A big reason why I think the Patriots cheated

[dsc]

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/01/stats_show_the_new_england_patriots_became_nearly_fumble_proof_after_a_2006.html


This chart is jaw-dropping, and the visual perfectly depicts what happened. From a more technical perspective, John Candido, a data scientist at ZestFinance who is a colleague of mine over at the NFLproject.com website and was also involved in the development of this research, comments:


Based on the assumption that plays per fumble follow a normal distribution, you’d expect to see, according to random fluctuation, the results that the Patriots have gotten since 2007 once in 5,842 instances.


Which in layman’s terms means that this result only being a coincidence is like winning a raffle where you have a 0.0001711874 probability to win. In other words, it’s very unlikely that results this abnormal are only due to the endogenous nature of the game.


While these data do not prove the Patriots deflated footballs starting in 2007, we know they were interested in gaining control of their own footballs in 2006. (This is something I found out after I performed the first two analyses, both of which independently found that something changed starting in 2007.)

[dsc]

2. then why have only them

seen the results in terms of fumbles.

[AgingAmerican]

5. The Colts did it too?

nt

[trumad]

9. The Colts did what?

[AgingAmerican]

11. Read what I replied to

nt

[trumad]

14. Are you saying they under-inflated the ball likes the Pat's did last Sunday?

Because you know it is not true.

[LittleBlue]

28. He's stating the opposite

The question was rhetorical.

[Wounded Bear]

16. So you're using the "everybody does it" defense, eh?

[pnwmom]

32. Except they don't. The Colts balls were tested and they were within limits. n/t

[snooper2]

41. wash them? we hope?

[Dreamer Tatum]

3. That is interesting, but proves nothing and indicates little.

1. The Patriots are known for benching players who drop balls, and for cutting players who are fumble-prone. This causality is not accounted for in the analysis, which leaves uncontrolled the pressure of the football, weather, coaching decisions, and so on.


(psst: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/06/stevan-ridley-has-learned-fumbles-are-the-quickest-way-off-the-field/)

2. It has not been established beyond "Come on, man, it HAS to be true" that:

a. the Patriots used deflated balls since 2006;
b. deflated balls are indeed easier to hold onto, or at least...
c. ...a ball deflated to Brady's preference is deflated enough to make it easier to hold onto, assuming (b) is true.

3. Are we to believe that the Patriots have blatantly cheated as a matter of policy since 2006, and in the NINE seasons since, have JUST NOW gotten caught? That makes no sense. The Patriots have roughly 100 people involved with on-field operations (including players) each year. That's 900 man-years of observing the Patriots in practice, game prep, and in game play. Many of those players, who handled or used the footballs extensively as a Patriots, went on to play for other teams. If the Patriots habitually use illegal footballs...

...why hasn't Wes Welker said anything? Adam Vinatieri? BenJarvus Green-Ellis? Brian Hoyer? Laurence Maroney? Ryan Mallet? Danny Woodhead?

Each of those players went on to play for other teams, some to bitter rivals. Tell me why Wes Welker never dropped a dime, when he could have so easily and it would help his cause as a Bronco?


PROBABLY BECAUSE IT'S ALL BULLSHIT.

[AgingAmerican]

6. Most teams are known for benching players who drop balls

And cutting fumble prone players. Not just the Bradys.

They only have to cheat once.

[Dreamer Tatum]

7. If they "only have to cheat once"

then I assume you mean that they "cheated" when they beat the Colts, yet it is widely known
that they played even more effectively when properly inflated balls were used.

This story is out of gasoline.

[AgingAmerican]

10. Nobody knows when they used properly inflated balls last

But they only got caught doctoring them with the Colts.

If they did so much better with properly inflated balls, then why did they deflate them? Makes no sense.

[Dreamer Tatum]

13. Your own post invalidates the whole story. Do you realize that?

If nobody knows "when", then NOBODY KNOWS "if."

And if they did so much better with proper footballs, what would they gain from deflating them?

I agree: it makes NO sense.

Story is now on fumes.

[joeglow3]

36. Do you think it was all just a statistical improbability?

That science caused 11 of 24 balls to lose air pressure and all 11 came from the 12 Patriot's balls?

[AgingAmerican]

37. Nobody knows when

Outside the one time they got caught. They dont deny the balls were doctored.

[pipi_k]

26. And if it doesn't make sense...

it's probably not true.


What was it, a huge plot to deflate a bunch of game balls over the years in order to lose games and make other teams think they weren't that good?

Since they obviously played a better game in the second half against the Colts when allegedly the balls were properly inflated.

[trotsky]

21. Did Belicheat only start benching and cutting fumblers after 2006?

Because prior to that year, their fumble rate was right along with the league average. The numbers after that are astonishing and indicate SOMETHING changed once Brady successfully lobbied for the rule change.

[Dreamer Tatum]

24. Sorry, stopped reading at "Belicheat." nt

[trotsky]

25. Can't blame you. Facts are tough to argue against.

Many arguments have been raised to try to explain why the Patriots don’t fumble as often as other teams. Many of them are challenged by some of the data. If it were coaching, former players should be able to tell us that Bill Belichick suddenly and drastically changed the way he instructed players to carry the football in the 2006 offseason. But the data show that if a mysterious trade secret were delivered, the players forgot about it when they left New England, as their individual fumble rates became drastically worse when playing for other NFL teams.

[Dreamer Tatum]

27. So you can prove conclusively that deflated balls are both easier to hold onto YET

are inflated enough to keep Brady throwing for 4000+ yards?

Bullshit.

The smoke you think is from a gun is from a few lit farts.

[trotsky]

31. What do you think changed after 2006 that so astonishingly (and instantly)...

improved the Pats' ability to hang onto the ball?

Occam's Razor comes into play here.

"Former football player: Deflated footballs are easier to grip"
http://www.wmtw.com/sports/former-football-player-deflated-footballs-are-easier-to-grip/30843602

"Football Physics: Why Deflated Balls Are Easier to Catch"
http://www.livescience.com/49539-deflated-football-pressure.html

[AgingAmerican]

39. Brady has stated he prefers underinflated balls

So it was a win win....til they got caught...

[trumad]

4. Means nothing except that they are very well coached.

Don Shula was famous for cutting or benching players who fumbled...hence the low rate of fumbles during his era.

[Wounded Bear]

15. Well, that and stickum...

That was pretty prevalent back then, too.

[Dreamer Tatum]

17. The Raiders were walking velcro back then. nt

[madinmaryland]

43. Except for the old fumblerooski from stabler to Casper. Nt.

[AngryAmish]

44. Fumblerooski was the old Nebraska play where the ball would be snapped,

the qb put it on the ground, the pulling guard picked it up and ran.

[madinmaryland]

45. Yeah. It was called either The Holy Roller or the

Immaculate Deception.

[dsc]

18. did he become a great coach in 2006

he has been their coach since 2000 and from 2000 to 2006 they are an average team in this regard, after that they became stellar

[trumad]

19. Sure---choose the right players..

Develop a certain coaching philosophy... etc.

Very possible.

[pnwmom]

33. Then how come he only coaches well for home games and not away games?

[trumad]

35. So let me get this straight...

First off----as Mr. Will Pitt can attest to....I ain't no stinkin Pats fan.

I am a football fan.

So---all these armchair conspiracy whack jobs are telling me that since 2006 the Pat's have deflated the footballs and are now errr getting caught.

Whatever.....

[mythology]

20. 2006 is when each team was allowed to supply their own footballs

Prior to that, the home team supplied the footballs for both teams. It still isn't a smoking gun, but it's yet another piece of circumstantial evidence that suggests they were doing something over a long period.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/22/brady-pushed-for-rule-to-let-visiting-team-provide-own-footballs/

"In 2006, Brady and Peyton Manning successfully lobbied the league to let every team provide its own footballs to use on offense. Prior to that, it was always the home team that supplied the footballs, which meant that road team quarterbacks didn’t get to try the footballs out until pregame warmups."

[benz380]

8. It's just millionaires doing what they do best: cheat. n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. yep.

[oberliner]

22. Good stuff

I wonder if there is something to it. Certainly seems like there is.

That said, it is mind-boggling how much time and energy people put into sports-related stuff.

To say nothing of the money being thrown around.

[Rhinodawg]

23. Remember the old adage...

If your not cheating, your not tryin'

[Vattel]

29. They cheated and then lied about it.

[B Calm]

30. All NFL teams cheat. Look at all the steroid use, ball placing after being tackled, etc etc etc!

[pnwmom]

34. And there have been suspensions because of it. But no one is talking about

Brady, the coach, or anyone else getting suspended in this situation.

[Iggo]

38. Two big reasons why I think they cheated are...

1. They're proven and admitted cheaters.
2. They cheated.

[GusBob]

40. I dont know from statstics but now that they are being watched for psi

going forward, it will be interesting to see how the fumble ratio changes

if within 3 years they fall back into the range with the rest of the league would that be further proof?

[ProfessorGAC]

48. Explain The Second Half Of The AFC Champsionship

When the underinflated balls were replaced, and they used properly inflated footballs, and they crushed the opponent.

Sort of invalidates your premise.

[dpibel]

52. Sample size and magnitude of effect

No one is claiming (or at least no one should be) that underinflated ball = game over. It provides a small advantage, not a dispositive one.

So the performance over one half of a game actually neither validates nor invalidates any premise.

If I go to the casino and play craps for two hours (or eight or 30) and come out ahead, that does not stand as proof that the casino has no edge in that game.

Similarly, something that provides a slight edge in a football game may have no effect at all in a single game but a meaningful effect long term. There are many variables (not least of which is level of skill) in a football game. How many running plays did the Patriots run in the second half? How many resulted in a tackle that was more likely than not to result in a fumble?

Fumbles are rare events to begin with. Claiming that no fumbles in a single half of a game proves no advantage is a bit on the tenuous side.

[ProfessorGAC]

53. Don't Agree

The argument is based upon the performance of that team given their cheating.

Yet, when the opportunity to cheat went away, they dominated. The data point is an outlier and is therefore more meaningful than you suggest.

Had they won the second half by 3 or 6 points, i'd buy the argument. But, one extra fumble, had it occurred, would not have had an impact on the outcome. So, it's not a matter of just one half not being enough data. The magnitude of the outcome has a greater effect on the analysis than sample size.

This is not an uncommon situation in statistical analysis.

[dpibel]

54. Don't agree

The OP cited the study of rate of fumbles, which claimed that the rate of fumbles for the Patriots is orders of magnitude different from the rate for other teams.

That is a single parameter. It is not what wins and loses every game.

You are saying that the Patriots outplayed the Colts in the second half of their game and that, therefore, there is no advantage to deflating the football.

Deflating the football does not change the way receivers run their routes. It does not change the way the QB reads the coverage. It has no effect at all in how the linemen block nor how the backs run.

It affects only the grip on the football. Whether that comes into play in any set of 30 or 40 touches (i.e., a half) is entirely, so to speak, up for grabs.

Again, I think the gambling analogy is apt. I say, "Craps is a game where the house has the edge, long term, always." You say it doesn't. We go to the casino, and you win 10 consecutive times on the pass line. All we have demonstrated is that, in a game where the edge is small, a small sample means nothing.

That would, by the way, be an outcome with a very high magnitude. It would not in any way change the fact that, long term, the house has the edge in craps.

You appear to be saying that the PSI of the football is the dispositive factor at all times. Therefore, a big win with a properly inflated ball obviates any claim of advantage, long term, from a deflated ball.

I think that the facts are not on your side.

I also think that you are quite certain of your position and I of mine, and I will leave you with the last word if you want it.

[Stephen Retired]

42. LIES, LIES, ALL LIES!!!

WHY MUST YOU PERSECUTE SO?????

[GeorgeGist]

46. Fumbles on interceptions of Patriot passes are ...?

[nilesobek]

47. Seahawks took the high road on this and stayed out of it.

It won't matter on Super Sunday. The Patriots won't be able to cheat then and the SuperChampion Seahawks of the NFL are going to take them down. Brandon Browner (a drug addled reject that Pete Carroll fired) says he's going to hurt and injure Seahawks players.

This is what we are dealing with in the Patriots organization. Serial lying and cheating, threats, guys in jail for murder. (Hernandez)

Its the Superchampion Seahawks with all their household names against the Patriots who have???

[Buns_of_Fire]

49. Perhaps it's just time to eliminate the football itself and be done with it.

Starting with the 2015-16 season, replace it with a beach ball. And mandate that the players all wear flip-flops (the rest of the uniform can stay). Granted, the passing game may suffer a bit, but the new requirement that all players must drink a 6-ounce Margarita every change of possession might make up for it, especially when the still-standing players start tripping over their passed-out teammates.

There. I fixed it. Next problem?

[SammyWinstonJack]

50. hehee

[MannyGoldstein]

51. Statistics prove NOTHING

That's how LIBERALS prove global climate change - clearly nonsense.

Regards,

Truthy Manny