Dude you do realize that EVERYONE of your responses comes with built in excuses? Right? The reason you didn't get a response out of me yesterday when I posted the article because you posted 3 follow up posts and all of them had prefaces or built in factors that would make your theory true. It doesn't work that way. You can't say they fumble less because of air pressure and then say "well even if he did fumble he recovers more because of air pressure." You know why because you have ZERO idea how a ball bounces with less pressure. You have no clue if a ball is fumbled more at 13 psi or 12.5. You have no clue whether all 32 teams have balls at 13.5 or 12.5. And AGAIN you have no explanation for how a team can get away with this for 7 years despite refs having measured balls up until 10 minutes before half. Another thing, you are making an excuse for a 6 fumble Denver game but do you know how many multiple/larger fumble games the other 31 teams had. You are cherry picking for an agenda. Plain and simple.
LOL, I was speaking specifically in the context of Drew's objections:
Looking at all fumbles, and not just fumbles lost, we come up with similar findings.
First, it should be noted that teams playing indoors fumble the ball less frequently, the foremost reason being that the ball won’t be wet from precipitation or damp from late-night condensation. The below graphic looks at all fumbles over five-year periods during the last 25 years. As you can see, of the top 25 team-periods, 17 are dome teams, including 11 of the top 15.
Drew was wrong and Sharp looked at TOTAL FUMBLES as well.
Drew objects to Sharp's issue with the Denver game. You said the numbers jumped high last year but nobody says anything, but Sharp himself already accounted for and the guy your quoting even mentions it and tries to invalidate an entire analysis of Sharp on this one anomaly.
There is no way you can tell me six fumbles by the same team is some phenomenon that happens on a yearly basis in the NFL.
Drew objected to Sharp taking out the Denver game of six fumbles, but fails to mention that this one anomaly effectively makes his claim that five year cycles as a 'random' measure void. He doesn't mention this point that once adjusted for, whether one chooses five, four, three, or two cycles, the Patriots would STILL be close to the top.
What you and Drew are objecting to is relative statistical adjustments that are common practice for statistics and trying to argue that it invalidates the findings is just a wash.
Drew admits that 2007 the numbers jumped drastically and argues that it can be attributed to Tom Brady throwing the ball away. Yet, we are talking about fumbles when one has possession. Further, his pass attempts for 2007, 2009 and 2010 are in the mid-500s meaning right where they were in his first 7 years, meaning he was throwing the ball just as much.
Just stop..
