Saw a report saying the Colts balls were tested at the half and all 12 came in w/in regulations.
The first play of the 2nd half had a ball replaced; initial speculation was that they had a kicking ball out there, but that's come into question now. Seems like the ball guy might have been up to something.
Belicheck threw Brady under the bus this morning if you ask me at his press conference. He denied knowing anything about it but said you'd have to ask Brady about his preferences because he knows guys have them and talk about them occasionally.
In a rainy game, it is common to keep the "on-deck" ball under a towel to keep it as dry as possible. Easy to conceal any needle-poke from cameras.
I think the real question here is whether or not the balls were reinflated at halftime after they were found to be too low? If so, were they lowered during the second half after the testing? That's why the first play ball switch seems awfully suspicious to me.
Brady's press conference comments were interesting. He said "I didn't deflate the footballs." What he didn't say, as far as I know (I'm only reading summaries of his conference) is "I didn't ask anyone to deflate the balls for me." (If he did say something to the effect, please correct me).
If so, then the burden of proof of deliberate intent rests with the NFL. And the only way they can get this proof is through video footage of getting a ballboy or someone else to confess that they did it.
Troy has spoken."I know going back to when I played, they've loosened up the rules in terms of what each team is able to do with the footballs coming into the game. Used to, the home team provided all the balls. And now, each team brings their footballs the way they like them and break 'em in," Aikman said. "Used to you couldn't break them in. So for the balls to be deflated, that doesn't happen unless the quarterback wants that to happen, I can assure you of that. Now the question becomes did Bill Belichick know about it."Case closed.
This whole mess is beyond sad when you look at what the media is putting out and the shear numbers of ignorant people taking it all at face value. I can "deflate" your plays/fumble stat in one sentence: The patriots run-game is historically garbage, they pass much much more, and not only that but they use a hurry-up offense more often than most if not all teams. To explain that sentence: less runs = less fumbles, more passes = less fumbles, and hurry-up offense = more plays. Therefore, the Patriots run more plays than other teams, and these plays have less fumble risk. Using the plays/fumble ratio, the increase in the numerator (plays) increases the overall ratio even if fumbles stay the same, and increase even more since the play breakdown reduces the denominator (fumbles). Get it?
“It’s obvious that Tom Brady had something to do with this,” Aikman told the station
Making statements like this without evidence is why everyone is already so disillusioned with the whole thing, especially when made by trusted veterans. It's pathetic. I'll say again, if this is real and the Pats did this on purpose I'll accept that. But right now, everyone who's buying into every single article looks stupid.
Last thing for tonight, remember when the story first broke and the media said Jackson caught the interception, felt the ball, and then brought up whether it was deflated? Yea, he's been quoted saying that's bullshit and he just wanted to keep the ball like many players do when do something similar. He denies any involvement in this at all. Just another example of how this whole story is founded on conjecture.
Maybe they did, maybe they did not. I'm just joking about Troy of course, I'm not sure he knows where he is half the time. I think the third image has them at such an extreme that it'd be interesting to break down more, they're not the only team to run the hurry up. End of the day, most of us agree that it would not have changed the outcome of the game, but IF proven that anyone in the Pats organization knew about the deflation then they should be penalized.
Maybe they did, maybe they did not. I'm just joking about Troy of course, I'm not sure he knows where he is half the time. I think the third image has them at such an extreme that it'd be interesting to break down more, they're not the only team to run the hurry up.
Sorry if I sound aggressive but this is all I've heard all day for the entire week at work because the crew on the ship have been listening non-stop. Also, no they aren't the only team, but they're very likely running it at a much higher rate than any other. I didn't put absolutes into my refute, because I haven't the time to actually look up those stats, so clearly I could be wrong. But they're using the same reasoning/logic lol
Now it's getting kind of weird isn't it? The balls were deflated by 1 to 2 pounds when checked, I believe that's a fact. Or so says the NFL. Tom says at his presser that the NFL hadn't spoken to him yet, interesting. Jackson told reporters he didn't think the ball he intercepted felt different, and he probably couldn't tell if it was under inflated anyway, interesting. Not to worry, the NFL is on the case, let's watch events unfold.
This whole mess is beyond sad when you look at what the media is putting out and the shear numbers of ignorant people taking it all at face value. I can "deflate" your plays/fumble stat in one sentence: The patriots run-game is historically garbage, they pass much much more, and not only that but they use a hurry-up offense more often than most if not all teams. To explain that sentence: less runs = less fumbles, more passes = less fumbles, and hurry-up offense = more plays. Therefore, the Patriots run more plays than other teams, and these plays have less fumble risk. Using the plays/fumble ratio, the increase in the numerator (plays) increases the overall ratio even if fumbles stay the same, and increase even more since the play breakdown reduces the denominator (fumbles). Get it?
“It’s obvious that Tom Brady had something to do with this,” Aikman told the station
Making statements like this without evidence is why everyone is already so disillusioned with the whole thing, especially when made by trusted veterans. It's pathetic. I'll say again, if this is real and the Pats did this on purpose I'll accept that. But right now, everyone who's buying into every single article looks stupid.
Last thing for tonight, remember when the story first broke and the media said Jackson caught the interception, felt the ball, and then brought up whether it was deflated? Yea, he's been quoted saying that's bullshit and he just wanted to keep the ball like many players do when do something similar. He denies any involvement in this at all. Just another example of how this whole story is founded on conjecture.
Ignorant people take it at face value, eh? Ok, well let's see if we should take your claim at face value. With the numbers clearly stated above I decided to do some analysis and stop being so ignorant. Specificialy, "they pass much more" which I interpreted to mean you're saying they run less than the average team therefore these stats have a smaller impact on their overall performance as a team. At least that's the only logical thread I could follow from that statement to why these stats don't matter. Well, the number of run plays in the last 5 years is right up there so I just punched them into excel and calculated a league average: 5,636.25. Then we compare that to the Pats, who ran the ball 5,912 time. So they're above average. How far you might ask? What percentage of teams are they lower than? Well, for that we need to calculate a standard deviation so we can calculate a z-score and then a percentile rank. I'm treating the NFL as a unique population rather than correcting for sample size from a larger population, which I think is a justifiable method here since I can't imagine what population NFL teams would represent. The standard deviation (that's how far a team falls form the average, on average) is 261.1533, which means the Pats have a z-score of 1.06, meaning they are roughly at a percentile rank of 84. They've run a number of times among the TOP 15% OF TEAMS.
Or I could have taken the easier route to the same answer, I know. If you sort the number of plays, you quickly find they're number 4 in the league. Do they probably also run more plays in general than other teams because they get more first downs? Yes, so this isn't a perfect analysis. But I doubt strongly that that would move them from top 4 to below average.
I'd like to see this at the Superbowl. (Of course the NFL might not like the idea.) You know all the extra curricular activities outside the stadium? They should have a game set up where fans get to throw ten footballs. Without the fans prior knowledge they will be given five normally inflated balls and then five balls with two lbs less air. After they complete the passes the fan is taken to a separate area for de-briefing. The point is to see who of this group can correctly identify whether the first five balls they threw were deflated or the last five balls they threw. I'd be interested to see the results of this blind survey.
I'd like to see this at the Superbowl. (Of course the NFL might not like the idea.) You know all the extra curricular activities outside the stadium? They should have a game set up where fans get to throw ten footballs. Without the fans prior knowledge they will be given five normally inflated balls and then five balls with two lbs less air. After they complete the passes the fan is taken to a separate area for de-briefing. The point is to see who of this group can correctly identify whether the first five balls they threw were deflated or the last five balls they threw. I'd be interested to see the results of this blind survey.
I like it. To account for practice and fatigue effects, they should be given in one of two pseudo-random orders like RDDRDRRDRD and DRRDRDDRDR.
This whole mess is beyond sad when you look at what the media is putting out and the shear numbers of ignorant people taking it all at face value. I can "deflate" your plays/fumble stat in one sentence: The patriots run-game is historically garbage, they pass much much more, and not only that but they use a hurry-up offense more often than most if not all teams. To explain that sentence: less runs = less fumbles, more passes = less fumbles, and hurry-up offense = more plays. Therefore, the Patriots run more plays than other teams, and these plays have less fumble risk. Using the plays/fumble ratio, the increase in the numerator (plays) increases the overall ratio even if fumbles stay the same, and increase even more since the play breakdown reduces the denominator (fumbles). Get it?
“It’s obvious that Tom Brady had something to do with this,” Aikman told the station
Making statements like this without evidence is why everyone is already so disillusioned with the whole thing, especially when made by trusted veterans. It's pathetic. I'll say again, if this is real and the Pats did this on purpose I'll accept that. But right now, everyone who's buying into every single article looks stupid.
Last thing for tonight, remember when the story first broke and the media said Jackson caught the interception, felt the ball, and then brought up whether it was deflated? Yea, he's been quoted saying that's bullshit and he just wanted to keep the ball like many players do when do something similar. He denies any involvement in this at all. Just another example of how this whole story is founded on conjecture.
Ignorant people take it at face value, eh? Ok, well let's see if we should take your claim at face value. With the numbers clearly stated above I decided to do some analysis and stop being so ignorant. Specificialy, "they pass much more" which I interpreted to mean you're saying they run less than the average team therefore these stats have a smaller impact on their overall performance as a team. At least that's the only logical thread I could follow from that statement to why these stats don't matter. Well, the number of run plays in the last 5 years is right up there so I just punched them into excel and calculated a league average: 5,636.25. Then we compare that to the Pats, who ran the ball 5,912 time. So they're above average. How far you might ask? What percentage of teams are they lower than? Well, for that we need to calculate a standard deviation so we can calculate a z-score and then a percentile rank. I'm treating the NFL as a unique population rather than correcting for sample size from a larger population, which I think is a justifiable method here since I can't imagine what population NFL teams would represent. The standard deviation (that's how far a team falls form the average, on average) is 261.1533, which means the Pats have a z-score of 1.06, meaning they are roughly at a percentile rank of 84. They've run a number of times among the TOP 15% OF TEAMS.
Or I could have taken the easier route to the same answer, I know. If you sort the number of plays, you quickly find they're number 4 in the league. Do they probably also run more plays in general than other teams because they get more first downs? Yes, so this isn't a perfect analysis. But I doubt strongly that that would move them from top 4 to below average.
That was a great post thanks! Seriously. You were right to focus on my use of "ignorant" but I think if you look at my post after I apologized for being aggressive due to a shitty week. Also, I admitted to using no facts in my post you quoted so you're right it shouldn't be taken at face value. However, my post was intended to dissuade anyone to take anybody's non-factual words at face value. I used the same logic the media is to instill doubt in the opposing argument.
Now, to your analysis which is quite good. I think that merely looking at the total runs is not entirely valid because I also mentioned the Pats might run more overall plays than most teams. Therefore, total runs should be higher than average by increasing total plays without changing ratios of passes or runs per play. So, you're correct that I was wrong when guessing that the Pats ran less than other teams, in total, but maybe not so on average. Do you have those stats? I.e. runs/play?
Next, total plays is again not so valid. All incomplete passes should be removed because none of those plays could have generated a fumble, same to interceptions. This is of course assuming the QB doesn't fumble at the snap but that happens so infrequently I think it's safe to ignore here. Therefore, the plays part of plays/fumble gets decreased and the rankings of each team could be completely different now. Then what about kneel-down plays? Take those out too, and if you look at the teams with more wins, they likely have more kneel-downs. Basically, total plays includes many plays that may have almost 0% chance of a fumble so I take issue with that stat being used to draw such conclusions.
Lastly, you mentioned that even if we do all this analysis they're very likely in the top few teams so it's not really a significant change. I'd argue that lowering the Pats even a single ranking is a significant change, because the article was saying that the Pats plays/fumble ratio was so ridiculous it was seemingly impossible without cheating. If they were #2, or #3, or #4 then one could still say they're suspiciously high up, but its no longer impossible.
This all being said, I again have not taken the time to run any numbers so if you're reading this please don't think I mean to instill my words as facts to anybody. I just think everyone should look at what the media has been putting out with skeptic eyes and look at what they're really saying, what they're leaving out, and who/what they're referencing.
Oh and about the 11/12 footballs thing again mentioned a few posts ago, I've still not found a single article with any proof of this. They all mention "sources that may be familiar with the NFL" or "unconfirmed reports" or any other way to say there's no facts yet only rumors. Go to the NFL's website, none of that is stated by the actual NFL.
You know what...the Pats won the coin flip 13 out of 17 times this season. Which is statistically improbable. Clearly, Belichek tampered with the coin while it was in the air. That's the only possible explanation.
You know what...the Pats won the coin flip 13 out of 17 times this season. Which is statistically improbable. Clearly, Belichek tampered with the coin while it was in the air. That's the only possible explanation.
Here we go stirring up the natives again lol. This is getting kind of comical, yesterday I was reading the NY Post, flipped the page and across 2 pages there were 3 opinion articles about this and 1 about an actual news event. Put the cable news on and if they are not leading with it it is in the first few blocks. Another interesting thing I noticed was the Post had the Hawks favored by 3 until yesterday, now the Pats are favored by 3, could've been a mis-print too.
While this should be covered on all the sports news outlets prominently, it has taken over national news blocks and probably local as well. Must be a slow news cycle going on.
You know what...the Pats won the coin flip 13 out of 17 times this season. Which is statistically improbable. Clearly, Belichek tampered with the coin while it was in the air. That's the only possible explanation.
Here we go stirring up the natives again lol. This is getting kind of comical, yesterday I was reading the NY Post, flipped the page and across 2 pages there were 3 opinion articles about this and 1 about an actual news event. Put the cable news on and if they are not leading with it it is in the first few blocks. Another interesting thing I noticed was the Post had the Hawks favored by 3 until yesterday, now the Pats are favored by 3, could've been a mis-print too.
While this should be covered on all the sports news outlets prominently, it has taken over national news blocks and probably local as well. Must be a slow news cycle going on.
Preaching to the choir man. A doctor was shot and killed in a prominent Boston hospital a few days ago, and that barely got coverage in comparison. The 2 Japanese hostages story is getting bigger by the day, almost no time for that story either. Celtics won a game at the buzzer a few days ago, even the local sports stations couldn't spare more than a passing phrase at it.
You know what...the Pats won the coin flip 13 out of 17 times this season. Which is statistically improbable. Clearly, Belichek tampered with the coin while it was in the air. That's the only possible explanation.
Here we go stirring up the natives again lol. This is getting kind of comical, yesterday I was reading the NY Post, flipped the page and across 2 pages there were 3 opinion articles about this and 1 about an actual news event. Put the cable news on and if they are not leading with it it is in the first few blocks. Another interesting thing I noticed was the Post had the Hawks favored by 3 until yesterday, now the Pats are favored by 3, could've been a mis-print too.
While this should be covered on all the sports news outlets prominently, it has taken over national news blocks and probably local as well. Must be a slow news cycle going on.
Preaching to the choir man. A doctor was shot and killed in a prominent Boston hospital a few days ago, and that barely got coverage in comparison. The 2 Japanese hostages story is getting bigger by the day, almost no time for that story either. Celtics won a game at the buzzer a few days ago, even the local sports stations couldn't spare more than a passing phrase at it.
When this is all said and done and the Pats or Indy are guilty what is the punishment? A draft pick and a fine right. Isn't that what has happened before? Now, the only reason I added Indy to that is because when I'm in a group of people I don't know well and sneak out a stinker, I'm the first one to look around and sniff or say who farted?
Comments
A Boston coffee shop selling airless football cookies at "deflated prices."
The first play of the 2nd half had a ball replaced; initial speculation was that they had a kicking ball out there, but that's come into question now. Seems like the ball guy might have been up to something.
Belicheck threw Brady under the bus this morning if you ask me at his press conference. He denied knowing anything about it but said you'd have to ask Brady about his preferences because he knows guys have them and talk about them occasionally.
In a rainy game, it is common to keep the "on-deck" ball under a towel to keep it as dry as possible. Easy to conceal any needle-poke from cameras.
I think the real question here is whether or not the balls were reinflated at halftime after they were found to be too low? If so, were they lowered during the second half after the testing? That's why the first play ball switch seems awfully suspicious to me.
If so, then the burden of proof of deliberate intent rests with the NFL. And the only way they can get this proof is through video footage of getting a ballboy or someone else to confess that they did it.
Let's see what develops....
The New England Patriots Prevention of Fumbles is Nearly Impossible
And sorry Randy, Troy Aikmen lost all credibility in this bullshit when he made a definitive statement about a story with no provable facts and one that is likely trending towards being wrong anyway. See quote here: http://nypost.com/2015/01/22/aikman-on-deflategate-brady-knew-and-belichick-should-burn/
“It’s obvious that Tom Brady had something to do with this,” Aikman told the station
Making statements like this without evidence is why everyone is already so disillusioned with the whole thing, especially when made by trusted veterans. It's pathetic. I'll say again, if this is real and the Pats did this on purpose I'll accept that. But right now, everyone who's buying into every single article looks stupid.
Last thing for tonight, remember when the story first broke and the media said Jackson caught the interception, felt the ball, and then brought up whether it was deflated? Yea, he's been quoted saying that's bullshit and he just wanted to keep the ball like many players do when do something similar. He denies any involvement in this at all. Just another example of how this whole story is founded on conjecture.
Or I could have taken the easier route to the same answer, I know. If you sort the number of plays, you quickly find they're number 4 in the league. Do they probably also run more plays in general than other teams because they get more first downs? Yes, so this isn't a perfect analysis. But I doubt strongly that that would move them from top 4 to below average.
Now, to your analysis which is quite good. I think that merely looking at the total runs is not entirely valid because I also mentioned the Pats might run more overall plays than most teams. Therefore, total runs should be higher than average by increasing total plays without changing ratios of passes or runs per play. So, you're correct that I was wrong when guessing that the Pats ran less than other teams, in total, but maybe not so on average. Do you have those stats? I.e. runs/play?
Next, total plays is again not so valid. All incomplete passes should be removed because none of those plays could have generated a fumble, same to interceptions. This is of course assuming the QB doesn't fumble at the snap but that happens so infrequently I think it's safe to ignore here. Therefore, the plays part of plays/fumble gets decreased and the rankings of each team could be completely different now. Then what about kneel-down plays? Take those out too, and if you look at the teams with more wins, they likely have more kneel-downs. Basically, total plays includes many plays that may have almost 0% chance of a fumble so I take issue with that stat being used to draw such conclusions.
Lastly, you mentioned that even if we do all this analysis they're very likely in the top few teams so it's not really a significant change. I'd argue that lowering the Pats even a single ranking is a significant change, because the article was saying that the Pats plays/fumble ratio was so ridiculous it was seemingly impossible without cheating. If they were #2, or #3, or #4 then one could still say they're suspiciously high up, but its no longer impossible.
This all being said, I again have not taken the time to run any numbers so if you're reading this please don't think I mean to instill my words as facts to anybody. I just think everyone should look at what the media has been putting out with skeptic eyes and look at what they're really saying, what they're leaving out, and who/what they're referencing.
Oh and about the 11/12 footballs thing again mentioned a few posts ago, I've still not found a single article with any proof of this. They all mention "sources that may be familiar with the NFL" or "unconfirmed reports" or any other way to say there's no facts yet only rumors. Go to the NFL's website, none of that is stated by the actual NFL.
Here we go stirring up the natives again lol. This is getting kind of comical, yesterday I was reading the NY Post, flipped the page and across 2 pages there were 3 opinion articles about this and 1 about an actual news event. Put the cable news on and if they are not leading with it it is in the first few blocks. Another interesting thing I noticed was the Post had the Hawks favored by 3 until yesterday, now the Pats are favored by 3, could've been a mis-print too.
While this should be covered on all the sports news outlets prominently, it has taken over national news blocks and probably local as well. Must be a slow news cycle going on.