1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gase "one of the boys"

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Finatik, Jul 19, 2018.

  1. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    That's actually super interesting...although the passing game is more prolific now, at least in regards to passing yards for QBs, scoring is almost unchanged. I actually was thinking that scoring averages must have increased.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  2. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I see. In that case a different problem crops up: unequal sample sizes. That is.. not all those QB's played the same number of games in playoff runs to a SB win so you can't really just compare the means.

    Simplest way to deal with this is to use something called a t-test for 2 samples with unequal sample sizes. It basically tells you the probability that both sets of data (e.g. for NE it's the points allowed for 15 games and for SF it's points allowed for 12 games) come from the same underlying distribution. In most applications of statistics that probability has to be less than 5% to claim the difference you're seeing is due to something other than random variation.

    When you apply this test to NE's 15 playoff games in successful SB runs vs. SF's 12 games you get a probability of 8% that they come from the same underlying distribution. If you first adjust points per game to the same reference year, then that probability goes up to 11.4%, which answers resnor's question of how influential adjusting for era is in this case.

    So in both cases a statistician would argue the difference between NE and SF is consistent with the effects of random variation. However, you do see that those probabilities aren't very far from the threshold (5%).
     
    mooseguts likes this.
  3. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    They have, just not as much as you were expecting. The correlation between total yards and points per game is very high at 0.799 which shows that there's a tight relationship between yards and points scored. But high correlation doesn't mean that an increase in one (total yards) implies a large increase in the other (points per game). How large is determined by the slope of the best fitting line which is completely independent of the correlation (as long as the slope is not 0 or infinity).

    Here's a plot of points per game vs. total yards from that link in the previous post:

    [​IMG]

    Edit: I plotted a second graph I had here wrong.. forget it lol.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2018
  4. Lloyd Heilbrunn

    Lloyd Heilbrunn Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,580
    17,702
    113
    Sep 13, 2011
    Jupiter, Fl.
    This ignores Belichick's success in "a new time".
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2018
  5. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    IMO it's apples and oranges. I don't believe using stickum has much of an impact on wins/losses. The salary cap skirting does, but IMO far less than the videotaping (telling Brady the plays after cut-off) and the under-inflated footballs (their players always fumbled far less while with the Patriots) had large effects on wins/losses. I think those particular infractions make the playing field un-level. I also believe that from a talent evaluation perspective the 49ers were abnormally talented (only a small part of that was due to salary cap shenanigans) during their dominant stretch while the Pats were not usually abnormally talented.

    That being said, I do believe that Bilicheck is a phenomenal coach. I think he's the the best coach of all time, but I also think he cheated and that his accomplishments are inflated. My gut says that he'd still be on that level even if he hadn't cheated. I think Brady is a great QB and that his accomplishments are also inflated. My gut says that if he hadn't cheated he would still be considered very good to great but wouldn't be considered the GOAT by most people.
     
    danmarino and eltos_lightfoot like this.
  6. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    IMO you nailed it, both on "being yourself" being what matters and on Philbin coming off as "fake" as the reason he was never respected.
     
  7. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Regarding the videotaping, Jimmy Johnson said it was "commonplace" among coaches and that he didn't think it helped. I think I'll go with the coach on this one.


    Regarding the fumbling rate, I agree it can be influential (turnovers in general are highly influential on win%) but you can make the argument it helped NE for only one of their 5 Super Bowls, namely in 2014.

    First of all, the stat to look at here isn't fumbling rate, it's fumbles lost because the total number of fumbles lost is what matters in a game. So let's look at the relation between fumbles lost and win%. You can get the raw data here:
    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2017/

    The best-fitting line between fumbles lost and win percentage from 2001-2017 has a slope of -0.0189 per fumble lost, which over a 16 game season translates to 0.3 fewer wins per fumble lost.

    Where does NE stand relative to the rest of the league?

    [​IMG]

    So yes, clearly you can see an effect from 2007 compared to prior years. However, that shaded region represents the 95% region (on average, 95% of all teams will be in that region) and you'd have to be outside of that region to be statistically significant in any given year. NE never was, and their fumbles lost stat can be explain by random variation alone.

    The other thing to note is that there was a league-wide change from 2007. Using that t-test described earlier, the league average (thick black line) up to 2006 vs. from 2007 are statistically speaking different. So it's not just NE that found a way to decrease their fumbles lost, the entire league did. NE just did it better on average.

    Also, note that NE was around average when they won their first 3 Super Bowls as well as in 2016. It's only in 2014 where fumbles lost was much lower than average, but still not statistically significant. They were 5.6 fumbles below average, which translates to 1.7 more wins over a season than an average team. So yeah in that one year they had an advantage relative to an average team, but of course playoff teams are generally above average.

    Point is.. the effect of NE's fumble lost stat on win% can be explained due to random variation alone, and it's not evidence that any cheating they did here was a major factor in their success.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2018
  8. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,654
    67,548
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
  9. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    We are Dolphins fans, we WANT to believe there is a reason NE has dokinared our division for 18 years
     
  10. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    It wasn't just the videotaping. That gives you information but the key was being able to communicate with the QB up until the snap. Having several eyes be able to identify late defensive switches is a huge advantage. I doubt Jimmy or any coach would not admit that it would be a huge advantage to be able to tell their QB right before the snap what defense he's facing.

    And with the fumbles, statistical significance means you can't "prove" it was the factor, but you also can't show that it wouldn't have meant a turnover in the playoffs that stopped a SB run or a turnover during the season that changed their seeding and made the road tougher.
     
  11. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I can't speak for anybody else, but I never hated NE. I'm not a person who tends to hate rivals or teams in general. I admire talent and accomplishments. And I do for NE as well, but in this case we know for a fact that they cheated. And we can reasonably assume that there's at least some truth to all those other cheating rumors that couldn't officially be proved. IMO it's unreasonable to ignore all the cheating that wasn't "proved" or to pretend that it didn't impact their success.
     
    danmarino and resnor like this.
  12. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah I get it, but there's a big difference between providing quantifiable evidence of how much X affects Y versus saying that in your mind X was highly influential on Y. The key word is "highly".

    Why do Jimmy Johnson, other coaches, guys like Dan Rooney (from an opposing team) and players like Montana essentially discount the Patriots cheating? Precisely because they don't agree with you that in totality the cheating they think NE is guilty of was "highly" influential on the outcome (they even said so).

    So sure lots of things "could" have been the difference maker, but I prefer to rely on actual evidence of the magnitude of the effect rather than intuition alone.
     
  13. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I think that they have to protect the integrity of the game, so they have a vested interest in minimizing purported affects.
     
    resnor and Lloyd Heilbrunn like this.
  14. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I think that's definitely true of Roger Goodell and the NFL, no argument there. Not too sure about former coaches and players though. For example, you can look at Steve Young talk about this and it's the polar opposite of Montana. Young goes off on Belichick to the point that he accuses him of cheating while at Cleveland.

    Or take Tony Dungy. On one hand he agrees that most coaches videotaped like the Patriots, but then turns around and says Peyton Manning and other players never discussed strategy inside the locker room at Gillette Stadium because they feared it was bugged.

    Who knows.. actually that's the really sad part.. we don't have all the relevant data that's out there.
     
  15. Lloyd Heilbrunn

    Lloyd Heilbrunn Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,580
    17,702
    113
    Sep 13, 2011
    Jupiter, Fl.
    As a TV talking head, whose job entails promoting the NFL, Jimmy Johnson has the same vested interest in minimizing the cheating impact as Roger Goodell had in destroying the evidence.
     
    resnor likes this.
  16. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Well.. can't have it both ways. Admitting not only you but most other coaches cheated, or in Montana's and Rice's cases that most other players cheated, doesn't help improve the integrity of the game and instead hurts the image of the NFL. Such admissions arguably increase the negative impact to the NFL than if they tried to make it look like NE was an isolated case.

    So no.. I don't think you can just dismiss these quotes by former coaches and players.
     
  17. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Again, IF THESE THINGS DIDN'T HELP, why would they freaking do them? The ONLY reason to cheat is to gain an advantage. If it wasn't beneficial, they wouldn't spend time and resources and risk punishment from the league. The only thing that makes sense is that it was beneficial so they kept doing it.
     
    Hiruma78 likes this.
  18. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Who said the cheating didn't help? The argument is that there's no evidence it was a major factor in their dominance over the years. BIG difference.
     
    Fin-O likes this.
  19. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Who cares how much it helped? It's not like cheating is less egregious the less it helps. Frankly, from my standpoint, if the cheating resulted in minimal help, it makes it that much more disgusting to me.

    Also, not being able to find the evidence is not proof that the evidence didn't exist.
     
    Hiruma78 likes this.
  20. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I care because that's what the topic has been for much of this page in the thread.

    My response to those claiming it doesn't matter how much it helped is simply that there's evidence a lot of the NFL has been engaged in some sort of cheating, from coaches to players. So what now? Still a fan of the NFL?
     
  21. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    And we'll never have all the relevant data. Destroying evidence and "deny forever" is part of "getting away with cheating 101". And in terms of a criminal proceeding that works b/c you are limited to what you can prove. But outside of that venue you can make reasonable assumptions. We never proved OJ did it, but there's a preponderance of evidence that he did. IMO there's a preponderance of evidence that NE cheated and that it contributed to their accomplishments. So as a reasonable person who is not limited by venue, I don't limit myself to what was proven. I also don't have any vested interest in protecting the integrity of the league. Nor do I think trashing NE props up the Dolphins in any way. IMO during NE's great stretch, Miami was really bad. We may have made one more playoff (at most), but probably would have been embarrassed anyways. My opinion is that they are/were a great HC/QB combo that had their accomplishments inflated b/c they cheated. How much is a matter of opinion. But I don't think it's reasonable to assume that their accomplishments were not inflated at all. I think that's the easy thing to do, but I don't think that's a reasonable thing to conclude.
     
  22. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    When I lived in Germany, a guy in 7th grade knew just enough English to make this joke:

    Friend: "Can you see that elephant hiding behind that tree?"
    Me: "No"
    Friend: "They hide very well don't they."

    Same logic.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  23. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    Sort of. Except in this case we have reports like Flutie saying he heard the communications, people seeing the videotaping and we have reports that the texts were on the phone before it was destroyed, etc. The same logic would be if we had multiple people who saw the elephant and the elephant was later gone or killed, but people now are saying well we can never prove the elephant was there or if he did anything.
     
    resnor likes this.
  24. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No it's precisely the same logic because evidence doesn't have to be direct observational evidence. There was no "direct observational evidence" the Earth was not flat before we put something in space to take a picture of it, yet we knew long before the space age that it was spherical in nature.

    Evidence is any data that logically implies a hypothesis it's evidence for is more likely to be true than without that evidence. The stuff you listed qualifies, even if the evidence is not as strong as desired.
     
  25. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    No, the joke suggests that there was no elephant, but the teller is pretending it's there. We know NE cheated.
     
    resnor likes this.
  26. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No, by assumption we do NOT know that NE cheated in precisely the context in which I posted that, which was in response to the statement: "not being able to find the evidence is not proof that the evidence didn't exist". The context is about NE cheating we do not have any evidence for.
     
  27. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    One example of the evidence we can't find is the destroyed cell phone. I would guess that's also an example of what Resnor was talking about in the post you responded to. We actually had transcripts of texts at one point. So unlike your elephant example, we saw the elephant previously.
     
    resnor likes this.
  28. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No we didn't. Go back to posts #58 and #59. The "elephant" = "major factor in NE's dominance over the years".

    We simply do NOT have the evidence that NE's cheating was a major factor in their dominance over the years.
     
  29. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    Even if you want to parse it that finely, it still goes back to a matter of degree. You want to pretend that even if we know the elephant was there, we can't know for how long or what effect he had, so we're going to pretend he had no effect whatsoever b/c we don't have concrete evidence of how much effect he had.
     
  30. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Lack of evidence is not proof that it never occurred.

    Saying "we don't have proof" as defense of them is ridiculous.
     
  31. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah, I put the threshold at what I actually have evidence for. You decide you'd rather put the threshold at something that seems likely to you but for which we still don't have evidence for. Which is fine. Just keep in mind that the greater the cost of getting something wrong, the more likely it is you put the threshold where I put it. So it really comes down to how much you care about accuracy.
     
  32. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Evidence based reasoning is not ridiculous.

    Also.. you haven't answered the question of how you deal with the plethora of evidence of cheating by tons of players, coaches and teams over NFL history (and don't forget PED's either). How can you still watch the NFL given your stance that the degree of cheating doesn't matter as long as it's cheating?
     
    Irishman likes this.
  33. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I shared an article here a few years ago where SI went deep into the Pats cheating with firsthand accounts, etc. of what they actually did. And you're absolutely right- there's no way to say that they won "x" number of additional games because they cheated by doing "z". But we do know that they took things to a different level than other teams by having a set interrogation process, a lip reader in the booth, dumpster diving in other teams trash cans, bugging locker rooms and hotels, hacking into game radio feeds of opposing teams, etc.

    From what I understand, many teams bent the rules a little to try to gain an advantage, but they had no idea how far NE was going to gain info. Kraft and Belichek both apologized to the league when Goodell first took over and promised to stop doing that stuff. Their defense was "well, aren't you guys doing all of that too? we didn't realize we were the only ones."

    To me personally, I don't go for any type of cheating in sports because there's supposed to be honor among athletes and coaches. If you're willing to toss that aside, you're saying that winning is more important than honor and that tells me there's no reason I should respect you. So even though we can't say for certain that deflated footballs lowered their fumble rate or that illegal wiretapping team communications led to extra wins, I simply have zero respect for any coach who would do that.

    Maybe he is the greatest coach of all time- but I still consider him pond scum.
     
    Hiruma78 and resnor like this.
  34. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    First of all, you're throwing out evidence. Or, at best, claiming that certain evidence is not fit for discussion.

    Secondly, your response is that I shouldn't watch the NFL because teams/players have cheated, and not that we should ferret out and punish cheaters?

    The Patriots are cheaters. They definitely cheated more and differently than other teams. Their entire dynasty is suspect to me...no different than Jerry Rice now for me, who I no longer consider to be the GOAT at his position. Although I doubt Rice cares what I think.
     
  35. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Well.. you don't have to respect me, but I don't mind if athletes cheat as long as they win on a level playing field.

    For example, Lance Armstrong won 7 Tour de France titles and was subsequently stripped of the titles for doping. But as far as we know he won them in an era where essentially all riders doped (and btw many previous winners doped without getting their titles stripped). If he won on a level playing field then I personally don't mind that it was technically against the rules. But that's just me.
     
    Irishman and mooseguts like this.
  36. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Not throwing out evidence. Just saying there's no evidence it had a major impact on their dominance. I agree there's lots of evidence they tried to cheat but I can't yet link that to win%.
    I guess if most players/coaches cheated and we ferret them out, there's no league left. Are you in favor of disbanding the NFL because of all the admissions of cheating?
     
  37. mooseguts

    mooseguts Well-Known Member

    362
    368
    63
    Jan 12, 2018
    100% agree with this.
     
    Irishman and cbrad like this.
  38. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    That's just where we disagree. I don't consider it winning if someone cheats- I consider it an insult to everyone who didn't cheat and expected fair play. Maybe you're right about Armstrong BUT if anyone can name a single athlete in those races who didn't cheat, I would call that person the undisputed champion.

    Players who train their entire lives to experience just a few defining moments deserve fairness. Maybe you have to be an athlete to understand it though. How would you feel if you were fired for work because a colleague's results were much more impressive? Then you tell your boss, "But those results aren't real....he made half of them up." But you're fired anyway because the other guy is still superficially more impressive.
     
    Hiruma78 likes this.
  39. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Oh you'd have a league. You'd have a league without cheaters.

    You say there's no evidence it had a major effect. Yet, truly, you can't know that. What you know is that they've been dominant AND they've been cheating throughout that dominance. It's seems ridiculous to take a stance that argues the cheating had a minimal effect at best.
     
  40. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Right, but your example is a case where it's not a level playing field. So we'd agree there. Question is whether you actually agree with my view of "level playing field" being the requirement or not. On one hand you say you disagree, yet say I might be right about Armstrong.

    So which is it? Is "level playing field" sufficient or not?

    btw.. this explains why I care so much about the link to win%. The less influence the cheating had, the less I care because it's still mostly a level playing field.
     

Share This Page