What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Pats "nearly fumble proof" after 2006 Rule change proposed by (1 Viewer)

Buffaloes

Buffaloes

Footballguy
Link

from the link:

Initially, looking at weather data, I noticed the Patriots performed extremely well in the rain, much more so than they were projected. I followed that up by looking at the fumble data, which showed regardless of weather or site, the Patriots prevention of fumbles was nearly impossible. Ironically, both studies saw the same exact starting point: 2007 was the first season where things really changed for the Patriots. Something started in 2007 which is still on-going today.
Click to expand...
 
Buffaloes said:
Link

from the link:

Initially, looking at weather data, I noticed the Patriots performed extremely well in the rain, much more so than they were projected. I followed that up by looking at the fumble data, which showed regardless of weather or site, the Patriots prevention of fumbles was nearly impossible. Ironically, both studies saw the same exact starting point: 2007 was the first season where things really changed for the Patriots. Something started in 2007 which is still on-going today.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Wow that last graph is hard to argue against.

 
It's a good illustration of how sensitive fumble data is to small changes. If you take out the Lawfirm, Pats players actually fumble at a lower rate after leaving NE than before (105 touches/fumble in NE, 110 touches/fumble after).
Click to expand...
I do, however, appreciate these observations about what an awesomely coached team we have

 
Run It Up said:
Slider said:
Run It Up said:
Why those statistics are garbage
Click to expand...
From the article:
Broadly, this is true, though we would argue that's a very liberal use of the word "investigated." To be frank, it was a fishy analysis. And when asked about it, the author actually admitted it used "very inexact data."
Click to expand...
Garbage?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should peruse the comments to that rebuttal of the article --like Misterhippity's

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Geeze, discarding all dome teams (including several who fumble less than the Pats) is an incredibly lame thing to do, statistically. If you really feel there's an advantage, figure out how much it is and correct for it. But you'd need way more data to do that.

 
CalBear said:
Geeze, discarding all dome teams (including several who fumble less than the Pats) is an incredibly lame thing to do, statistically. If you really feel there's an advantage, figure out how much it is and correct for it. But you'd need way more data to do that.
Click to expand...
I don't think dome teams were removed for at least that first graphic.

 
JIslander said:
CalBear said:
Geeze, discarding all dome teams (including several who fumble less than the Pats) is an incredibly lame thing to do, statistically. If you really feel there's an advantage, figure out how much it is and correct for it. But you'd need way more data to do that.
Click to expand...
I don't think dome teams were removed for at least that first graphic.
Click to expand...
The first graphic is fumbles lost, which is irrelevant if what you're trying to measure is how often the team fumbles the ball.

 
CalBear said:
JIslander said:
CalBear said:
Geeze, discarding all dome teams (including several who fumble less than the Pats) is an incredibly lame thing to do, statistically. If you really feel there's an advantage, figure out how much it is and correct for it. But you'd need way more data to do that.
Click to expand...
I don't think dome teams were removed for at least that first graphic.
Click to expand...
The first graphic is fumbles lost, which is irrelevant if what you're trying to measure is how often the team fumbles the ball.
Click to expand...
http://regressing.deadspin.com/test-1682147943

 
12punch said:
Buffaloes said:
12punch said:
Run It Up said:
Why those statistics are garbage
Click to expand...
oh, I just assumed you were linking this
Click to expand...
Daryl SngDaryl Sng grew up in Singapore but became a convert to Boston sports after four years in Massachusetts....On Twitter he is @singaporesoxfan.
Click to expand...
and?
Click to expand...
and despite the article being penned by a pats homer, its analysis apparently also shows that that the pats players have had a significant difference in fumble rate when compared to when they play for the rest of the league

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Buffaloes said:
12punch said:
Buffaloes said:
12punch said:
Run It Up said:
Why those statistics are garbage
Click to expand...
oh, I just assumed you were linking this
Click to expand...
Daryl SngDaryl Sng grew up in Singapore but became a convert to Boston sports after four years in Massachusetts....On Twitter he is @singaporesoxfan.
Click to expand...
and?
Click to expand...
and despite the article being penned by a pats homer, its analysis also shows that that the pats have had a significant difference in fumble rate when compared to the rest of the league.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they are pretty good.

 
Buffaloes said:
and despite the article being penned by a pats homer, its analysis apparently also shows that that the pats players have had a significant difference in fumble rate when compared to when they play for the rest of the league
Click to expand...
Nope.

In data analysis, the result you get is only as good as the data you put into the analysis. And the data Sharp uses is, to put it finely, a hot mess. Most crucially, Sharp counted fumbles on special teams plays such as punt returns and kickoff returns in his data. ...A proper analysis of fumble rates of regular, non-special teams balls would necessarily have to remove all data involving special team plays. The fact that Tate played many more snaps as a kick returner for Cincinnati than he did in New England, and therefore had many more chances to fumble on his new team, should not lead one to conclude that there was anything special about the way New England treated the ball or ball security.
Click to expand...
 
Buffaloes said:
Link

from the link:

Initially, looking at weather data, I noticed the Patriots performed extremely well in the rain, much more so than they were projected. I followed that up by looking at the fumble data, which showed regardless of weather or site, the Patriots prevention of fumbles was nearly impossible. Ironically, both studies saw the same exact starting point: 2007 was the first season where things really changed for the Patriots. Something started in 2007 which is still on-going today.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hey Buff, help me out here, what was the title of that Pats hating October thread you started? I can't seem to locate it; some ground breaking story about radios in helmets. It was the one where Rudnicki stepped in and admonished me for implying you were a Pats hating troll (let me be clear, I am NOT implying you are a troll). I think Rudnicki merged it with another thread, but I can't quite remember the title you gave it, do you remember?

TIA

 
NE_REVIVAL said:
Buffaloes said:
Link

from the link:

Initially, looking at weather data, I noticed the Patriots performed extremely well in the rain, much more so than they were projected. I followed that up by looking at the fumble data, which showed regardless of weather or site, the Patriots prevention of fumbles was nearly impossible. Ironically, both studies saw the same exact starting point: 2007 was the first season where things really changed for the Patriots. Something started in 2007 which is still on-going today.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hey Buff, help me out here, what was the title of that Pats hating October thread you started? I can't seem to locate it; some ground breaking story about radios in helmets. It was the one where Rudnicki stepped in and admonished me for implying you were a Pats hating troll (let me be clear, I am NOT implying you are a troll). I think Rudnicki merged it with another thread, but I can't quite remember the title you gave it, do you remember?

TIA
Click to expand...
something to the effect of pats' cheating ways not limited to videotaping. not sure that's verbatim. that was October and it's still a newsworthy headline/topic. whoa.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AB in DC said:
Buffaloes said:
and despite the article being penned by a pats homer, its analysis apparently also shows that that the pats players have had a significant difference in fumble rate when compared to when they play for the rest of the league
Click to expand...
Nope.
Click to expand...
actually, the article you are referencing is the same one I was referencing in that quote. the article written by the Red Sox Twitter guy states

Comparing this to Sharp’s original table, the data shows that the Patriots still have an advantage in ball security, even when comparing the same players. However, it’s nowhere near the 88% increase that Sharp claims – it’s closer to a 23% increase.
Click to expand...
a 23% difference is a significant difference.

Tool said:
Didn't he not fumble in college also?
Click to expand...
correct, and the college ball is slightly different in size than an NFL ball

 
Last edited by a moderator:
12punch said:
It's a good illustration of how sensitive fumble data is to small changes. If you take out the Lawfirm, Pats players actually fumble at a lower rate after leaving NE than before (105 touches/fumble in NE, 110 touches/fumble after).
Click to expand...
I do, however, appreciate these observations about what an awesomely coached team we have
Click to expand...
 
I'm tired of all this ball talk. I do know though, if NE fumbles or Brady throws an INT...the internet is going to break.

 
Buffaloes said:
AB in DC said:
Buffaloes said:
and despite the article being penned by a pats homer, its analysis apparently also shows that that the pats players have had a significant difference in fumble rate when compared to when they play for the rest of the league
Click to expand...
Nope.
Click to expand...
actually, the article you are referencing is the same one I was referencing in that quote. the article written by the Red Sox Twitter guy states

Comparing this to Sharp’s original table, the data shows that the Patriots still have an advantage in ball security, even when comparing the same players. However, it’s nowhere near the 88% increase that Sharp claims – it’s closer to a 23% increase.
Click to expand...
a 23% difference is a significant difference.

Tool said:
Didn't he not fumble in college also?
Click to expand...
correct, and the college ball is slightly different in size than an NFL ball
Click to expand...
That's probably why Brady was such a great college QB.

 
seahawk 17 said:
I'm tired of all this ball talk. I do know though, if NE fumbles or Brady throws an INT...the internet is going to break.
Click to expand...
Imagine how badly it will break if Brady does not throw an INT and they have zero fumbles......

Someone sum this up for me, are people now saying the Pats have been cheating for like 10 years and fumbling less because of it??

I notice that whenever someone fumbles for BB, he benches their ### for a while, much more than other coaches do. That COULD have something to do with it.

 
ghostguy123 said:
seahawk 17 said:
I'm tired of all this ball talk. I do know though, if NE fumbles or Brady throws an INT...the internet is going to break.
Click to expand...
Imagine how badly it will break if Brady does not throw an INT and they have zero fumbles......

Someone sum this up for me, are people now saying the Pats have been cheating for like 10 years and fumbling less because of it??

I notice that whenever someone fumbles for BB, he benches their ### for a while, much more than other coaches do. That COULD have something to do with it.
Click to expand...
It's pretty damning. The Pats have been the 3rd best team in the league since 2007. Explain that away.

 
Niles Standish said:
ghostguy123 said:
seahawk 17 said:
I'm tired of all this ball talk. I do know though, if NE fumbles or Brady throws an INT...the internet is going to break.
Click to expand...
Imagine how badly it will break if Brady does not throw an INT and they have zero fumbles......

Someone sum this up for me, are people now saying the Pats have been cheating for like 10 years and fumbling less because of it??

I notice that whenever someone fumbles for BB, he benches their ### for a while, much more than other coaches do. That COULD have something to do with it.
Click to expand...
It's pretty damning. The Pats have been the 3rd best team in the league since 2007. Explain that away.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you mean here.

 
ghostguy123 said:
Niles Standish said:
ghostguy123 said:
seahawk 17 said:
I'm tired of all this ball talk. I do know though, if NE fumbles or Brady throws an INT...the internet is going to break.
Click to expand...
Imagine how badly it will break if Brady does not throw an INT and they have zero fumbles......

Someone sum this up for me, are people now saying the Pats have been cheating for like 10 years and fumbling less because of it??

I notice that whenever someone fumbles for BB, he benches their ### for a while, much more than other coaches do. That COULD have something to do with it.
Click to expand...
It's pretty damning. The Pats have been the 3rd best team in the league since 2007. Explain that away.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you mean here.
Click to expand...
That when you don't remove the teams that have a lesser fumble rate than NE, they are actually 3rd best. I'd suggest the bolded might be :sarcasm:

 
Justin Wolfers
@JustinWolfers
Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics | Professor @UMichEcon & @FordSchool | Contributing Columnist @NYTimes

Justin Wolfers ‏@JustinWolfers 17h17 hours ago
It's been an embarrassing few days for data journalism that many outlets mindlessly reprinted shoddy analysis of fumble data. #deflategate

Justin Wolfers @JustinWolfers · 17h 17 hours ago
When you analyze all outdoor games, the Pats fumble rate is no longer an outlier http://drewfustin.com/2015/01/27/patriots-fumble-comments/ … #deflategate

 
I have a lot of problems with the initial analysis. There are a lot of things I would have done differently.

but, had I done the analysis and come up with a similar conclusion, we would have the same folks bagging on it for another reason.

anyways, the original analysis is certainly not conclusive and correlation <> causation, but it is certainly interesting.

 
But the point of the Drew Fustin piece is that if you don't discard dome teams you don't have an anomaly. Not only not conclusive but out and out flawed.

 
This crap is so frustrating to read as a data scientist. Isn't the author a betting shill?

+1 to the Fustin / Deadspin articles

 
Warren Sharp is on the local sports station every Friday. I find his statistical approach to betting very interesting.

The numbers pretty much support that the Pats have definitely been under inflating footballs for a while now.

 
Anyone catch what Belichick said about the footballs they practice with? That might help you hold on when using a good football in a game.

 
Quez said:
Warren Sharp is on the local sports station every Friday. I find his statistical approach to betting very interesting.

The numbers pretty much support that the Pats have definitely been under inflating footballs for a while now.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

I can't even tell who's trolling anymore.

 
My biggest issue with the fumble research is that it doesn't exclude QB fumbles. The teams with the highest plays/fumble in history are those QB'ed by Brady and Peyton. Both QB are extremely careful with the football and rarely fumble.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LawFitz
COVID UPDATE: What is the truth?
5 6 7
Replies
307
Views
9K
LawFitz
LawFitz
Couch Potato
Couch Potato 2012 Dynasty Rankings
4 5 6
Replies
293
Views
33K
Spin
Spin
Ministry of Pain
AFC OL Grades and the impact on the skill positions
Replies
38
Views
2K
=Smackdown=
=Smackdown=

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top