Statistics that provide an idea of length and impact of Underinflategate?

[B&GinNC]

Excellent "Moneyball" style statistical analysis that finds the real advantage to the Patriots from underinflated footballs may not have been helping Brady's throws, but in turnover margins. Turns out the Cheats fumble a lot less than anybody else in the NFL - ever - and by such a significant margin that it is almost impossible statistically speaking... Unfortunately, I can't get the graphics to upload, but this is eye opening. If they can use forensics to convict criminals, they ought to be able to use statistics to hand down a multi - year Belichick suspension.


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/?p=2932


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:

2010-2014 Patriots: 187 plays/fumble
2009-2013 Patriots: 156 plays/fumble
2006-2010 Colts: 156 plays/fumble
2005-2009 Colts: 153 plays/fumble
2007-2011 Patriots: 149 plays/fumble
2008-2012 Patriots: 148 plays/fumble
2010-2014 Texans: 140 plays/fumble
2004-2008 Colts: 139 plays/fumble
2006-2010 Jets: 135 plays/fumble
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.

__________________________________________________ _____________

Warren Sharp of sharpfootballanalysis.com is an industry pioneer at the forefront of incorporating advanced analytics and metrics into football handicapping after spending years constructing, testing, betting and perfecting computer models written to beat NFL and college football totals. A licensed Professional Engineer by trade, Warren now works as a quantitative analyst for multiple professional sports betting syndicates in Las Vegas and has parlayed a long-term winning record into selections for clients which move the Vegas line and beat the closing number with regularity.
Posted in Uncategorized

[Shoe]

Awesome study if true.

[BowCatShot]

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

You're comparing the best team versus the average team. To say that the best is 70% better than the average doesn't say a lot. For example how does the second best fare when compared to the average?

[BradshawsHairdresser]

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

You're comparing the best team versus the average team. To say that the best is 70% better than the average doesn't say a lot. For example how does the second best fare when compared to the average?

By my reckoning, looking at the figures from 2010 to present, the **'s were 52% better than the next best outdoor team when it came to plays/fumble. And about 34% better than the best indoor team over the same period. The charts and graphs on the Sharp site make it quite clear--the **'s were off the chart in comparison.

To say it looks suspicious for the **'s is putting it mildly.

[Discipline of Steel]

This is big.....HUGE. I dont even want to hear how Goodell responds...hate the NFL...not watching the Super Bowl farce.

[bostonsteeler]

This is big.....HUGE. I dont even want to hear how Goodell responds...hate the NFL...not watching the Super Bowl farce.

The NFL is investigating. Investigations will be completed in late March. The weather will be found guilty. NE may lose a 7th round draft pick.

You really think Goodell is going to take any serious action against NE just before the SB?

[Djfan]

I read that Goodell and Kraft were fraternity brothers. That covers it for me. Nothing will happen and the game will wear the slime gladly.

Nothing is sacred.

[Mr.wizard]

So in a year where they did a good job of hanging on to the football we are supposed to believe they deflated the football in every game? That's absurd, I challenge anyone to hold 2 nfl regulation footballs and deflate 2 pounds of pressure out of one and really tell me if you can feel a difference? The difference is absolutely minuscule, its not like they are running around with a flat football out there. To deflate a football to the point it would help a ball carrier not fumble, you would need to remove a lot of air from it because ball carriers put pressure on the points of the ball, they are not holding it like a QB. Taking that much air out of the ball for that advantage would drastically effect a QB's passing down the field and I can assure you tom brady throws one the most beautiful deep balls in all of football.

[Slapstick]

In order to help a ball carrier not fumble, you'd need to remove about...2 psi...

Go watch the vid on ESPN with Mark Brunell and Jerome Bettis:

http://www.planetsteelers.com/forums/showthread.php/44116-Jerome-Bettis-and-Mark-Brunel-say-underinflated-footballs-are-HUGE-advantage-link

[bostonsteeler]

So in a year where they did a good job of hanging on to the football we are supposed to believe they deflated the football in every game? That's absurd, I challenge anyone to hold 2 nfl regulation footballs and deflate 2 pounds of pressure out of one and really tell me if you can feel a difference? The difference is absolutely minuscule, its not like they are running around with a flat football out there. To deflate a football to the point it would help a ball carrier not fumble, you would need to remove a lot of air from it because ball carriers put pressure on the points of the ball, they are not holding it like a QB. Taking that much air out of the ball for that advantage would drastically effect a QB's passing down the field and I can assure you tom brady throws one the most beautiful deep balls in all of football.

Yeah, its all humbug. The bus, all the QBs, everyone is lying, just to make the poor poor dears look bad. Its just an evil conspiracy, I tell you.

What's the difference between 11 PSI and 13 PSI? Or 9 PSI and 11 PSI for that matter. Or 7 PSI and 9 PSI for that matter. They could have been playing with squashed balloons and the Pats would have been the better team.

Heck, we should even allow them more concessions. THey're so good. For instance, it doesnt even matter how many players there are on the field. The pats wouldve played better. It would be just shameful to cmplain if they played with 14 players on the field. After all, they can squash the colts by 40 points with only 11, so why complain if they have more..

Rules are for crybabies and poor teams. For teams that are as goods as the Pats, we should just dispense with rules and regulations. Throw away the book. Its all nonsense.

[B&GinNC]

The way it was put, in layman's terms, is that the disparity was significant enough that there would be a less than one in 16,000 chance of it occurring by chance. In other words, statistically speaking it is almost impossible that the *'s are that much better than every other team in the history of the NFL over that period of time in terms of fumble prevention. Turnover margin is the single biggest predictor of victory in the NFL. If they cheated to cut their turnover rate, their entire "dynasty" is a sham, and the punishment should be severe - to include a multi year suspension for Belichick, loss of multiple first round picks, and loss cap space in the way that effectively crippled Washington and Dallas after they were found to have circumvented the cap, in my opinion. The competitive disadvantage going forward should be equivalent to the illegal gain secured in the past.

[B&GinNC]

It's a brave new world out there... statistics don't lie. Analysis of the games we watch is reaching another level. The best run organizations in every sport are using these next level stats, and that analysis gives strong indications of how long and what impact regarding the underinflated footballs.

[Mr.wizard]

It's a brave new world out there... statistics don't lie. Analysis of the games we watch is reaching another level. The best run organizations in every sport are using these next level stats, and that analysis gives strong indications of how long and what impact regarding the underinflated footballs.

I didn't say statistics lie, I just don't see any proof that on all those plays underinflated footballs where used. The analysis is extremely flawed, your assuming they used underinflated balls your assuming you know the level of under inflation, and your assuming that the level of impact the underinflation would have. Really the stats don't show anything except the patriots didn't fumble a lot this season, the rest is nothing more than speculation. In order to ever prove this you would need to test every teams footballs and use some kind of controlled experiment to determine the levels of affect an underinflated football has and to what degree it has to be underinflated to have that effect.

[Mr.wizard]

The way it was put, in layman's terms, is that the disparity was significant enough that there would be a less than one in 16,000 chance of it occurring by chance. In other words, statistically speaking it is almost impossible that the *'s are that much better than every other team in the history of the NFL over that period of time in terms of fumble prevention. Turnover margin is the single biggest predictor of victory in the NFL. If they cheated to cut their turnover rate, their entire "dynasty" is a sham, and the punishment should be severe - to include a multi year suspension for Belichick, loss of multiple first round picks, and loss cap space in the way that effectively crippled Washington and Dallas after they were found to have circumvented the cap, in my opinion. The competitive disadvantage going forward should be equivalent to the illegal gain secured in the past.


Again it shows nothing, all its shows is they fumbled less, The rest is complete speculation and assumption. I don't care if the probability is low, its sports, records are created records are broken, great improbable seasons are put together.

[Slapstick]

So, multiple improbable seasons are put together, consecutively, by a team already known to have cheated in the past? And who was largely responsible for a rule change making this type of cheating possible?

What's improbable is your defense of this team...

[B&GinNC]

Exactly. Not a game, not a season. A seven year run of statistically impossible turnover prevention, by a franchise that has always flouted the rules. Phil Simms, who has a long career of being a Belichick apologist and Brady jock sniffer due to his connections going back to his Giants days when Belichick was a Parcells assistant, has gone on record as saying that this is a big deal. To paraphrase LBJ, "If we've lost Simms, we've lost the country".

[BradshawsHairdresser]

Again it shows nothing, all its shows is they fumbled less, The rest is complete speculation and assumption. I don't care if the probability is low, its sports, records are created records are broken, great improbable seasons are put together.

Did you read the article? The probability is not just low, statistically it's IMPOSSIBLE for the **'s to have fumbled that much less over that time period UNLESS they introduced some kind of helpful measure(s) that the rest of the teams weren't taking. Now that doesn't PROVE that the measure(s) included underinflation, but if that's NOT the reason for the huge difference (or part of the reason), then what IS? No, those fumbling stats are not PROOF that they've cheated with inflation for years, but it's certainly suspicious, especially in light of everything else we know.

Deflated 2 pounds under regulation = significantly easier to hold onto the ball.

Interesting to see more of the **'s apologists come out of the woodwork on this board.

[Mr.wizard]

So, multiple improbable seasons are put together, consecutively, by a team already known to have cheated in the past? And who was largely responsible for a rule change making this type of cheating possible?

What's improbable is your defense of this team...

You think the reason they don't fumble is because of the psi levels in a football? Maybe its because of the personnel they use? Look at them now their skill position guys are all very good a securing the football, and when they are not belicheck has no problem replacing them, just look what happen to steven ridley he was a patriot running back who had a fumbling problem and he was replaced, how could that be possible if the patriots were using balls that helped them not fumble? Maybe the fact that the patriots go after guys like edlemans, amendolas, troy browns and dion branches because they are very good at holding on to the ball.

Lets look at the steelers compared to the pats we had 12 fumbles this year pats had 5. Five of our fumbles where by Roethlisberger and one was by wing our punter, so its not exactly like the patriots skill position guys are fumbling significantly less than ours. If you take out QB fumbles and our punter fumble we had 6 fumbles and the pats had 4, to me that's not that outrageous.

[Slapstick]

You think the reason they don't fumble is because of the psi levels in a football? Maybe its because of the personnel they use? Look at them now their skill position guys are all very good a securing the football, and when they are not belicheck has no problem replacing them, just look what happen to steven ridley he was a patriot running back who had a fumbling problem and he was replaced, how could that be possible if the patriots were using balls that helped them not fumble? Maybe the fact that the patriots go after guys like edlemans, amendolas, troy browns and dion branches because they are very good at holding on to the ball.

Lets look at the steelers compared to the pats we had 12 fumbles this year pats had 5. Five of our fumbles where by Roethlisberger and one was by wing our punter, so its not exactly like the patriots skill position guys are fumbling significantly less than ours. If you take out QB fumbles and our punter fumble we had 6 fumbles and the pats had 4, to me that's not that outrageous.

Okay. Yes. If you want to isolate the Pats** against one other single team in a single season, that is indeed a way to make things look differently...

But, if you compare the Pats** to the entire NFL over many, many seasons, you see what the statistics show you. If you don't want to see it, if you want to stick your head in the sand, that's your prerogative...

[Mr.wizard]

Did you read the article? The probability is not just low, statistically it's IMPOSSIBLE for the **'s to have fumbled that much less over that time period UNLESS they introduced some kind of helpful measure(s) that the rest of the teams weren't taking. Now that doesn't PROVE that the measure(s) included underinflation, but if that's NOT the reason for the huge difference (or part of the reason), then what IS? No, those fumbling stats are not PROOF that they've cheated with inflation for years, but it's certainly suspicious, especially in light of everything else we know.

Deflated 2 pounds under regulation = significantly easier to hold onto the ball.

Interesting to see more of the **'s apologists come out of the woodwork on this board.

If you actually go back and look at each season for the pats you will find they have 11 and 12 fumble seasons just like every other team but they also have 4 and 5 fumble seasons skewing the over all stat. So you have some seasons where their fumbles are in line and some where they were better at not fumbling, that is not suspicious at all to me nor does it seem that improbable, it is what I would expect to find from a well coached team who wins a lot.

Also just you know that its 2 pounds per square inch, not 2 pounds! An nfl football regulation is 12.5 to 13.5 psi that's the equivalent of 15 ounces if you deflate the ball by 2 psi, say to 10.5 psi that ball will now weigh about 14 3/4 ounces a difference of 1/4 ounce less, that's less than the weight of a dollar bill. Not a pats apologist just trying to look at it without patriot hate colored goggles on.

[Mr.wizard]

Okay. Yes. If you want to isolate the Pats** against one other single team in a single season, that is indeed a way to make things look differently...

But, if you compare the Pats** to the entire NFL over many, many seasons, you see what the statistics show you. If you don't want to see it, if you want to stick your head in the sand, that's your prerogative...

I didn't say I didn't see the statistics, I see them but they don't show me it was because of deflated footballs.

[Slapstick]

I didn't say I didn't see the statistics, I see them but they don't show me it was because of deflated footballs.

So, then you agree that they are cheating, but only in some other way?

Or is it yet another amazing statistical coincidence that their rate of fumbles dropped when teams began preparing and bringing their own footballs?

[Mr.wizard]

So, then you agree that they are cheating, but only in some other way?

Or is it yet another amazing statistical coincidence that their rate of fumbles dropped when teams began preparing and bringing their own footballs?

No, I agree they have fumbled less, that's all the stats show, again look season by season some years they fumbled less some years they didn't.

[Slapstick]

No, I agree they have fumbled less, that's all the stats show, again look season by season some years they fumbled less some years they didn't.

Yeah...they fumbled less...if only there were some way to explain that...

If only they had been caught with 11 of 12 footballs inflated below the limit specified in the rule book...

[Mr.wizard]

Yeah...they fumbled less...if only there were some way to explain that...

If only they had been caught with 11 of 12 footballs inflated below the limit specified in the rule book...

Lol as if the only explanation is cheating?

[Slapstick]

Lol as if the only explanation is cheating?

Give me a more logical one.

[Mr.wizard]

Give me a more logical one.

Coaching, personnel, drills, offensive efficiency, low sack totals, Qb who gets rid of the ball and doesn't take hits, all I think are more logical than some ball deflating conspiracy of 1/4 of an ounce that magically reduces fumbles but only in certain seasons.

[Slapstick]

Coaching, personnel, drills, offensive efficiency, low sack totals, Qb who gets rid of the ball and doesn't take hits, all I think are more logical than some ball deflating conspiracy of 1/4 of an ounce that magically reduces fumbles but only in certain seasons.

So, basically the things that every other NFL team does ...sure, that's logical...that explains the impossible statistical discrepancy...:rolleyes:

[Mr.wizard]

So, basically the things that every other NFL tries to do...sure, that's logical...that explains the impossible statistical discrepancy...:rolleyes

Oh ya I forgot every team has the coach same drills same personnel same QB

[Shoe]

I didn't say I didn't see the statistics, I see them but they don't show me it was because of deflated footballs.

Then you're not really undestanding what the statistics analysis is saying. The probability is telling.

They once had an actuary perform a probability of witnesses in the JFK assassination, dying under certain circumstances. (I don't remember the particulars involved much beyond that.) The study concluded that the probability of such an event happening was in the trillions, IIRC. It means to say that the event in question could not have happened. In thise case, when you are even talking thousands-to-1, it just can't happen.

You're arguing the point in terms of whether it could happen or not. And BTW, don't say that the underpressure in question, makes no difference.

[Slapstick]

Oh ya I forgot every team has the coach same drills same personnel same QB

It's a copycat league, right?

[Mr.wizard]

Then you're not really undestanding what the statistics analysis is saying. The probability is telling.

They once had an actuary perform a probability of witnesses in the JFK assassination, dying under certain circumstances. (I don't remember the particulars involved much beyond that.) The study concluded that the probability of such an event happening was in the trillions, IIRC. It means to say that the event in question could not have happened. In thise case, when you are even talking thousands-to-1, it just can't happen.

You're arguing the point in terms of whether it could happen or not. And BTW, don't say that the underpressure in question, makes no difference.

No there not telling your telling me you know for a fact that they deflated the football a 1/4 of an ounce and that is stats it produced? You looked at those stats and you can say that for a fact?

[Mr.wizard]

No there not telling your telling me you know for a fact that they deflated the football a 1/4 of an ounce and that is stats it produced? You looked at those stats and you can say that for a fact?

The problem with the analysis is your making the huge leap from patriots don't fumble a lot to they are cheating without any evidence. What about the seasons where they fumbled as much as the other teams, what about the guys belicheck benched for fumbling problems? The analysis does not show anything about deflated footballs nor does it know if other teams would used the same technique without checking the balls of every team during every game to know if deflating a football to those specifications would cause such a result.

[Mr.wizard]

No there not telling your telling me you know for a fact that they deflated the football a 1/4 of an ounce and that is stats it produced? You looked at those stats and you can say that for a fact?

The problem with the analysis is your making the huge leap from patriots don't fumble a lot to they are cheating without any evidence. What about the seasons where they fumbled as much as the other teams, what about the guys belicheck benched for fumbling problems? The analysis does not show anything about deflated footballs nor does it know if other teams would used the same technique without checking the balls of every team during every game to know if deflating a football to those specifications would cause such a result.

[hawaiiansteel]

The problem with the analysis is your making the huge leap from patriots don't fumble a lot to they are cheating without any evidence. What about the seasons where they fumbled as much as the other teams, what about the guys belicheck benched for fumbling problems? The analysis does not show anything about deflated footballs nor does it know if other teams would used the same technique without checking the balls of every team during every game to know if deflating a football to those specifications would cause such a result.

are you arguing with yourself?

[BradshawsHairdresser]

If you actually go back and look at each season for the pats you will find they have 11 and 12 fumble seasons just like every other team but they also have 4 and 5 fumble seasons skewing the over all stat. So you have some seasons where their fumbles are in line and some where they were better at not fumbling, that is not suspicious at all to me nor does it seem that improbable, it is what I would expect to find from a well coached team who wins a lot.

Also just you know that its 2 pounds per square inch, not 2 pounds! An nfl football regulation is 12.5 to 13.5 psi that's the equivalent of 15 ounces if you deflate the ball by 2 psi, say to 10.5 psi that ball will now weigh about 14 3/4 ounces a difference of 1/4 ounce less, that's less than the weight of a dollar bill. Not a pats apologist just trying to look at it without patriot hate colored goggles on.

Over the time period in the study, the **'s have significantly fewer fumbles than other teams...but most notably, WAY fewer fumbles than other cold-weather outdoor teams. It's not just that the **'s do better, or even considerably better, but rather it's ridiculously better. As the study points out, looking at the aggregate data, there's no way to explain this statistically.

Do an experiment. Take two nfl regulation footballs, inflate one to 12.5 psi and the second to 10.5 psi. You will probably not find any noticeable difference in casual handling, tossing, etc.. But when you go to really GRIP them--as a QB might when he's throwing, as a RB might when he's trying to hold on to the ball--that's when you're going to notice the difference. If you want to really make things interesting, get both balls wet, and see which is easier to grip hold of. I did this, and there was a remarkable difference apparent to me.

But, hey, I understand...it's probably easier to keep wearing your **s -loving goggles.

[Mr.wizard]

Over the time period in the study, the **'s have significantly fewer fumbles than other teams...but most notably, WAY fewer fumbles than other cold-weather outdoor teams. It's not just that the **'s do better, or even considerably better, but rather it's ridiculously better. As the study points out, looking at the aggregate data, there's no way to explain this statistically.

Do an experiment. Take two nfl regulation footballs, inflate one to 12.5 psi and the second to 10.5 psi. You will probably not find any noticeable difference in casual handling, tossing, etc.. But when you go to really GRIP them--as a QB might when he's throwing, as a RB might when he's trying to hold on to the ball--that's when you're going to notice the difference. If you want to really make things interesting, get both balls wet, and see which is easier to grip hold of. I did this, and there was a remarkable difference apparent to me.

But, hey, I understand...it's probably easier to keep wearing your **s -loving goggles.

Sorry but 2 pounds of psi is significant? That's bs, especially in a 15 ounce football it be like comparing holding 2 sheets and 3 sheets of paper. Joe theisman actually just did the experiment at a redskins charity event and he didn't notice a difference. He said to even notice an negligible difference he really had to dig in the ball, and even after digging in and knowing the ball was deflated he still couldn't really feel a difference.

[Slapstick]

Sorry but 2 pounds of psi is significant? That's bs, especially in a 15 ounce football it be like comparing holding 2 sheets and 3 sheets of paper. Joe theisman actually just did the experiment at a redskins charity event and he didn't notice a difference. He said to even notice an negligible difference he really had to dig in the ball.

Okay, Mr. wizard, (which is very ironic...considering you are named after a scientist who, you know, actually pays attention to data instead of ignoring it...) you can listen to Joe Theisman's alleged charity event while I will go back to Brunell and Bettis going on record and saying what a tremendous advantage it is...

Keep convincing yourself, though...

[Mr.wizard]

Okay, Mr. wizard, (which is very ironic...considering you are named after a scientist who, you know, actually pays attention to data instead of ignoring it...) you can listen to Joe Theisman's alleged charity event while I will go back to Brunell and Bettis going on record and saying what a tremendous advantage it is...

Keep convincing yourself, though...

except Brunell and bettis make no comment about psi they just said they think theres an advantage to an underinflated football, which there is but not at that psi. theisman actually used the football deflated to those specification and compared to a regulation ball.

[Slapstick]

except Brunell and bettis make no comment about psi they just said they think theres an advantage to an underinflated football, which there is but not at that psi. theisman actually used the football deflated to those specification and compared to a regulation ball.

http://www.planetsteelers.com/forums/showthread.php/44116-Jerome-Bettis-and-Mark-Brunel-say-underinflated-footballs-are-HUGE-advantage-link

Watch the video and pay attention...they are presented with two footballs: one inflated to regulation and one inflated to the level found by the officials when inspecting the Pats** footballs during the AFCC. This is explicitly stated...

You're like the cigarette companies when confronted with the reality that cigarettes cause lung cancer..."You have all these statistics and evidence, but you can't prove that our product causes lung cancer"...

[Discipline of Steel]

are you arguing with yourself?

That was amusing.....thanks HS!

[BradshawsHairdresser]

Sorry but 2 pounds of psi is significant? That's bs, especially in a 15 ounce football it be like comparing holding 2 sheets and 3 sheets of paper. Joe theisman actually just did the experiment at a redskins charity event and he didn't notice a difference. He said to even notice an negligible difference he really had to dig in the ball, and even after digging in and knowing the ball was deflated he still couldn't really feel a difference.

Not BS, only in your world. Theisman is an exception. Everyone from Bob Lee to Troy Aikman to Mark Brunell is saying there's a significant difference with a ball underinflated by 2 pounds psi. Why would the NFL have the regulation in place if it made no difference?

Again, do the experiment. If you don't have footballs, take a basketball that's properly inflated. Grab it, palm it, bounce it. Then let a couple pounds psi out of it. Again, grab it, palm it, bounce it...see if you notice a difference. If you're honest, I think you will.

[MCHammer]

The Colts noticed a difference or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Mr.wizard]

http://www.planetsteelers.com/forums/showthread.php/44116-Jerome-Bettis-and-Mark-Brunel-say-underinflated-footballs-are-HUGE-advantage-link

Watch the video and pay attention...they are presented with two footballs: one inflated to regulation and one inflated to the level found by the officials when inspecting the Pats** footballs during the AFCC. This is explicitly stated...

You're like the cigarette companies when confronted with the reality that cigarettes cause lung cancer..."You have all these statistics and evidence, but you can't prove that our product causes lung cancer"...

I had not seen that video so I stand corrected on them not talking psi. As far the difference a 1/4 of an ounce of air pressure makes in a ball they didn't show me much. It is still is very little difference in air pressure and I doubt if you didn't tell those guys the ball was under inflated they would even be able to tell. If it was such a big difference then anyone who handles a football for a living would be able to tell if there was a significant difference.

[MCHammer]

And yet the NFL has a rule on PSI that the Patriots failed to comply with for some reason. Multiple NFL players, including HOF players, have disagreed with you, the Colts noticed the underinflated ball issue. Apparently the Ravens did also. The NFL is investigating.

Your continued schtick of using the "1/4 of an ounce" phrasing is tired and speaks volumes of your motive to minimize and obfuscate the issue. It's also not fooling anyone. The balls were 2 pounds per square in underinflated. 11 of them.

[Mr.wizard]

Not BS, only in your world. Theisman is an exception. Everyone from Bob Lee to Troy Aikman to Mark Brunell is saying there's a significant difference with a ball underinflated by 2 pounds psi. Why would the NFL have the regulation in place if it made no difference?

Again, do the experiment. If you don't have footballs, take a basketball that's properly inflated. Grab it, palm it, bounce it. Then let a couple pounds psi out of it. Again, grab it, palm it, bounce it...see if you notice a difference. If you're honest, I think you will.

http://www.wcsh6.com/story/news/local/2015/01/22/deflategate-patriots-football-pressure-inflated/22174475/

I don't need to go in my back yard and do an experiment people are already doing them. Basketball experiment wont be the same as its a much bigger ball and starts at a lower psi of about 8, so letting a couple pounds of pressure out of a bigger ball that already starts at 8 psi would obviously have a greater effect.

[Mr.wizard]

And yet the NFL has a rule on PSI that the Patriots failed to comply with for some reason. Multiple NFL players, including HOF players, have disagreed with you, the Colts noticed the underinflated ball issue. Apparently the Ravens did also. The NFL is investigating.

Your continued schtick of using the "1/4 of an ounce" phrasing is tired and speaks volumes of your motive to minimize and obfuscate the issue. It's also not fooling anyone. The balls were 2 pounds per square in underinflated. 11 of them.

What are you talking about 2 psi out of a 15 ounce ball is 1/4 of an ounce, its not an attempt to minimize anything it just is what it is. Maybe you should look into how air pressure is measured.

[BradshawsHairdresser]

http://www.wcsh6.com/story/news/loca...ated/22174475/ (http://www.wcsh6.com/story/news/local/2015/01/22/deflategate-patriots-football-pressure-inflated/22174475/)

Doesn't explain why only the **'s balls, and not the Colts' balls, lost air in the first half, and why neither team's balls lost air in the second half, when it turned colder.


I don't need to go in my back yard and do an experiment people are already doing them.
I expected this kind of response from you. Fine. At this point, I doubt whether you'd be honest about what you found anyway.

[BradshawsHairdresser]

Here's a repost of an article Fordfixer put in another thread:

Report: Patriots' footballs altered by humans, not weather






http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/...ansUSAsports11 (http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/report-patriots-footballs-altered-by-humans-not-weather/ar-AA8vHnJ?ocid=ansUSAsports11)

A report from SI's Peter King indicates that the weather couldn't have been the cause of the under-inflation of the Patriots' footballs. 

By Larry Brown

The NFL has conclusive evidence that the under-inflated footballs used by the New England Patriots in the AFC Championship Game were altered by people, eliminating some of the theories presented by those giving the Pats the benefit of the doubt, according to a report.

Monday Morning Quarterback’s Peter King reports that all 12 of the Patriots’ and all 12 of the Colts’ footballs left the officials’ locker room before the game at the proper level of inflation. He says when the balls were re-checked by officials at halftime, 11 OR 12 of the Patriots’ balls were under-inflated by two pounds per square inch, while the Colts’ balls remained the same level of pressure. The Patriots had to re-inflate their balls to normal levels for the second half, and when the balls were checked at the end of the game, all 24 were of proper inflation.

This new information presented by King leads to some important conclusions.

If King’s reporting is accurate, it tells us that the Colts’ balls maintained the same amount of inflation throughout the entire game. That eliminates the theory some had that the cold weather decreased the pressure in the footballs. And if King’s report that possibly all 12 of the Pats’ footballs tested at halftime were too low, compared to Chris Mortensen’s report that 11 of 12 were under-inflated, that wipes out another theory.

Larry Brown Sports writer Steve DelVecchio wondered if the officials were just lazy pregame and only checked one of the Patriots’ footballs pregame. His theory was that the Patriots properly inflated one ball, had it pass inspection, and the referees didn’t bother to check the other 11, which would put the error on the refs for allowing the Pats to sneak one past them. This theory appears to be incorrect because King says all the balls were of proper inflation before the game and that possibly all of the Pats’ balls were under-inflated at halftime.

What’s the conclusion? Probably some sort of equipment manager or staff member deflated the balls after they were checked or swapped balls with ones they secretly deflated to fit Tom Brady’s liking. That means Brady was cheating, with or without Bill Belichick’s knowledge (likely with, though the whole thing is more of a Brady deal).

You know what the incredible part of this whole controversy is? The Patriots outscored the Colts 28-0 in the second half of the game with the properly inflated footballs anyhow. But I think we’ve learned over time that the Pats want every advantage possible even if it means breaking the rules.

Suspending Belichick for the Super Bowl as some have suggested would be too harsh of a penalty, especially when you consider the team they’re facing in the big game has had a serious repeat-offender problem when it comes to PEDs.

[Mr.wizard]

Doesn't explain why only the **'s balls, and not the Colts' balls, lost air in the first half, and why neither team's balls lost air in the second half, when it turned colder.


I expected this kind of response from you. You search the web and in the media to find the voices that tell you what you want to hear, but you're afraid to check the matter out for yourself. Fine. At this point, I doubt whether you'd be honest about what you found anyway.

So you would rather take my word on it, rather than a physics professor actually showing you the experiment? Do you think the laws of physics are different in my back yard? The fact is 2 psi out of a football is not going to be different depending on who is doing the experiment.

[Mr.wizard]

Here's a repost of an article Fordfixer put in another thread:

Report: Patriots' footballs altered by humans, not weather






http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/...ansUSAsports11 (http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/report-patriots-footballs-altered-by-humans-not-weather/ar-AA8vHnJ?ocid=ansUSAsports11)

A report from SI's Peter King indicates that the weather couldn't have been the cause of the under-inflation of the Patriots' footballs. 

By Larry Brown

The NFL has conclusive evidence that the under-inflated footballs used by the New England Patriots in the AFC Championship Game were altered by people, eliminating some of the theories presented by those giving the Pats the benefit of the doubt, according to a report.

Monday Morning Quarterback’s Peter King reports that all 12 of the Patriots’ and all 12 of the Colts’ footballs left the officials’ locker room before the game at the proper level of inflation. He says when the balls were re-checked by officials at halftime, 11 OR 12 of the Patriots’ balls were under-inflated by two pounds per square inch, while the Colts’ balls remained the same level of pressure. The Patriots had to re-inflate their balls to normal levels for the second half, and when the balls were checked at the end of the game, all 24 were of proper inflation.

This new information presented by King leads to some important conclusions.

If King’s reporting is accurate, it tells us that the Colts’ balls maintained the same amount of inflation throughout the entire game. That eliminates the theory some had that the cold weather decreased the pressure in the footballs. And if King’s report that possibly all 12 of the Pats’ footballs tested at halftime were too low, compared to Chris Mortensen’s report that 11 of 12 were under-inflated, that wipes out another theory.

Larry Brown Sports writer Steve DelVecchio wondered if the officials were just lazy pregame and only checked one of the Patriots’ footballs pregame. His theory was that the Patriots properly inflated one ball, had it pass inspection, and the referees didn’t bother to check the other 11, which would put the error on the refs for allowing the Pats to sneak one past them. This theory appears to be incorrect because King says all the balls were of proper inflation before the game and that possibly all of the Pats’ balls were under-inflated at halftime.

What’s the conclusion? Probably some sort of equipment manager or staff member deflated the balls after they were checked or swapped balls with ones they secretly deflated to fit Tom Brady’s liking. That means Brady was cheating, with or without Bill Belichick’s knowledge (likely with, though the whole thing is more of a Brady deal).

You know what the incredible part of this whole controversy is? The Patriots outscored the Colts 28-0 in the second half of the game with the properly inflated footballs anyhow. But I think we’ve learned over time that the Pats want every advantage possible even if it means breaking the rules.

Suspending Belichick for the Super Bowl as some have suggested would be too harsh of a penalty, especially when you consider the team they’re facing in the big game has had a serious repeat-offender problem when it comes to PEDs.

im not questioning whether the balls were deflated or whether the patriots did it, Im questioning the advantage it creates. Frankly I don't care whether they use a ball at 10-13 psi because it doesn't create an advantage, the effects on the ball are miniscule.

[BradshawsHairdresser]

So you would rather take my word on it, rather than a physics professor actually showing you the experiment? Do you think the laws of physics are different in my back yard? The fact is 2 psi out of a football is not going to be different depending on who is doing the experiment.

I'd rather check it out for myself. And when I checked it out for myself, what I found was that a ball deflated 2 psi seemed to be easier to grip.

If it makes no difference then why doesn't the NFL have their inflation standard ranging from 10.5 psi to 13.5 psi, rather than from 12.5 to 13.5? Heck, why not go to 9.5--would it be very noticeable compared to 10.5?

The fact is, the NFL has a standard. The fact is, somehow, the **'s balls got deflated BELOW that standard, sometime AFTER the refs' pre-game check. The fact is, Tom Brady has stated that he wants his footballs at the lower end of regulation, at 12.5 psi--now if he didn't think there was an advantage to having them with a little less air, why would he say that? Why not 13.5 psi? I mean, you don't believe there's a noticeable difference between 13.5 and 12.5, do you?

The professor wasn't playing QB in the game in question...Tom Brady was. And if Tom believes that a slightly deflated ball is an advantage, it really doesn't matter what the professor or anyone else says about it.

[Mr.wizard]

I'd rather check it out for myself. And when I checked it out for myself, what I found was that a ball deflated 2 psi seemed to be easier to grip.

If it makes no difference then why doesn't the NFL have their inflation standard ranging from 10.5 psi to 13.5 psi, rather than from 12.5 to 13.5? Heck, why not go to 9.5--would it be very noticeable compared to 10.5?

The fact is, the NFL has a standard. The fact is, somehow, the **'s balls got deflated BELOW that standard, sometime AFTER the refs' pre-game check. The fact is, Tom Brady has stated that he wants his footballs at the lower end of regulation, at 12.5 psi--now if he didn't think there was an advantage to having them with a little less air, why would he say that? Why not 13.5 psi? I mean, you don't believe there's a noticeable difference between 13.5 and 12.5, do you?

The professor wasn't playing QB in the game in question...Tom Brady was. And if Tom believes that a slightly deflated ball is an advantage, it really doesn't matter what the professor or anyone else says about it.

Why would Rodgers like the ball at maximum inflation if there is such a huge advantage at 11.5 or 10.5? Its nothing more than a preference the ball will not do anything different with that little difference in pressure. A qb might like the grip he gets at 12.8 psi and another might like it at 13.3psi how do you determine the advantage? Its not something that is going to drastically change a game as ball psi changes throughout the game. If it was a real advantage then in really cold weather games where we know the balls lose psi we should see significantly less fumbling and much better passing, but instead we get the opposite.

[Mr.wizard]

I'd rather check it out for myself. And when I checked it out for myself, what I found was that a ball deflated 2 psi seemed to be easier to grip.

If it makes no difference then why doesn't the NFL have their inflation standard ranging from 10.5 psi to 13.5 psi, rather than from 12.5 to 13.5? Heck, why not go to 9.5--would it be very noticeable compared to 10.5?

The fact is, the NFL has a standard. The fact is, somehow, the **'s balls got deflated BELOW that standard, sometime AFTER the refs' pre-game check. The fact is, Tom Brady has stated that he wants his footballs at the lower end of regulation, at 12.5 psi--now if he didn't think there was an advantage to having them with a little less air, why would he say that? Why not 13.5 psi? I mean, you don't believe there's a noticeable difference between 13.5 and 12.5, do you?

The professor wasn't playing QB in the game in question...Tom Brady was. And if Tom believes that a slightly deflated ball is an advantage, it really doesn't matter what the professor or anyone else says about it.

If they took the air out of the ball and broke the rule then they should be punished, im not saying they shouldn't be. I am not going to buy into that deflating the football has given the pats an advantage and that's why they have been so good for so long. I just think people are blowing this way out of proportion as far as how it effects the game. The rule book designates a 25000 dollar fine for an underinflated football, I doubt if it was such an egregious offense and such a threat to the integrity of the game the fine would be so small.

[Shawn]

I wonder if it's possible that the Pats didn't deflate the balls at all. But, that they had experimented with filling balls with heated air.

[lord_of_six_rings]

What we have now w/ billicheat is classic bullying behavior and signals something important. He (Pats organization) has secured the ball boys / equip mgn, whoever was responsible silence. The possible leak is sealed. Therefore, he can go out and give some physics lesson that doesn't even make sense. He can bully lazy reporters and provide push back for pats fans / reputation. Because he knows there are no "blue dress" or "spy tapes" out there. Now, its checkmate. Our word vs already stained nfl discipline / front office.
The problem I had is IF THE KING REPORTING IS ACCURATE, none of billicheat physics makes sense.
Huh, 11/ 12 ...why not all?
Pats balls effected but not colts or K balls?
The weather does the change up till half time, but not at end of game (balls stay the same)?
Speaking of weather, shouldn't the change be more dramatic at the end of game when it was colder?
Also, even bill little science can't compensate or explain the (reported) uniformity and 2lbs.?
Ok bill, marsha loves that "gronk spike which really lightens that ball....at half it was 17-7 and I think he spiked 1 or 2 of those 12 balls! How did rest lighten by the same amount?
Then, there is the statistics linked here yesterday http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-prevention-of-fumbles-is-nearly-impossible

People, we have here is a man who, we know thinks and acts like he is the smartest man in the room. He is pushing that persona and adding his "science" w/ his despise of reporters, to say screw you lazy incompetent media and all your hype....I did your work for you. Now, you know I am smarter...start repenting so I don't embarrass you anymore.

However, if the report (king) is true- there should be huge push back. I won't be bullied by this past cheater and I gave him the benefit of the doubt Tuesday. It was tom barry bonds brady - at least a season suspension.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/report-patriots-footballs-altered-by-humans-not-weather/ar-AA8vHnJ?ocid=ansUSAsports11

[MCHammer]

I wonder if it's possible that the Pats didn't deflate the balls at all. But, that they had experimented with filling balls with heated air.

I saw this trotted out several days ago somewhere else. First, that's not their story. Second, I don't see how that is not still cheating. I must be old fashioned because I don't see the difference between physically deflating balls after the balls are checked and filling them with warm air in order to trick the ref, knowing they will naturally deflate.

The point of the rule is to keep the balls from being underinflated. If the Pats deliberately took measures to make this happen, what difference should it make that a ball passed a pre-game check?

[MCHammer]

What are you talking about 2 psi out of a 15 ounce ball is 1/4 of an ounce, its not an attempt to minimize anything it just is what it is. Maybe you should look into how air pressure is measured.

You argue like a politician, playing with the numbers, in order to obfuscate the truth.

The other thing you are doing is plagiarizing a local news station in Massachusetts:

http://www.planetsteelers.com/forums/showthread.php/44130-Statistics-that-provide-an-idea-of-length-and-impact-of-Underinflategate/page4?highlight=Mr.+wizard


Sorry but 2 pounds of psi is significant? That's bs, especially in a 15 ounce football it be like comparing holding 2 sheets and 3 sheets of paper.

http://wwlp.com/2015/01/22/what-difference-do-under-inflated-footballs-really-make/

"A standard NFL football has between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds per square inch of pressure; that’s equivalent to 15 ounces. When we deflate the ball by 2 PSI, at 10.5 pounds of pressure per square inch, the football weighed 14 and 3/4 ounces, just a quarter ounce less. That’s like being able to feel the difference between holding 2 and 3 sheets of paper in your hand."

Keep up the solid work, Pats fan.

[Slapstick]

It's not the "thickness" of the ball, nor the weight...reducing the pressure by 2 psi dramatically increases the plasticity of the ball, making it easier for QBs and RBs to grip...

Aaron Rodgers likes his footballs inflated to the max...awesome. Perhaps he has larger hands and a stronger grip than Brady...in any case, it isn't important because ​what he prefers does not break the rules.

[Shawn]

I saw this trotted out several days ago somewhere else. First, that's not their story. Second, I don't see how that is not still cheating. I must be old fashioned because I don't see the difference between physically deflating balls after the balls are checked and filling them with warm air in order to trick the ref, knowing they will naturally deflate.

The point of the rule is to keep the balls from being underinflated. If the Pats deliberately took measures to make this happen, what difference should it make that a ball passed a pre-game check?

I don't disagree...just trying to give explanation especially if no one seen the air being removed. I have to assume after the refs checked...that the balls were kept on the sideline. If someone was letting air out of balls on the sideline I would assume there would be a witness.

[Mr.wizard]

You argue like a politician, playing with the numbers, in order to obfuscate the truth.

The other thing you are doing is plagiarizing a local news station in Massachusetts:

http://www.planetsteelers.com/forums/showthread.php/44130-Statistics-that-provide-an-idea-of-length-and-impact-of-Underinflategate/page4?highlight=Mr.+wizard



http://wwlp.com/2015/01/22/what-difference-do-under-inflated-footballs-really-make/

"A standard NFL football has between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds per square inch of pressure; that’s equivalent to 15 ounces. When we deflate the ball by 2 PSI, at 10.5 pounds of pressure per square inch, the football weighed 14 and 3/4 ounces, just a quarter ounce less. That’s like being able to feel the difference between holding 2 and 3 sheets of paper in your hand."

Keep up the solid work, Pats fan.

So, I got information from somewhere on exactly how much 2 psi was in relation to a football and what the exact impact would look like. That's called getting the facts, are you really trying to make a call out for plagiarism, oh my goodness pal get a life. Espn sports science said the same thing that its the weight of less than a dollar bill, I repeated that and didn't source it, who gives a flying ****, this a blog not English class. Im pretty sure every has an understanding that Im getting my info and not actually measuring psi and weighing footballs in my living room.

[Mr.wizard]

It's not the "thickness" of the ball, nor the weight...reducing the pressure by 2 psi dramatically increases the plasticity of the ball, making it easier for QBs and RBs to grip...

Aaron Rodgers likes his footballs inflated to the max...awesome. Perhaps he has larger hands and a stronger grip than Brady...in any case, it isn't important because ​what he prefers does not break the rules.

My stance has never been its not against the rules, my point has always been it doesn't create an advantage, because if one guy gets a better grip within the legal limit and one guy does not there is no advantage because they are both getting the preferred grip. It does not drastically increase the plasticity of the ball the only way you can tell and believe me you have to be looking for it, is by really digging your fingers into it.

[Slapstick]

My stance has never been its not against the rules, my point has always been it doesn't create an advantage, because if one guy gets a better grip within the legal limit and one guy does not there is no advantage because they are both getting the preferred grip. It does not drastically increase the plasticity of the ball the only way you can tell and believe me you have to be looking for it, is by really digging your fingers into it.

Look up the word "fallacy", because that is what you are posting here. It does dramatically increase the plasticity of the ball...who would really grip or "dig their fingers" into a football? QBs. RBs. WRs.

[MCHammer]

So, I got information from somewhere on exactly how much 2 psi was in relation to a football and what the exact impact would look like. That's called getting the facts, are you really trying to make a call out for plagiarism, oh my goodness pal get a life. Espn sports science said the same thing that its the weight of less than a dollar bill, I repeated that and didn't source it, who gives a flying ****, this a blog not English class. Im pretty sure every has an understanding that Im getting my info and not actually measuring psi and weighing footballs in my living room.

You didn't source it because it is a local Massachusetts news report you wanted to conceal your Patriots homerism. Conceal, deflect, obfuscate, deny...must be something in the water up there.

[Mr.wizard]

You didn't source it because it is a local Massachusetts news report you wanted to conceal your Patriots homerism. Conceal, deflect, obfuscate, deny...must be something in the water up there.

What! never even been to Massachusetts don't know anything about it, I also told you espn sports science did the same thing. The fact is 2 PSI in a 15 ounce football is a 1/4 of an ounce no matter who reports it, its called science. Your just mad because you clearly didn't understand how psi works and now your off on some plagiarism tangent to try and deflect.

[Mr.wizard]

Look up the word "fallacy", because that is what you are posting here. It does dramatically increase the plasticity of the ball...who would really grip or "dig their fingers" into a football? QBs. RBs. WRs.

Oh really smart guy which of the logical fallacies am I using here? It doesn't drastically change the plasticity of the ball the only way you would really notice is if someone already told you the ball was slightly deflated.

[bostonsteeler]

So, I got information from somewhere on exactly how much 2 psi was in relation to a football and what the exact impact would look like. That's called getting the facts, are you really trying to make a call out for plagiarism, oh my goodness pal get a life. Espn sports science said the same thing that its the weight of less than a dollar bill, I repeated that and didn't source it, who gives a flying ****, this a blog not English class. Im pretty sure every has an understanding that Im getting my info and not actually measuring psi and weighing footballs in my living room.

Dude

The total weight of the air in you car tires is a few grams. I suggest you try driving around with deflated tires; after all its only a few grams.

You clearly don't know the difference between pressure and weight. Stop arguing, you sound illiterate.

[Mr.wizard]

Dude

The total weight of the air in you car tires is a few grams. I suggest you try driving around with deflated tires; after all its only a few grams.

You clearly don't know the difference between pressure and weight. Stop arguing, you sound illiterate.

Im sorry but what! explain where im being illiterate? 2psi out of a 15 ounce ball drops the weight 1/4 of an ounce please explain how that's wrong and how driving on deflated tires shows that is wrong? If you want to use grams go right ahead but it doesn't change anything.

[Slapstick]

Im sorry but what! explain where im being illiterate? 2psi out of a 15 ounce ball drops the weight 1/4 of an ounce please explain how that's wrong and how driving on deflated tires shows that is wrong? If you want to use grams go right ahead but it doesn't change anything.

Correct. The deflated footballs provide a tremendous advantage. Nothing you have said changes that.

[Mr.wizard]

[QUOTE=Slapstick;636581]Correct. The deflated footballs provide a tremendous advantage. Nothing you have said changes that.[/QUOTE

Prove it

[Mr.wizard]

Correct. The deflated footballs provide a tremendous advantage. Nothing you have said changes that.

Prove it, show your work please.

[Slapstick]

Prove it, show your work please.

You can reference the work of various sources cited all over this message board, provided that you actually pay attention to them.

[Mr.wizard]

You can reference the work of various sources cited all over this message board, provided that you actually pay attention to them.

Nobody on here has shown anything that says deflating a ball 2psi gives the person using it a distinct advantage, and please tell me how someone would quantify such an advantage?

[SteelCrazy]

2 psi less than average would result in less fumbles because the ball would have more grip (also easier to throw and catch), less bounce (which could explain why when helmets and fists of the opponents pound the ball the carrier still holds on to it, easier to throw and catch), and Mark Brunell said so........

[SteelCrazy]

I predict the Patriots will fumble the ball at least twice in the SB because the psi will be accurate and the carriers are not used to that....

[MCHammer]

Why even waste time with this clown? His position is that the Patriots deflated the balls, but there is no advantage to it so it doesn't matter. I guess the Pats cheat just for the thrill of it. Ludicrous.

[BradshawsHairdresser]

Nobody on here has shown anything that says deflating a ball 2psi gives the person using it a distinct advantage, and please tell me how someone would quantify such an advantage?

You go on and on about the slight difference in weight--that's not the pertinent factor. It's about the grip on the ball. You asked for proof. I challenged you to do a test and see for yourself (which you will not do). Many of us who have done such a test have found that a slightly deflated ball is easier to grip. If it doesn't matter to Tom Brady, why does he he make sure the ball isn't inflated to the upper end of regulation (13.5 psi)?

As far as "quantifying the advantage," how do you quantify the advantage gained by the illegal use of PEDs? Would you say that they shouldn't be banned, and their use shouldn't be punished, because you can't quantify the advantage gained by using them? Horsecrap.

As long as you keep your eyes closed and your ears plugged and your hands in your pockets, it doesn't matter how much evidence is set before you.

[BradshawsHairdresser]

2 psi less than average would result in less fumbles because the ball would have more grip (also easier to throw and catch), less bounce (which could explain why when helmets and fists of the opponents pound the ball the carrier still holds on to it, easier to throw and catch), and Mark Brunell said so........

Checking their track records, I find Mark Brunell to be a bit more credible than Shady Brady...

[Mr.wizard]

You go on and on about the slight difference in weight--that's not the pertinent factor. It's about the grip on the ball. You asked for proof. I challenged you to do a test and see for yourself (which you will not do). Many of us who have done such a test have found that a slightly deflated ball is easier to grip. If it doesn't matter to Tom Brady, why does he he make sure the ball isn't inflated to the upper end of regulation (13.5 psi)?

As far as "quantifying the advantage," how do you quantify the advantage gained by the illegal use of PEDs? Would you say that they shouldn't be banned, and their use shouldn't be punished, because you can't quantify the advantage gained by using them? Horsecrap.

As long as you keep your eyes closed and your ears plugged and your hands in your pockets, it doesn't matter how much evidence is set before you.

What evidence? What evidence have you provided? Uh PED's? You could Quantify PED advantage because you could compare a players increase in size and strength before and after use. With a football and air pressure you have no idea, does it reduce fumbles a that pressure? How do you know? How many balls have been tested against balls at 12.5? how many fumbles does it prevent? I can look at at a guy on PED's who used to bench 270lbs but now benches 350lbs, I can look at a guy who is a 10 homerun a year guy, start hitting 35 homeruns a year.

[Slapstick]

How many fumbles does it prevent? Did you not read the article?

No, of course not...:rolleyes:

[Mr.wizard]

How many fumbles does it prevent? Did you not read the article?

No, of course not...:rolleyes:

The article says nothing about psi nor could it possibly know the psi of every ball the patriots have used over that amount of time, to suggest that those stats prove that is insane.

[BradshawsHairdresser]

What evidence? What evidence have you provided?
Like I said, eyes closed, ears plugged, hands in your pockets. All kinds of info out there that you willfully refuse to examine.

Uh PED's? You could Quantify PED advantage because you could compare a players increase in size and strength before and after use. With a football and air pressure you have no idea, does it reduce fumbles a that pressure? How do you know? How many balls have been tested against balls at 12.5? how many fumbles does it prevent? I can look at at a guy on PED's who used to bench 270lbs but now benches 350lbs, I can look at a guy who is a 10 homerun a year guy, start hitting 35 homeruns a year.
You might be able to quantify a particular player's increase in size and strength, but you cannot quantify the competitive advantage. You can't quantify exactly how much that helps him in a football game. You can say the guy who used to hit 10 home runs now hits 35 after using PEDs, but to use your own argument, how do you KNOW that's due to PEDs? How do you know that some of it is not due to other factors? And how much? You can't really quantify it. I'll turn the tables on you--show me the proof that quantifies the exact competitive advantage football players/teams gain by using PED's.

The fact is, the league has standards that prohibit the use of PEDs (as well they should), and they have standards that prohibit the use of footballs outside of certain inflation parameters (as well they should). If there's no competitive advantage, why not let each team just inflate the ball to whatever level they want?

[Slapstick]

The article says nothing about psi nor could it possibly know the psi of every ball the patriots have used over that amount of time, to suggest that those stats prove that is insane.

Absolutely not. Again, this is not a court of law. Judgments can be made with a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. There is a reason that the Patriots fumble less than other teams. The exact statistics can't be explained away by coaching or personnel. They can be explained by using footballs inflated to below regulation values. It just so happens that the Patriots were caught using footballs that were inflated to 2 psi below regulation. But, please, continue to turn a blind eye. You are very much like the cigarette companies I mentioned before.

[hawaiiansteel]

Mark Kaboly @MarkKaboly_Trib -

Atmospheric pressure must've been different on the Colts sideline.

https://twitter.com/MarkKaboly_Trib

[Mr.wizard]

Absolutely not. Again, this is not a court of law. Judgments can be made with a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. There is a reason that the Patriots fumble less than other teams. The exact statistics can't be explained away by coaching or personnel. They can be explained by using footballs inflated to below regulation values. It just so happens that the Patriots were caught using footballs that were inflated to 2 psi below regulation. But, please, continue to turn a blind eye. You are very much like the cigarette companies I mentioned before.

No they really cant because all you have is fumble statistics you do not know if the balls where deflated or to what degree, the only balls you know of that are where deflated where the balls from the first half of that game.

[Mr.wizard]

Like I said, eyes closed, ears plugged, hands in your pockets. All kinds of info out there that you willfully refuse to examine.

You might be able to quantify a particular player's increase in size and strength, but you cannot quantify the competitive advantage. You can't quantify exactly how much that helps him in a football game. You can say the guy who used to hit 10 home runs now hits 35 after using PEDs, but to use your own argument, how do you KNOW that's due to PEDs? How do you know that some of it is not due to other factors? And how much? You can't really quantify it. I'll turn the tables on you--show me the proof that quantifies the exact competitive advantage football players/teams gain by using PED's.

The fact is, the league has standards that prohibit the use of PEDs (as well they should), and they have standards that prohibit the use of footballs outside of certain inflation parameters (as well they should). If there's no competitive advantage, why not let each team just inflate the ball to whatever level they want?

Your right I cant quantify the advantage but I can quantify how much stronger and faster it makes them, which creates an advantage. For example I can quantify 4.5 speed and I can quantify a 400 lb bench press I can also compare those numbers to what the numbers are without PED's. When your talking about a preference on the grip of a football there I cant quantify how much grip a guy gets because every hand is different and even if I could I don't know how in the world you could quantify the advantage or results it would produce. Using my same argument again, guys like different grips Its completely dependent on the player its not a competitive advantage because that would imply it gives you an edge over the competition which is not true because as we know players prefer the ball in lots of different ways.

[Slapstick]

No they really cant because all you have is fumble statistics you do not know if the balls where deflated or to what degree, the only balls you know of that are where deflated where the balls from the first half of that game.

AND a history of cheating...cheating punished by a mere slap on the wrist so as not to discourage further cheating...don't forget about that...

The fumble stats hold true, in any case. The drastic statistical difference can't be explained away by mere drills, coaching and personnel, which is what every team in the NFL does...

[Mr.wizard]

AND a history of cheating...cheating punished by a mere slap on the wrist so as not to discourage further cheating...don't forget about that...

The fumble stats hold true, in any case. The drastic statistical difference can't be explained away by mere drills, coaching and personnel, which is what every team in the NFL does...

The fumble stats do hold true , they show the patriots didn't fumble a lot in some seasons and that's all they show. You cant say deflated balls are related to the stats because you don't know if the balls where deflated.

[Moonie]

The fumble stats do hold true , they show the patriots didn't fumble a lot in some seasons and that's all they show. You cant say deflated balls are related to the stats because you don't know if the balls where deflated.

You're acting like you're in criminal court arguing the beyond a reasonable doubt standard to a jury.

Of course no one can conclusively tie the clear cheating during the Colts game to the startling, puzzling and very troubling Patriot fumble statistics (at least not yet - if they are related, and the NFL gets serious, pigeons are going to start singing pretty soon). But it SURE looks like they are, doesn't it? Can you at least get yourself that situated?

[Shoe]

Your right I cant quantify the advantage but I can quantify how much stronger and faster it makes them, which creates an advantage. For example I can quantify 4.5 speed and I can quantify a 400 lb bench press I can also compare those numbers to what the numbers are without PED's. When your talking about a preference on the grip of a football there I cant quantify how much grip a guy gets because every hand is different and even if I could I don't know how in the world you could quantify the advantage or results it would produce. Using my same argument again, guys like different grips Its completely dependent on the player its not a competitive advantage because that would imply it gives you an edge over the competition which is not true because as we know players prefer the ball in lots of different ways.

You're talking out of your @$s. You give me a smaller ball (which is essentially what we're talking), and it is more likely I hang on to it. *If you are not willing to accept that basic, fundamental bit of logic, then there is no use continuing forward.*

Acting as if "grip preference" :roll: mitigates or negates that effect is ridiculous.

[NorthCoast]

Then you're not really undestanding what the statistics analysis is saying. The probability is telling.

They once had an actuary perform a probability of witnesses in the JFK assassination, dying under certain circumstances. (I don't remember the particulars involved much beyond that.) The study concluded that the probability of such an event happening was in the trillions, IIRC. It means to say that the event in question could not have happened. In thise case, when you are even talking thousands-to-1, it just can't happen.

You're arguing the point in terms of whether it could happen or not. And BTW, don't say that the underpressure in question, makes no difference.

To be entirely accurate it is not saying the event could NOT happen. The site quotes the odds at something like 1 in 16,000. If the NFL season is 16 games then this is a once in 1000 year event.

Look on the positive side. You are witnessing something akin to Haley's comet appearing.

[steeler_fan_in_t.o.]

Forget statistics, here is what logic tells me...

- The Pats were caught cheating in 2007. The cheating was considered "minimal" by many because the offense "doesn't really give much of an advantage".
- They were punished by losing a first rounder and a total of $750K. Punishment was considered light by many, but no team wants to lose a first rounder.
- They had already been warned about the exact same thing earlier in the season, but decided to continue anyway - showing a lack of respect for any potential discipline.
- There were other allegations floating around at the time. Two that I can remember are bugging visitor locker rooms and jamming signals between the booth and sideline.
- This incident smells of the same attitude. "There is no advantage", "it only happened this time".
- Why would a team risk cheating if they know they will lose a first round pick? The answer...because they know the benefits are huge!

So, this is what logic tells me. The Patriots did not cheat for the first time in 2007, and then the very next time they did was in 2015. They have flouted the rules and don't care because they only get caught every eight years. Empirical evidence (the amazing fumble stats despite a revolving door at the RB position among others) tells me that this is quite possible. They do not fear the consequences and have probably been "bending" the rules over these past eight years, and even before 2007. The coach took over a miserable franchise in 2000, and had a 5-11 record the first year. The team turned it around to 11-5 in year 2. I believe that the cheating began right around that time. Rumors have always flown, that is my belief.