The Patriots have Fumbled the ball far less than Anybody Since 2000...............
I can definitely see how a softer ball would be easier to catch. ESPN's Sports Science did show receiver could apply slightly more grip force to catch it. The kicking balls wouldn't have that advantage.
its not even debatable that it is an advantage....the NFL has a rule and range concerning where the balls have to be PSI wise.
Whomever chooses to ignore the amazing ability the patriots have exbhibited, to hang onto the football since 2007...is simply choosing to ignore abnormalities, that betray the Patriots as a team who has practiced ball deflation proudly......since 2007.
Whomever chooses to ignore the amazing ability the patriots have exbhibited, to hang onto the football since 2007...is simply choosing to ignore abnormalities, that betray the Patriots as a team who has practiced ball deflation proudly......since 2007.
Ok, we did some stats tests here - that's what I do for a living though I promised myself I'd never do this kind of thing on the board. I had a PhD professor colleague who hasn't watched a football game since the 60's (eg, could care less about the sport) do the analysis. Any of the stats folks can check the work / decide if it holds water. I think this is pretty damning.
"had some fun w/Sharp's graph of offensive runs per fumble in the
attached file. First, I looked at the distributions w/ and w0/187. Note
how "normal" the league distn is wo/187, confirming the notion that fumbles
are simply statistical random acts. Based on this distn I calculated the prob of a team
scoring 187 - WoW! Next, I applied the Grubbs stat outlier test which
retains the 187 in the calculation; again wow! Both cases are damning as
hell. Note that the comments of Prof Greg Matthews denying the Patriots'
outlier contain no analysis. Sharpe's overall analyes (runs/fumble,
2006/2007 break point coinciding w/inflation change, change in players'
fumbles after coming to the P's, the wet vs. dry performance) is brilliant.
Note the very normal distribution of the offensive runs/fumble without the Patriots. Now for this established distribution, the Z-score and probability of some team coming along, performing at the 187 level are:
Z = (187- 102.45)/15.51 = 5.45!!!!! The probability for this kind of performance would be 2.79x10^(-8), in other words P = 0.0000000279 or about 3 in 100 million!
Next, I applied the statistical Grubbs outlier test. This is more stringent than the above discussion in that it retains the questionable value in the distribution, which inflates the std dev (produces a lower P-value). The test does the same Z calcn but w/187 retained, and compares this "Z" to a tabulated "critical" values corresponding to the degs of freedom. If the "Z" comes out above the critical value, then the value is an outlier (>/= 95% confidence) and can be discarded. In this case the value of 3.83 is well above the critical value of 2.94. A corresponding P-value can be calculated, which in this case says that the probability of such performance is about 0.0000043.
I love this Prof of Stat, Greg Matthews comments”
“It’s 98 percent bunk,” said Greg Matthews, an assistant professor of statistics at Loyola University in Chicago. “He basically reached a conclusion already and he wants to find the most sensational stats he can find.”
Matthews said he found a “tremendous amount” of flaws in Sharp’s breakdown, among them the touches-per-fumble method of lining up the Patriots against the rest of the league.
“I refute the fact that the Patriots are an outlier,” Matthews said. “I refute that fact definitely. Are they better after [2006]? Possibly, but it’s not outrageously better.”
Note that he doesn’t refute Sharpe’s calculated difference, he just doesn’t want to put it to a statistical test (of course not; he’s an admitted Patriots’ fan)"
"had some fun w/Sharp's graph of offensive runs per fumble in the
attached file. First, I looked at the distributions w/ and w0/187. Note
how "normal" the league distn is wo/187, confirming the notion that fumbles
are simply statistical random acts. Based on this distn I calculated the prob of a team
scoring 187 - WoW! Next, I applied the Grubbs stat outlier test which
retains the 187 in the calculation; again wow! Both cases are damning as
hell. Note that the comments of Prof Greg Matthews denying the Patriots'
outlier contain no analysis. Sharpe's overall analyes (runs/fumble,
2006/2007 break point coinciding w/inflation change, change in players'
fumbles after coming to the P's, the wet vs. dry performance) is brilliant.
Note the very normal distribution of the offensive runs/fumble without the Patriots. Now for this established distribution, the Z-score and probability of some team coming along, performing at the 187 level are:
Z = (187- 102.45)/15.51 = 5.45!!!!! The probability for this kind of performance would be 2.79x10^(-8), in other words P = 0.0000000279 or about 3 in 100 million!
Next, I applied the statistical Grubbs outlier test. This is more stringent than the above discussion in that it retains the questionable value in the distribution, which inflates the std dev (produces a lower P-value). The test does the same Z calcn but w/187 retained, and compares this "Z" to a tabulated "critical" values corresponding to the degs of freedom. If the "Z" comes out above the critical value, then the value is an outlier (>/= 95% confidence) and can be discarded. In this case the value of 3.83 is well above the critical value of 2.94. A corresponding P-value can be calculated, which in this case says that the probability of such performance is about 0.0000043.
I love this Prof of Stat, Greg Matthews comments”
“It’s 98 percent bunk,” said Greg Matthews, an assistant professor of statistics at Loyola University in Chicago. “He basically reached a conclusion already and he wants to find the most sensational stats he can find.”
Matthews said he found a “tremendous amount” of flaws in Sharp’s breakdown, among them the touches-per-fumble method of lining up the Patriots against the rest of the league.
“I refute the fact that the Patriots are an outlier,” Matthews said. “I refute that fact definitely. Are they better after [2006]? Possibly, but it’s not outrageously better.”
Note that he doesn’t refute Sharpe’s calculated difference, he just doesn’t want to put it to a statistical test (of course not; he’s an admitted Patriots’ fan)"
ATL_PHIN_FAN
Winner Under Construction
Thanks royalshank! It's becoming clear to me that it will be very difficult for the NFL to sweep this under the rug. Even putting fans aside, there will be many interested parties looking for answers to the questions this data raises. I think we will soon find out if justice is possible in NFL.
So basically, the Pats won the lotto, got hit 3 times by lightning on there way back home, survived and won the lotto again...
phins_4_ever
E12 FH Tailgate Gang
It is funny how everybody talks about stats. It won't help though. Spygate is full of stats. In many of those stats it showed how ridiculous far outside the Pats are operating. But it didn't matter then and it won't matter now.
I really recommend reading that book. In the past I wanted people to read that book to show how far Spygate actually reached and why the conclusion was what it was. Now I want people to read it because it is now a very good add-on the Deflategate. It also explains very well why the Patriots will get away with Deflategate.
It is also ironic that the new policy about teams bringing their own footballs happened just around the time when Spygate 'ended'.
I really recommend reading that book. In the past I wanted people to read that book to show how far Spygate actually reached and why the conclusion was what it was. Now I want people to read it because it is now a very good add-on the Deflategate. It also explains very well why the Patriots will get away with Deflategate.
It is also ironic that the new policy about teams bringing their own footballs happened just around the time when Spygate 'ended'.
Fins_of_Fury
In a contract year
Any one else think Steve Belichick looks a bit sketchy like his dad?
SouthPaul
Practice Squad
And here's Hines Ward on Late Night with Seth Meyers taking about the Patriots.
[video=youtube;wnKM4feYpt8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnKM4feYpt8&feature=youtu.be[/video]
[video=youtube;wnKM4feYpt8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnKM4feYpt8&feature=youtu.be[/video]
thats awesome...and yes, that's basically what the data suggests!
---------- Post added at 07:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 PM ----------
i think you are right about the outside interested parties thing. The league has to realize they can't hide this stuff as access to data and an analysis of it is too easy now.
Good_Dylan
Active Roster
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2014
- Messages
- 4,097
- Reaction score
- 4,191
Any one else think Steve Belichick looks a bit sketchy like his dad?
Those balls look flat...Tuning out of SB altogether this year. Thank you Tainted Tom Brady & the whole Patriot organization for ruining one of life's simple pleasures for me.
That adds weight to the whole theory that the Patriots have always been willing to operate outside the rulebook.
I think it would be naive to think that the Patriots were not filming and stealing other teams signals long prior to 2007.....and equally naive to think they weren't deflating balls long prior to the AFC Championship game in 2015.
I honestly don't know what more there is too say but to reveal what data the investigation does recover....but the stain on the NFL...and the Patriot Legacy is forever tarnished.
One can only ponder what other rules they have violated and are violating?.....and have not been caught yet....after all....a criminal mind is a criminal mind.
The NFL better get this right...or it may just lose its lofty position of being America's favorite sport.
phins_4_ever
E12 FH Tailgate Gang
Very telling.
I am glad that finally former players come out and talk about this and even Spygate.