Merged: Ahahaha. Once a cheat, always a cheat / DeflateGate

No, the distinction is whether that means: wet and muddy defines a ball to be not playable, OR wet and muddy is not desired.

It doesn't define it to be unplayable. So now it's all consistent. If they were to define a wet and muddy ball as unplayable, then they would be contradicting themselves by leaving the ref discretion to pick a wet or muddy ball. This way there's no contradiction. A playable ball SHOULD be dry, but doesn't have to be.

 

Not true bro. If you read through all of that guys experiments he does everything here that you wrote.

 

oh my bad. it's probably been updated since I looked at it.

 

Since nothing will happen before the Superbowl, the pessimist in me thinks nothing of significance will happen to the Patriots. Classic avoidance technique being employed by the league. They are letting this thing die down with the hype of the Superbowl. If they announced nothing was going to happen now, it could cause a certain percentage of people to not tune into the Superbowl. By waiting until after, there will still be an uproar, but it won't impact the Superbowl.

Of course, the optimist in me thinks maybe they are going to drop the hammer and letting Belicheat and Brady coach and play in the Superbowl is a concession to one or both of them being suspended for a significant amount of time.

 

I was reading an article written by Florio over at PFT and it was very interesting. He mentioned how the NFL doesn't need the proof that's required in a criminal case to convict someone. Instead, according to him, they just need to prove it as if it were a civil case. I seriously hope he's correct, because if he is IMO that evidence has already been found.

 

21 seconds, in fact.

It's science. lol

http://www.slate.com/articles/video..._do_animals_with_different_size_bladders.html

 

Interesting finding here. Since 2007, which is when I understand that teams first began having control over the inflation of their footballs, the Patriots have a 0.761 win percentage, which puts them in the 100th percentile in the league. During that same period of time, they have a turnover margin of +113, which also puts them in the 100th percentile in the league, and is 3.1 standard deviations from the league average. They turned the ball over 154 times during that period, which was 2.87 standard deviations below the league average of 216. They had 267 takeaways during that period, which led the league, but was only 2 standard deviations (which is a lot, but not nearly as big as 2.87 standard deviations) from the league average of 216. So, in having such an extremely good turnover margin, it's turning the ball over very infrequently, rather than takeaways, that is driving the bus on that.

 

get em tiger.

 

I don't think I can know them all. There's almost seven thousand of them. And I had one of those services check to see how many of those followers are bots, fake accounts and such...and not many. Like maybe 5% or something like that. So that's a lot of live humans for me to try and get to know.

 

"The Patriots have held the best plays per fumble rate since 2007. Sharp also points out this is the first year the Patriots started outperforming in wet weather games. After going 0-2 in 2006, New England has gone an unprecedented 14-1 in Tom Brady wet weather home games (compared to 51-9 in dry weather home games).According to ProFootballReference.com, from 2001 to 2006, Brady averaged 9.8 fumbles per season. From 2007 to 2014, his fumbles per season decreased to 5.3."

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/01/25/patriots-fumble-nearly-impossible-rate/LCgrlUR9qgxDsIgcal9dUI/story.html

 

Don't mean to "rain" on the parade, but why start in 2006? Comparing 2 games in one condition vs 15 in the other?

Also, look at his graph listing "wet weather" games since 2006. 4 of the "wet weather" games don't seem to have had any precipitation at all. Instead it just says rain was expected/likely, but that the weather was "cloudy".

These are small points I'm making without any intent of attacking the bigger picture of the Pats miraculously having a better turnover ratio since 2007, but this particular analysis (of Sharp) is a bit lacking in credibility.

 

All that proves is that 2007 was the year that superior coaching finally allowed them to drastically break away from the curve.

It's coaching guys.

 

I know you love stats, so I hope you don't feel compelled to do a lot of work because of my comment, but do you happen to have stats (or the ability to compile them quickly) on how this breaks down by weather? If giveaways don't significantly increase in conditions where we'd expect deflated balls to help the most, then the story gets a bit more interesting..

 

It wouldn't surprise to know that a good portion if your followers were media pundits from all over..if their smart they would use your skills to their own advantage.

 

http://www.advancedfootballanalytic...ral/224-the-patriots-have-great-ball-security

That post has another analyst's review of the fumble data. In it he compares NE fumbles -v- opponents fumbles in the 00-06 and 07-14 periods.
In 00-06 the Pats and their opponents fumbled at roughly the same rate. From 07-14 NEs fumbled at 1/2 the rate of their opponents.

By my rough eyeball Mk 1 look at it NE is fumbling at about 1/2 the rate of what could be reasonably expected, which probably leads to reduction in their own turnovers of between 4 and 8 turnovers per season, which I'd say would be worth at least 1 or 2 wins per season.

BTW the reduction in fumbles is probably an unintended side effect of deflating the balls to Tom Brady's liking, but it will be the data point that leaves the fingerprint.

 

Unless I'm not searching correctly, where does it break things down by weather condition?

 

The Bears have been cheating too, are we going to say something about them too or is this just a Patriots cheating thread:

Jeff Blake says every quarterback does it:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12244290/ex-quarterback-jeff-blake-deflating-footballs-common

 

By doing it NE fumbles -v- opponents fumbles it means both teams are playing in the same conditions rain, mud, dome or sunshine, so it removes the problem of comparing NE against teams who played in different conditiions

 

You know, one way for Goodell to slither out of handing out an excessive penalty on the Patriots is if it becomes clear everyone is doing it. He could use that as justification for this being more of a warning than anything else. Thing is, the Colts seemed to abide by the rules, and the stats people have been posting show that NE has had a disproportionately greater benefit from the rule change since 2007, so who knows..

 

Jeff Blake hasn't been in the league since 2006, so what he says is basically irrelevant. When he played both teams used the same balls. The big point is the difference as to what has happened since 2007 when teams prep their own balls. That's the point where NE go from league average to mind bogglingly good.

 

Oh, let me clarify. I want to know whether NE's fumbling rate in the rain is greater than NE's fumbling rate in dry conditions. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

Well Blake was a journeyman quarterback with over 100 starts.. how about researching the fumbling stats of all his starts and compare them to the Patriots? It can't possibly be solid coaching fundamentals, it is the 1 inch PSI that is making the difference is what you all are saying.

 

Beating a dead horse can be entertaining.. I'm just relaxing while eating, posting and reading some news.

 

As soon as the NFL investigates them we will start discussing it.

 

Yeah!!!!!!

Common sense & physics are no match for Jeff Blake.

Forget for a second that you link to a story where Jeff Blake says they all DEFLATE the balls to get a better grip, then counter the importance of that story by acting like deflating the balls gives no benefit.

But, please, do go on.......

 

Because I get email notifications when someone new follows me, I will say that I know that a lot of them are media.

 

Ever since I got my TV credit, I actually get the occasional pornstar or stripper following me...

 

I know for a fact I have at least one stripper following me. She tweets me every now and then. She's good people tho.

 

You still haven't posted fumble stats of their teams, I'm waiting for them. The whole fumble stats is such a reach, Patriots players are told to dive, rarely do I see their players challenge a defender head to head unless they were physically gifted like a Gronkowski or Randy Moss. Amendola, Edelman, Welker, what ever that white running back name was I think it's Woodhead, they all dive before contact. Go watch a few games from them and show me a moment they're not diving or running out of bounds. 12.5 PSI or 11 PSI they're not going to fumble.

Tiki Barber was a fumbling machine and even he was able to clean that up.

But hey maybe you're right, I'll wait for this Sunday, since they're definitely going to be playing with 12.5 PSI minimum, I will expect them to fumble 3-4 times and lose.

By the way how many fumbles did the Patriots have in the second half in the rain and cold against the Colts, and what was Brady's completion rate on his first 9 passes? Was it 100%?

 

Yes, fumble stats were in fact posted for other teams. Its not even close.

But sure, the team's fumbles improved directly after this rule was passed and the team are proven cheaters......but nothing to see here move along. Whatever.

 

I just changed their logo from this:



to this:


The New England Pasterisks

 

That looks about right

 

How do you explain such a marked improvement coinciding with the rule change?

Did they just start diving before contact after 2007?

 

Sorry about that, I'll un-follow if you want...

 

So....like you mean....

 

Are you just taking the Patriots side to play devils advocate? Because...dem boys been cheatin...aint no way round it.

 

Ran across this article...don't know the science behind it, but it appears that Brady aided in BB being able to cheat back in 06 or 07?

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.co...iots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007