#DFG: Canceling the Noise

Is there any level of suspension that you would advise Tom to accept?


  • Total voters
    208

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,209
lars10 said:
Yeah..because nobody still brings up spygate. I have no idea how the nfl can justify suspensions on a case built on assumption on top of assumption.
 
You are talking about the National Football League, right?  This is an organization who was caught lying about whether it had a videotape in its possession that showed one of its better known players beating the ever living hell out of his girlfriend.  And the initial punishment for that crime was a measly two games until the national media goaded the league to grudgingly expand it.    They now have their fans clamoring for a season long suspension because some footballs were under-inflated.   
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,457
Finally read Wells Report. Yawn. Barring any new developments, I've yet to see anything that warrants discipline. Chill w/ the hyperbole.
— Scott Fujita (@sfujita55) May 10, 2015
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
20,404
Average Reds said:
Just going to have to make a mental note to include Shula in my death pool next year, since I like to root for the demise of people on my list.
With all due respect, I hope you don't get the chance. I've got my sights on a 2015 exit for that crotchety old fuck.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,427
He's been shooting at the Pats for years. A better team and a better coach have bruised his ego.

old man tears are like wine. They taste better with age.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,573
Here
Luis Taint said:
Hightower almost stripping Butler, would have killed me.
 
Pats almost certainly would have recovered, but we would have had to sit there hearing whether or not there was a football move made or whether it was incomplete. Would have been a major shitshow. 
 
Also lol Shula. Dignity and class, the asshole got there in the first place by tampering and I am one million percent sure he did way worse in his days.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
 
You are talking about the National Football League, right?  This is an organization who was caught lying about whether it had a videotape in its possession that showed one of its better known players beating the ever living hell out of his girlfriend.  And the initial punishment for that crime was a measly two games until the national media goaded the league to grudgingly expand it.    They now have their fans clamoring for a season long suspension because some footballs were under-inflated.   
Which means they will do what the public wants. A harsh punishment

NFL=Wwe
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
baruch20 said:
DAVIE, Fla. -- Hall of Famer Don Shula, the winningest head coach in NFL history, took a not-so-subtle shot at the New England Patriots and their latest "Deflategate" controversy on Saturday.

"Our record in those 50 years was always done with a lot of class, a lot of dignity, a lot of doing it the right way. We didn't deflate any balls."

Hall of Fame coach Don Shula
Serving as a guest of honor at the Miami Dolphins' 50th season celebration, Shula praised how the organization developed its football tradition "the right way," while slighting the rival Patriots.


How did your last decade of coaching go, Don?
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
Ed Hillel said:
Also lol Shula. Dignity and class, the asshole got there in the first place by tampering and I am one million percent sure he did way worse in his days.
 
Correct, the Dolphins had to fork over a first round draft pick to the Colts as a result, but don't let that fact get in the way of your argument Don, you fucking fossil.
 
When he kicks the stick, on his tombstone will be chiseled; "Here lies the body of Don Shula, the man who's still got a stick up his ass over the snowplow game vs the Patriots.  Oh and he also coached the 1972 Dolphins, who posted a 17-0 record that season."
 
 
 

 
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,299
deep inside Guido territory
86spike said:
Until someone produces language in the CBA that states players do not need to give private cell data or other private info to the league as a part of an investigation, claiming Brady failed to cooperate is not, indeed, bullshit.
Why does it need to be in the CBA? It's common fucking sense that you don't hand your personal cell phone over to anybody without being legally forced to.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
@PP_Rich_Hill: Everyone should feel super comfortable that Troy Vincent, a guy who admits he never read the Mueller Report, is handling Bradys suspension.
 

Filet-O-Fisk

New Member
Jun 16, 2008
54
I'm sure that lessening the ball pressure by 0.2 psi would have helped Shula do better than one SB appearance in the 17 years he had one of the top 5 QBs of all time. 
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
Ok. I've been waiting awhile before stepping in, and I probably shouldn't. But something does need to be stated about Exponent's poor statistical analysis of the data given.

There are two primary problems with the statistical analysis in Exponent's report. The first has been mentioned already; using parametric statistics on non-normal distributions leads to inaccurate tests of statistical significance. In other words, the model exponent used to answer the question, "Did the Patriots' balls drop in PSI more than the Colts?" assumes that the data are distributed like major league career OBP numbers:

View attachment 1041
 
Note how the most frequent values in the range of career OBP values fall in the center of the distribution. Also note that the dropoff in frequency is symmetrical on both sides. This is often referred to as a "bell-curve" distribution because it is shaped like a bell. The model used for analysis uses the standard deviation (technically the variance, but since standard deviation is a more familiar term that people might understand, I'm using that here) to assess whether the drop in PSI is greater for the Pats' balls, then what would be expected due to random chance. The problem is that the PSI-drop data looks like this:

View attachment 1042View attachment 1043
 
 
This is a common problem when dealing with small sample sizes; distributions of data look weird and the standard deviation is inaccurate. As a result, the significance assessed from the standard deviation is also inaccurate.  As a side note, I've looked at this small data in multiple ways and it doesn't really matter how you look at it, the distributions always look non-bell curvy.
 
One simple solution is to use a better model. The question is, how do we construct a better model? If the hypothesis is that the drop in PSI is greater for the pats than the colts, then the null hypothesis is that the drop in PSI is similar between the pats and the colts. Under this null assumption, if we mixed up the two sets of balls, there should be no difference between the average PSI drop. Therefore, we can construct a distribution of possible results by mixing up the groups in lots of different ways and calculating the difference of means. If our observed value when the groups are preserved is far from the center of the distribution, the probability that the null assumption is correct (a.k.a. the "p value") decreases. This is known as a permutation test.
 
For those in the know, I ran 10000 permutations, so the "p value" here is extremely accurate.

Here, we actually have two permutation tests, one for piroleau and one for blakeman (see below why). Below are the distributions for such a test assuming, like exponent, that the pats balls were at 12.5 and the colts at 13.0.
View attachment 1044
 
The red dot here denotes our "observed" value if we don't assume the null hypothesis. This result is highly significant (the probability of accepting the null hypothesis is 0.0012). However, we are dealing with a small sample size, and it could be that blakeman's measures are off. Here is what a test of Piroleau's ratings look like:

View attachment 1046
 
As you can see from these ratings, the differences between the pats and colts balls are less clear. While the observed value lies along the left tail of the distribution (where pats balls have a bigger PSI drop), its not on the tail itself. The the probability of accepting the null hypothesis is 0.0796, which is above the threshold normally used to reject the null hypothesis (0.05).
 
One limitation in using this approach is that we must assume that the measures here are independent, this limits our ability to permute the data from both sets of measures to increase power. Worse, there are potential confunds to the repeated measures that makes the differences between raters appear systematic, as opposed to random, here. This limits our ability to conclude anything about the data. In one set of ratings, the results are statistically significant, in the other, they are not.

One thing that hasn't been modeled is the variation in PSI pressure from the original data. We can simulate this by assuming, conservatively, that the standard deviation is 0.16 for all data (and that the 0.41 standard deviation for the pats was due to something). Making this assumption does not change the results much. Blakeman remains significant (p = 0.0026) while piroleau's are not (p = 0.0978).
 
View attachment 1048
 
View attachment 1047
 
The problem here is that our measure of standard deviation is inaccurate (due to the problems of small sample sizes discussed above). In fact, this is a valid explanation for why the pats balls vary more than the colts balls, as the variance of PSI drop is not stable.  However, there is a way we can estimate the standard deviation of the PSI by using another sampling approach, called a bootstrap.
 
A bootstrap is a method for exploring the population underlying small sample sizes. The Pats footballs and colts footballs belong to a population called "inflated pre-game NFL footballs". One way we can simulate this population is by constructing a series of "average" inflated NFL footballs. Because of math (specifically the law of large numbers), any distribution of averages will be shaped like a bell-curve, which allows us to calculate the variance along the distribution. Specifically, the population standard deviation will be approximately four times the standard deviation of the bootstrap.

Now, one could argue that the colts and pats deviations should be handled separately because they may have been inflated to different values, so we can run the bootstrap on each population, to see what deviations we should plug in for the colts and pats. This is a conservative estimate, as it will reduce the standard devations if this assumption is true, however, this estimate may still be higher than the observed standard deviation. In this case the standard deviation is about 3.3 times the bootstrap deviation for the pats, and 2 times the bootstrap deviation for the colts.


Here, we start to see the problem with small sample sizes. Below are the pats distribution of balls:

View attachment 1049

You can easily see that the raters are significantly different from one another (suggesting that the raters are actually unreliable, which limits the interpretability of any data). However, the variance from the population means are really similar. The standard deviation of the bootstrap is approximately 0.39 and 0.4 for the two raters, which matches the standard deviation observed for our data (0.41 I believe). Unfortunately, the distributions for the colts look weird:

View attachment 1050

While piroleau's ratings looks somewhat normal. Blakeman's look uniform. Both have a much wider spread than observed for the patriots. I'm not suggesting that the officials did anything at all to obscure their measures for the colts. Rather, this is a problem of extrapolating standard deviation from a sample size of four footballs vs. eleven. In any case, the standard deviation here is about 0.31 for both ratings. The fact that this standard deviation is higher may explain why the permutation test was less significant than the parametric test; the colts sample may be underestimating the true standard deviation leading to an overestimation of significance.

Let's be conservative here and re-run our tests with 0.3 standard deviation for both groups, just for grins.
 
View attachment 1052
 
View attachment 1051
 
As you can see from the above, we still have the same result. Blakeman's measures show a significant difference in PSI drop (p = 0.0082), while piroleau's does not (p = 0.16).

Finally, let's say that the data are flipped, and that prioleau and blakeman switiched gauges between measuring the colts and the pats balls. In this case we will have significant effects for both groups (p = 0.0232, and p = 0.0438). However, the significance is not nearly as high as before, and the latter p value would not be significant if controlling for the fact that I ran two tests.


Regardless of whether you control for variance in the footballs, you have sets of measures that show a significant drop off and sets of measures that do not. The strongest conclusion we can draw is that we are underpowered to detect any differences in inflation between the two datasets without knowing two things:

1) The PSI values of all footballs at both halftime and the start of the game.
2) Who used what gauge at both halftime and the start of the game.

Such knowledge would enable better confidence in estimating the statistics we need to determine whether the difference in PSI drop is no different than what would be observed by chance.

In truth, Exponent shouldn't be blamed solely here; they were given a sloppy dataset to analyze, and chose to analyze it in a manner consistent with many peer-reviewed publications of sloppy data. In fact, many of their models maintain significance when using a better test. The larger problem here is that the refs were not paying attention when they measured the footballs at half-time or at the start of the game, which neither the Wells report nor the Exponent report explained.
 

Attachments

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
To be fair, Shula also felt it was cheating to develop either a running game or a defense.
 
 
Kind of like Belichick's secondary for the last 7 years prior to "lucking into Revis". 
 
But seriously, I haven't looked at Shula's career records in a long time, that last decade with Marino is not good. I'm surprised Marino only won 10 games in 6 seasons over his career as opposed to Brady who's only had 1 non-10 win season that he's actually played in. Different time, different era, etc. but just was a bit surprised when pulling up profootballreference. 
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
Here's the distributions for the permutation tests for the last two tests (where the ratings were switched for the colts):

View attachment 1053
 
View attachment 1054
 
From a statistics perspective, the 0.4 standard deviation value is likely more accurate, in which case the distributions look like this:

View attachment 1055
 
View attachment 1056
 
In this case, blakeman's ratings show a significant difference in PSI drop (p = 0.0383), but piroleau's does not (p = 0.0772).

One should probably keep in mind that nearly every test shows a difference between the pats and colts balls. However, due to the small sample size and sloppy recording, it is difficult to dissociate from random chance. The statistics, when done better, are inconclusive without more testing.
 

Attachments

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Ok ... Florio landed the left hook in the article I referenced earlier today about the gauges. The right cross just came in another piece leading PFT. He makes the case that Wells deliberated ignore Walt Anderson's best recollection about the gauges used. Anderson remembers one thing best; Wells guys get him to acknowledge the possibility of the other: then the Report goes with this theoretical possibility rather Walt's best recollection.

And here I was, damn fool that I am, believing that Arlen Specfor had actually died several years ago.

So here is where I am on this. I have thought Tom Brady's best chance on appeal lay in quasi legal points rather than anything relating to the science -- i.e. You cannot suspend a player for being "generally aware" of violations and the non-cooperation point is trumped up. But I must say if these guys were as disingenuous and sloppy as Florio has chronicled today, the whole case against TB will fall like a house of cards. Judges really get upset by this kind of crap.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
And a footnote to the above. The discrepancies and anomalies and intellectual dishonesties that have surfaced to date have been identified based on the e four corners of the report. Wait until TB's lawyers get their mitts on the underlying documents that have not been published. And they quite probably will gain access to a good bit of that stuff.

Say whatever bad you want about Florio, he has a national audience and has established three or four very important points in this.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
dcmissle said:
Ok ... Florio landed the left hook in the article I referenced earlier today about the gauges. The right cross just came in another piece leading PFT. He makes the case that Wells deliberated ignore Walt Anderson's best recollection about the gauges used. Anderson remembers one thing best; Wells guys get him to acknowledge the possibility of the other: then the Report goes with this theoretical possibility rather Walt's best recollection.

And here I was, damn fool that I am, believing that Arlen Specfor had actually died several years ago.

So here is where I am on this. I have thought Tom Brady's best chance on appeal lay in quasi legal points rather than anything relating to the science -- i.e. You cannot suspend a player for being "generally aware" of violations and the non-cooperation point is trumped up. But I must say if these guys were as disingenuous and sloppy as Florio has chronicled today, the whole case against TB will fall like a house of cards. Judges really get upset by this kind of crap.
I don't know about the bolded, he's kind of all over the place at the end of the article:

 
 
And Tom Brady should be presumed guilty at best and suspended indefinitely until he gives up his text messages and emails at worst for his failure to cooperate with the investigation.
 
But as it relates to the AFC title game, the scientific evidence was resolved not simply by a coin flip, but by a coin flip that Walt Anderson recalls as landing heads, and that someone else decided was actually tails. If discipline is going to be imposed on the Patriots or any individuals, it needs to be based on something other than whatever did or didn’t happen before the AFC title game.
So according to florio, Tom should be suspended until he gives up his phone AND email. In fact,  even though the evidence is inconclusive, Tom should be suspended because he should be presumed guilty at best for instructing his ball boy to deflate the ball before the AFC game. However (according to Florio) suspensions shouldn't be handed out because we don't know what happened during or before the AFC title game.

I'm really not sure what Florio's trying to say anymore; his writing has become schizophrenic.

EDITED: To clarify what I'm not sure about (i.e. that Florio is attacking the report to say that brady shouldn't be suspend; he's certainly poking holes in it though)
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
EricFeczko said:
I don't know about that, he's kind of all over the place at the end of the article:

 
So according to florio, Tom should be suspended until he gives up his phone AND email. In fact,  even though the evidence is inconclusive, Tom should be suspended because he should be presumed guilty at best for instructing his ball boy to deflate the ball before the AFC game. However (according to Florio) suspensions shouldn't be handed out because we don't know what happened during or before the AFC title game.

I'm really not sure what Florio's trying to say anymore; his writing has become schizophrenic.
I honestly don't care what he says about that. It's theatre that underscores the validity of his serious points because it show'she is not one of Felger's "toadies".

And what would be delicious --- have the NFL fight like tigers to get that phone, only to learn once surrendered that it adds nothing.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,200
EricFeczko, one of the things that jumped out at me in the report was that they estimated the temperatures at both points in time when measurements occurred (pre-game and halftime).  Wouldn't the variances there (since they have just estimated, and thus if being honest should have built in variance) only amplify the problems you allude to?
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
PedroKsBambino said:
EricFeczko, one of the things that jumped out at me in the report was that they estimated the temperatures at both points in time when measurements occurred (pre-game and halftime).  Wouldn't the variances there (since they have just estimated, and thus if being honest should have built in variance) only amplify the problems you allude to?
Unless you are making the assumption that they measured the balls in different conditions, probably not by much. Though it is certainly possible. What it would most effect is the expected drop in PSI, however, since we don't know what the balls started at, we can't really measure the expected drop in PSI anyways.

In other words, we cannot construct a theoretical model of the expected PSI drop, which is yet another reason to use simulation, bootstrapping, and permutation techniques to estimate variance and expected results.

Another way to think about that is that some random noise in a statistical model reflects real-life conditions, which is why we have variance in PSI in the first place; variations in more conditions can increase this variance. The resampling methods (e.g. bootstrap/permutation testing) estimate this variance, which results from multiple independent factors, and examines the range of possible findings that could have happened, without making any assumptions about the factors underlying the data.
 

Filet-O-Fisk

New Member
Jun 16, 2008
54
EricFeczko said:
Unless you are making the assumption that they measured the balls in different conditions, probably not by much.
It makes a huge difference. If the Pats balls were at 12.3 +/- 0.2 psi and the Colts were at 13.2 +/- 0.2 psi, then the relative differences at halftime would be 0.65 and 0.8 for Colts and Pats balls, resp. If the SD of the Pats balls before the game was 0.35, then the variance issue would be meaningless.
If the sampling of balls at halftime wasn't "all 11 balls" for the Pats and a convenience sample of 4 for the Colts, we could have a much different result, especially if the refs systematically measured one Pats ball and one Colts ball in order using the same gauge. The Pats sampling not only came first, when balls were colder, but it also included balls that were dry and those that were wet, it included balls used in the game, it included balls at the top of the bag, bottom of the bag, and those surrounded by other cold balls. The Colts sample was likely 4 balls from the top of the bag, that may or may not have been wet, may or may not have been used in the game, and were exposed to the warm air of the room for the longest period of time of any balls tested.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
Filet-O-Fisk said:
It makes a huge difference. If the Pats balls were at 12.3 +/- 0.2 psi and the Colts were at 13.2 +/- 0.2 psi, then the relative differences at halftime would be 0.65 and 0.8 for Colts and Pats balls, resp. If the SD of the Pats balls before the game was 0.35, then the variance issue would be meaningless.
 
It only makes a difference if you need to explain the difference between the PSI-drop for colts balls compared to the pats. As the simulations show, the observed difference in PSI-drop is significant for one set of ratings, and not for the other set, which in and of itself suggests that the differences are inconclusive. Therefore, you don't need to explain the difference between the two groups, because there isn't a significant difference.
 
If they had actually written down what gauge was used and the PSI of the footballs, then we wouldn't need to be fixated on minute differences in ambient temperature. However, we don't know any of that, and to assume what those values are is to go down a rabbit's hole. As I stated before, this is exactly the situation for simulations. Even assuming a mean PSI of 12.5 and 13.0, and using estimated variances properly, simulations show that the measures of blakeman and piroleau are inconsistent and inconclusive, regardless of other underlying assumptions.

We certainly don't know any of this:
 
 
Filet-O-Fisk said:
The Pats sampling not only came first, when balls were colder, but it also included balls that were dry and those that were wet, it included balls used in the game, it included balls at the top of the bag, bottom of the bag, and those surrounded by other cold balls. The Colts sample was likely 4 balls from the top of the bag, that may or may not have been wet, may or may not have been used in the game, and were exposed to the warm air of the room for the longest period of time of any balls tested.
I completely agree that they should have measured the balls systematically, and that running out of time is not an issue for two alternate refs. Had they done systematic and recorded measures, there wouldn't be endless speculation about issues that are impossible to know. Sloppy data acquisition was part of the problem, and its a shame it wasn't mentioned in the Wells or Exponent report. We don't even know what gauges were used, which apparently has an enormous effect on the data.

EDIT: Thought of a better way to explain what I meant write. Rephrased.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
RedOctober3829 said:
Why does it need to be in the CBA? It's common fucking sense that you don't hand your personal cell phone over to anybody without being legally forced to.
Do you think that a suspension of Brady would hold up if it's based on him not handing over his phone?

Because if it does, Goodell basically could order any player to hand over his personal cell phone over any investigation.

We want to find out if Harrison is taking steroids. So Bruschi, hand us your cell phone or you'll get suspended.

(Obviously these guys are retired but you get the idea)

So if THAT is how it will work, then the common sense thing to do IS to hand your phone over, unless you have stuff on there that will
Get you suspended for even longer.

So I can't imagine a suspension based on that will hold up on appeal. Please tell me I'm right.....
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
This makes it seem more and more like a witch hunt. (Not that it didn't seem like one before.). They just stumbled into an opportunity to screw the Pats and decided to take advantage.

Then their sloppiness and malice came out and they were forced to double down. But it just makes them look more and more foolish.

Brady should be able to appeal successfully since the NHL can't control that process. So in the end they will slap Brady on the wrist and go after the Pats in a big way.
 

LuckyBen

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 5, 2012
3,396
Eddie Jurak said:
This makes it seem more and more like a witch hunt. (Not that it didn't seem like one before.). They just stumbled into an opportunity to screw the Pats and decided to take advantage.
Then their sloppiness and malice came out and they were forced to double down. But it just makes them look more and more foolish.
Brady should be able to appeal successfully since the NHL can't control that process. So in the end they will slap Brady on the wrist and go after the Pats in a big way.
The problem is, they can't suspend Brady and hold off on the Pats. It's all or nothing, so if Brady gets overturned, that's it. They can take our 1st round away for all I care. We'll still end up with a better draft than 20 teams.
 

Filet-O-Fisk

New Member
Jun 16, 2008
54
EricFeczko said:
It only makes a difference if you need to explain the difference between the PSI-drop for colts balls compared to the pats. As the simulations show, the observed difference in PSI-drop is significant for one set of ratings, and not for the other set, which in and of itself suggests that the differences are inconclusive. Therefore, you don't need to explain the difference between the two groups, because there isn't a significant difference.
 
.
Yeah, I know. But the Wells report seems to interpret statistical insignificance as a trend, and if taken together with the whole of the report, they call it evidence.

Also, they cherry pick data points when it favors the seemingly favored outcome. I guess I'm just trying to combat that also. I'm not trying to combat you specifically.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
Filet-O-Fisk said:
Yeah, I know. But the Wells report seems to interpret statistical insignificance as a trend, and if taken together with the whole of the report, they call it evidence.

Also, they cherry pick data points when it favors the seemingly favored outcome. I guess I'm just trying to combat that also. I'm not trying to combat you specifically.
The problem was with the exponent report's model, which reported the difference in PSI drop as statistically significant (Page 224 of the full report, page 64 of exponent's report, 3rd paragraph).
 
It also appears that the Patriots game balls exhibited a greater average pressure drop than
did the Colts game balls. This difference in the magnitude of the decrease in average
pressure between the Patriots and the Colts footballs, as measured at halftime, was
determined to be statistically significant, regardless of which gauges were used pre-game
and at halftime. Therefore, the reasons for this difference were an appropriate subject for further investigation.
The report is correct, if you use the wrong model for assessing significance. The pressure drop significance does not replicate across the raters with a more appropriate model. All the other testing they performed obfuscates the lack of conclusive differences between the two groups of balls.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
Eddie Jurak said:
This makes it seem more and more like a witch hunt. (Not that it didn't seem like one before.). They just stumbled into an opportunity to screw the Pats and decided to take advantage.

Then their sloppiness and malice came out and they were forced to double down. But it just makes them look more and more foolish.

Brady should be able to appeal successfully since the NHL can't control that process. So in the end they will slap Brady on the wrist and go after the Pats in a big way.
I'm fairly certain the NHL was never going to go after Tom anyway...
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,457
Brady TD passes since 2006:
Home: 131 in 65 games.
Road: 138 in 64 games.

Wasn’t he supposed to have
the balls fixed for him at home?
— Peter King (@SI_PeterKing) May 11, 2015
 

Icculus

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
265
Gamehenge
Hoya81 said:
 

Brady TD passes since 2006: Home: 131 in 65 games. Road: 138 in 64 games. — Wasn’t he supposed to have the balls fixed for him at home?
— Peter King (@SI_PeterKing) May 11, 2015
 
That brings up an interesting point. Are we supposed to believe that TB plays with balls at 2 different PSI values for home/away games? As someone who seems to be very particular about having an extremely regimented schedule and approach to his life in general that makes little/no sense.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
@SI_PeterKing: For the record:
Teams brings conditioned balls on road.
Teams do not bring ballboys on road.
So >>>>>
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
@SI_PeterKing: For the record:
Teams brings conditioned balls on road.
Teams do not bring ballboys on road.
So >>>>>
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
@SI_PeterKing: <<If teams have ballboys at home+Brady asked ballboys to doctor balls inflation levels, that could happen at home. Couldnt happen on road.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
@SI_PeterKing: Brady may not be telling truth. I do not know if he is or not. I am just telling you there is reason to doubt some of Wells report.


!!!!!
 

MuppetAsteriskTalk

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2015
5,398
soxhop411 said:
@SI_PeterKing: For the record:
Teams brings conditioned balls on road.
Teams do not bring ballboys on road.
So >>>>>
 
 
It's the same deal with the fumbling theory. The Pats are pretty good not fumbling on the road as well as at home.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
@SI_PeterKing: I have doubts like many of you. The text messages bother me a lot. Sometimes, reading Wells Report, I feel like Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
@plaistowparty: @SI_PeterKing Is it fair to say the officials should be punished for breakdown in the rules? 16 psi, lost track, kicking ball! List goes on

@SI_PeterKing: Read my Stat of the Week tomorrow. Walt Anderson blew it, and he blew it big time. https://t.co/WFr7SfkkGY
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
What ever you do do not read his mentions. It's 99% "OMG YOU ARE A PATRIOTS HOMER" and "THEY CHEATED!!!!"
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
@therealmikerugg: Goodell:hey @SI_PeterKing we need you to put doubts on the wells report..Peter King: sure thing boss, how bout dinner tonight?

@SI_PeterKing: Wait … Wasn’t I supposed to blindly support the Wells report? I am confused now. https://t.co/UbrfZnPV2p

@IndyMarc65: @SI_PeterKing Are you becoming a Patriot apologist?

@SI_PeterKing: Yes. Haven’t talked to Belichick in 8 years, but man, we’re so tight I need to be in Pats’ corner. https://t.co/aaprCsBL45


This is actually pretty entertaining.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
Van Everyman said:
@plaistowparty: @SI_PeterKing Is it fair to say the officials should be punished for breakdown in the rules? 16 psi, lost track, kicking ball! List goes on

@SI_PeterKing: Read my Stat of the Week tomorrow. Walt Anderson blew it, and he blew it big time. https://t.co/WFr7SfkkGY
Wow. Worm may be turning.

The refs are another collective the NFL is somewhat adversarial with. Get your popcorn if the NFL decides to turn the refs into the sacrificial lamb and keep Brady and the Patriots clean.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,374
soxhop411 said:
@SI_PeterKing: Brady may not be telling truth. I do not know if he is or not. I am just telling you there is reason to doubt some of Wells report.


!!!!!
 
Interesting, I wonder if King is getting this from people outside sending him stuff, or is he being briefed by NFL HQ.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,573
Here
soxhop411 said:
What ever you do do not read his mentions. It's 99% "OMG YOU ARE A PATRIOTS HOMER" and "THEY CHEATED!!!!"
The one Niners fan who's posting every 5 seconds is cracking me up. He kept saying how Pats brought footballs to road games, and then when someone brought up Rice, his response was "yeah, but he's widely considered the best ever."

Oh, ok.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,374
Van Everyman said:
@IndyMarc65: @SI_PeterKing Are you becoming a Patriot apologist?

@SI_PeterKing: Yes. Haven’t talked to Belichick in 8 years, but man, we’re so tight I need to be in Pats’ corner. https://t.co/aaprCsBL45

 
 
What a riot! King should adopt this tone more often.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
@DougKyedNESN: Noticing some national voices changing their tune on deflated footballs today. I find this interesting.