#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really hope Goodell shows up on opening night.
I'm sure he'll get a rousing round of applause.
I'm sure he'll get a rousing round of applause.
I love it when foreigners go on and on about quaint sayings from the old country.WayBackVazquez said:
Ralphwiggum said:
This really isn't responsive to the question that started the thread, but if the "really hard science stuff" would place the NFL in a position that feels weak and vulnerable? You bet they would take the path of least resistance and look for a way out that gets them off the hook.
Let's also remember that a finding of guilt - no matter how minor - allows the NFL to avoid talking about the fact that people within the NFL were working in concert with one or more teams to set the Pats up in the AFC Championship game. If there is not a finding of guilt, this becomes the scandal. With a finding that "yes, the deflation happened" that conversation is swept aside.
And yes, this is precisely what the NFL did. When they could find no evidence of actual malfeasance, they exonerated Kraft, Belichick and the Pats organization. Then they made baseline assumptions and used those assumptions to craft a scenario that (carefully, and with a lot of wiggle room) placed the blame on Brady and the two underlings. Then they deferred any punishment until they could see which way the wind is blowing.
If I'm advising Brady, the first thing I ask is what are his objectives? Does he want to rehabilitate his image or does he want to minimize any punishment? Because the strategies are different.
If he's most concerned about limiting the damage from the punishment, the strategy he seems to be working on is a pretty solid one. Because given the way the NFL works, he can't blast them until the punishment is decided. But once the punishment is decided, you aggressively attack the report as the steaming pile of horseshit that it clearly is.
I would call a press conference and have Brady, his lawyer/agent and anyone else as appropriate take people through a point-by-point refutation of the allegations against him. If done properly, the effect can be mesmerizing. (Google "Harry Pearce GM vs Dateline NBC" for an example.)
Of course, there are significant risks with this strategy, in the sense that you can't allow the discussion to wander into territory that could backfire on your client. So yes, you have to have the "full disclosure" conversation before you do this. Benefit there is you might get to see pics of Giselle on Tom's phone during discovery.
If Roger shows up opening night, how out of control will Gillette be? Gotta imagine the place is going to be jacked beyond belief. On the flip side if he's not there can we get a "Where is Roger?" chant??
Things MSNBC just compared Deflategate to in a 60-second span:
Blood doping
Paul Pierce
pine tar (on balls!)
Soccer flopping
Loudly grunting in woman's tennis
Stealing signs
Blood doping
Paul Pierce
pine tar (on balls!)
Soccer flopping
Loudly grunting in woman's tennis
Stealing signs
Even 538 apparently isn't immune to idiocy on this matter - in their discussion of the Wells Report, we find this steaming turd of a paragraph from Ben Morris:
But the fun part is when you get all Bayesian about it. As I said at the time, the existence of the Patriots’ extremely low fumble rate, as a Bayesian matter, makes it much more likely that the Patriots were intentionally cheating – even though the link between fumble rates and inflation levels is only speculative. That’s the beauty of Bayesianism. But it gets better: Now that 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.
So let's get this straight: Bayesian inference works according to the equation P(H|E) = P(E|H) * P(H) / P(E), where P(H) is prior probability of the hypothesis, P(E) is the probability of observing the evidence, and | denotes conditional probability. Here, the original (H) was that the Patriots were deflating footballs, the evidence (E) was that they (apparently) had an anomalously low fumble rate. Never mind that (E) is not even a real phenomenon in the first place, as his own colleagues proved, or that as Morris now admits, the link between the two, P(E|H), is pure speculation. So essentially, his grand Bayesian magic works out to:
P(Patriots deflating footballs) = (Speculation) * (However likely you originally thought it was that Patriots were deflating footballs) / (Probability of observing something that doesn't exist)
Congrats, Ben: you've managed to translate this entire clownshow into math terms. Good for you.
But the fun part is when you get all Bayesian about it. As I said at the time, the existence of the Patriots’ extremely low fumble rate, as a Bayesian matter, makes it much more likely that the Patriots were intentionally cheating – even though the link between fumble rates and inflation levels is only speculative. That’s the beauty of Bayesianism. But it gets better: Now that 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.
So let's get this straight: Bayesian inference works according to the equation P(H|E) = P(E|H) * P(H) / P(E), where P(H) is prior probability of the hypothesis, P(E) is the probability of observing the evidence, and | denotes conditional probability. Here, the original (H) was that the Patriots were deflating footballs, the evidence (E) was that they (apparently) had an anomalously low fumble rate. Never mind that (E) is not even a real phenomenon in the first place, as his own colleagues proved, or that as Morris now admits, the link between the two, P(E|H), is pure speculation. So essentially, his grand Bayesian magic works out to:
P(Patriots deflating footballs) = (Speculation) * (However likely you originally thought it was that Patriots were deflating footballs) / (Probability of observing something that doesn't exist)
Congrats, Ben: you've managed to translate this entire clownshow into math terms. Good for you.
This makes some sense, but...wouldn't there be more stuff out there that shows they cheat than something literally no one cared about before? The argument is basically "they win a lot and they videotaped signals 8 years ago and they aren't friendly."Van Everyman said:
I mean, MLB went through some sketchy means to "catch" A-Rod, but PEDs were at least something that were a big deal previously.
Tax evasion isn't murder, but it's a well-known crime, so this falls short. It's more like sending someone to prison for a parking ticket...except that the meter was faulty, so it's not clear that they ran out of time...plus a bunch of other people parked at the same meter that week as well with no ticket.
crystalline said:
Professors do this kind of work all the time--and the NFL did hire one. But the typical way to retain a professor is to work through someone like Exponent (a firm like exponent provides the back office, secretarial support, smart analysts to do actual work, etc.)
Actually the Myers article links the thinking and it is not surprising. TB will be nailed for alleged role in deflation and for refusal to part with cell records. And that would set a pretty good stage for the suspension to be cut in half
Yes, this is exactly correct. The point is, you don't just call up Princeton, ask to speak to a physicist and then have someone who is perfectly suited to NFL football analysis. The NFL hired a particle physicist, who isn't going to be an expert at this stuff (although it appears he teaches basic physics classes which may cover parts of it). You want an engineering prof who has experience doing this exact type of work and who also has consulting experience. And even then you will normally be working through a consulting firm that provides back office, analyst support, etc.Shelterdog said:
The potential conversation posted above Wells had with consultants is exactly right, and hilarious. "Your gauges have a 0.4 psi difference? You don't know which one was used? And you're trying to discern a 0.35 psig variation? So what exactly would you like me to do for you again???"
This entire tempest in a pisscup should not bother me, but it does. While the haters gonna hate (and the teasers gonna tease), when my buddies at work start ranting
I feel a need to introduce logic and reason. And its a tedious endeavour.
Since it is what it is, I shall indulge and use SOSH to clarify some points.
It is more probable than not that the Wells report is a hack job (why weren't engineering profs engaged?) designed to give the NFL room to move (and props to Jeff Van Gundy for calling it out!).
Still... for the sake of argument, let's accept Pierces viewpoint (http://grantland.com/the-triangle/burn-brady-burn-the-wells-report-and-the-embattled-patriots-quarterback/) that something happened. As was posted up thread, perhaps Brady has made his preferences clear, and his guys make sure it happens. And on a wet & cold day with refs all over the place, they kind of messed up (carefully deflating 12 balls in 100 seconds is hard!).
So if the punishment should fit the crime .. what was the crime?
a ) "It was an unfair advantage". Many qbs (i.e.; Rodgers) would NOT have wanted to be given that advantage. Perhaps amongst the class of qbs who like the balls soft it was unfair?
c) "The sanctity of the game!" Football teams are always looking for an advantage. If a team is coached to push the boundarieses (i.e; quick grab a receiver 8 yards out) because it helps and is rarely caught -- what happens when the refs wise up? A penalty or two is called. If it continues, maybe the refs warn the team they are being watched. But a private investigation leading to suspensions?
d) "Precedent: Sean Payton". So tolerating/encouraging actions that can lead to injury is indistinguishable from a tweak that has been essentially ignored. One has to delve into the archives to learn about similar events (i.e.; Carolina being warned not to, in full sight of everyone, warm up the footballs on the sideline).
So WTF is motivating the NFL (as Van Everyman asks at #17355 above)? That's a topic that deserves its own thread!
I feel a need to introduce logic and reason. And its a tedious endeavour.
Since it is what it is, I shall indulge and use SOSH to clarify some points.
It is more probable than not that the Wells report is a hack job (why weren't engineering profs engaged?) designed to give the NFL room to move (and props to Jeff Van Gundy for calling it out!).
Still... for the sake of argument, let's accept Pierces viewpoint (http://grantland.com/the-triangle/burn-brady-burn-the-wells-report-and-the-embattled-patriots-quarterback/) that something happened. As was posted up thread, perhaps Brady has made his preferences clear, and his guys make sure it happens. And on a wet & cold day with refs all over the place, they kind of messed up (carefully deflating 12 balls in 100 seconds is hard!).
So if the punishment should fit the crime .. what was the crime?
a ) "It was an unfair advantage". Many qbs (i.e.; Rodgers) would NOT have wanted to be given that advantage. Perhaps amongst the class of qbs who like the balls soft it was unfair?
- BTW: best quote of the day (speedracer #17245 above) "And it is not a good thing when your organization in any way makes FIFA look rational."
c) "The sanctity of the game!" Football teams are always looking for an advantage. If a team is coached to push the boundarieses (i.e; quick grab a receiver 8 yards out) because it helps and is rarely caught -- what happens when the refs wise up? A penalty or two is called. If it continues, maybe the refs warn the team they are being watched. But a private investigation leading to suspensions?
d) "Precedent: Sean Payton". So tolerating/encouraging actions that can lead to injury is indistinguishable from a tweak that has been essentially ignored. One has to delve into the archives to learn about similar events (i.e.; Carolina being warned not to, in full sight of everyone, warm up the footballs on the sideline).
- BTW: why is MLB so much better about these minor rule breaking affairs? They get a good laugh about them (ie.; Pine tar game, https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=pine+tar+game&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001 rather then near-religious conniptions.
So WTF is motivating the NFL (as Van Everyman asks at #17355 above)? That's a topic that deserves its own thread!
I would hammer home several key points relentlessly if I was Brady/Yee:
1. My preference for the footballs is to be at 12.5. That's what my guys know I want. That's at the low end of the legal range, but still legal. They know because I've cited the rule book to them before on this.
2. I'd like the NFL to answer the question of how it was that during the Jets' game this season I was given footballs at 16psi to play with. Either the refs don't take this stuff too seriously and this whole thing is much ado about nothing, or there were some refs who were shady and deliberately pumped up the balls way above the legal range.
3. I'd like to know why the NFL isn't doing anything to the Carolina Panthers when they were caught on video tampering with the psi of the footballs during a game this year, but when we are simply *suspected* of it, we are facing possible serious punishment.
4. I want to know EXACTLY what I might be punished for. EXACTLY. Being more probable than not "generally aware" of possible misconduct on the part of a couple of our employees is not acceptable. There are guys on teams that are "generally aware" of all kinds of misconduct - steroid use, etc. - but they don't face punishment for that. I need to know the exact charge being leveled at me. And then I need to see the evidence for such misconduct that would warrant punishment from the league.
1. My preference for the footballs is to be at 12.5. That's what my guys know I want. That's at the low end of the legal range, but still legal. They know because I've cited the rule book to them before on this.
2. I'd like the NFL to answer the question of how it was that during the Jets' game this season I was given footballs at 16psi to play with. Either the refs don't take this stuff too seriously and this whole thing is much ado about nothing, or there were some refs who were shady and deliberately pumped up the balls way above the legal range.
3. I'd like to know why the NFL isn't doing anything to the Carolina Panthers when they were caught on video tampering with the psi of the footballs during a game this year, but when we are simply *suspected* of it, we are facing possible serious punishment.
4. I want to know EXACTLY what I might be punished for. EXACTLY. Being more probable than not "generally aware" of possible misconduct on the part of a couple of our employees is not acceptable. There are guys on teams that are "generally aware" of all kinds of misconduct - steroid use, etc. - but they don't face punishment for that. I need to know the exact charge being leveled at me. And then I need to see the evidence for such misconduct that would warrant punishment from the league.
crystalline said:
And this is where the hiring of Exponent should be called into question because their answer is essentially no problem, we will get the results you are looking for *wink, wink* It doesn't matter that there isn't a single piece of scientific evidence worth a damn.
This has got to be the part that has BB/Kraft seething. They know this is the first thing that would be thrown out if this was an actual court case but since it is an "investigative" report there is nothing he can do.
I'm really hoping that all the draft capital spent on the DL this year is because Bill B is bringing back the 46 Defense this year in the ultimate F-U season. Get up by a couple scores then release the hounds.
crystalline said:
And the professors who've been around the block say "of course I'm willing to opine on this. If the conditions are right the ideal gas law would not explain the changes in pressure. I can only work with the assumptions you give me. My rate is $1000 an hour (seriously, experts charge amounts like that) and it will take me roughly 50 hours."
soxhop411 said:
The first part of this prediction makes no sense. Brady is accused of having "general knowledge" of ball tampering. What rule is this a "violation" of? (Isn't Florio supposed to be a lawyer or something?)
As for the second part, I think the "didn't fully cooperate" jive may well be what Goodell hangs his hat on, since there is really nothing else in the Wells report that shows punishable misbehavior by Brady. I'm actually OK with Goodell using this as a basis, because I think it gets smashed into tiny little pieces by the NFLPA on appeal.
I keep hearing people say Brady should've just come clean before the super bowl or now and this would've all gone away. Amazingly it's always non-pats fans saying it. I've already seen many claims about how the Wells report proves the Patriots and Brady cheats. If Brady admitted anything, this would've been an even bigger deal now and would've come with a larger suspension and fine. Now if he is caught red handed in the future it will obviously be a bigger deal down the road for his legacy. If Wells didn't find anything conclusive, I don't know where that smoking gun is coming from.
dcmissle said:
OK, so a $25K fine for this aspect of the case... right? Maybe $50K since it was a conference championship game?
If this is really the primary rationale for the punishment, I think it sets a pretty good stage for the suspension to be thrown out altogether.
Turned on NY sports radio on my drive in to the office. Heard host compare Brady worse than ARod. Now my head hurts from banging it against my desk
I don't believe Brady refusing to turn over his PERSONAL cell phone and email can be used as a basis for punishment. I mean, Roger can cite it, but it's going to get tossed out on appeal.
I was referring to every show on Maddog sports or ESPN radio. To me, it just doesn't add up to a smart move. If Arod admitted to steroid use at the start of it, I doubt he is even playing Major League Baseball today and his legacy was shit from the start anyways.Fred in Lynn said:
ivanvamp said:
Oh God that would be the best.
As long as we're dreaming, does Roger attend the opening game? Would love to have the entire team turn their back to Roger then drop their pants and bend over.
It depends. When I've had unique cases I call college engineering and science departments directly and find out which professor would be best for my case. Or I'll ca up local engineering firms and see who is most qualified.Shelterdog said:
Sometimes this leads to the professor/engineer looking at the case, running some experiments, and telling me my argument won't really hold up. That can be just as valuable as a hired gun that will tell me what I want to hear because then I know my case isn't very strong and won't play well long term and at trial.
There can be a little more effort working with professors, but sometimes not. Wells had 4 months to put this together though. Plenty of time to recruit a few professors and engineers. Maybe some say the data is insufficient, some come up with similar numbers as Exponent, and another comes up with different experiment results.
Then the conclusion is, we consulted several expertd in the field who had differing opinions. Thus, it cannot be said for certain whether the footballs were artificially deflated or not.
That also makes it look more like a true fact finding mission. In litigation, each side has their own experts who are going to support each side's argument. It's then up to the trier of fact to weigh those experts' opinions and determine who is more credible. Here, only one source was used and it appears the lawyers went through their regular motions and directed the expert the same way as if they were preparing a case to litigate. But this isn't litigation.
Putting aside the "more probable than not" language, how do you suspend someone for being "at least generally aware" of something? Shouldn't the finding be something like "at least tangentially involved"?
Perhaps lawyers could help me out here but "generally aware" does not seem to suggest any active role whatsoever, and the rest of the argument appears to hinge on the Marc Brunell theory that "Tom must have known."
Perhaps lawyers could help me out here but "generally aware" does not seem to suggest any active role whatsoever, and the rest of the argument appears to hinge on the Marc Brunell theory that "Tom must have known."
You tell Tom to look at what Andy Pettitte did on February 18, 2008 and you do your version of Andy's apology. Andy went on to play 5 more seasons and the "cheater" label completely vanished. If you go the other route and lose the battle of public opinion, you risk becoming Pete Rose/Barry Bonds/Lance Armstrong/Alex Rodriguez in the public's eye.
I don't understand why you are so confident about this; it's the aspect of the case that concerns me most.MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
Take the request for cell records out of this context. Suppose there were litigation arising out of this matter, and a subpoena were served on TB for the records. I think there is a pretty good chance a judge would enforce that subpoena, particularly with the safeguards offered by Wells.
What I cannot evaluate right now is the extent to which the refusal impeded his investigation, which will be an important factor.
My workmate (a Gators Fan) is now saying "we think that Hernandez is not as bad as Brady".RedOctober3829 said:
Get used to it. As my wife's boss used to say, "its like being kicked to death by rabbits"
This is the weakest aspect of the case, as I have been saying for days. I don't know how Goodell has a basis for drawing factual inferences that Wells declined to draw. So then you are left with Tom's awareness, which I would seem insufficient.Van Everyman said:
dcmissle said:
But the NFL doesn't live in a world of subpoenas and Tom Brady isn't required to hand over his cell phone since he is a member of the union (NFLPA). The fact that he is part of the union is a huge reason while pretty much any NFL suspension would be overturned or reduced to a game if that.
dhellers said:
It's therapeutic for them to think this way and say things like this. Can you even imagine how pissed they are that the Pats won the SB again and that they are reminded of it every time they think about the NFL? Also, in the back of their minds, they're concerned about this poking the bear again this year.
Check out all of the August posts in the Dolphins threads from years gone by and compare them to those in the same threads in October and beyond. They can't take the Pats anymore and that's just one team.
I tell clients their case sucks if it does. If some of those clients then decide that they don't want to call me again, fuck them - I don't want to work with them anyway. I'll take the calls from people who want to know the truth and then decide what to do with that.Bongorific said:
That said, there's clearly plenty of people in the market that will say whatever you want. I'm an economist, so I can't speak to Exponent themselves.
dcmissle said:
dcmissle said:
I go back to bountygate when the suspensions Vilma were overturned. This isn't a gambling investigation which is far more serious. We are talking about a minor rules infraction that has been blown way the fuck out of proportion. Its embarrassing for the league that it has come to this. The NFLPA is pretty damn good at winning cases against the NFL in these types of cases.
It's a variant of a legal theory (vicarious liability) that's typically used to assign liability to an organization or higher management, not a non-supervisory co-worker.Van Everyman said:
In terms of employer discipline, I can certainly see situations in which employers would punish an employee who gives co-workers instructions that he knows or should know are likely to lead to misconduct.
That would be much less likely to happen in a unionized environment. I cannot imagine an arbitrator upholding discipline under the standard applied in the Wells report. I question whether, under the CBA and NFL past practice, that standard even applies to individual player discipline, as opposed to violations imputed to the organization itself.
I can't see a suspension not being overturned. Barely any evidence linking Brady to the act, and can't they just say you warned the Panthers when caught red handed? How can you suspend Brady with less evidence and suspect conclusions?
We may think it is BS, but Goodell says this bears on game integrity. I think that proposition will be accepted.jsinger121 said:
And Wells got e-mails from Incognito and Martin, didn't he? Or were those on team supplied devices?
They don't get their rings on Opening Night. They get their rings at a ceremony most likely at Kraft's home. On Opening Night, they do the banner unveiling.amlothi said: