MMQB: Interesting 2015 Fumble Stats

[Rogah]

As I've said many times before, gaseous physics is not an exact science when it comes to this situation.

You're absolutely right here which is why they give an expected range instead of an expected value. And fact remains the average reading of the Patriots' balls falls within the expected range.

And there were footballs that read as low as 10.5 PSI which does deviate beyond the expected range.

The fact that you have to lie proves the weaknesses of your point. There was one single football that went that low on one single gauge. There were more footballs that came in ABOVE the expected range than there were that went as low as the 10.5 number the haters are so in love with.

In order to believe there was cheating, one has to believe 1 of the following 2 idiotic statements:

1) The Patriots systematically deflated balls, but decided only to deflate some of them, not all of them.

or

2) The Patriots deflated all the balls but, despite deflating all of them, the average of the whole group was still in range of the expected values of where they should be AND some of the balls were still above the expected range.

Both points 1 and 2 above are moronic, yet one of them has to be true if one is to believe the Patriots cheated.

 

[dogunwo]

No, you're the one missing the point: my point isn't "they cheated but it didn't help them." My point is "they didn't cheat. The laws of physics and the fact that nothing has changed are the pieces of evidence irrefutably supporting that conclusion."

How did they not cheat? Are we really doing this again? There is proof that they deflated the balls. They did it for a reason.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

You're absolutely right here which is why they give an expected range instead of an expected value. And fact remains the average reading of the Patriots' balls falls within the expected range.

The fact that you have to lie proves the weaknesses of your point. There was one single football that went that low on one single gauge. There were more footballs that came in ABOVE the expected range than there were that went as low as the 10.5 number the haters are so in love with.

In order to believe there was cheating, one has to believe 1 of the following 2 idiotic statements:

1) The Patriots systematically deflated balls, but decided only to deflate some of them, not all of them.

or

2) The Patriots deflated all the balls but, despite deflating all of them, the average of the whole group was still in range of the expected values of where they should be AND some of the balls were still above the expected range.

Both points 1 and 2 above are moronic, yet one of them has to be true if one is to believe the Patriots cheated.

Or you can just see that it's an inexact science and that there are even potential flaws with the expected range and that it still does not explain away the texts where it showed a plan to be carried out for cash and other compensation along with the covering up after they were caught (and the video showing Jastremski sneaking off into the bathroom with the footballs).

The Patriots are doing basic defense tactics that you would see in a court room. They can get their expert witnesses to question the validity thru a very inexact science.

It reminds me of the TV Show 48 Hours did an episode on this where the staged a murder scene and had scientific experts with conflicting viewpoints to test which expert was right and which one was wrong. The expert that was wrong was a world renowned expert with his own studies on the situation. But, because it's an inexact science (IIRC, it had to do with bullet projectile and blood spatter)...he got it wrong.

That's what the Patriots have done but they still cannot explain away those texts.

And I don't think Jastremski had enough time to carefully deflate those footballs. He probably understood that if you deflate them way too much they will be thrown out of the game just by the refs feeling them. So I don't think he was deflating footballs with precision, but he was deflating footballs nonetheless because they were deflated and he and McNally texted about deflating the footballs for payment from Brady.





YR

 

[EST_1986]

www.patsfans.com

Now Goodbye....

 

[LandryFan]

How did they not cheat? Are we really doing this again? There is proof that they deflated the balls. They did it for a reason.

It's pretty amazing that the OP that got his balls busted on here for what seemed like months on end and whined the whole time about the treatment he received, now starts another thread while surely knowing that he will get his balls busted again. This issue had actually died, which he should have been happy about, but now he brings it back to life. Pretty amazing...

 

[dogunwo]

Or you can just see that it's an inexact science and that there are even potential flaws with the expected range and that it still does not explain away the texts where it showed a plan to be carried out for cash and other compensation along with the covering up after they were caught (and the video showing Jastremski sneaking off into the bathroom with the footballs).

The Patriots are doing basic defense tactics that you would see in a court room. They can get their expert witnesses to question the validity thru a very inexact science.

It reminds me of the TV Show 48 Hours did an episode on this where the staged a murder scene and had scientific experts with conflicting viewpoints to test which expert was right and which one was wrong. The expert that was wrong was a world renowned expert with his own studies on the situation. But, because it's an inexact science (IIRC, it had to do with bullet projectile and blood spatter)...he got it wrong.

That's what the Patriots have done but they still cannot explain away those texts.

And I don't think Jastremski had enough time to carefully deflate those footballs. He probably understood that if you deflate them way too much they will be thrown out of the game just by the refs feeling them. So I don't think he was deflating footballs with precision, but he was deflating footballs nonetheless because they were deflated and he and McNally texted about deflating the footballs for payment from Brady.





YR

And.......if they never did it, why did the patriots fire them?

 

[Yakuza Rich]

It's pretty amazing that the OP that got his balls busted on here for what seemed like months on end and whined the whole time about the treatment he received, now starts another thread while surely knowing that he will get his balls busted again. This issue had actually died, which he should have been happy about, but now he brings it back to life. Pretty amazing...

Some people like the attention.







YR

 

[Rogah]

Or you can just see that it's an inexact science and that there are even potential flaws with the expected range

Uh, no there aren't. The Laws of Physics are called Laws for a reason.

You have a couple texts from 9 months before the event in question. I have the laws of physics on my side. In any court of law - civil or criminal - the preponderance of evidence is overwhelmingly on my side.

 

[Rogah]

It's pretty amazing that the OP that got his balls busted on here for what seemed like months on end and whined the whole time about the treatment he received, now starts another thread while surely knowing that he will get his balls busted again. This issue had actually died, which he should have been happy about, but now he brings it back to life. Pretty amazing...

I have no problem with intelligent debate and disagreement on the matter. I have never complained about anyone engaging in intelligent debate, even with the good natured barbs we all throw out all the time. All I have ever said is that people should not hijack threads that have absolutely nothing to do with the Patriots just because I happen to partake in them.

The reason why the issue died here is because as more and more evidence surfaces, more and more proof has arisen that intentional deflating never happened. So yes, naturally, the issue died on this forum.

If the Patriots had fumbled this year at twice their previous rate, then someone would have started a thread just like the one I started.
If the Patriots had gone 6-10 this year, then someone would have started a thread just like the one I started.
If Tom Brady had thrown 19 INT's this year, then someone would have started a thread just like the one I started.
You know I'm right.

 

[Rogah]

And.......if they never did it, why did the patriots fire them?

They didn't fire them. They were forced by the league to suspend them (which the league later denied but their denial was proven false). McNally and Jastremski have since been reinstated by the league and are now back working for the Patriots, although a condition of reinstatement was they can't do their previous roles.

So much of the "Patriots are guilty" sentiment comes from people who just don't know the facts.

 

[LandryFan]

If the Patriots had fumbled this year at twice their previous rate, then someone would have started a thread just like the one I started.
You know I'm right.

The bolded part I agree with. That said, sometimes it's best to let a sleeping dog lie.

 

[benson]

I came into this thread impartial on the matter. After carefully weighing both sides of the argument I now leave this thread believing the patriots cheated and certain that Tom Brady is thankful Rogah is not his lawyer.

 

[Hoov]

I came into this thread impartial on the matter. After carefully weighing both sides of the argument I now leave this thread believing the patriots cheated and certain that Tom Brady is thankful Rogah is not his lawyer.

 

[Hoov]

Despite all the backpedaling and excuses....the majority of football fans and those in the football world believe that the Patriots cheated on multiple occasions. There is an asterix next to one of their superbowl wins and many believe they were doing similar practices during the other years as well.

Years from now folks will look back on the past decade and note that the patriots were one of the teams that were dominant during this time - but also note that they were caught cheating so there will always be the question of how good they really were and how much of the success was due to cheating.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Uh, no there aren't. The Laws of Physics are called Laws for a reason.

You have a couple texts from 9 months before the event in question. I have the laws of physics on my side. In any court of law - civil or criminal - the preponderance of evidence is overwhelmingly on my side.

Good lord, you don't even understand science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law

"The ideal gas law is the equation of state of a hypothetical ideal gas. It is a good approximation to the behavior of many gases under many conditions, although it has several limitations." - Wikipedia

Also:

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/IdealGasLawSolver/

"At low temperatures or high pressures, the ideal gas law becomes inaccurate and you must use another equation of state, such as the van der Waals equation.."

It's far from an exact science. Being a 'law' does not make something an exact science.

"A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements." - Wikipedia

That's why Healy, a Patriots supporter and fanboy, has admitted to the Ideal Gas Law being inexact and potentially inaccurate.



And the texts were not 9 months were not only before the game happened. That's intellectually dishonest.

The Patriots had been accused of deflating footballs for a while and they had texts that led up from May 9, 2014 to October 27, 2014 discussing deflating footballs per Tom's request for money and sneakers. The Ravens reported to the league that the balls were terribly underinflated (even one of the refs threw a ball out because he could just feel how underinflated it was) and then the league set it up to catch the Patriots cheating which they did.

The fact is that you still can't explain away those texts where Jastremski wants money from Brady for deflating the footballs and even jokingly says that if he doesn't get compensated, he might go to ESPN with the information. You're relying on an inexact and potentially inaccurate science that is even admitted to be inaccurate and inexact by one of their main supporters.







YR

 

[Rogah]

Good lord, you don't even understand science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law

"The ideal gas law is the equation of state of a hypothetical ideal gas. It is a good approximation to the behavior of many gases under many conditions, although it has several limitations." - Wikipedia

Good Lord, quoting Wikipedia? That's almost as idiotic as using dallascowboys.com as the ultimate source of proper procedures in a court of law.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Good Lord, quoting Wikipedia? That's almost as idiotic as using dallascowboys.com as the ultimate source of proper procedures in a court of law.

I knew you would go with that because you don't understand science, you got it wrong and instead of admitting to it, you would come up with this lame excuse.

So....

"In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it."

"In science, laws are a starting place." - http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html


Or...

"It is important to remember that laws, like all other theories, are never verifiable, only falsifiable. This means that we can never be certain if a law is correct" - https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-definition-of-scientific-law


Or...

"Scientific law: a generalized description, usually expressed in mathematical terms, which describes the empirical behavior of matter." - http://www.digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm



Nowhere does it say that a scientific law is completely accurate in its calculations. That's why Healy admitted that the Ideal Gas Law is inexact and can be inaccurate. He knows science and understands scientific law. You can't disprove what Wikipedia is saying because the statement is correct.

YR

 

[dogunwo]

I knew you would go with that because you don't understand science, you got it wrong and instead of admitting to it, you would come up with this lame excuse.

So....

"In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it."

"In science, laws are a starting place." - http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html


Or...

"It is important to remember that laws, like all other theories, are never verifiable, only falsifiable. This means that we can never be certain if a law is correct" - https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-definition-of-scientific-law


Or...

"Scientific law: a generalized description, usually expressed in mathematical terms, which describes the empirical behavior of matter." - http://www.digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm



Nowhere does it say that a scientific law is completely accurate in its calculations. That's why Healy admitted that the Ideal Gas Law is inexact and can be inaccurate. He knows science and understands scientific law. You can't disprove what Wikipedia is saying because the statement is correct.

YR

Pwned

 

[Rogah]

I knew you would go with that because you don't understand science, you got it wrong and instead of admitting to it, you would come up with this lame excuse.

So....

"In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it."

"In science, laws are a starting place." - http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html


Or...

"It is important to remember that laws, like all other theories, are never verifiable, only falsifiable. This means that we can never be certain if a law is correct" - https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-definition-of-scientific-law


Or...
"Scientific law: a generalized description, usually expressed in mathematical terms, which describes the empirical behavior of matter." - http://www.digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm



Nowhere does it say that a scientific law is completely accurate in its calculations. That's why Healy admitted that the Ideal Gas Law is inexact and can be inaccurate. He knows science and understands scientific law. You can't disprove what Wikipedia is saying because the statement is correct.

YR

You're arguing in circles. I agree the Ideal Gas Law cannot be precise which is why I have stated from the beginning that the resultant is a RANGE not a VALUE. You clearly don't understand the difference in those 2 terms.

Oh BTW.... You're sad sack argument is that scientific laws aren't really set in stone, so if you've got something better than PV=NRT then we all look forward to your Nobel acceptance speech. In the meantime, we will stick with established scientific LAW.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

You're arguing in circles. I agree the Ideal Gas Law cannot be precise which is why I have stated from the beginning that the resultant is a RANGE not a VALUE. You clearly don't understand the difference in those 2 terms.

Oh BTW.... You're sad sack argument is that scientific laws aren't really set in stone, so if you've got something better than PV=NRT then we all look forward to your Nobel acceptance speech. In the meantime, we will stick with established scientific LAW.

I understand range and value. You don't understand that a scientific law can have an inaccurate range. As was described by a non-Wikipedia site:

At low temperatures or high pressures, the ideal gas law becomes inaccurate and you must use another equation of state, such as the van der Waals equation

I have never said that the Ideal Gas Law has no merit. That's you and your delusional thoughts.

What I'm saying is that the principle of the behavior of gas is sound and gives a good approximation in many cases, but it's not always accurate as Thomas Healy and many other scientists have acknowledged.

So yes, it's a law when thru observation we notice that something like a football loses air pressure in colder temperatures over time. Nobody has ever denied that. And that's why it is a law. But that does not mean that the calculation is always accurate, even for a range.

That's why using the ideal gas law is not the issue here. We can't rely on its accuracy more than we could rely on having Brady take a lie detector test. They are both inexact and at times, inaccurate.

Instead, we can simply look at the texts where McNally is a go-between for Brady telling Jastremski to deflate the footballs for payment and Jastremski semi-jokingly saying that if he doesn't get his payment...he'll go to ESPN with this information. Then there's the video of Jastremski sneaking off to the bathroom with the footballs which is against protocol.

YR