ESPN at war with Pats?

[EM31]

You either didn't read the article, didn't understand it, or are so blinded by your anti-Patriots agenda that you do not care.  The portion of the article you quote so gleefully as a precursor to yet another of your ridiculous analogies is simply offered as one of many possible legitimate explanations for the improvement of the Patriots' fumble rates after 2006.  Keep on hatin', hater. 

 

Can I ask you a question?  If every team preaches ball security until the cows come home and every coach, pundit, talking-head and player will stress the critical importance of fumbling, doesn't it offend you sense of rational probability that one team in one magical off-season managed to leap over every other team in the NFL and even more over every other outdoor team in the NFL just through superior coaching?

 

The answer to this will be simple.  If the Pats return to the NFL norms once they are no longer permitted to doctor the footballs then this will pretty much dot every "I" and cross every "T". 

 

Once again, if I have data from a casino after a statistically significant sampling size that number 7 on a roulette wheel is winning once in every 15 times then I do not need to know exactly how it is being done in order to know for a fact that something is being done.  If I then find out that gamblers have been betting on that number more than an average then I also know that at least some of those gamblers are in on the fix.  I do not need video evidence of exactly how the wheel is being doctored in order to get those results.  The results are sufficient in and of themselves.

[EM31]

Stop your crying and whining.

Over the last 15 years, no team has won more Super Bowls, Conference Championships, Divisional Titles, playoff games and regular season games than the Patriots. No team will ever duplicate a sustained 15 year dynasty that we are seeing.

Hell, the Steelers, 49ers and Cowboys dynasties only lasted 4 or 5 years then they sucked for a decade.

 

Barry Bonds was on top for a decade.  Madoff was on top for longer.

 

Are the people who have problems with how they did that also "cryers and whiners" in your mind?  Are they?

 

Legitimacy of the Pats record = the legitimacy of Barry Bonds records.

 

Period.

 

Arod is still theoretically closing in on the all time HR record.   Perhaps he can get himself a parade up in Boston if he ends up getting home on that one.

[Jet Fan RI]

Stop your crying and whining.

Over the last 15 years, no team has won more Super Bowls, Conference Championships, Divisional Titles, playoff games and regular season games than the Patriots. No team will ever duplicate a sustained 15 year dynasty that we are seeing.

Hell, the Steelers, 49ers and Cowboys dynasties only lasted 4 or 5 years then they sucked for a decade.

 

Yes. Consistent undetected cheating produces consistent winning. Honest teams, playing within the rules, eventually stop winning consistently.

[PatsFanTX]

My lady undergarments are starting to ride up.

I'd comment on that, but the last time I posted about ladies undergarments it didn't work out too well for me.

[EM31]

I'd comment on that, but the last time I posted about ladies undergarments it didn't work out too well for me.

 

You have stayed away from the substance of the statistics question which tells me you think that is the weakest argument here.  I think we both think that the Patriots knowingly changed the pressure in the balls and that the only real difference in our positions is that you consider that as fair game on some level and that the Patriots were just smarter than everyone else for figuring out how to do it when the other teams did not.

 

The problem is that you cannot actually say that here and so you are left with all of the standard deflection and general misdirection arguments.

[AFCEastFan]

Can I ask you a question?  If every team preaches ball security until the cows come home and every coach, pundit, talking-head and player will stress the critical importance of fumbling, doesn't it offend you sense of rational probability that one team in one magical off-season managed to leap over every other team in the NFL and even more over every other outdoor team in the NFL just through superior coaching?

 

The answer to this will be simple.  If the Pats return to the NFL norms once they are no longer permitted to doctor the footballs then this will pretty much dot every "I" and cross every "T". 

 

Once again, if I have data from a casino after a statistically significant sampling size that number 7 on a roulette wheel is winning once in every 15 times then I do not need to know exactly how it is being done in order to know for a fact that something is being done.  If I then find out that gamblers have been betting on that number more than an average then I also know that at least some of those gamblers are in on the fix.  I do not need video evidence of exactly how the wheel is being doctored in order to get those results.  The results are sufficient in and of themselves.

 

Let me answer your question with a similar question:  If every team preaches the importance of a good passing offense until the cows come home and every coach, pundit, talking-head and player will stress the critical importance of moving the ball through the air, doesn't it offend your sense of rational probability that one team in one magical off-season managed to leap over every other team in the NFL and even more over every other outdoor team in the NFL in passing touchdowns just through legitimate means? 

 

That's exactly what happened in between 2006 and 2007.  A QB who had never broken 28 passing TD's in a single season suddenly set an NFL record with 50 passing TD's.  Do you think that might have had something to do with replacing the likes of Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney with Randy Moss, Wes Welker and Donte Stallworth?  And do you think that might also have had something to do with the sudden improvement in their fumble rates? 

[Strongman]

Stop your crying and whining.

Over the last 15 years, no team has won more Super Bowls, Conference Championships, Divisional Titles, playoff games and regular season games than the Patriots. No team will ever duplicate a sustained 15 year dynasty that we are seeing.

Hell, the Steelers, 49ers and Cowboys dynasties only lasted 4 or 5 years then they sucked for a decade.

Good to you admit their performance is very unusual. Cheating would certainly help a team stay on top.

[EM31]

Let me answer your question with a similar question:  If every team preaches the importance of a good passing offense until the cows come home and every coach, pundit, talking-head and player will stress the critical importance of moving the ball through the air, doesn't it offend your sense of rational probability that one team in one magical off-season managed to leap over every other team in the NFL and even more over every other outdoor team in the NFL in passing touchdowns just through legitimate means? 

 

That's exactly what happened in between 2006 and 2007.  A QB who had never broken 28 passing TD's in a single season suddenly set an NFL record with 50 passing TD's.  Do you think that might have had something to do with replacing the likes of Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney with Randy Moss, Wes Welker and Donte Stallworth?  And do you think that might also have had something to do with the sudden improvement in their fumble rates? 

 

Except that increase in performance came at the same time as Brady got the greatest receiver of his generation and possibly the greatest receiver of all time onto his team.

[PatsFanTX]

Yes. Consistent undetected cheating produces consistent winning. Honest teams, playing within the rules, eventually stop winning consistently.

The Steelers were the biggest roid users in the history of the NFL. That's why they are all dead.

Jerry Rice admitted to using illegal stickum his whole career.

Cowboys cheated by circumventing the salary cap.

[Jet Fan RI]

The Steelers were the biggest roid users in the history of the NFL. That's why they are all dead.

Jerry Rice admitted to using illegal stickum his whole career.

Cowboys cheated by circumventing the salary cap.

 

So you say they all cheated? Perhaps. But since their winning stopped, it appears their cheating stopped too. Only the Pats keep winning and winning. And, by extension, cheating and cheating.

[EM31]

I have a question for Pats fans since it is my personal theory about how this may have been done.  The question for Pats fans is this, if indeed the change in ball pressure was achieved in this way would you think it was brilliant coaching within the rules from the Pats or would you consider it as breaking the rules in everything but name only?

 

Theory

---------

Pats coaching staff are very aware of the linkage between ball pressure and fumbling.  They are also aware that Aaron Rogers notwithstanding, most QBs and WRs prefer to throw and catch a lower inflated ball.  Coaching staff looks for a way to get the balls to pass the pregame inspection and yet have those balls be at a significantly lower pressure by the time the game starts.

 

NASCAR crew chiefs use nitrogen in their tires because Nitrogen does not change pressure as much as air in response to temperature changes.  What if there was a different gas which has a greater pressure variation in response to ambient temperature changes?  What if the Patriots found that by filling their footballs with a different gas, that those balls would (a) pass the pregame checks at room temperature but still be significantly lower PSI in cold temperatures?

 

Would that be cheating or would it be evidence that the  "smartest" coaching staff in football had found another way to get an edge on the competition?

[afosomf]

The Steelers were the biggest roid users in the history of the NFL. That's why they are all dead.

Jerry Rice admitted to using illegal stickum his whole career.

Cowboys cheated by circumventing the salary cap.

Didn't know all the Steelers are dead...you are a fountain of news

[afosomf]

The Steelers were the biggest roid users in the history of the NFL. That's why they are all dead.

Jerry Rice admitted to using illegal stickum his whole career.

Cowboys cheated by circumventing the salary cap.

Steroids were not banned in the NFL until 1987 ...exactly how did steelers cheat again?

[AFCEastFan]

Except that increase in performance came at the same time as Brady got the greatest receiver of his generation and possibly the greatest receiver of all time onto his team.

 

Yes, of course.  And Brady threw an awful lot to that receiver instead of handing off to a washed up Corey Dillon while a defense playing run all the way swarmed to him and instead of standing in the pocket all day waiting for Reche Caldwell to get open.  And that receiver does not fumble the ball very often. 

[EM31]

So you say they all cheated? Perhaps. But since their winning stopped, it appears their cheating stopped too. Only the Pats keep winning and winning. And, by extension, cheating and cheating.

 

No it is the "everyone is a cheater in their heart" deflection.  Plus the entire NFL was on steroids at the time TX is talking about 

[AFCEastFan]

So you say they all cheated? Perhaps. But since their winning stopped, it appears their cheating stopped too. Only the Pats keep winning and winning. And, by extension, cheating and cheating.

 

[Jet Fan RI]

No it is the "everyone is a cheater in their heart" deflection.  Plus the entire NFL was on steroids at the time TX is talking about 

 

Not disagreeing with you. But I included the "perhaps" because I wasn't really even conceding the point.

[GuidoYastrzemski]

This article best sums up my views on the topic:

 

https://hbr.org/2015/01/an-important-data-lesson-from-an-inconsequential-football-scandal

 

An Important Data Lesson from an Inconsequential Football Scandal

 

As “Deflategate” rattles the National Football League in the run-up to this year’s Super Bowl, data analysts have swooped in, including Warren Sharp, one of many self-styled football analysts who blog about the topic. In a Slate article he analyzes the fumbling rate of the New England Patriots — the team accused of purposefully underinflating footballs to gain an advantage. The headline to his analysis calls the Patriots’ fumble rate compared to the rest of the league “nearly impossible.”

Sharp, you might think, found the smoking gun — a statistic that proves that the Patriots cheated. Only a patient reader who persists to the last paragraph will see that Sharp ultimately admits that New England’s spectacular performance on the metric could be explained in any number of ways, including legitimate ones like perfecting ball security techniques or practicing prevention.

In short, the data say the Patriots are excellent at preventing fumbles. It says nothing about why.

This distinction represents one of big data analysis’ most under-appreciated problems: talking about reverse causation. In reverse causation problems, we know the result and we work backwards to understand the causes.

Reverse causation investigations have the opposite structure from A/B tests, in which we vary known causes, and observe how the variations affect an outcome. If the number of visitors to your website jumped after you changed the image on your Facebook page, you conclude that the new photo is the reason for the traffic surge. (Note: Good A/B test construction can help you see most likely causes; bad A/B test construction creates its own set of problems.).

By contrast, the biggest obstacle to solving reverse causation is the infinite number of possible causes that might influence the known outcome. This is compounded by the fact that we want to assign a cause. So when some data is plucked out of a large set that fits a narrative we may have already constructed, it’s very tempting to simply assign causation when it doesn’t exist.

Most of the time, though, the data offer hints, but no proof. Sharp’s article on the Patriots is one such case. When reading this style of data journalism, pay attention to the structure of the statistical argument. Here is how I summarize Sharp’s:

    New England is an outlier in the plays-per-fumbles-lost metric, performing far better than any other team (1.8x above the NFL team average).

    Different ways of visualizing and re-formulating the metric yield the same conclusion that New England is the outlier.

    There is a “dome effect.” Teams whose home stadiums are indoors typically suffer 10 fewer fumbles than the outdoors teams. New England is a non-dome team that surpasses most dome teams on plays-per-total-fumbles. If dome teams are removed from the analysis, New England is a statistical outlier.

    Assuming that the distribution of the metric by team is a bell curve, the chance that New England could have achieved such an extraordinary level of play per fumbles lost is extremely remote.

    Therefore, it is “nearly impossible” for any team to possess such an ability to prevent fumbles … unless the team is cheating.

Points 1 to 4 are essentially slightly different reiterations of the known outcome. It is point five in which a connection is established between that outcome and its cause(s). But the causal link is tenuous at best. However suggestive, the data does not prove intent or guilt. It simply describes a statistical phenomenon.

Indeed, digging in on the Patriots data shows that they may not be much of an outlier. In the “dome” analysis, Sharp switched from looking at fumbles lost to total fumbles (which includes recovered fumbles). Other football data analysts have concluded (more than halfway down the page) that fumble recovery is mostly random, so plays per total fumbles is the more useful metric.

Given this new measure, the Patriots are not an outlier, as they’re second to the Atlanta Falcons in fumble performance. Only when Sharp removed all dome teams (the Falcons being one) could he argue that the Patriots were an outlier.

Sharp showed that it is almost impossible for an average team to attain such a low fumble rate, but we have no data that proves the Patriots or any particular team couldn’t achieve it in a legal way. And in fact, the dome analysis suggests there are legitimate methods to perform equally or slightly better than the Patriots did — just look at the Falcons. Unless you want to allege the Falcons also tampered with footballs. (Others have also since refuted this fumbles-prove-malicious-behavior narrative and corrected what seems to be a major flaw in Sharp’s approach: eliminating dome teams from analysis, intead of dome games. When that change is made, the Patriots seem to perform well, but not strangely well; not even the best).

To his credit, Sharp did not argue point five. Nevertheless, many readers and incurious reporters made this causal leap. Sharp helped them along by using a loaded phrase “nearly impossible” to sell the story.

And that’s the reverse causation problem we face. Big data is exposing all kinds of outliers and trends we hadn’t seen before and we’re assigning causes somewhat recklessly, because it makes a good story, or helps confirm our biases. You see this all the time in your Twitter stream: “7 Charts that Explain This.” Or “The One Chart that Tells You Why Something Is Happening.” We’re getting better and better at analyzing and visualizing big data to spot coincidences, outliers and trends. It’s getting easier and easier to convince ourselves of specific narratives without any real data to support them.

Most good statistical analysis will be narratively unsatisfying, loaded down with “we don’t know,” “it depends,” and “the data can’t prove that.”

You can see how this can become a big problem for companies wanting to exploit the big data they’re amassing. If you think about most practical data problems, they often concern reverse causation. The sales of a particular product suddenly plunged; what caused it? The number of measles cases spiked up in a neighborhood; how did it happen? People with a certain brand of phone tend to shop at certain stores; why is that? In cases like these, we know the outcome, and we often don’t know the cause.

The possibility of any number of causes tempts us to retrofit a narrative but we must resist it. The astute analyst is one who figures out how to bring a manageable structure to this work. See this post by statistician Andrew Gelman for further thoughts.

In the mean time, maintain a healthy skepticism the next time someone suggests they’ve found causation in the reverse. Their claims may be overblown.

Kaiser Fung is a professional statistician for Vimeo and author of Junk Charts, a blog devoted to the critical examination of data and graphics in the mass media. His latest book is Number Sense: How to Use Big Data to Your Advantage. He holds an MBA from Harvard Business School, in addition to degrees from Princeton and Cambridge Universities, and teaches statistics at New York University.

 

 

What the hell does this guy know?..... EM31 said it's a FACT the Pats have been deflating balls since 2006 because the stats show it....er....ummmm....amirite?

[EM31]

Yes, of course.  And Brady threw an awful lot to that receiver instead of handing off to a washed up Corey Dillon while a defense playing run all the way swarmed to him and instead of standing in the pocket all day waiting for Reche Caldwell to get open.  And that receiver does not fumble the ball very often. 

 

Those offensive numbers while impressive are at least explained by the presence on the team of Moss.  The reversion back to the norm is also explained by this.

 

Teaching better ball security and better in this case by that order of magnitude is not a reasonable explanation for the jump in outcomes.  That skepticism is supported by the fumbling performance of Pats receivers when they went onto teams who did not enjoy the benefits of coaching how to run with under inflated footballs.

[Jet Fan RI]

 

Hardly a video of "cheating," merely a penalty. Which I do think the Steelers were assessed. Plus paid a fine, no? Every rules violation isn't cheating. Not even what a Jets coach did similarly on the sideline.

[GuidoYastrzemski]

Those offensive numbers while impressive are at least explained by the presence on the team of Moss.  The reversion back to the norm is also explained by this.

 

Teaching better ball security and better in this case by that order of magnitude is not a reasonable explanation for the jump in outcomes.  That skepticism is supported by the fumbling performance of Pats receivers when they went onto teams who did not enjoy the benefits of coaching how to run with under inflated footballs.

Did you miss the part of the article which detailed how adding dome teams back into the statistical analysis resulted in the Pats NOT being an outlier and  the team with the least number of fumbles? Or do you maintain the Falcons cheated as well?

[Strongman]

The Steelers were the biggest roid users in the history of the NFL. That's why they are all dead.

Jerry Rice admitted to using illegal stickum his whole career.

Cowboys cheated by circumventing the salary cap.

The Steelers didn't cheat. NFL didn't ban steroids until 1987.

[EM31]

What the hell does this guy know?..... EM31 said it's a FACT the Pats have been deflating balls since 2006 because the stats show it....er....ummmm....amirite?

 

So you are on record here as fully expecting the extraordinary low fumbling rate to continue even if, as one might suppose that any ball pressure loopholes will be closed by the NFL?

 

If the Pats rate of fumbles drops back to the same pre-2007 levels would you then conclude that the Pats coaching staff have mysteriously forgotten how to coach ball security?  Just want to get you on record here.

[EM31]

Did you miss the part of the article which detailed how adding dome teams back into the statistical analysis resulted in the Pats NOT being an outlier and  the team with the least number of fumbles? Or do you maintain the Falcons cheated as well?

 

Did you miss the part where the Pats are not a dome team?

[AFCEastFan]

Hardly a video of "cheating," merely a penalty. Which I do think the Steelers were assessed. Plus paid a fine, no? Every rules violation isn't cheating. Not even what a Jets coach did similarly on the sideline.

 

Sure.  As long as the Patriots weren't the ones doing it, it's not cheating.  It's just a "rules violation". 

 

How about the salary cap violations for which the Steelers forfeited a 3rd round pick in 2001.   Cheating?  Or "merely a penalty"? 

[AFCEastFan]

Did you miss the part where the Pats are not a dome team?

 

Do dome teams play all of their games in a dome? 

[GuidoYastrzemski]

Did you miss the part where the Pats are not a dome team?

Why exclude dome teams from the analysis unless you want to twist the outcome of the "analysis". How do you explain when that by looking at EVERY team, the Pats are no longer an outlier?

[EM31]

What the hell does this guy know?..... EM31 said it's a FACT the Pats have been deflating balls since 2006 because the stats show it....er....ummmm....amirite?

 

You are like the guy who is demanding picture proof of a needle in Barry Bonds ass in order to "prove" he was on PFDs.  Amirite?

[EM31]

Why exclude dome teams from the analysis unless you want to twist the outcome of the "analysis". How do you explain when that by looking at EVERY team, the Pats are no longer an outlier?

 

They are still an outlier.  Just not by as much

 

<edited to add>

 

And the reason for excluding them in one set is that stadium temperature variations are close non existent in a dome and it also does not rain or snow.  Very cold properly inflated footballs and wet footballs are both well establish factors in changing rates of fumbling.

[Jet Fan RI]

Sure.  As long as the Patriots weren't the ones doing it, it's not cheating.  It's just a "rules violation". 

 

How about the salary cap violations for which the Steelers forfeited a 3rd round pick in 2001.   Cheating?  Or "merely a penalty"? 

 

That's cheating. As for rules violations, do you think every offsides and holding is "cheating"?

[EM31]

Barry Bonds = New England Patriots = Alex Rodriguez = Lance Armstrong

 

Enjoy the trophies boys and I am sure you will all be seeing one another at those autograph events.

[AFCEastFan]

Those offensive numbers while impressive are at least explained by the presence on the team of Moss.  The reversion back to the norm is also explained by this.

 

Teaching better ball security and better in this case by that order of magnitude is not a reasonable explanation for the jump in outcomes.  That skepticism is supported by the fumbling performance of Pats receivers when they went onto teams who did not enjoy the benefits of coaching how to run with under inflated footballs.

 

Moss fumbled occasionally with the Vikings, not at all with the Raiders, and then back to occasionally with the Patriots.  From this statistical analysis, I conclude that the Raiders were cheating.

[Jet Fan RI]

Do dome teams play all of their games in a dome? 

 

No. But there was actually another point made in the article that "dome games" is a better measure than "dome teams." Can't find the link to the article now though to reread what that point exactly was..

[AFCEastFan]

That's cheating. As for rules violations, do you think every offsides and holding is "cheating"?

 

I do not, but we could probably split hairs if we were so inclined (for example, a DL who is drawn offside by a hard count is different from a LT who is cleanly beaten by a DE and then takes the DE down from behind to prevent a sack). 

 

That said, a coach who intentionally runs on to the field to prevent a KR from scoring a TD is doing something far worse than a simple rules violation IMO. 

[Jet Fan RI]

I do not, but we could probably split hairs if we were so inclined (for example, a DL who is drawn offside by a hard count is different from a LT who is cleanly beaten by a DE and then takes the DE down from behind to prevent a sack). 

 

That said, a coach who intentionally runs on to the field to prevent a KR from scoring a TD is doing something far worse than a simple rules violation IMO. 

 

Agreed. But I don't think the coach actually ran onto the field in your example. Was too close to the sideline, and wound up blocking the trailing official, no?