi]

Gillette Stadium never had any protestors. The protestors were those who did not want him to get land and/or build on the South Boston waterfront, but once Gillette (nee CMGI) got approved there were no protests of any kind.

But good job showing you don't know what you are talking about.
You keep bringing up that the NFL helped finance that stadium as if it's a bad thing. That is a point that actually speaks to his favor. The NFL should help finance their own stadiums instead of forcing taxpayers to do so. He didn't get any public funding for the stadium (just public infrastructure improvements) and he didn't fleece his own fanbase with ridiculous PSL's - and he certainly didn't fleece his own fanbase with PSL's that expire after 30 years (taking the permanent" out of "permanent seat licenses).

I sure wish more NFL owners behaved in such a manner.

So Kraft didn't threaten to move to Hartford because the people didnt want him to build in Boston.. Just stop..

And again, the people were fitted a bill of 70 million. That just phrased it in a way that it would involve infrastructure around the stadium outside. And as far as a 150 million financing package which was pretty much unheard of for a team, and you wonder why the NFL has an interest in promoting the Patriots.

Got to love that Kraft connection, the real
MVP.

 

[Rogah]

So Kraft didn't threaten to move to Hartford because the people didnt want him to build in Boston.. Just stop..

That's exactly what he did. When he couldn't get a stadium in South Boston, he played one city against another to get the deal he wanted - just like practically every single owner in the NFL over the past 25 years or so.

And again, the people were fitted a bill of 70 million.

Yes, for infrastructure. There's actually a state law that says only public funds can pay for infrastructure improvements; Kraft couldn't have paid that money even if he wanted to.

For some reason no one can explain, you seem to think that is worse than other stadiums built around the same time which had the public paying $216 million in Cleveland, $281 million in Pittsburgh, $249 million in Denver, or $309 million in Houston - in addition to also paying for the infrastructure around those buildings.

Why is $70 million for infrastructure so much more eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-vil than $216 million, $281 million, $249 million or $309 million for the stadiums themselves? Could you please explain that to the rest of us?

Oh and by the way, all those stadiums I just mentioned have ridiculous PSL costs also. So they got the public to pay for the stadiums AND fleeced their own fans for hundreds of millions of dollars in PSLs. Kraft did neither.

And as far as a 150 million financing package which was pretty much unheard of for a team, and you wonder why the NFL has an interest in promoting the Patriots.

Yes, so much NFL financing is unheard of for other teams because other teams screwed the public by making taxpayers foot the bill. For some reason you seem to think it is better to screw the taxpayers than get the NFL to fund one of their own.

Got to love that Kraft connection, the real MVP.

Let's just say I sure wish more owners, including our own, behaved in such a manner when it came to stadium expenses and financing.

 

[khiladi]

That's exactly what he did. When he couldn't get a stadium in South Boston, he played one city against another to get the deal he wanted - just like practically every single owner in the NFL over the past 25 years or so.
Yes, for infrastructure. There's actually a state law that says only public funds can pay for infrastructure improvements; Kraft couldn't have paid that money even if he wanted to.

For some reason no one can explain, you seem to think that is worse than other stadiums built around the same time which had the public paying $216 million in Cleveland, $281 million in Pittsburgh, $249 million in Denver, or $309 million in Houston - in addition to also paying for the infrastructure around those buildings.

Why is $70 million for infrastructure so much more eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-vil than $216 million, $281 million, $249 million or $309 million for the stadiums themselves? Could you please explain that to the rest of us?

Oh and by the way, all those stadiums I just mentioned have ridiculous PSL costs also. So they got the public to pay for the stadiums AND fleeced their own fans for hundreds of millions of dollars in PSLs. Kraft did neither.
Yes, so much NFL financing is unheard of for other teams because other teams screwed the public by making taxpayers foot the bill. For some reason you seem to think it is better to screw the taxpayers than get the NFL to fund one of their own.
Let's just say I sure wish more owners, including our own, behaved in such a manner when it came to stadium expenses and financing.

So basically Kraft didn't negotiate in good Faith a contract with Hartford adding a bunch of escape clauses to ensure he could get what he wants...right?

Ever heard of any owner doing it like that besides Kraft... Of course not... Even if so, I guess one garbage owner justifies another. Lance Armstrong complex again..

Keep it up though... It's comical.. So now you've moved on to other teams being funded by taxpayer money without denying that the Pats used taxpayer money, 70 million that is.

So what does that price again? The city didn't want to front the bill, like I said earlier.

 

[Rogah]

So basically Kraft didn't negotiate in good Faith a contract with Hartford adding a bunch of escape clauses to ensure he could get what he wants...right?

What part of "he played one city against another just like practically every single other owner in football" are you not understanding???? Too many multi-syllable words perhaps?

Ever heard of any owner doing it like that besides Kraft... Of course not...

Yeah. Sure. Art Modell didn't play Cleveland and Baltimore against each other. The Irsays didn't play Baltimore and Indy against each other. And absolutely no owner has ever threatened to move to Los Angleles.

Keep it up though... It's comical.. So now you've moved on to other teams being funded by taxpayer money without denying that the Pats used taxpayer money, 70 million that is.

I was the one who brought up the fact that there was $70 million in public funds for infrastructure improvements around Gillette Stadium. Why would I deny a fact that I brought into the conversation?

I have answered all your questions. Be a man for once in your life and answer one of mine:

Why is $70 million worse than $216 million, $281 million, $249 million and $309 million spent by the public in other cities during the same time period?

 

[khiladi]

What part of "he played one city against another just like practically every single other owner in football" are you not understanding???? Too many multi-syllable words perhaps?
Yeah. Sure. Art Modell didn't play Cleveland and Baltimore against each other. The Irsays didn't play Baltimore and Indy against each other. And absolutely no owner has ever threatened to move to Los Angleles.
I was the one who brought up the fact that there was $70 million in public funds for infrastructure improvements around Gillette Stadium. Why would I deny a fact that I brought into the conversation?

I have answered all your questions. Be a man for once in your life and answer one of mine:

Why is $70 million worse than $216 million, $281 million, $249 million and $309 million spent by the public in other cities during the same time period?

What part of not negotiating a contract in good faith don't you understand? And what part of being in the company of owners known as scrubs is not a compliment don't you understand? And no you didn't bring up $70 million to my attention, I brought it up to you that it is still a tax and they tried to get around it going to the stadium by phrasing it in the context of infrastructure improvements for the city, but were for Gillette stadium in reality.

 

[Rogah]

What part of not negotiating a contract in good faith don't you understand? And what part of being in the company of owners known as scrubs is not a compliment don't you understand? And no you didn't bring up $70 million to my attention, I brought it up to you that it is still a tax and they tried to get around it going to the stadium by phrasing it in the context of infrastructure improvements for the city, but were for Gillette stadium in reality.

Why is $70 million worse than $216 million, $281 million, $249 million and $309 million spent by the public in other cities during the same time period?

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

^LOL *facepalm*

 

[Doomsay]

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?

Not only is that not the #1 rule of statistical analysis it isn't a rule of any kind, nor is it correct. It's a wiki headline that you don't understand.

If you knew anything about statistics, you wouldn't have tried to discredit Yakuza's broader understanding of the science, even if you didn't agree with his conclusions. There is a difference in that, and you are embarrassing yourself by not recognizing it.

 

[khiladi]

Why is $70 million worse than $216 million, $281 million, $249 million and $309 million spent by the public in other cities during the same time period?

Keep avoiding the point about negotiating in good faith and keep avoiding the point that it's a problem when the city doesn't agree to financing the stadium and they mask $70 million in the context of 'infrastructure improvements'.

 

[Rogah]

Keep avoiding the point about negotiating in good faith

I addressed that point.

and keep avoiding the point that it's a problem when the city doesn't agree to financing the stadium and they mask $70 million in the context of 'infrastructure improvements'.

I addressed that point too.

But keep avoiding the point that you can't explain to any of us why $70 million is somehow worse than $216 million, $281 million, $249 million and $309 million spent by the public in other cities during the same time period - not to mention all those other stadiums fleeced their own fans with ridiculous PSL charges while Kraft didn't.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

 

[Nightman]

He was inflated, not deflated

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

He was inflated, not deflated

true that. haha

 

[khiladi]

I addressed that point.
I addressed that point too.

But keep avoiding the point that you can't explain to any of us why $70 million is somehow worse than $216 million, $281 million, $249 million and $309 million spent by the public in other cities during the same time period - not to mention all those other stadiums fleeced their own fans with ridiculous PSL charges while Kraft didn't.

Addressing a point, doesn't mean addressing it adequately.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

Addressing a point, doesn't mean addressing it adequately.

Rogah is never concerned with substance or quality. For him its all about throwing as much crap against the wall as possible and hope its good enough if any part of it might happen to stick.

 

[visionary]

The issue is that you don't understand what that phrase means (so few non-statisticians really do).

In the golf example, I can absolutely prove a correlation. I can simply record ball speeds and distance traveled. I can then run a mathematical correlation and use a simple linear regression to project how far a golfer will hit the ball if they reach a certain ball speed. It's flat-out silly for you to claim that I can't prove a mathematical correlation.

In fact, I did a similar study of handicaps and club head speed this past year. The correlation coefficient was 0.9 which indicates a strong mathematical correlation. In fact, here's the linear regression formula that projects USGA handicap based on club head speed:

(Club Head Speed - 106.486783804431) / -1.38899923605806 = Projected USGA Handicap

Correlation is a symmetrical relationship.

So in the case of club head speed and handicap, you may run into a golfer that has significantly lower club head speed, but has a much lower handicap and vice versa. But when testing over 300 golfers from the Tour player to the 25 handicap, the sample size is large enough and it draws a very strong mathematical correlation of +0.93. So with a high degree of confidence we can say that the faster the club speed of a golfer the more likely they will have a lower handicap.

The same can apply with Sharp's statistical study. Obviously, the Patriots could still fumble a deflated ball just as there are going to be teams that will not fumble much with a properly inflated ball.

But, we can see a symmetrical relationship between their fumble rate and pre-2007 and post-2006. That coincides with the rule change that was proposed by Tom Brady. And that was the point of Sharp's article and backed up by Burke.

It was the critics of Sharp's work that jumped on the idea of deflating a football cause spikes in the Pats' fumble rate. The core of the problem is that we don't even know if deflated footballs will actually cause less fumbles because we've never tested out that theory. I just wouldn't ignore the stats that coincide right with that timeline.






YR

Rogah is a Patriots fan so you have to excuse his blindness

You pretty much owned him here