Patriots being investigated after Colts game (3 Viewers)

[mbuehner]

Forgive me for not following along here, but what exactly does it matter if people can tell the difference between 2 psi or not?

Guys who are so familiar with the feel of a football they are positive the difference intuitively obvious and they somehow know what 2psi means in terms of football inflation.

Why does it matter? The balls were deflated by someone- there's no other explanation for the drop. Therefore the only possible explanations (setting aside the "NFL is lying about testing them" conspiracy theory nutjobs) are (1) a ballboy went over the head of Tom Brady and messed with the balls on his own accord (ridiculous- everyone agrees that QBs are meticulous about the balls that are put into play, it strains credibility to imagine a ballboy doing this) or (2) Brady/the Pats cheated.

Whether the end result of that cheating is detectable to the Boston Globe newsroom or Joe Theismann is 100% irrelevant. Cheating is cheating.

Lmfao how does someone get to the point where they only reach these two conclusions?

Please walk me through your process?

Sure!

1. Balls were tested pregame and all 24 were in the proper range.

2. At halftime, 11 or 12 of the Patriots' 12 balls lost "at least" 2 psi. Colts' balls were still OK.

3. At the end of the game all 24 balls, including those of the Colts which did not come under suspicion, tested within the proper range again.

All of that per Peter King here. If you want to launch into a crazy conspiracy theory here because King is a league apologist based on his screwup on the Rice incident go for it, but keep in mind that assuming guilt based on a previous misdeed is not a good look if you apply the same standards to the Pats.

So you can dismiss the notion that some external force (weather or whatever else you can come up with other than human interference) caused a pressure drop, because that would not explain the Pats' balls dropping >2 psi in two hours while the Colts' balls dropped <1 psi both over those same two hours and also over 4 hours.

That means something specific to the Pats caused their balls to lose pressure. If you've got an explanation other than someone affiliated with the Pats doing it deliberately, I'm all ears. But I can't come up with one, which leaves two possibilities: (1) someone in the Pats' org did it without Brady's knowledge, or (2) someone did it with Brady's knowledge. #1 seems impossible given the well-established principle that QBs are meticulous about the balls that will be put in play. So that leaves #2. But like I said, if you've got a plausible alternative theory I'd love to hear it.

The balls were 'inspected' pregame, no-one has stated they were measured. Regardless, what King is filtering from an unknown NFL source is not fact.

 

[moleculo]

Colts balls were at 14 PSI. Close enough to the 13.5 that the officials didn't care. Pats balls were at 12 PSI. Close enough that officials didn't care.

All balls lose 1.5 PSI due to conditions. Colts balls are at 12.5, and deemed within the acceptable range. Pats balls are down to 10.5 PSI, which is the 2 PSI difference from acceptable.

I'm just making #### up obviously.

That's not what happened though, there was no significant loss of PSI on the Colts' balls. If all the balls PSI dropped an even amount, this wouldn't be an issue. Hell, the 12 balls from NE didn't deflate at a common rate so that even points further to tampering.

The only way the Colts balls didn't see a deflation is if there wasn't any. No deflation means they did not see a temperature drop. It's basic physics, people, you can't really work around this.

The reason the Colts balls did not see a temperature drop is because they were checked at halftime at the same temperature they were checked at pre-game - i.e. in the warmth and comfort of the officials locker room.

Therefore, we can surmise that the temperature differential played no role in any loss of pressure, Colts balls or Patriots balls.

Which leaves open the question - what happened to the 2 PSI in the patriots balls?

How much of this is fact? Do we actually know where the balls at halftime were measured and the exact pressures? When people say the Colts balls were in spec, does that actually mean there was no delfation or that they started at the high end and were still within the low end?

we don't know, all we can do is surmise based on the (shoddy) information at hand.

With what we know now, there's at least 1 psi unaccounted for from the Patriots balls, possibly over 2 PSI (depending on various measuring conditions).

Those PSI could be from the patriots staff submitting under-inflated balls to the refs (intentionally or not), who failed to fully inspect them, or the PSI may be missing due to post-inspection modification.

Got it, thanks. It would be nice to just get the details, then again, you know where I stand on this, non-issue IMHO especially since the balls were replaced.

yeah I know. I think it's a huge deal based on the patriots lack of fumbling per the article cited above. The sports science made no mention of ability to hold onto a softer ball...they said something about "grip strength", but didn't go into detail about what grip strength is, how it is measured, or why it's important.

A slightly softer ball will not make a difference in every game, but over the course of a few years, you bet it would show an effect.

 

[mbuehner]

Love how you didn't include ALL the former NFL coaches/players who've said it's no big deal. Nice cherry picking.

I didn't cherry pick anything. All of what I included was in one article. There wasn't anything in the article saying it wasn't a big deal. Read it yourself, wiseass.

Poor research on your part then. There's been plenty of people who've came out and said its no big deal.

Poor research? I wasn't researching anything. I was reading news articles, and that one was listed with others. I thought it was relevant to this thread so I posted it. Did you read the article, because it is more about these people saying they don't believe Tom Brady than saying it is a big deal. Personally, I don't believe Brady either. He would immediately know the difference in the feel of the ball. Do I think it is a big deal? I think it is par for the course with the Patriots.

Brady has a wet ball for 3 seconds at a time with a 300lb lineman coming his way on every play. You seriously think he has time to think about whether the ball is underinflated by 2 PSI?? lol. We've got some winners here.

You are thinking about it like a viewer who may throw around a football every now and then. The NY Post had a good article that gave these comparisons:

- a pro golfer can tell the difference of 1 degree loft on their clubs

- a baseball player will know if there is a 1" or 1oz difference in their bat

- a basketball player will know if the rim is off by an inch from 10'

- a hockey player will know after one shot if the bend of his stick is off.

These professionals spend thousands of hours working with their equipment. They know it inside and out. Yet one of the best QBs in the game doesn't know when his ball pressure is off by 16%. That is like a baseball player grabbing a bat that is 6" longer then he expected and not noticing.

Dont you find it odd that as far as I know, no QB has ever remarked on the fact that every football theyve played with in temperatures below freezing are 2psi lower than they are indoors?

 

[Run It Up]

1. Balls were tested pregame and all 24 were in the proper range.

Well that didn't take long, the balls were approved, that is the extent of all we know about that specifically.

Here's the full text from King:

The 12 footballs used in the first half for New England, and the 12 footballs used by the Colts, all left the officials locker room before the game at the prescribed pressure level of between 12.5 pounds per square inch and 13.5 psi.

Thats weird cause before King reported it, it was reported that they simply "passed inspection". Then a day later they "passed proper inspection", then King says they were between 12.5 and 13.5.Yet theres absolutely no mention from someone who would know, or someone pretending to know that they were actually checked with pressure gauges before the game. Simply that they were approved, and now King choosing to - states them as being 12.5 - 13.5.

Because why would they check for something, they never check for?

From the NFL's statement:

The investigation began based on information that suggested that the game balls used by the New England Patriots were not properly inflated to levels required by the playing rules, specifically Playing Rule 2, Section 1, which requires that the ball be inflated to between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds per square inch. Prior to the game, the game officials inspect the footballs to be used by each team and confirm that this standard is satisfied, which was done before last Sundays game.

Still seeing no mention of instruments. A ball boy and a ref have both said it's common practice to not actual measure the psi.

"The standard is satisfied" implies they actually checked the pressure, in order to do that properly you need a gauge. As to your other statement, anecdotal evidence of another game has no bearing on this situation.

Implications and assumptions...

 

[MG345]

Implications and assumptions...

The only assumption here is that it didn't happen properly, there is nothing in the language provided that says it didn't Trying to break down semantics is grasping at straws.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Forgive me for not following along here, but what exactly does it matter if people can tell the difference between 2 psi or not?

Guys who are so familiar with the feel of a football they are positive the difference intuitively obvious and they somehow know what 2psi means in terms of football inflation.

Why does it matter? The balls were deflated by someone- there's no other explanation for the drop. Therefore the only possible explanations (setting aside the "NFL is lying about testing them" conspiracy theory nutjobs) are (1) a ballboy went over the head of Tom Brady and messed with the balls on his own accord (ridiculous- everyone agrees that QBs are meticulous about the balls that are put into play, it strains credibility to imagine a ballboy doing this) or (2) Brady/the Pats cheated.

Whether the end result of that cheating is detectable to the Boston Globe newsroom or Joe Theismann is 100% irrelevant. Cheating is cheating.

Lmfao how does someone get to the point where they only reach these two conclusions?

Please walk me through your process?

Sure!

1. Balls were tested pregame and all 24 were in the proper range.

2. At halftime, 11 or 12 of the Patriots' 12 balls lost "at least" 2 psi. Colts' balls were still OK.

3. At the end of the game all 24 balls, including those of the Colts which did not come under suspicion, tested within the proper range again.

All of that per Peter King here. If you want to launch into a crazy conspiracy theory here because King is a league apologist based on his screwup on the Rice incident go for it, but keep in mind that assuming guilt based on a previous misdeed is not a good look if you apply the same standards to the Pats.

So you can dismiss the notion that some external force (weather or whatever else you can come up with other than human interference) caused a pressure drop, because that would not explain the Pats' balls dropping >2 psi in two hours while the Colts' balls dropped <1 psi both over those same two hours and also over 4 hours.

That means something specific to the Pats caused their balls to lose pressure. If you've got an explanation other than someone affiliated with the Pats doing it deliberately, I'm all ears. But I can't come up with one, which leaves two possibilities: (1) someone in the Pats' org did it without Brady's knowledge, or (2) someone did it with Brady's knowledge. #1 seems impossible given the well-established principle that QBs are meticulous about the balls that will be put in play. So that leaves #2. But like I said, if you've got a plausible alternative theory I'd love to hear it.

The balls were 'inspected' pregame, no-one has stated they were measured. Regardless, what King is filtering from an unknown NFL source is not fact.

So best case scenario for the Pats is that King is being misleading here and the Patriots actually submitted balls that were already nowhere near the proper measurements hours before game time and the officials just missed it pregame but caught it later?

And that's best case?

 

[karmarooster]

From King's Report

• The 12 footballs used in the first half for New England, and the 12 footballs used by the Colts, all left the officials’ locker room before the game at the prescribed pressure level of between 12.5 pounds per square inch and 13.5 psi.

• All 24 footballs were checked by pressure gauge at halftime. I am told either 11 or 12 of New England’s footballs (ESPN’s Chris Mortensen reported it was 11, and I hear it could have been all 12) had at least two pounds less pressure in them. All 12 Indianapolis footballs were at the prescribed level.

• All 24 footballs were checked by pressure gauge after the game. All 24 checked at the correct pressure—which is one of the last pieces of the puzzle the league needed to determine with certainty that something fishy happened with the Patriots footballs, because the Colts’ balls stayed correctly inflated for the nearly four hours. There had been reports quoting atmospheric experts that cold weather could deflate footballs. But if the Patriots’ balls were all low, and the Colts’ balls all legit, that quashes that theory.

He uses the phrase "were checked by pressure gauge" twice, both in referring to halftime, and after the game, but not in reference to the pregame check. Why make that specific distinction twice but not three times?

Saying they all left the inspection between the proper ranges implies that not only were they checked, they were legal.

It does imply it, but why specify it twice and not all three times?

They are specifying it when they say they were in the proper range. Stop being daft.

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/NEW-Fumble-Chart-3.png

That site has been down most of the afternoon, after it got posted on Reddit. Here is a mirror (sort of): http://i.imgur.com/7VtMGwg.jpg

link to reddit thread?

http://www.reddit.com/r/Seahawks/comments/2tdpq2/new_englands_miraculously_low_fumble_rate/

Do you know what this implicates?

It implicates the ENTIRE Brady-Belichick era. They Spy-gated their way to 3 superbowls. They underinflated their way to 3 more.

This is a serious tarnish, and the data is definitive.

If someone is an insider trader, or there is a similar leak, it will show up in the data. You don't have to get into specifics about who what when where why, what was the temperature, what time was the ball tested, all the crap that dominates this thread. It happened, and it happened over a long period of time, by deduction from the data. Its anomalous.

Teams all around the league go through Ball-security drills. Teams all around the league bench and or cut players for fumbling. But that can't explain the data over this long of a time period. Consider one BJGE...

[SIZE=10pt]BJGE for the Pats from 2008 to 2011, and then on the Bengals in 2012 to 2013. On the Pats, he recorded a total of 536 carries and receptions and zero fumbles. On the Bengals, he recorded 524 carries and receptions, with 5 fumbles (approximately in line with league average of one fumble per 105 plays).[/SIZE]

This is just an anecdote, but it fits in to the narrative that (a) the Pats systematically did this over a number of years, (b) it benefited their fumble rate, as proven by (x) anomalous data over a 5 year period, and a players who played on both sides of the fence so to speak. Can anyone else think of a similar comp? Perhaps a WR who had a significant change in catch rate on a different team?

 

[Niles Standish]

Colts balls were at 14 PSI. Close enough to the 13.5 that the officials didn't care. Pats balls were at 12 PSI. Close enough that officials didn't care.

All balls lose 1.5 PSI due to conditions. Colts balls are at 12.5, and deemed within the acceptable range. Pats balls are down to 10.5 PSI, which is the 2 PSI difference from acceptable.

I'm just making #### up obviously.

That's not what happened though, there was no significant loss of PSI on the Colts' balls. If all the balls PSI dropped an even amount, this wouldn't be an issue. Hell, the 12 balls from NE didn't deflate at a common rate so that even points further to tampering.

The only way the Colts balls didn't see a deflation is if there wasn't any. No deflation means they did not see a temperature drop. It's basic physics, people, you can't really work around this.

The reason the Colts balls did not see a temperature drop is because they were checked at halftime at the same temperature they were checked at pre-game - i.e. in the warmth and comfort of the officials locker room.

Therefore, we can surmise that the temperature differential played no role in any loss of pressure, Colts balls or Patriots balls.

Which leaves open the question - what happened to the 2 PSI in the patriots balls?

How much of this is fact? Do we actually know where the balls at halftime were measured and the exact pressures? When people say the Colts balls were in spec, does that actually mean there was no delfation or that they started at the high end and were still within the low end?

we don't know, all we can do is surmise based on the (shoddy) information at hand.

With what we know now, there's at least 1 psi unaccounted for from the Patriots balls, possibly over 2 PSI (depending on various measuring conditions).

Those PSI could be from the patriots staff submitting under-inflated balls to the refs (intentionally or not), who failed to fully inspect them, or the PSI may be missing due to post-inspection modification.

Got it, thanks. It would be nice to just get the details, then again, you know where I stand on this, non-issue IMHO especially since the balls were replaced.

yeah I know. I think it's a huge deal based on the patriots lack of fumbling per the article cited above. The sports science made no mention of ability to hold onto a softer ball...they said something about "grip strength", but didn't go into detail about what grip strength is, how it is measured, or why it's important.

A slightly softer ball will not make a difference in every game, but over the course of a few years, you bet it would show an effect.

What about the fact that the Colts fumbled less in the Peyton years and much more after he left? The Broncos number has been coming down since Peyton got there too. What about that the Falcons fumbled less? Does that mean both of those teams were doing the same?

 

[SacramentoBob]

Been away for a while. Pats fans still trying to argue nothing happened here? Have the conspiracy theories as to how the balls got deflated gotten any crazier?

 

[12punch]

Love how you didn't include ALL the former NFL coaches/players who've said it's no big deal. Nice cherry picking.

I didn't cherry pick anything. All of what I included was in one article. There wasn't anything in the article saying it wasn't a big deal. Read it yourself, wiseass.

Poor research on your part then. There's been plenty of people who've came out and said its no big deal.

Poor research? I wasn't researching anything. I was reading news articles, and that one was listed with others. I thought it was relevant to this thread so I posted it. Did you read the article, because it is more about these people saying they don't believe Tom Brady than saying it is a big deal. Personally, I don't believe Brady either. He would immediately know the difference in the feel of the ball. Do I think it is a big deal? I think it is par for the course with the Patriots.

Brady has a wet ball for 3 seconds at a time with a 300lb lineman coming his way on every play. You seriously think he has time to think about whether the ball is underinflated by 2 PSI?? lol. We've got some winners here.

How were the Colts able to tell the difference once they got a hold of it? You think they used a pressure meter on a whim?

Anyone saying you can't tell if a ball is over or under inflated in one grip/throw is delusional or has never held a football.

maybe cuz it was their own football?

 

[skinsrule05]

Love how you didn't include ALL the former NFL coaches/players who've said it's no big deal. Nice cherry picking.

I didn't cherry pick anything. All of what I included was in one article. There wasn't anything in the article saying it wasn't a big deal. Read it yourself, wiseass.

Poor research on your part then. There's been plenty of people who've came out and said its no big deal.

Poor research? I wasn't researching anything. I was reading news articles, and that one was listed with others. I thought it was relevant to this thread so I posted it. Did you read the article, because it is more about these people saying they don't believe Tom Brady than saying it is a big deal. Personally, I don't believe Brady either. He would immediately know the difference in the feel of the ball. Do I think it is a big deal? I think it is par for the course with the Patriots.

Brady has a wet ball for 3 seconds at a time with a 300lb lineman coming his way on every play. You seriously think he has time to think about whether the ball is underinflated by 2 PSI?? lol. We've got some winners here.

You are thinking about it like a viewer who may throw around a football every now and then. The NY Post had a good article that gave these comparisons:

- a pro golfer can tell the difference of 1 degree loft on their clubs

- a baseball player will know if there is a 1" or 1oz difference in their bat

- a basketball player will know if the rim is off by an inch from 10'

- a hockey player will know after one shot if the bend of his stick is off.

These professionals spend thousands of hours working with their equipment. They know it inside and out. Yet one of the best QBs in the game doesn't know when his ball pressure is off by 16%. That is like a baseball player grabbing a bat that is 6" longer then he expected and not noticing.

Dont you find it odd that as far as I know, no QB has ever remarked on the fact that every football theyve played with in temperatures below freezing are 2psi lower than they are indoors?

First, I don't believe that that is true. In this case they have already said the weather couldn't have caused that drop, but I will give it to you. If it is a natural occurance I don't see why they would mention it. They would just deal with it. How many many times have you seen a QB question why the ball is wet when they are playing in the rain? Does that mean they didn't notice it?

 

[MG345]

Colts balls were at 14 PSI. Close enough to the 13.5 that the officials didn't care. Pats balls were at 12 PSI. Close enough that officials didn't care.

All balls lose 1.5 PSI due to conditions. Colts balls are at 12.5, and deemed within the acceptable range. Pats balls are down to 10.5 PSI, which is the 2 PSI difference from acceptable.

I'm just making #### up obviously.

That's not what happened though, there was no significant loss of PSI on the Colts' balls. If all the balls PSI dropped an even amount, this wouldn't be an issue. Hell, the 12 balls from NE didn't deflate at a common rate so that even points further to tampering.

The only way the Colts balls didn't see a deflation is if there wasn't any. No deflation means they did not see a temperature drop. It's basic physics, people, you can't really work around this.

The reason the Colts balls did not see a temperature drop is because they were checked at halftime at the same temperature they were checked at pre-game - i.e. in the warmth and comfort of the officials locker room.

Therefore, we can surmise that the temperature differential played no role in any loss of pressure, Colts balls or Patriots balls.

Which leaves open the question - what happened to the 2 PSI in the patriots balls?

How much of this is fact? Do we actually know where the balls at halftime were measured and the exact pressures? When people say the Colts balls were in spec, does that actually mean there was no delfation or that they started at the high end and were still within the low end?

we don't know, all we can do is surmise based on the (shoddy) information at hand.

With what we know now, there's at least 1 psi unaccounted for from the Patriots balls, possibly over 2 PSI (depending on various measuring conditions).

Those PSI could be from the patriots staff submitting under-inflated balls to the refs (intentionally or not), who failed to fully inspect them, or the PSI may be missing due to post-inspection modification.

Got it, thanks. It would be nice to just get the details, then again, you know where I stand on this, non-issue IMHO especially since the balls were replaced.

yeah I know. I think it's a huge deal based on the patriots lack of fumbling per the article cited above. The sports science made no mention of ability to hold onto a softer ball...they said something about "grip strength", but didn't go into detail about what grip strength is, how it is measured, or why it's important.

A slightly softer ball will not make a difference in every game, but over the course of a few years, you bet it would show an effect.

What about the fact that the Colts fumbled less in the Peyton years and much more after he left? The Broncos number has been coming down since Peyton got there too. What about that the Falcons fumbled less? Does that mean both of those teams were doing the same?

Considering Peyton was one of the QBs that lobbied for the rule change, along with Brady, it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[moleculo]

all right, so in his press conference, Belichick mentioned that they practice with the worst possible balls, right? That's basically an acknowledgement that balls come in various conditions, and the game balls they select are the best possible balls. He's fully aware that you can massage balls to make them better for whatever it is your team wants to do.

He probably has his team practice with over-inflated balls, but come game-time, they play with soft, tender balls which explains the lack of fumbling.

 

[mbuehner]

Colts balls were at 14 PSI. Close enough to the 13.5 that the officials didn't care. Pats balls were at 12 PSI. Close enough that officials didn't care.

All balls lose 1.5 PSI due to conditions. Colts balls are at 12.5, and deemed within the acceptable range. Pats balls are down to 10.5 PSI, which is the 2 PSI difference from acceptable.

I'm just making #### up obviously.

That's not what happened though, there was no significant loss of PSI on the Colts' balls. If all the balls PSI dropped an even amount, this wouldn't be an issue. Hell, the 12 balls from NE didn't deflate at a common rate so that even points further to tampering.

The only way the Colts balls didn't see a deflation is if there wasn't any. No deflation means they did not see a temperature drop. It's basic physics, people, you can't really work around this.

The reason the Colts balls did not see a temperature drop is because they were checked at halftime at the same temperature they were checked at pre-game - i.e. in the warmth and comfort of the officials locker room.

Therefore, we can surmise that the temperature differential played no role in any loss of pressure, Colts balls or Patriots balls.

Which leaves open the question - what happened to the 2 PSI in the patriots balls?

How much of this is fact? Do we actually know where the balls at halftime were measured and the exact pressures? When people say the Colts balls were in spec, does that actually mean there was no delfation or that they started at the high end and were still within the low end?

we don't know, all we can do is surmise based on the (shoddy) information at hand.

With what we know now, there's at least 1 psi unaccounted for from the Patriots balls, possibly over 2 PSI (depending on various measuring conditions).

Those PSI could be from the patriots staff submitting under-inflated balls to the refs (intentionally or not), who failed to fully inspect them, or the PSI may be missing due to post-inspection modification.

Got it, thanks. It would be nice to just get the details, then again, you know where I stand on this, non-issue IMHO especially since the balls were replaced.

yeah I know. I think it's a huge deal based on the patriots lack of fumbling per the article cited above. The sports science made no mention of ability to hold onto a softer ball...they said something about "grip strength", but didn't go into detail about what grip strength is, how it is measured, or why it's important.

A slightly softer ball will not make a difference in every game, but over the course of a few years, you bet it would show an effect.

That study is full of holes. It uses fumbles lost, instead of total fumbles... so unless the deflated ball helps the Patriots recover their fumbles it doesnt make much sense. The Falcons have a better plays per total fumble over the time period.

I know he's trying to claim that as an outdoor team its still an outlier, but he hasnt controlled for where games are being played (only half your games are at home) and is making a lot of assumptions about fumbling outdoors. The bottom line is the Pats run a ton of plays. They dont lose as many fumbles as you would assume. Could that be great coaching? A QB deft at recover fumbles? A million other things? I think yeah.

 

[The Duff Man]

Cheaters gonna cheat.

But hey...as long as we keep throwing money at the NFL like blind monkeys they will be happy to keep ignoring their problems.

See entry: MLB and the Stereroid era...

 

[the moops]

It means that some teams place a premium on getting guys who dont fumble and if they do, they don't play.

The Pats almost never spend money or high draft picks on RBs. If this was baseball, and Billy Beane was Bill Belichick, people would be calling him a genius for finding a market inefficiency

 

[mbuehner]

Forgive me for not following along here, but what exactly does it matter if people can tell the difference between 2 psi or not?

Guys who are so familiar with the feel of a football they are positive the difference intuitively obvious and they somehow know what 2psi means in terms of football inflation.

Why does it matter? The balls were deflated by someone- there's no other explanation for the drop. Therefore the only possible explanations (setting aside the "NFL is lying about testing them" conspiracy theory nutjobs) are (1) a ballboy went over the head of Tom Brady and messed with the balls on his own accord (ridiculous- everyone agrees that QBs are meticulous about the balls that are put into play, it strains credibility to imagine a ballboy doing this) or (2) Brady/the Pats cheated.

Whether the end result of that cheating is detectable to the Boston Globe newsroom or Joe Theismann is 100% irrelevant. Cheating is cheating.

Lmfao how does someone get to the point where they only reach these two conclusions?

Please walk me through your process?

Sure!

1. Balls were tested pregame and all 24 were in the proper range.

2. At halftime, 11 or 12 of the Patriots' 12 balls lost "at least" 2 psi. Colts' balls were still OK.

3. At the end of the game all 24 balls, including those of the Colts which did not come under suspicion, tested within the proper range again.

All of that per Peter King here. If you want to launch into a crazy conspiracy theory here because King is a league apologist based on his screwup on the Rice incident go for it, but keep in mind that assuming guilt based on a previous misdeed is not a good look if you apply the same standards to the Pats.

So you can dismiss the notion that some external force (weather or whatever else you can come up with other than human interference) caused a pressure drop, because that would not explain the Pats' balls dropping >2 psi in two hours while the Colts' balls dropped <1 psi both over those same two hours and also over 4 hours.

That means something specific to the Pats caused their balls to lose pressure. If you've got an explanation other than someone affiliated with the Pats doing it deliberately, I'm all ears. But I can't come up with one, which leaves two possibilities: (1) someone in the Pats' org did it without Brady's knowledge, or (2) someone did it with Brady's knowledge. #1 seems impossible given the well-established principle that QBs are meticulous about the balls that will be put in play. So that leaves #2. But like I said, if you've got a plausible alternative theory I'd love to hear it.

The balls were 'inspected' pregame, no-one has stated they were measured. Regardless, what King is filtering from an unknown NFL source is not fact.

So best case scenario for the Pats is that King is being misleading here and the Patriots actually submitted balls that were already nowhere near the proper measurements hours before game time and the officials just missed it pregame but caught it later?

And that's best case?

Sure. If thats the case the Pats didnt do anything wrong. Its, per rule, the referees responsibility to approve the balls. If they approve them, thats it.

The only way this is a scandal is if the Pats were letting out air after the inspection, and there is no evidence of that.

 

[Run It Up]

Implications and assumptions...

The only assumption here is that it didn't happen properly, there is nothing in the language provided that says it didn't Trying to break down semantics is grasping at straws.

How is that the only assumption, King is literally the only person saying they were WITHOUT A DOUBT between 12.5 and 13.5 before the game.

And hes even saying it in such a way to allow himself to retract it at a later date...

 

[The Duff Man]

It means that some teams place a premium on getting guys who dont fumble and if they do, they don't play.

The Pats almost never spend money or high draft picks on RBs. If this was baseball, and Billy Beane was Bill Belichick, people would be calling him a genius for finding a market inefficiency

The genius is that he keeps finding ways to "stretch" the rules and his willingness to do so in the absense of meaningful consequence.

 

[MG345]

Colts balls were at 14 PSI. Close enough to the 13.5 that the officials didn't care. Pats balls were at 12 PSI. Close enough that officials didn't care.

All balls lose 1.5 PSI due to conditions. Colts balls are at 12.5, and deemed within the acceptable range. Pats balls are down to 10.5 PSI, which is the 2 PSI difference from acceptable.

I'm just making #### up obviously.

That's not what happened though, there was no significant loss of PSI on the Colts' balls. If all the balls PSI dropped an even amount, this wouldn't be an issue. Hell, the 12 balls from NE didn't deflate at a common rate so that even points further to tampering.

The only way the Colts balls didn't see a deflation is if there wasn't any. No deflation means they did not see a temperature drop. It's basic physics, people, you can't really work around this.

The reason the Colts balls did not see a temperature drop is because they were checked at halftime at the same temperature they were checked at pre-game - i.e. in the warmth and comfort of the officials locker room.

Therefore, we can surmise that the temperature differential played no role in any loss of pressure, Colts balls or Patriots balls.

Which leaves open the question - what happened to the 2 PSI in the patriots balls?

How much of this is fact? Do we actually know where the balls at halftime were measured and the exact pressures? When people say the Colts balls were in spec, does that actually mean there was no delfation or that they started at the high end and were still within the low end?

we don't know, all we can do is surmise based on the (shoddy) information at hand.

With what we know now, there's at least 1 psi unaccounted for from the Patriots balls, possibly over 2 PSI (depending on various measuring conditions).

Those PSI could be from the patriots staff submitting under-inflated balls to the refs (intentionally or not), who failed to fully inspect them, or the PSI may be missing due to post-inspection modification.

Got it, thanks. It would be nice to just get the details, then again, you know where I stand on this, non-issue IMHO especially since the balls were replaced.

yeah I know. I think it's a huge deal based on the patriots lack of fumbling per the article cited above. The sports science made no mention of ability to hold onto a softer ball...they said something about "grip strength", but didn't go into detail about what grip strength is, how it is measured, or why it's important.

A slightly softer ball will not make a difference in every game, but over the course of a few years, you bet it would show an effect.

That study is full of holes. It uses fumbles lost, instead of total fumbles... so unless the deflated ball helps the Patriots recover their fumbles it doesnt make much sense. The Falcons have a better plays per total fumble over the time period.

I know he's trying to claim that as an outdoor team its still an outlier, but he hasnt controlled for where games are being played (only half your games are at home) and is making a lot of assumptions about fumbling outdoors. The bottom line is the Pats run a ton of plays. They dont lose as many fumbles as you would assume. Could that be great coaching? A QB deft at recover fumbles? A million other things? I think yeah.

It actually looks at both fumbles and fumbles lost, or did you not actually read it?

 

[kyoun1e]

This thread, and all the media hoopla is focused on one game.

What if there was cold, hard data with statistical analysis that proved the Patriots had a statistically abnormal fumble rate for every season going back to 2007? Such that the chance of it randomly occurring was less than 0.001%?

What if their fumble rate was such an outlier as to suggest that this was a long running scheme?

Find it here:

[SIZE=10pt]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/?p=293[/SIZE]

“Based on the assumption that fumbles per play follow a normal distribution, you’d expect to see, according to random fluctuation, the results that the Patriots have gotten over this period, once in 16,233.77 instances”. Which in layman’s terms means that this result only being a coincidence, is like winning a raffle where you have a 0.0000616 probability to win. Which in other words, it’s very unlikely that it’s a coincidence.”

Yesterday I investigated whether or not the New England Patriots outperform expectations in bad weather. I had several recommendations to look at home and road data, as opposed to just home data. Mulling whether or not to undertake that further (time consuming) analysis, I watched this video:


I immediately noticed something that cannot be overlooked: the issue with ball security and fumbles. Then I remembered this remarkable fact:

The 2014 Patriots were just the 3rd team in the last 25 years to never have lost a fumble at home! The biggest difference between the Patriots and the other 2 teams who did it was that New England ran between 150 and 200 MORE plays this year than those teams did in the years they had zero home fumbles, making the Patriots stand alone in this unique statistic.

Based on the desire to incorporate full season data (not just home games, as a team theoretically bring “doctored footballs” with them on the road) I performed the following analysis:

I looked at the last 5 years of data (since 2010) and examined TOTAL FUMBLES in all games (as well as fumbles/game) but more importantly, TOTAL OFFENSIVE PLAYS RUN. Thus, we can to determine average PLAYS per FUMBLE, a much more valuable statistic. The results are displayed in the chart below. Keep in mind, this is for all games since 2010, regardless of indoors, outdoors, weather, site, etc. EVERYTHING.

(click to enlarge)

One can CLEARLY SEE the Patriots, visually, are off the chart. There is no other team even close to being near to their rate of 187 offensive plays (passes+rushes+sacks) per fumble. The league average is 105 plays/fumble. Most teams are within 21 plays of that number.

I spoke with a data scientist who I know from work on the NFLproject.com website, and sent him the data. He said:

Based on the assumption that fumbles per play follow a normal distribution, you’d expect to see, according to random fluctuation, the results that the Patriots have gotten over this period, once in 16,233.77 instances”.
Which in layman’s terms means that this result only being a coincidence, is like winning a raffle where you have a 0.0000616 probability to win. Which in other words, it’s very unlikely that it’s a coincidence.
I actually went back and researched 5 year periods for the entire NFL over the last 25 years. The Patriots ratio of 187 plays to 1 fumble is the BEST of ANY team in the NFL for ANY 5 year span of time over the last 25 years. Not was it just the best, it wasn’t close:

1. 2010-2014 Patriots: 187 plays/fumble
2. 2009-2013 Patriots: 156 plays/fumble
3. 2006-2010 Colts: 156 plays/fumble
4. 2005-2009 Colts: 153 plays/fumble
5. 2007-2011 Patriots: 149 plays/fumble
6. 2008-2012 Patriots: 148 plays/fumble
7. 2010-2014 Texans: 140 plays/fumble
8. 2004-2008 Colts: 139 plays/fumble
9. 2006-2010 Jets: 135 plays/fumble
10. 1999-2003 Chiefs: 134 plays/fumble

There are a few key takeaways. First and foremost, the 187 plays/fumble dwarfs even the rest of the best seasons the last 25 years. Second, the Patriots have been at the top of the NFL since 2007.

Ironically, as my study yesterday showed, the Patriots performance in wet weather home games mysteriously turned ridiculous starting in 2007. In 2006, they went 0-2. From 2007 onward, they went 14-1.

The next obvious question becomes, where were the Patriots in this statistic pre-2007? Take a look:

(click to enlarge)

As you can see, the Patriots won their Super Bowls having a below average rate of fumbles lost given today’s average of 105 plays/game. But in 2007, something happened to propel them to a much better rate (you’ll remember, that just so happened to be the same year they went 16-0 in the regular season). But even looking at these numbers, its clear how insane the 187 number is: they are almost running 100 MORE plays without a single fumble as compared to the 2002-2006 period when they won 2 of their 3 Super Bowls.

To further illustrate how these numbers are astonishing, the below graphics lay out clearly how far off the Patriots are from the rest of the league. Its evident to the eye how far removed they are from the norm. Whether we look at a histogram laying it out, where the Patriots and their 187 plays/fumble is far from the “bell shaped curve”:

(click to enlarge)

or the same chart as above, this time displaying color bands as we move away from the 105 plays/fumble average. You can see the darker red band contains all teams but the bottom 3 and the top 3, and that the bottom 3 are very close to the darker red band. Meanwhile, the Patriots are really in a league of their own:

(click to enlarge)

Could the Patriots be so good that they just defy the numbers? As my friend theorized: Perhaps they’ve invented a revolutionary in-house way to protect the ball, or perhaps they’ve intentionally stocked their skill positions with players who don’t have a propensity to fumble. Or perhaps still, they call plays which intentionally result in a lower percentage of fumbles. Or maybe its just that they play with deflated footballs on offense. It could be any combination of the above.

But regardless of what, specifically, is causing these numbers, the fact remains: this is an extremely abnormal occurrence and is NOT simply random fluctuation.

_____________________________________

UPDATE: It was suggested that I look at ALL fumbles, not just fumbles lost. With that said, let’s look there:

First, it should be noted (as the tables above show) that teams playing indoors fumble the ball less frequently. Reasons are many, foremost the ball won’t be wet from precipitation, damp from late night condensation, and a variety of other reasons. Which is why, if you look at the very first chart I posted above, you’ll see the teams who fumble the MOST/play are generally colder weather teams who play outdoors (PHI, DEN, BUF, PIT, WAS, NYG, KC, NYJ). Whereas at the other end of the spectrum, aside from the Patriots in their own world, are HOU, ATL and NO, all dome teams.

The below graphic looks at ALL fumbles over 5 year periods the last 25 years. I planned to cut this off at JUST the top 10 teams, but all we would have seen were the Patriots and dome teams. Top 15 would have accomplished the same. So I had to expand to the top 25 team periods. As you can see, of the top 25 team-periods, 17 are dome teams, including 11 of the top 15. First, let’s look at the chart, then we’ll look at comparisons to average:

(click to enlarge)

As is apparent, the Patriots are the only outdoor NFL team the last 25 years to average 70 plays/fumble or better, and they did it from 2007-2014 (four, five year periods). Its simply uncanny, as the statistics above similarly showed.

Averages:

• Over the last 25 years, indoor teams averaged 43 plays/fumble (in all games they played that season, regardless of site, understanding that half their games would be played indoor sans-weather).
• Since 2000, they improved to 46 plays/fumble.
• Over the last 25 years, outdoor teams averaged 41 plays/fumble.
• Since 2000, they improved to 43 plays/fumble.

The Patriots averaged 73 plays/fumble the past 5 years, almost 70% better than the 43 plays/fumble that outdoor teams averaged since 2000.

Next, lets look only at the current 5 year period:

The league average plays per fumble from 2010 thru 2014 was 50 plays/fumble.

• For indoor teams, the average was 55 plays/fumble.
• For outdoor teams, excluding the Patriots, the average was 46 plays/fumble (9 fewer).

The Patriots averaged 73 plays/fumble, almost 60% MORE than outdoor teams, and almost 50% MORE than the league average the past 5 years.

(click to enlarge)

Since we now can clearly in the data, both near term and long term, that dome-based teams (who play at least 8 games out of the elements) have an advantage in the fumble department, we can exclude them from comparisons to the Patriots.

If we do, I can produce a chart identical to the one at the very top which looked ONLY at fumbles lost. This one looks at ALL fumbles, whether lost or recovered. I think the point still remains:

(click to enlarge)

If this chart looks nearly identical, it should. The Patriots are so “off the map” when it comes to either fumbles or only fumbles lost. As mentioned earlier: this is an extremely abnormal occurrence and is NOT simply random fluctuation.

Good lord.

Maybe the ball boy is behind the grassy knoll.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Colts balls were at 14 PSI. Close enough to the 13.5 that the officials didn't care. Pats balls were at 12 PSI. Close enough that officials didn't care.

All balls lose 1.5 PSI due to conditions. Colts balls are at 12.5, and deemed within the acceptable range. Pats balls are down to 10.5 PSI, which is the 2 PSI difference from acceptable.

I'm just making #### up obviously.

That's not what happened though, there was no significant loss of PSI on the Colts' balls. If all the balls PSI dropped an even amount, this wouldn't be an issue. Hell, the 12 balls from NE didn't deflate at a common rate so that even points further to tampering.

The only way the Colts balls didn't see a deflation is if there wasn't any. No deflation means they did not see a temperature drop. It's basic physics, people, you can't really work around this.

The reason the Colts balls did not see a temperature drop is because they were checked at halftime at the same temperature they were checked at pre-game - i.e. in the warmth and comfort of the officials locker room.

Therefore, we can surmise that the temperature differential played no role in any loss of pressure, Colts balls or Patriots balls.

Which leaves open the question - what happened to the 2 PSI in the patriots balls?

How much of this is fact? Do we actually know where the balls at halftime were measured and the exact pressures? When people say the Colts balls were in spec, does that actually mean there was no delfation or that they started at the high end and were still within the low end?

we don't know, all we can do is surmise based on the (shoddy) information at hand.

With what we know now, there's at least 1 psi unaccounted for from the Patriots balls, possibly over 2 PSI (depending on various measuring conditions).

Those PSI could be from the patriots staff submitting under-inflated balls to the refs (intentionally or not), who failed to fully inspect them, or the PSI may be missing due to post-inspection modification.

Got it, thanks. It would be nice to just get the details, then again, you know where I stand on this, non-issue IMHO especially since the balls were replaced.

yeah I know. I think it's a huge deal based on the patriots lack of fumbling per the article cited above. The sports science made no mention of ability to hold onto a softer ball...they said something about "grip strength", but didn't go into detail about what grip strength is, how it is measured, or why it's important.

A slightly softer ball will not make a difference in every game, but over the course of a few years, you bet it would show an effect.

That study is full of holes. It uses fumbles lost, instead of total fumbles... so unless the deflated ball helps the Patriots recover their fumbles it doesnt make much sense. The Falcons have a better plays per total fumble over the time period.

I know he's trying to claim that as an outdoor team its still an outlier, but he hasnt controlled for where games are being played (only half your games are at home) and is making a lot of assumptions about fumbling outdoors. The bottom line is the Pats run a ton of plays. They dont lose as many fumbles as you would assume. Could that be great coaching? A QB deft at recover fumbles? A million other things? I think yeah.

It actually looks at both fumbles and fumbles lost, or did you not actually read it?

Whoa whoa whoa. I have to read the article to criticize it?

 

[the moops]

It means that some teams place a premium on getting guys who dont fumble and if they do, they don't play.

The Pats almost never spend money or high draft picks on RBs. If this was baseball, and Billy Beane was Bill Belichick, people would be calling him a genius for finding a market inefficiency

The genius is that he keeps finding ways to "stretch" the rules and his willingness to do so in the absense of meaningful consequence.

So back to spygate?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Forgive me for not following along here, but what exactly does it matter if people can tell the difference between 2 psi or not?

Guys who are so familiar with the feel of a football they are positive the difference intuitively obvious and they somehow know what 2psi means in terms of football inflation.

Why does it matter? The balls were deflated by someone- there's no other explanation for the drop. Therefore the only possible explanations (setting aside the "NFL is lying about testing them" conspiracy theory nutjobs) are (1) a ballboy went over the head of Tom Brady and messed with the balls on his own accord (ridiculous- everyone agrees that QBs are meticulous about the balls that are put into play, it strains credibility to imagine a ballboy doing this) or (2) Brady/the Pats cheated.

Whether the end result of that cheating is detectable to the Boston Globe newsroom or Joe Theismann is 100% irrelevant. Cheating is cheating.

Lmfao how does someone get to the point where they only reach these two conclusions?

Please walk me through your process?

Sure!

1. Balls were tested pregame and all 24 were in the proper range.

2. At halftime, 11 or 12 of the Patriots' 12 balls lost "at least" 2 psi. Colts' balls were still OK.

3. At the end of the game all 24 balls, including those of the Colts which did not come under suspicion, tested within the proper range again.

All of that per Peter King here. If you want to launch into a crazy conspiracy theory here because King is a league apologist based on his screwup on the Rice incident go for it, but keep in mind that assuming guilt based on a previous misdeed is not a good look if you apply the same standards to the Pats.

So you can dismiss the notion that some external force (weather or whatever else you can come up with other than human interference) caused a pressure drop, because that would not explain the Pats' balls dropping >2 psi in two hours while the Colts' balls dropped <1 psi both over those same two hours and also over 4 hours.

That means something specific to the Pats caused their balls to lose pressure. If you've got an explanation other than someone affiliated with the Pats doing it deliberately, I'm all ears. But I can't come up with one, which leaves two possibilities: (1) someone in the Pats' org did it without Brady's knowledge, or (2) someone did it with Brady's knowledge. #1 seems impossible given the well-established principle that QBs are meticulous about the balls that will be put in play. So that leaves #2. But like I said, if you've got a plausible alternative theory I'd love to hear it.

The balls were 'inspected' pregame, no-one has stated they were measured. Regardless, what King is filtering from an unknown NFL source is not fact.

So best case scenario for the Pats is that King is being misleading here and the Patriots actually submitted balls that were already nowhere near the proper measurements hours before game time and the officials just missed it pregame but caught it later?

And that's best case?

Sure. If thats the case the Pats didnt do anything wrong. Its, per rule, the referees responsibility to approve the balls. If they approve them, thats it.

The only way this is a scandal is if the Pats were letting out air after the inspection, and there is no evidence of that.

Except that it strongly suggests they've been doing this for years and were only caught doing it now. It would absolutely wreck the Belichek/Brady legacy.

 

[MG345]

Implications and assumptions...

The only assumption here is that it didn't happen properly, there is nothing in the language provided that says it didn't Trying to break down semantics is grasping at straws.

How is that the only assumption, King is literally the only person saying they were WITHOUT A DOUBT between 12.5 and 13.5 before the game.

And hes even saying it in such a way to allow himself to retract it at a later date...

Actually, the fact that the refs signed off on all the balls (and they only do that once the inspection as been passed) says that they were in between 12.5-13.5 PSI. You are going to point again to the refs as possibly not checking the balls properly, but using your argument THERE IS WITHOUT A DOUBT nothing that says otherwise.

 

[mbuehner]

It means that some teams place a premium on getting guys who dont fumble and if they do, they don't play.

The Pats almost never spend money or high draft picks on RBs. If this was baseball, and Billy Beane was Bill Belichick, people would be calling him a genius for finding a market inefficiency

Yeah, and didnt the Pats happen to draft some kid that carried the ball almost 1000 times in college with zero fumbles? And didnt he contribute over 500 touches to those stats with zero fumbles? Were they letting out the air at Indiana?

This air thing is WAY out of control. What else has it done? How many sacks has it accounted for by the Patriots defense?

 

[mbuehner]

Colts balls were at 14 PSI. Close enough to the 13.5 that the officials didn't care. Pats balls were at 12 PSI. Close enough that officials didn't care.

All balls lose 1.5 PSI due to conditions. Colts balls are at 12.5, and deemed within the acceptable range. Pats balls are down to 10.5 PSI, which is the 2 PSI difference from acceptable.

I'm just making #### up obviously.

That's not what happened though, there was no significant loss of PSI on the Colts' balls. If all the balls PSI dropped an even amount, this wouldn't be an issue. Hell, the 12 balls from NE didn't deflate at a common rate so that even points further to tampering.

The only way the Colts balls didn't see a deflation is if there wasn't any. No deflation means they did not see a temperature drop. It's basic physics, people, you can't really work around this.

The reason the Colts balls did not see a temperature drop is because they were checked at halftime at the same temperature they were checked at pre-game - i.e. in the warmth and comfort of the officials locker room.

Therefore, we can surmise that the temperature differential played no role in any loss of pressure, Colts balls or Patriots balls.

Which leaves open the question - what happened to the 2 PSI in the patriots balls?

How much of this is fact? Do we actually know where the balls at halftime were measured and the exact pressures? When people say the Colts balls were in spec, does that actually mean there was no delfation or that they started at the high end and were still within the low end?

we don't know, all we can do is surmise based on the (shoddy) information at hand.

With what we know now, there's at least 1 psi unaccounted for from the Patriots balls, possibly over 2 PSI (depending on various measuring conditions).

Those PSI could be from the patriots staff submitting under-inflated balls to the refs (intentionally or not), who failed to fully inspect them, or the PSI may be missing due to post-inspection modification.

Got it, thanks. It would be nice to just get the details, then again, you know where I stand on this, non-issue IMHO especially since the balls were replaced.

yeah I know. I think it's a huge deal based on the patriots lack of fumbling per the article cited above. The sports science made no mention of ability to hold onto a softer ball...they said something about "grip strength", but didn't go into detail about what grip strength is, how it is measured, or why it's important.

A slightly softer ball will not make a difference in every game, but over the course of a few years, you bet it would show an effect.

That study is full of holes. It uses fumbles lost, instead of total fumbles... so unless the deflated ball helps the Patriots recover their fumbles it doesnt make much sense. The Falcons have a better plays per total fumble over the time period.

I know he's trying to claim that as an outdoor team its still an outlier, but he hasnt controlled for where games are being played (only half your games are at home) and is making a lot of assumptions about fumbling outdoors. The bottom line is the Pats run a ton of plays. They dont lose as many fumbles as you would assume. Could that be great coaching? A QB deft at recover fumbles? A million other things? I think yeah.

It actually looks at both fumbles and fumbles lost, or did you not actually read it?

It was updated. The original was just fumbles lost... without noting that by the way. And the total fumbles the Patriots arent even first.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

It means that some teams place a premium on getting guys who dont fumble and if they do, they don't play.

The Pats almost never spend money or high draft picks on RBs. If this was baseball, and Billy Beane was Bill Belichick, people would be calling him a genius for finding a market inefficiency

Laurence Maroney was a first round pick and Shane Vereen was a second round pick (and they took Ridley in the third in that same draft).

 

[MG345]

It means that some teams place a premium on getting guys who dont fumble and if they do, they don't play.

The Pats almost never spend money or high draft picks on RBs. If this was baseball, and Billy Beane was Bill Belichick, people would be calling him a genius for finding a market inefficiency

Yeah, and didnt the Pats happen to draft some kid that carried the ball almost 1000 times in college with zero fumbles? And didnt he contribute over 500 touches to those stats with zero fumbles? Were they letting out the air at Indiana?

This air thing is WAY out of control. What else has it done? How many sacks has it accounted for by the Patriots defense?

How many times had BJGE fumbled since he left the Pats?

 

[Run It Up]

Implications and assumptions...

The only assumption here is that it didn't happen properly, there is nothing in the language provided that says it didn't Trying to break down semantics is grasping at straws.

How is that the only assumption, King is literally the only person saying they were WITHOUT A DOUBT between 12.5 and 13.5 before the game.

And hes even saying it in such a way to allow himself to retract it at a later date...

Actually, the fact that the refs signed off on all the balls says that they were in between 12.5-13.5 PSI.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Implications and assumptions...

The only assumption here is that it didn't happen properly, there is nothing in the language provided that says it didn't Trying to break down semantics is grasping at straws.

How is that the only assumption, King is literally the only person saying they were WITHOUT A DOUBT between 12.5 and 13.5 before the game.

And hes even saying it in such a way to allow himself to retract it at a later date...

The NFL's statement says it also:

The investigation began based on information that suggested that the game balls used by the New England Patriots were not properly inflated to levels required by the playing rules, specifically Playing Rule 2, Section 1, which requires that the ball be inflated to between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds per square inch. Prior to the game, the game officials inspect the footballs to be used by each team and confirm that this standard is satisfied, which was done before last Sundays game.

 

[mbuehner]

It means that some teams place a premium on getting guys who dont fumble and if they do, they don't play.

The Pats almost never spend money or high draft picks on RBs. If this was baseball, and Billy Beane was Bill Belichick, people would be calling him a genius for finding a market inefficiency

Yeah, and didnt the Pats happen to draft some kid that carried the ball almost 1000 times in college with zero fumbles? And didnt he contribute over 500 touches to those stats with zero fumbles? Were they letting out the air at Indiana?

This air thing is WAY out of control. What else has it done? How many sacks has it accounted for by the Patriots defense?

How many times had BJGE fumbled since he left the Pats?

Im sorry is that relevant somehow?

 

[moleculo]

Colts balls were at 14 PSI. Close enough to the 13.5 that the officials didn't care. Pats balls were at 12 PSI. Close enough that officials didn't care.

All balls lose 1.5 PSI due to conditions. Colts balls are at 12.5, and deemed within the acceptable range. Pats balls are down to 10.5 PSI, which is the 2 PSI difference from acceptable.

I'm just making #### up obviously.

That's not what happened though, there was no significant loss of PSI on the Colts' balls. If all the balls PSI dropped an even amount, this wouldn't be an issue. Hell, the 12 balls from NE didn't deflate at a common rate so that even points further to tampering.

The only way the Colts balls didn't see a deflation is if there wasn't any. No deflation means they did not see a temperature drop. It's basic physics, people, you can't really work around this.

The reason the Colts balls did not see a temperature drop is because they were checked at halftime at the same temperature they were checked at pre-game - i.e. in the warmth and comfort of the officials locker room.

Therefore, we can surmise that the temperature differential played no role in any loss of pressure, Colts balls or Patriots balls.

Which leaves open the question - what happened to the 2 PSI in the patriots balls?

How much of this is fact? Do we actually know where the balls at halftime were measured and the exact pressures? When people say the Colts balls were in spec, does that actually mean there was no delfation or that they started at the high end and were still within the low end?

we don't know, all we can do is surmise based on the (shoddy) information at hand.

With what we know now, there's at least 1 psi unaccounted for from the Patriots balls, possibly over 2 PSI (depending on various measuring conditions).

Those PSI could be from the patriots staff submitting under-inflated balls to the refs (intentionally or not), who failed to fully inspect them, or the PSI may be missing due to post-inspection modification.

Got it, thanks. It would be nice to just get the details, then again, you know where I stand on this, non-issue IMHO especially since the balls were replaced.

yeah I know. I think it's a huge deal based on the patriots lack of fumbling per the article cited above. The sports science made no mention of ability to hold onto a softer ball...they said something about "grip strength", but didn't go into detail about what grip strength is, how it is measured, or why it's important.

A slightly softer ball will not make a difference in every game, but over the course of a few years, you bet it would show an effect.

That study is full of holes. It uses fumbles lost, instead of total fumbles... so unless the deflated ball helps the Patriots recover their fumbles it doesnt make much sense. The Falcons have a better plays per total fumble over the time period.

I know he's trying to claim that as an outdoor team its still an outlier, but he hasnt controlled for where games are being played (only half your games are at home) and is making a lot of assumptions about fumbling outdoors. The bottom line is the Pats run a ton of plays. They dont lose as many fumbles as you would assume. Could that be great coaching? A QB deft at recover fumbles? A million other things? I think yeah.

yeah I know. I wish the author had done some of the analysis a little differently. I'm sure someone will get on it. i'd like to do it, but my boss expects me to do at least a little work today.

Here's how I'd improve the data:

1. look at RB/WR/TE fumbles only. QB's losing the ball due to blind-side hits, or poor snaps, or mike vick not tucking the ball when he runs...those shouldn't be considered.

2. control for team A vs opponent, home and away...come up with sometihng like Atlanta Falcons fumbled 5 less more per hundred carries than their opponents, Buffalo Bills fumbled 10 times more per hundred carries than their opponents, something like that. This would completely take venue out of the occasion.

If you could show that the Patriots backs fumbled less than opponents, regardless of location, I think that would be pretty strong.

Still, the data as shown is pretty compelling, it just needs to be explored further.

 

[MG345]

Colts balls were at 14 PSI. Close enough to the 13.5 that the officials didn't care. Pats balls were at 12 PSI. Close enough that officials didn't care.

All balls lose 1.5 PSI due to conditions. Colts balls are at 12.5, and deemed within the acceptable range. Pats balls are down to 10.5 PSI, which is the 2 PSI difference from acceptable.

I'm just making #### up obviously.

That's not what happened though, there was no significant loss of PSI on the Colts' balls. If all the balls PSI dropped an even amount, this wouldn't be an issue. Hell, the 12 balls from NE didn't deflate at a common rate so that even points further to tampering.

The only way the Colts balls didn't see a deflation is if there wasn't any. No deflation means they did not see a temperature drop. It's basic physics, people, you can't really work around this.

The reason the Colts balls did not see a temperature drop is because they were checked at halftime at the same temperature they were checked at pre-game - i.e. in the warmth and comfort of the officials locker room.

Therefore, we can surmise that the temperature differential played no role in any loss of pressure, Colts balls or Patriots balls.

Which leaves open the question - what happened to the 2 PSI in the patriots balls?

How much of this is fact? Do we actually know where the balls at halftime were measured and the exact pressures? When people say the Colts balls were in spec, does that actually mean there was no delfation or that they started at the high end and were still within the low end?

we don't know, all we can do is surmise based on the (shoddy) information at hand.

With what we know now, there's at least 1 psi unaccounted for from the Patriots balls, possibly over 2 PSI (depending on various measuring conditions).

Those PSI could be from the patriots staff submitting under-inflated balls to the refs (intentionally or not), who failed to fully inspect them, or the PSI may be missing due to post-inspection modification.

Got it, thanks. It would be nice to just get the details, then again, you know where I stand on this, non-issue IMHO especially since the balls were replaced.

yeah I know. I think it's a huge deal based on the patriots lack of fumbling per the article cited above. The sports science made no mention of ability to hold onto a softer ball...they said something about "grip strength", but didn't go into detail about what grip strength is, how it is measured, or why it's important.

A slightly softer ball will not make a difference in every game, but over the course of a few years, you bet it would show an effect.

That study is full of holes. It uses fumbles lost, instead of total fumbles... so unless the deflated ball helps the Patriots recover their fumbles it doesnt make much sense. The Falcons have a better plays per total fumble over the time period.

I know he's trying to claim that as an outdoor team its still an outlier, but he hasnt controlled for where games are being played (only half your games are at home) and is making a lot of assumptions about fumbling outdoors. The bottom line is the Pats run a ton of plays. They dont lose as many fumbles as you would assume. Could that be great coaching? A QB deft at recover fumbles? A million other things? I think yeah.

It actually looks at both fumbles and fumbles lost, or did you not actually read it?

It was updated. The original was just fumbles lost... without noting that by the way. And the total fumbles the Patriots arent even first.

When did you read it? Because when I saw it last night, it was "updated". I am guessing you just didn't read it all the way through.

 

[mbuehner]

Implications and assumptions...

The only assumption here is that it didn't happen properly, there is nothing in the language provided that says it didn't Trying to break down semantics is grasping at straws.

How is that the only assumption, King is literally the only person saying they were WITHOUT A DOUBT between 12.5 and 13.5 before the game.

And hes even saying it in such a way to allow himself to retract it at a later date...

The NFL's statement says it also:

The investigation began based on information that suggested that the game balls used by the New England Patriots were not properly inflated to levels required by the playing rules, specifically Playing Rule 2, Section 1, which requires that the ball be inflated to between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds per square inch. Prior to the game, the game officials inspect the footballs to be used by each team and confirm that this standard is satisfied, which was done before last Sundays game.

That says it was inspected. It does not say it was measured. A more cynical man might suggest its weasel words for the NFL not to admit 40+ balls werent wmeasured with a gauge, but just given a quick squeeze as other evidence suggests is common.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

So if I look at 2013 fumble statistics, there were 22 teams that fumbled less than New England:

http://www.footballperspective.com/2013-fumble-recovery-data-has-jets-cowboys-at-extremes/

 

[MG345]

It means that some teams place a premium on getting guys who dont fumble and if they do, they don't play.

The Pats almost never spend money or high draft picks on RBs. If this was baseball, and Billy Beane was Bill Belichick, people would be calling him a genius for finding a market inefficiency

Yeah, and didnt the Pats happen to draft some kid that carried the ball almost 1000 times in college with zero fumbles? And didnt he contribute over 500 touches to those stats with zero fumbles? Were they letting out the air at Indiana?

This air thing is WAY out of control. What else has it done? How many sacks has it accounted for by the Patriots defense?

How many times had BJGE fumbled since he left the Pats?

Im sorry is that relevant somehow?

It stands to reason if Cincy didn't use this tactic, he would be prone to fumbling more.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Here's how I'd improve the data:

1. look at RB/WR/TE fumbles only. QB's losing the ball due to blind-side hits, or poor snaps, or mike vick not tucking the ball when he runs...those shouldn't be considered.

2. control for team A vs opponent, home and away...come up with sometihng like Atlanta Falcons fumbled 5 less more per hundred carries than their opponents, Buffalo Bills fumbled 10 times more per hundred carries than their opponents, something like that. This would completely take venue out of the occasion.

If you could show that the Patriots backs fumbled less than opponents, regardless of location, I think that would be pretty strong.

Still, the data as shown is pretty compelling, it just needs to be explored further.

Brady's fumbles as a % of Sacks taken:

2001-2006: 59/182 (32%)

2007-2014: 37/182 (20%)

 

[mbuehner]

Colts balls were at 14 PSI. Close enough to the 13.5 that the officials didn't care. Pats balls were at 12 PSI. Close enough that officials didn't care.

All balls lose 1.5 PSI due to conditions. Colts balls are at 12.5, and deemed within the acceptable range. Pats balls are down to 10.5 PSI, which is the 2 PSI difference from acceptable.

I'm just making #### up obviously.

That's not what happened though, there was no significant loss of PSI on the Colts' balls. If all the balls PSI dropped an even amount, this wouldn't be an issue. Hell, the 12 balls from NE didn't deflate at a common rate so that even points further to tampering.

The only way the Colts balls didn't see a deflation is if there wasn't any. No deflation means they did not see a temperature drop. It's basic physics, people, you can't really work around this.

The reason the Colts balls did not see a temperature drop is because they were checked at halftime at the same temperature they were checked at pre-game - i.e. in the warmth and comfort of the officials locker room.

Therefore, we can surmise that the temperature differential played no role in any loss of pressure, Colts balls or Patriots balls.

Which leaves open the question - what happened to the 2 PSI in the patriots balls?

How much of this is fact? Do we actually know where the balls at halftime were measured and the exact pressures? When people say the Colts balls were in spec, does that actually mean there was no delfation or that they started at the high end and were still within the low end?

we don't know, all we can do is surmise based on the (shoddy) information at hand.

With what we know now, there's at least 1 psi unaccounted for from the Patriots balls, possibly over 2 PSI (depending on various measuring conditions).

Those PSI could be from the patriots staff submitting under-inflated balls to the refs (intentionally or not), who failed to fully inspect them, or the PSI may be missing due to post-inspection modification.

Got it, thanks. It would be nice to just get the details, then again, you know where I stand on this, non-issue IMHO especially since the balls were replaced.

yeah I know. I think it's a huge deal based on the patriots lack of fumbling per the article cited above. The sports science made no mention of ability to hold onto a softer ball...they said something about "grip strength", but didn't go into detail about what grip strength is, how it is measured, or why it's important.

A slightly softer ball will not make a difference in every game, but over the course of a few years, you bet it would show an effect.

That study is full of holes. It uses fumbles lost, instead of total fumbles... so unless the deflated ball helps the Patriots recover their fumbles it doesnt make much sense. The Falcons have a better plays per total fumble over the time period.

I know he's trying to claim that as an outdoor team its still an outlier, but he hasnt controlled for where games are being played (only half your games are at home) and is making a lot of assumptions about fumbling outdoors. The bottom line is the Pats run a ton of plays. They dont lose as many fumbles as you would assume. Could that be great coaching? A QB deft at recover fumbles? A million other things? I think yeah.

yeah I know. I wish the author had done some of the analysis a little differently. I'm sure someone will get on it. i'd like to do it, but my boss expects me to do at least a little work today.

Here's how I'd improve the data:

1. look at RB/WR/TE fumbles only. QB's losing the ball due to blind-side hits, or poor snaps, or mike vick not tucking the ball when he runs...those shouldn't be considered.

2. control for team A vs opponent, home and away...come up with sometihng like Atlanta Falcons fumbled 5 less more per hundred carries than their opponents, Buffalo Bills fumbled 10 times more per hundred carries than their opponents, something like that. This would completely take venue out of the occasion.

If you could show that the Patriots backs fumbled less than opponents, regardless of location, I think that would be pretty strong.

Still, the data as shown is pretty compelling, it just needs to be explored further.

The way I see it, theyre accusing an excellent football team of being good at football, with the evidence being that they are good at football.

 

[mbuehner]

It means that some teams place a premium on getting guys who dont fumble and if they do, they don't play.

The Pats almost never spend money or high draft picks on RBs. If this was baseball, and Billy Beane was Bill Belichick, people would be calling him a genius for finding a market inefficiency

Yeah, and didnt the Pats happen to draft some kid that carried the ball almost 1000 times in college with zero fumbles? And didnt he contribute over 500 touches to those stats with zero fumbles? Were they letting out the air at Indiana?

This air thing is WAY out of control. What else has it done? How many sacks has it accounted for by the Patriots defense?

How many times had BJGE fumbled since he left the Pats?

Im sorry is that relevant somehow?

It stands to reason if Cincy didn't use this tactic, he would be prone to fumbling more.

It also stands to reason he played badly in Cincy and playing badly leads to fumbles.

 

[Niles Standish]

It means that some teams place a premium on getting guys who dont fumble and if they do, they don't play.

The Pats almost never spend money or high draft picks on RBs. If this was baseball, and Billy Beane was Bill Belichick, people would be calling him a genius for finding a market inefficiency

Yeah, and didnt the Pats happen to draft some kid that carried the ball almost 1000 times in college with zero fumbles? And didnt he contribute over 500 touches to those stats with zero fumbles? Were they letting out the air at Indiana?

This air thing is WAY out of control. What else has it done? How many sacks has it accounted for by the Patriots defense?

How many times had BJGE fumbled since he left the Pats?

Tomlinson carried 712 times without a fumble. Doesn't this implicate Rivers too? Tomlinson's fumble rate went back to league average when he was with the Jets!!!

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Implications and assumptions...

The only assumption here is that it didn't happen properly, there is nothing in the language provided that says it didn't Trying to break down semantics is grasping at straws.

How is that the only assumption, King is literally the only person saying they were WITHOUT A DOUBT between 12.5 and 13.5 before the game.

And hes even saying it in such a way to allow himself to retract it at a later date...

The NFL's statement says it also:

The investigation began based on information that suggested that the game balls used by the New England Patriots were not properly inflated to levels required by the playing rules, specifically Playing Rule 2, Section 1, which requires that the ball be inflated to between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds per square inch. Prior to the game, the game officials inspect the footballs to be used by each team and confirm that this standard is satisfied, which was done before last Sundays game.

That says it was inspected. It does not say it was measured. A more cynical man might suggest its weasel words for the NFL not to admit 40+ balls werent wmeasured with a gauge, but just given a quick squeeze as other evidence suggests is common.

Come on? My son learned how to make inferences in reading comprehension questions in like 3rd grade. Were you absent that day?

 

[[icon]]

Implications and assumptions...

The only assumption here is that it didn't happen properly, there is nothing in the language provided that says it didn't Trying to break down semantics is grasping at straws.

How is that the only assumption, King is literally the only person saying they were WITHOUT A DOUBT between 12.5 and 13.5 before the game.

And hes even saying it in such a way to allow himself to retract it at a later date...

Actually, the fact that the refs signed off on all the balls (and they only do that once the inspection as been passed) says that they were in between 12.5-13.5 PSI. You are going to point again to the refs as possibly not checking the balls properly, but using your argument THERE IS WITHOUT A DOUBT nothing that says otherwise.

If there's one thing I learned about the internet, it's that typing things in all caps makes it 100% IRREFUTABLY TRUE!!

 

[moleculo]

So if I look at 2013 fumble statistics, there were 22 teams that fumbled less than New England:

http://www.footballperspective.com/2013-fumble-recovery-data-has-jets-cowboys-at-extremes/

The author glosses over that two ways:

1. he uses 5 year averages.

2. he uses fumbles/play. note that the patriots have typically run a lot of plays

 

[MG345]

It means that some teams place a premium on getting guys who dont fumble and if they do, they don't play.

The Pats almost never spend money or high draft picks on RBs. If this was baseball, and Billy Beane was Bill Belichick, people would be calling him a genius for finding a market inefficiency

Yeah, and didnt the Pats happen to draft some kid that carried the ball almost 1000 times in college with zero fumbles? And didnt he contribute over 500 touches to those stats with zero fumbles? Were they letting out the air at Indiana?

This air thing is WAY out of control. What else has it done? How many sacks has it accounted for by the Patriots defense?

How many times had BJGE fumbled since he left the Pats?

Tomlinson carried 712 times without a fumble. Doesn't this implicate Rivers too? Tomlinson's fumble rate went back to league average when he was with the Jets!!!

Just read the study.

 

[MG345]

Implications and assumptions...

The only assumption here is that it didn't happen properly, there is nothing in the language provided that says it didn't Trying to break down semantics is grasping at straws.

How is that the only assumption, King is literally the only person saying they were WITHOUT A DOUBT between 12.5 and 13.5 before the game.

And hes even saying it in such a way to allow himself to retract it at a later date...

Actually, the fact that the refs signed off on all the balls (and they only do that once the inspection as been passed) says that they were in between 12.5-13.5 PSI. You are going to point again to the refs as possibly not checking the balls properly, but using your argument THERE IS WITHOUT A DOUBT nothing that says otherwise.

If there's one thing I learned about the internet, it's that typing things in all caps makes it 100% IRREFUTABLY TRUE!!

Just taking clues from Run It Up

 

[mbuehner]

Implications and assumptions...

The only assumption here is that it didn't happen properly, there is nothing in the language provided that says it didn't Trying to break down semantics is grasping at straws.

How is that the only assumption, King is literally the only person saying they were WITHOUT A DOUBT between 12.5 and 13.5 before the game.

And hes even saying it in such a way to allow himself to retract it at a later date...

The NFL's statement says it also:

The investigation began based on information that suggested that the game balls used by the New England Patriots were not properly inflated to levels required by the playing rules, specifically Playing Rule 2, Section 1, which requires that the ball be inflated to between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds per square inch. Prior to the game, the game officials inspect the footballs to be used by each team and confirm that this standard is satisfied, which was done before last Sundays game.

That says it was inspected. It does not say it was measured. A more cynical man might suggest its weasel words for the NFL not to admit 40+ balls werent wmeasured with a gauge, but just given a quick squeeze as other evidence suggests is common.

Come on? My son learned how to make inferences in reading comprehension questions in like 3rd grade. Were you absent that day?

Why hasnt the NFL come out and said the balls were measured... consider that is the crux of this problem.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Colts balls were at 14 PSI. Close enough to the 13.5 that the officials didn't care. Pats balls were at 12 PSI. Close enough that officials didn't care.

All balls lose 1.5 PSI due to conditions. Colts balls are at 12.5, and deemed within the acceptable range. Pats balls are down to 10.5 PSI, which is the 2 PSI difference from acceptable.

I'm just making #### up obviously.

That's not what happened though, there was no significant loss of PSI on the Colts' balls. If all the balls PSI dropped an even amount, this wouldn't be an issue. Hell, the 12 balls from NE didn't deflate at a common rate so that even points further to tampering.

he just gave an example of what is being talked about. No numbers have been given of what the colts started at or where at halftime.

It is possible that all balls dropped but the one set were still in legal range because they started out that much higher to begin with.

 

[MG345]

Implications and assumptions...

The only assumption here is that it didn't happen properly, there is nothing in the language provided that says it didn't Trying to break down semantics is grasping at straws.

How is that the only assumption, King is literally the only person saying they were WITHOUT A DOUBT between 12.5 and 13.5 before the game.

And hes even saying it in such a way to allow himself to retract it at a later date...

The NFL's statement says it also:

The investigation began based on information that suggested that the game balls used by the New England Patriots were not properly inflated to levels required by the playing rules, specifically Playing Rule 2, Section 1, which requires that the ball be inflated to between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds per square inch. Prior to the game, the game officials inspect the footballs to be used by each team and confirm that this standard is satisfied, which was done before last Sundays game.

That says it was inspected. It does not say it was measured. A more cynical man might suggest its weasel words for the NFL not to admit 40+ balls werent wmeasured with a gauge, but just given a quick squeeze as other evidence suggests is common.

Come on? My son learned how to make inferences in reading comprehension questions in like 3rd grade. Were you absent that day?

Why hasnt the NFL come out and said the balls were measured... consider that is the crux of this problem.

They did. That is what is meant by inspected. Ever had an inspection done on anything you own, worked on, or created? There are lots of measurements taken, but that isn't all. The word inspection implies measurements and other forms of critical observations were made.

 

[MG345]

Colts balls were at 14 PSI. Close enough to the 13.5 that the officials didn't care. Pats balls were at 12 PSI. Close enough that officials didn't care.

All balls lose 1.5 PSI due to conditions. Colts balls are at 12.5, and deemed within the acceptable range. Pats balls are down to 10.5 PSI, which is the 2 PSI difference from acceptable.

I'm just making #### up obviously.

That's not what happened though, there was no significant loss of PSI on the Colts' balls. If all the balls PSI dropped an even amount, this wouldn't be an issue. Hell, the 12 balls from NE didn't deflate at a common rate so that even points further to tampering.

he just gave an example of what is being talked about. No numbers have been given of what the colts started at or where at halftime.

It is possible that all balls dropped but the one set were still in legal range because they started out that much higher to begin with.

There is only a 1 PSI range for the legal balls. Even if the top of the range fell from 13.5 to 12.5 and the lowest fell from 12.5 to 11.5 it wouldn't explain the drop that was seen on Sunday.