Lets Ponder the Patriots Deflationgate Issue

[Rogah]

I'm not even sure what the guy is trying to say. They lose fewer fumbles from deflated balls, but don't benefit to the same extent when it comes to fumbling in general? Or they do benefit, but you just have to remove all the indoor teams who's fumbling is on par with the Patriots to see it?

Even if there was a benefit to deflated balls, why would anyone look at fumbles lost when the defense would presumably be able to get the exact same benefit in terms of being able to recover the fumble? If a deflated ball is easier to grab for one team, it's easier to grab for the other.

That graph - aside from being inaccurately labelled (which is like a mathematician saying 1 + 1 = 3) - doesn't prove a darn thing.

As you mention, if the theory is that uninflated balls help grip and reduce fumbles, then why look only at fumbles lost? That right there raises HUGE red flags in any impartial, thinking mind. Sounds to me like he looked at both numbers (total fumbles and fumbles lost) and then went with the results that best fit his narrative and hoped people were too stupid to know the difference - oh and then he "accidentally" mislabeled the graph while he was at it.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Neil Degrasse-Tyson sez that for the ball to deflate as much as the Patriots claim, they would have to be filled with 125 degree air.



Guess he's not a scientist either.





YR

 

[Rogah]

Neil Degrasse-Tyson sez that for the ball to deflate as much as the Patriots claim, they would have to be filled with 125 degree air.



Guess he's not a scientist either.

I'll take Carnegie Mellon over a TV personality any day of the week. Plus, even if you accept the unproven 2 PSI drop, the balls didn't deflate by 15%, they only deflated by roughly 7.4% so Tyson's starting figure is inaccurate. Anyone who says they deflated by 15% either was misinformed or doesn't understand the difference between absolute and relative air pressure (which is just about everyone in the media and almost everyone in this forum).

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

I'll take Carnegie Mellon over a TV personality any day of the week. Plus, even if you accept the unproven 2 PSI drop, the balls didn't deflate by 15%, they only deflated by roughly 7.4% so Tyson's starting figure is inaccurate. Anyone who says they deflated by 15% either was misinformed or doesn't understand the difference between absolute and relative air pressure (which is just about everyone in the media and almost everyone in this forum).

he is more than that. he had his credentials first than became a tv personality/celebrity. the Carnegie mellon study has been questioned as well. Bill Nye plus NdGT vs HeadSmart Labs. Some heavy hitters are weighing in on this against the Pats. I guess we will believe what we want to believe. But Patriots cheating resume doesn't give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Deep_South]

OK, I looked it up and the way it works is a tire-pressure gauge reads 14.7 psi as zero, because it is the ambient air-pressure. Feel free to correct this if it is wrong. Presumably there would be a difference in the ambient air-pressure in Denver, but how much I don't know. We do know Boston is close to sea-level

 

[Rogah]

OK, I looked it up and the way it works is a tire-pressure gauge reads 14.7 psi as zero, because it is the ambient air-pressure.

Exactly. We live, breathe and exist in 14.7 PSI (at sea level so Foxboro is close enough).

When people say a ball is inflated to 12.5 PSI, they really mean 12.5 PSI above the air pressure we're all living in (and let's assume the altitude of Foxboro is not sufficient to really be different from that). The actual air pressure inside the ball is 27.2, which is why a 2 PSI drop is roughly 7.4%.

 

[irishline]

Anyone who says they deflated by 15% either was misinformed or doesn't understand the difference between absolute and relative air pressure (which is just about everyone in the media and almost everyone in this forum).

The difference between absolute and relative air pressure is one is in a vacuum and the other is relative to pressure at sea level. This is what your argument has come down to? The difference in altitude between where the ball was checked and the field it was used on?

If the ball dropped 30 feet in altitude from the room it was checked in to the field the difference in relative pressure would be it would be 0.0628psi. For 500 feet (roughly the stadium to Sea level) the difference would be 1.013psi.

Here is a calculator if you need it: http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/default/pres_at_alt

Now you are not suggesting that the ball was checked by the official 500 feet below the playing field are you? Because that is how relative pressure works.

You however are right on the pressure drop percentage. It would be 7.4% using relative pressure. And again this is just a question as to I am unsure what the difference would be in relation to any pressure change.

 

[irishline]

That graph - aside from being inaccurately labelled (which is like a mathematician saying 1 + 1 = 3) - doesn't prove a darn thing.As you mention, if the theory is that uninflated balls help grip and reduce fumbles, then why look only at fumbles lost?

Well since you didn't bother to read the article (I posted for you), here is his updated chart using total fumbles. As you can see, it really didn't change much now did it?

http://www.slate.com/articles/sport...s_lose_an_insanely_low_number_of_fumbles.html

As I said the guy used fumbles lost and mislabeled it the first time. Someone mentioned it and he apologized and added the chart above with the "total fumbles". I again gave you a link so you could read it, but since it didn't help your argument (I guess) you chose not to read it.

So there it is NE's plays per total fumbles, 18 higher than anyone else (32.7% better actually). But I suppose this no longer proves anything since it doesn't conform to what you want to read despite the fact that it is what you have been calling for since this discussion began.

Does it mean they were guilty? Of course not. Is it an interesting fact that makes the average man wonder if there is a correlation? Of course it is. I do find it interesting that in this case the author makes an error, admits it, and corrects it yet you find it a "huge red flag in impartial, thinking mind." However, when you inflated your fumble total while slamming people discussing the chart, it was simply an mistake. Two errors, both corrected, but the one you agree with was a simple mistake, and the one you didn't agree with was an egregious error setting off major red flags. Funny how that street doesn't seem to work both ways, isn't it?

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I'll take Carnegie Mellon over a TV personality any day of the week. Plus, even if you accept the unproven 2 PSI drop, the balls didn't deflate by 15%, they only deflated by roughly 7.4% so Tyson's starting figure is inaccurate. Anyone who says they deflated by 15% either was misinformed or doesn't understand the difference between absolute and relative air pressure (which is just about everyone in the media and almost everyone in this forum).

Would you take them over the company that manufacturers the football?

Well, the answer is yes. For you.

You just have this weirdo contrarian and Patriots fandom thing going.

Congratulations.



YR

 

[Rogah]

The difference between absolute and relative air pressure is one is in a vacuum and the other is relative to pressure at sea level. This is what your argument has come down to? The difference in altitude between where the ball was checked and the field it was used on?

A bunch of people have said the air pressure inside the ball dropped 15%. All I have done is correct that figure and explain why the true number is 7.4% (even if we accept the unproven 2 PSI drop as true)

Now you are not suggesting that the ball was checked by the official 500 feet below the playing field are you? Because that is how relative pressure works.

I am not saying anything of the sort. I specifically stated that all my calculations are based on the assumption that Foxboro is at sea level which I admitted wasn't accurate but for these purposes, it's close enough.

You however are right on the pressure drop percentage. It would be 7.4% using relative pressure.

I guess I can't understand what your beef is here since you attack me, attack me, attack me and then conclude your post with "oh by the way you're right."

All I have said is the 15% figure is inaccurate and that 7.4% is more accurate.

 

[Rogah]

Well since you didn't bother to read the article (I posted for you), here is his updated chart using total fumbles. As you can see, it really didn't change much now did it?

Well let's see.... they removed over 1/4th of the teams in the NFL from their chart so ya, I'd say that is a helluva change.

Minnesota fumbled 4 fewer times this year than New England and they weren't a dome team this year. Why weren't they in there? Oh wait, I know the answer: They weren't in that chart because they don't support the haters' narrative.

There comes a point when statistical analysis crosses the line into cherry-picking stats. The author of that webpage crossed that line several miles back. His work is sloppy and inconsistent and he would be laughed out of any serious presentation. Fortunately for him, there are always fools on the internet willing to believe whatever they want to believe.

 

[DFWJC]

Neil Degrasse-Tyson sez that for the ball to deflate as much as the Patriots claim, they would have to be filled with 125 degree air.



Guess he's not a scientist either.





YR

Harvard, Carnegie Mellon, MTI, and several other studies say otherwise.

And they actually did the test instead of talking about it.

Again, maybe the Pats are guilty as Hades...we'll see.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Harvard, Carnegie Mellon, MTI, and several other studies say otherwise.

And they actually did the test instead of talking about it.

Again, maybe the Pats are guilty as Hades...we'll see.

Yes, and the reps for Wilson footballs said it was not possible.

They have a few scientists and researchers that test these things.




YR

 

[DFWJC]

Yes, and the reps for Wilson footballs said it was not possible.

They have a few scientists and researchers that test these things.




YR

Every test done says they do.

Wilson is saying their balls don't leak and that simply rubbing the won't effect psi.
They are not saying change in air temp won't effect psi.

Does not mean the Pats are innocent,btw.

 

[Staubacher]

Every test done says they do.

Wilson is saying their balls don't leak and that simply rubbing the won't effect psi.
They are not saying change in air temp won't effect psi.

Does not mean the Pats are innocent,btw.

So Belichick lied about the rubbing. At least acknowledge that. You keep ending with a statement of neutrality but you only use the Patriot's arguments.

The rubbing the ball BS was nonsense and it was supposed to explain half of the psi drop. So yeah let's assume those honest Pats were right about everything else lol

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Every test done says they do.

Wilson is saying their balls don't leak and that simply rubbing the won't effect psi.
They are not saying change in air temp won't effect psi.

Does not mean the Pats are innocent,btw.

So, why did Belichick claimed they didn't touch the balls and then did?

And of course, why didn't the Colts' footballs become deflated?





YR

 

[Staubacher]

So, why did Belichick claimed they didn't touch the balls and then did?

And of course, why didn't the Colts' footballs become deflated?





YR

And why when the Patriots balls were reinflated to legal levels at halftime they did not experience a drop to below legal levels again at the end of the game. Physics only works for one half I guess and only for one team's footballs.

Occam's razor folks.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

Must hear link .... Warren Sharp audio >>>>> http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=12232865

 

[Hoofbite]

The participation on behalf of the science community has really turned this issue into something a whole lot more interesting than it otherwise would have been. At least I think so.

 

[Hoofbite]

Must hear link .... Warren Sharp audio >>>>> http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=12232865

What podcast was it on. Link takes me to mobile app but then nothing.