Brady destroyed his phone, suspension will be upheld

IIRC they did a follow-up addressing these points.

 

But they were a team that was not great at reducing TOs before the rule change in 2006. They went from a team that was in line with NFL averages to a team that was among the best. That is very unusual. How unusual? Well, I'm not a statistician either, but here's a quote from someone who is:

Based on the assumption that plays per fumble follow a normal distribution, you’d expect to see, according to random fluctuation, the results that the Patriots have gotten since 2007 once in 5842 instances.

Which in layman’s terms means that this result only being a coincidence, is like winning a raffle where you have a 0.0001711874 probability to win. In other words, it’s very unlikely that results this abnormal are only due to the endogenous nature of the game.

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

Clearly something changed for the Pats after the rule change. We don't know that it was the deflated footballs. Most apologists argue coaching, that somehow the Pat's coaches taught their players better techniques to prevent fumbles. But amazingly players who leave the Pats seem to completely forget whatever they learned there since their fumble rates are worse when they leave. IMO you have to stick your head pretty deep in the sand believe that the rule change and the change in their fumble rates are just a coincidence.

 

Possibly. From where I sit, I see fans having fun sticking it to pats fans. But I don't see any real anger or hatred towards Brady. People know he's one of the goats regardless. I see this as a storm that will eventually pass. Especially if in time, Bradys numbers stay... Inflated.

 

I know he's had several follow-ups. I don't recall which criticisms he addressed, but I do know that at least a couple other statisticians who criticized him initially then ran their own numbers and reached similar conclusions. Basically that something changed in 2007 beyond what can be expected as normal statistical variation. I just think it's an incredibly large coincidence that the Patriots improved so significantly after the rule change and when "the deflator" got hired.

 

By who's measure, the same one who bunked up these stats? Why would you rely on that. They're still using inaccurate statistics.

And if you assume they deflated the balls for every game, you would look at home vs. away right? Because the Patriots don't handle the balls from the locker room on away games.



They fumble more on home games, where they handle the balls.

And to further bury this, look at the dome teams. Dallas, Atlanta, Indy. They fumble more away, than at home in their dome.

At what point does this fumble thing become indicative of a jealous, bitter fan of another team?

 

Where is it?

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

That's the most recent post, and he's still mucking up the data. And no mention of Brandon Tate and the huge mistake he made.

At a certain point, You realize you shouldn't listen to guy who makes a mistake like that I showed. 3 touches per fumble. As you type that into the excel spreadsheet it doesn't give you pause? As you go to format and color in your spreadsheet you don't say, hey, that doesn't sound right.

He even writes this:

So he comments on it, never once realizing his mistake. And I just did a search for Tate on his blog, and it was only this one page. NO update, no correction.

This is the guy you want to rely on for your statistics?

 

McNally stated that he was added to the travel staff in 2007 and that he functions as a liaison to the game officials. That was the case until about 2011 or 2012 where the Pats hired other full-time equipment staff that traveled with the team. Presumably, they took over McNally's role as equipment liaison to game officials.

 

But the home team handles the balls from the officials onto the field. That's why the Patriots dude was seen carrying two bags of balls into the bathroom.

 

I know that when I've been on the field I've seen the balls being thrown in by the ball boys from their respective teams regardless of which team was the home team. I can't say specifically that the Pats ball boys did it, but I would think it likely that anybody who considers themselves the official's liaison was probably doing the same.

 

We should really get this fumble issue settled. First of all, you should take into account ALL the fumbles to see what the total effect of the rule change in 2007 was. Here's a link that does this:
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.co...ts-prevention-of-fumbles-is-nearly-impossible

Now take this graph in that link:
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Fumble-Chart-4.png

It tells you plays per fumble. We don't have a 2007-2014 period there, but you have a 2007-2011 and a 2010-2014. Just averaging the two (to get a rough estimate of how many plays per fumble NE had from 2007 onwards), you get 168 plays per fumble. Do a similar calculation for the 2000-2006 period and you get 93.5 plays per fumble.

So the question is what is the effect of 168 plays per fumble vs. 93.5 plays per fumble?

I've posted this before, but here's the best graph (Figure 1 in the link below) I can find showing the effect of turnovers on winning % in the NFL:
http://illegalhit.com/2013/06/18/impact-turnovers-winning-football-games/

That looks at all results over the last 5 years (32 teams times 5 = 160 data points), and basically shows that 5 extra turnovers per season leads to 1 extra win on average.

Now, to compare to the fumble stats, we need to convert to "plays". From 2007-2014, NE averaged 68 plays per game. That's 1088 plays per season. If you have 93.5 plays per fumble, that equates to 11.6 fumbles per season. If you have 168 plays per fumble, that equates to 6.5 fumbles per season.

That's 5 extra on the turnover differential axis per year, which as that link above showed equates to 1 extra win per season. jdang307, that's HUGE. This has all been posted before too, so I think you should stop saying the fumble issue has been "debunked" until you can show something wrong with these basic stats (or argue 1 extra win per season is no big deal).

 

In the short term, I think you have a point. There's probably more negative thoughts associated with Tom Brady than at any other point in his career right now. I just don't think will effect his legacy long-term. If he's still a first ballot hall of famer, how is his legacy tarnished? In what specific way? Does Tom Brady not own every meaningful post-season record? Does Tom Brady not have 4 superbowl rings? By the time Brady retires, will he not be #2 behind Manning in most major career stats? Do people who feel Tom Brady is the best QB of all-time, feel different? In time, those facts won't change. In time, Brady will be referenced long after he's retired in all the right ways.

As I mentioned earlier, history is written by the winners. And Tom Brady is a winner. Not just in terms of W/L's but his story is a winner. The ultimate underdog. 6th round draft pick, an afterthought, takes control of his football team after the starting QB is knocked out, never relinquishes the starting role for 15-20 years, wins 4 (or more) superbowls, dominates the post-season like no other, amasses what could be considered the greatest career any QB has ever had. That legacy is stronger, longer, more meaningful than Spygate and deflategate combined in the long run.

And the story isn't over yet... Tom Brady still has some good football in him. If he continues to play at a high level, maybe win another ring and continue to separate himself from Montana, it will only reinforce Brady's greatness and a positive narrative.

 

As far as one extra win or whatever, I think that's probably not the best argument (true or not). Maybe it's statistically correct, but the effect of fumbling less is worth far more than one win, IMO. One win is probably the minimum.

The better argument is this... The New England Patriots fumble half as much as anyone else since 2007. Since 2008 (as far back as I can find), teams who win the turnover battle (+1), win roughly 80% of the time. The number only increases when you win the turnover battle w/ +2, +3, etc... How does that actually impact a full season? An example Dolphins fans might appreciate, see the Miami Dolphins in 2008. '08 Dolphins won the turnover battle consistently and went 11-5. Our projected record was 7-9 wins based on points scored vs. points allowed. Yet, we won 11 and the division.

Fun fact? Since 2007, New England has EXCEEDED their projected w/l (based on points scored vs. allowed) in all but two years. Some years, the exceeded their win totals by 2-3 games. 2009 and 2012 were the years they didn't exceed their projected to win total. in '09 they were projected to win 11, they won 10. In 2012 they were projected to win 12 and won 12.

Turnovers are represent a big chunk of hidden yards and hidden points. I don't think it's unfair to suggest that NE is getting 2-3 wins per season more than what they should.

 

There's variation in the effect of course. You pointed out one example where the effect was far greater than 1 extra win (compared to a projection based on points scored vs. points allowed). I think though one is better off talking about the average effect than pointing out individual examples in this kind of debate (otherwise the counter-argument is that the example is cherry-picked). The turnover battle per game argument will also depend on the distribution of those 5 extra fumbles.

If you want to augment the argument I made, just point out that those fumbling stats were ONLY looking at fumbles! I bet if one digs harder one could find other effects, such as the ability to catch the ball in the first place (especially on a rainy day).

 

Just saw this added to your post..

Can you show how the projections are being done, just so we know what the calculation is?

 

NO each team handles their own balls home or away.

 

I think his legacy is tarnished b/c the term "cheater" will always be associated with name. It won't stop him from getting into the HOF but it will always be part of the discussion. He'll always have GOAT credentials, but some will never list him as the GOAT b/c of it. I know that I've argued for years that Brady was better than Peyton, but after spygate I stopped making that argument b/c I didn't know how much the cheating helped him. Personally, I had him as a top 5 guy all-time and now I have him just outside that group. Still a great player with a great career, but my opinion of him is diminished. I can't speak for everyone, but personally I can say that my view of him is tarnished.

 

Clark Kent.. I found this:
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.co...-win-turnover-battle-have-72-17-record/26247/

Maybe that's the link you were referring to regarding the win % for teams that win the turnover battle?

Here's something interesting. It says teams that win the turnover battle in a game by +1 have a win-loss-tie record of 323-149-1 (from 2008-2012). Let's ignore the one tie for a moment.

So.. 323+149 = 472. Compared to winning 50% of the time = 472/2 = 236 games, you win 323-236 = 87 extra games out of 472.

87/472 = 0.1843, which is eerily close to 0.2. Why is 0.2 important? Because if you have 5 extra fumbles per season, and we just for kicks assume those are evenly distributed (so +1 in 5 extra games where turnover battle would otherwise have been zero for argument's sake), then you have 1 extra win per season, which jibes with the other approach.

What this suggests is that if you took those stats in the link above and did the correct calculation (so looked at the added win probability multiplied by the probability for each possible distribution of those 5 fumbles), you're probably going to get to ~1 extra win per season for 5 extra fumbles in the season even if you argue based on turnover difference per game.

 

so you're still relying on the guy, who until this very day, believes, and includes, data that is clearly wrong. I'm baffled, completely baffled. He included Brandon Tate's 11 special teams fumbles, to go with 35 catches and runs.

And you want THAT guy's statistics?

Any numbers that include special teams is already invalid. Those are K balls, not handled by either team.

I've already included everything you need to show those stats are useless.

Let's look at the chart you provided cbrad:



Fumbles lost? What does deflated balls have to do with fumbles lost? See, you guys are buying into this Sharp guy, when he's the most amateur analyst I've ever come across. Did the deflated ball tend to bounce towards Patriot players more? You need to look at fumbles period, not fumbles lost. I showed above, NE's numbers are not that far ahead of everyone else, and indeed Baltimore had significantly higher fumble rates on receptions.

 

I need you to show that the plays/fumble stats are wrong. Failure to do that and no other critique (however valid) of this Sharp guy's stats matters because the only thing I used from his table was the plays/fumble stats (and stats posted elsewhere seem to give similar accounts).

 

Point by point:

NE players fumble more when they leave the Patriots - Claim debunked with the data they used.

NE fumbles more at home then they do away (where they don't have the chance to deflate the balls).

NE is far ahead of everyone else in fumbles - debunked. They're slightly ahead in carries, 3rd place in receptions. 1.5 extra fumbles a year, brings them in line with the rest of the NFL average.

I mean, one article by a guy who made the biggest boneheaded mistake ever, and everyone clings onto this notion, hanging on for dear life.

You want to know how you lower your fumble rate? You bench a Stevan Ridley for fumbling in the season opener, when his fumble rate is slightly higher than the league average, right after the season he's a 1,200 yard guy. That's how you lower your fumble rate. How many other coaches bench a 1,200 rusher? Probably nobody else in the whole league will bench a 1,200 yard 12 TD runner, for fumbling just below the league average. But Belichick is crazy. So he does. Adrian Peterson has a worse fumble rate than Ridley (Ridley is no AP, but Ridley is very effective 4.5-5.0 ypc when given the chance).

 

You didn't answer the question. The question was can you show that the plays per fumble stats is wrong. I'm open to being disproven here, but until you show that you can't argue against the use of those stats.

Also, just to make it clear, including K balls for this purpose (in case you argue he shouldn't have done that) will only help my argument. If you let's say have 10 fumbles from K balls and 10 from normal ones in one year, but 10 from K balls and 20 from deflated ones in the next year, including K balls gives you 20:30 ratio, but excluding them gives you 10:20 ratio. Including K balls would say the increase was 33%, while excluding them says it's 50%. Just saying this in case that's your next argument.


EDIT: Brian Burke independently looked at Sharp's stats on plays/fumble and said they were basically right:
http://www.advancedfootballanalytic...ral/224-the-patriots-have-great-ball-security

Note that he prefers to look at "total fumbles" (doesn't matter who recovers) instead of fumbles lost (which are turnovers). But his stats line up with what's in Sharp's link (in Sharp's case, at the bottom of the link.. Burke provides a link to Sharp's page too so you can see it's the same one).

To summarize Burke's point, NE stands out with total fumbles only when you look at outdoor teams, not when you look at all teams. So, if you wish you can modify the argument to apply only to outdoor teams (note though that the argument then ceases to be about turnovers per se), but Sharp's stats on plays/fumble seem correct.

 

OK. Fair enough. I think I misunderstood your interpretation of tarnish. By Tarnish, you mean in a similar way Marino's legacy is tarnished w/o a ring. Ex. "I would have Marino higher ranked if he had a ring, best pure passer I ever saw though" argument people use against Dan.

 

Point by point:

-- Cheatriots got caught with spygate.
-- Cheatriots got caught using extra helmet mic.
-- Cheatriots have had NUMEROUS visiting teams complain about tech snafus with the communications.
-- Cheatriots got caught deflating balls.

In summary...they phucking CHEAT!

End of points.

 

Tom Brady can suck a d.

 

BTW here's another analysis that also considers the Patriot's ball security incredible especially when looking at only outdoor teams:

Whoa. In this case NE is at the top of the list, and the next best team is a distant second. Notice how the second team (BLT) through the second to last team (PHI) have rates that are within 1 or 2 plays of each other. NE, however, is better than the next best team by 20 plays per fumble.


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

And here's another who gathered their own data:

I did my own calculations using binomial and Poisson models...it seems likely that the Patriots were violating the rules to gain an advantage, 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.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/fivethirtyeight-dissects-the-deflategate-report/

 

Boo!!!! Hiss!!!!
Whistle.. Flag.... 5 yards for roughing the pun!

 

It's very sad that we have Dolfans defending Tom Brady and the Cheatriots, isn't it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Good find! That first link I found too, and it's important because Burke apparently independently checked Sharp's data. The discrepancy in their analysis is due to looking at fumbles that were turnovers (for Sharp) or fumbles regardless of whether they were turnovers or not (Burke).

The second link is really interesting to me because that's new info (at least for me). That NE was "likely" cheating is old news. But look at Atlanta and Baltimore! Since there are 32 teams in the league, I'd expect at least one (or more) to do something that was ~ 1 in 30 chance, which is where NO looks like it is (it's a log scale so that's probably ~30). But Atlanta and Baltimore are way beyond that.. very interesting!

 

Not so sure about that.

 

I don't mind any reasonable defense. I'll criticize Dolphins and defend opponents for the sake of fairness. But I find the Brady defense so thoroughly unconvincing. They've been caught cheating and/or stretching the rules so many times that you'd think only a biased homer would give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

I keep seeing this "they got caught with an extra mic" claim, but still have yet to see anything that actually verified it.

 

there was never anything official from the NFL directed at NE. there was suspicions and the League Office sent out warnings league wide. I can't remember the backup QB that said that he had picked up a helmet and heard non regular plays being sent out to Brady after the shut off time.

 

Yeah, that's what I thought. That claim gets through around alot around here, but it's not really accurate.

 

WADR, what difference does it make?

We have proof they've filmed, and we're told by some its either not a big deal and/or it didn't help them and/or it didn't happen.
We have proof they've deflated the balls, and we're told by some its either not a big deal and/or it didn't help them and/or it didn't happen.

I honestly believe at this point we could catch Belichick stroking a check to a ref while we watch video of Brady shooting up with PEDs, and those same people would say its either not a big deal and/or it didn't help them and/or it didn't happen.

 

I just have a problem with people in general making factual statements, that are, in fact, not factual.

 

There was plenty about it, but the league buried it, because it would've been too huge.

Just ask Doug Flutie (Cheatriot player that year).

If it sounds like it's raining outside, I sure as hell don't need to get soaked to believe it.

 

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't make it non-factual.

 

There has never been anything from the league, therefore saying that they have been caught with extra mics is not factual. It just makes our fans seem bitter when we say things that aren't true. I mean, with the stuff that is proven, we have plenty to say about them.

 

LOL...OK...

I read it from a credible national source, so I don't give a damn what the league says. I also read it from a PLAYER on that team, that year, that saw it for himself...a player NOT named Brady...believe what you want, but don't try to come off like I'm spewing fiction...it happened.

 

OK. There is rampant speculation, and there is a former player who claims he hard something when he picked up a helmet. That is a far cry from them being "caught" with an extra mic. That is all I'm saying. I'm not even saying that it never happened. I'm saying they were never "caught."