Jump to content

Fumblegate next?


DaBallhawk

Recommended Posts

Aten gave up?  But these are educated people with advanced degrees and good jobs! 

 

It says right on the first line that special teams fumbles are included!.  Of course it doesn't explain that they use different balls or why it doesn't count Brandon Tate's 250+ returns as touches.  Did he fumble without touching the ball? Chart=science!  USAToday baby!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing "inexact" about Benjarvous Green-Ellis having 0 fumbles in 4 years as a Patriot and then compiling 5 fumbles his first 2 years on a different team.

 

Look at those numbers a little better.  In 2 years in Cincy, he had more starts and almost as many carries and catches as 4 years in New England.  Maybe he was exposeda little.

 

What is inexact about Tate having 11 fumbles and how that might throw off the numbers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand why Pats fans continue to bring up Sharp or his data or his flawed analysis. Truly mind-boggling. The data which I've listed and you quoted was from NFL.com. They were observations; not treated or analysed numbers, and not "inexact data" taken from Sharp's website. In fact, I have never even visited Sharp's site.

 

Sharp saying his numbers are based on "inexact" data.  http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710

 

There are a few links off of this article that further debunks his analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aten gave up? But these are educated people with advanced degrees and good jobs!

If I were trying to make the point palatable I could have noted at any time that I'm not a patriots fan and that I think it's pretty obvious that they're guilty as charged and then some, but where's the fun in that?

Dictated but not read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at those numbers a little better.  In 2 years in Cincy, he had more starts and almost as many carries and catches as 4 years in New England.  Maybe he was exposeda little.

 

What is inexact about Tate having 11 fumbles and how that might throw off the numbers?

 

Uhh, more starts in Cincy than in NE? Nope. But lets say he did...that has no bearing whatsoever in this discussion.

 

His total touches from scrimmage in NE: 536

His total touches from scrimmage in Cin: 524

 

Those are the only things that matter in this discussion. Whether it took him 2 years or 10 years to compile those touches, those are the totals for the two teams as taken directly from the ESPN.com website (screencap attached). That is statistically almost a perfect comparison....almost 6.5x the proper sample size which means it leaves very little room for randomness, and it very evenly split. 

 

Now the fumbles on those touches as according to the ESPN.com website (screencap attached):

NE: 536 touches from scrimmage, 0 fumbles, 0 fumbles lost

Cin: 524 touches from scrimmage, 5 fumbles, 4 fumbles lost

 

So actually, there was no form of BJGE being more exposed in Cincy. If anything, he had more chances to fumble in NE...and well, the raw data above kinda tells the story for me.

 

post-9127-0-19827800-1431702026_thumb.pn

 

I rest my case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were trying to make the point palatable I could have noted at any time that I'm not a patriots fan and that I think it's pretty obvious that they're guilty as charged and then some, but where's the fun in that?

Dictated but not read.

 

Where exactly, in all of your posts in this thread, would it seem obvious to anyone that you think they're guilty as charged and then some? I'm so curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok lets do a simple test our self. Take a ball at 11.5 PSI Hold it tight, have a large man with beefy arms punch the ball.  Like a soft tire giving a better ride the ball will absorb the force of the blow to some extent.  Now take a ball at 13.5 or 14 PSI and do the same thing.  The ball will transfer more of the blow to the arm and the hand holding it.  Look this does not explain it all as the specter of if you fumble i will cut your ass has a lot to do with it also, but I think you can say the deflation of balls has helped ball security in the age of the ball punch technique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting recent take on the Sharp article.  Pretty much leaves a smoking gun in my opinion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 
It began as an intriguing statistical correlation. It blew up into a national debate. Now it's a civil engineer's redemption song.
And it might also be evidence that make Tom Brady and the New England Patriots look even worse.
 
Back in January, after the deflate-gate story broke, a civil engineer named Warren Sharp put together some numbers that led him to a surprising finding: the Patriots are very, very good at holding onto the ball; and their ability to do so improved significantly after Brady and other quarterbacks pushed for a rule change allowing teams to provide their own footballs for games.
 
"Based upon the data we've collected and the probabilities, it definitely is extremely unlikely that their ability to hold onto the football would change so much and be as far away from the rest of the NFL," Sharp said back then. "It's extremely unlikely."
 
Sharp never leapt to the conclusion that the Pats' alleged deflation of footballs brought about their fumbling advantage – correlation doesn't mean causation – but many people took it that way. And several statisticians scoffed. After all, this guy runs a gambling site and suddenly he is some sort of stats wizard? One statistician called Sharp's work "98 percent bunk."
 
Sharp didn't expect to be vindicated.
 
"I didn't think they were going to find anything of merit that would implicate anybody," he said Thursday by phone, "or show potential proof of something in the past."
 
Then the Wells Report came out. And lo and behold, there was indeed evidence of something beyond one game against the Indianapolis Colts in bad January weather. This was likely more than just atmospheric conditions.
 
Whether there was something systemic that the Patriots were doing, with or without Brady's knowledge, is still not known and might never be known. But the fact that there was someone in the organization known as "The Deflator" indicates that there was a process to take air out of the ball.
 
That re-opened the door to the possibility that Sharp was onto something.
 
"I think the much-maligned study by Warren Sharp about the Patriots having a low fumble rate should be taken more seriously, for sure," wrote Benjamin Morris of the stats site fivethirtyeight.com. "I mean, though it had flaws, at a very minimum that author correctly identified that the Patriots' fumble rate has been absurdly small. I did my own calculations using binomial and Poisson models and found the same."
 
Morris took it a step further:
 
"Now that it seems likely that the Patriots were violating the rules to gain an advantage," he wrote, "the fact that they also had an extremely low fumble rate makes it more likely that the relationship between inflation levels and fumbling is real – and more likely that the Patriots have materially benefited from their cheating."
 
Disclaimer: "cheating" is not suggested by Sharp. But the proximity between the fumble rate and the possible deflation is gathering more credibility. Sharp's gun is suddenly smoking again.
 
A day after the Wells Report came out, Sharp's analysis had escaped the orbit of stat planet. Even NBC's Luke Russert tweeted the study.
 
"Now I actually have some validation in the field," Sharp said. "'Hey, this guy was right all along.'"
 
So what does this mean for football fans? That depends on if you want to jump to the conclusion that someone with the Pats started deflating footballs back in 2007. If you're in that camp, there was a material advantage to the new rule. It benefited not only Brady, but anyone on the Pats who carried the football. It actually may have benefited the other Pats more than it helped Brady himself. (Kevin Faulk, for example, had 23 fumbles from his rookie year in 1999 up until the 2006 season, and then only two after that in the next five years) And since turnover ratio is so closely tied to winning, having a key to controlling the football is not a minor advantage.
 
If you're in the camp that the Wells Report is a sting and a setup, then the stats don't prove anything other than the team is superb at playing the game – which we all knew already.
 
Like any good stat geek, Sharp is trying to avoid bias.
 
"I don't know that there is a conspiracy," he said. "I do know that if this was just a Brady thing, that it really helped the team out at the time."
 
Let's face it, the Wells Report really helped Sharp out at the time, too. Though don't expect him to become the next Nate Silver. He's keeping his day job.
 
And his peace of mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, everyone noticed. That's why it was common knowledge around the league that the Pats played with deflated footballs.

 

Do you mean to infer that if only the Jets let air out of the ball the infamous Buttfumble could have been avoided?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean to infer that if only the Jets let air out of the ball the infamous Buttfumble could have been avoided?

 

No. Sanchez was not good. Although he might have been better with deflated footballs, Conversely, the Pats may not be anywhere near as good as they have been when they must use regulation balls all the time. Let's see what happens to the Pats' stats the next few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean to infer that if only the Jets let air out of the ball the infamous Buttfumble could have been avoided?

 

 

Sweet Jesus.  You are really flailing. and reaching out for any scrap of driftwood within reach.  Sad, sad, sad.  Time for you to get back down into your parents basement and live large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhh, more starts in Cincy than in NE? Nope. But lets say he did...that has no bearing whatsoever in this discussion.

 

His total touches from scrimmage in NE: 536

His total touches from scrimmage in Cin: 524

 

Those are the only things that matter in this discussion. Whether it took him 2 years or 10 years to compile those touches, those are the totals for the two teams as taken directly from the ESPN.com website (screencap attached). That is statistically almost a perfect comparison....almost 6.5x the proper sample size which means it leaves very little room for randomness, and it very evenly split. 

 

Now the fumbles on those touches as according to the ESPN.com website (screencap attached):

NE: 536 touches from scrimmage, 0 fumbles, 0 fumbles lost

Cin: 524 touches from scrimmage, 5 fumbles, 4 fumbles lost

 

So actually, there was no form of BJGE being more exposed in Cincy. If anything, he had more chances to fumble in NE...and well, the raw data above kinda tells the story for me.

 

attachicon.gif5-15-2015 10-50-23 AM.png

 

I rest my case.

 

 

Have you gotten a reply to this from the troll? I don;t think I have ever seen someone get owned so hard before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Sanchez was not good. Although he might have been better with deflated footballs, Conversely, the Pats may not be anywhere near as good as they have been when they must use regulation balls all the time. Let's see what happens to the Pats' stats the next few years.

 

Cheating can turn a 6th round pick into a winner. Imagine the top QBs playing by these rules?? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweet Jesus.  You are really flailing. and reaching out for any scrap of driftwood within reach.  Sad, sad, sad.  Time for you to get back down into your parents basement and live large.

 

The old parents basement zinger.

 

You need new material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Sanchez was not good. Although he might have been better with deflated footballs, Conversely, the Pats may not be anywhere near as good as they have been when they must use regulation balls all the time. Let's see what happens to the Pats' stats the next few years.

 

That's not the point.

 

Why wouldn't the Jets give Sanchez every advantage there is?  Red light - Green light - 11.5 psi ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where exactly, in all of your posts in this thread, would it seem obvious to anyone that you think they're guilty as charged and then some? I'm so curious.

 

 

It's buried under all the snark, sarcasm, anger and wit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not the point.

 

Why wouldn't the Jets give Sanchez every advantage there is?  Red light - Green light - 11.5 psi ball.

 

It did not occur to them.  When your whole organization is effectively operating like a crime family you spend more of your time thinking up new ways to cheat I suppose.

 

The Patriots have spent a generation gifting themselves on the field advantages which happen to be against the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhh, more starts in Cincy than in NE? Nope. But lets say he did...that has no bearing whatsoever in this discussion.

 

His total touches from scrimmage in NE: 536

His total touches from scrimmage in Cin: 524

 

Those are the only things that matter in this discussion. Whether it took him 2 years or 10 years to compile those touches, those are the totals for the two teams as taken directly from the ESPN.com website (screencap attached). That is statistically almost a perfect comparison....almost 6.5x the proper sample size which means it leaves very little room for randomness, and it very evenly split. 

 

Now the fumbles on those touches as according to the ESPN.com website (screencap attached):

NE: 536 touches from scrimmage, 0 fumbles, 0 fumbles lost

Cin: 524 touches from scrimmage, 5 fumbles, 4 fumbles lost

 

So actually, there was no form of BJGE being more exposed in Cincy. If anything, he had more chances to fumble in NE...and well, the raw data above kinda tells the story for me.

 

attachicon.gif5-15-2015 10-50-23 AM.png

 

I rest my case.

 

So you are saying being an ocassional starter and platooning would not have an affect?  Okay.

 

He had as many touches in 2 years in Cincy as he had in four years in Foxboro.  He was exposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are saying being an ocassional starter and platooning would not have an affect?  Okay.

 

He had as many touches in 2 years in Cincy as he had in four years in Foxboro.  He was exposed.

 

Again:

 

Now the fumbles on those touches as according to the ESPN.com website (screencap attached):

NE: 536 touches from scrimmage, 0 fumbles, 0 fumbles lost

Cin: 524 touches from scrimmage, 5 fumbles, 4 fumbles lost

 

So, explain to me how 524 (touches in Cincy) is equal to 536 (touches in NE). Put another way: are 524 apples = to 536 apples? Is this the same type of math that led you to claim that BJGE also had more starts in Cincy than he did in NE?

 

Or, explain to me how having less of a sample size is more indicative of a trend than more of a sample size; i.e., how do you figure that 12 less touches and two less years of data (in cincy) can "expose" someone who had shown no such trends or traits in more touches over a larger time period (in NE).

 

I'm not even asking for an explanation of both of your claims. Just go ahead and explain either of your two claims to me. I triple dog dare ya, dawg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...