Kessler's point from the opening, on the standards for PED testing - chain of custody, valid methods, etc - would carry the day in a sane world.
The easiest answer is that Tom probably has no recollection of ever saying that. Which again depending on each of our own biases will either be incriminating and way too easy of an excuse OR perfectly reasonable and understanding for a guy that gives many interviews and who pretty clearly did not see ball pressure as a big fucking dealPeak Oil Can Boyd said:I get that, but then why say "I've never thought about air pressure before this" when you're on television saying you like the ball underinflated? Isn't that like, not true?
For those of you that know how to make the memes, this needs to go viral. A big ass picture of Vincent and the NFL sheild with the quote "I didn't include science, no sir"ragnarok725 said:Here's one I enjoyed from the interview with Vincent.
Didn't include science, sir.
Peak Oil Can Boyd said:I get that, but then why say "I've never thought about air pressure before this" when you're on television saying you like the ball underinflated? Isn't that like, not true?
Bongorific said:For those of you that know how to make the memes, this needs to go viral. A big ass picture of Vincent and the NFL sheild with the quote "I didn't include science, no sir"
( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:The easiest answer is that Tom probably has no recollection of ever saying that. Which again depending on each of our own biases will either be incriminating and way too easy of an excuse OR perfectly reasonable and understanding for a guy that gives many interviews and who pretty clearly did not see ball pressure as a big fucking deal
“[W]hen Gronk scores – it was like his eighth touchdown of the year – he spikes the ball and he deflates the ball,” Brady said in November 2011. “I love that, because I like the deflated ball. But I feel bad for that football, because he puts everything he can into those spikes.”ScubaSteveAvery said:
I actually think it is a frame of reference thing. Tom Brady thinks of footballs in more elementary terms: 'soft', 'easy to grip,' 'no nubs.' He doesn't think about the feel of the ball as a relation to PSI or air pressure. Not unsimilar to how a sommelier may think of a wine as heavy in dark fruit, cherry, oak, and tannin but a restaurant patron may see it as 'big' and 'bold.' Neither is wrong. But when framing the question in terms of air pressure, it doesn't register with him because he literally has never thought about footballs that way.
Peak Oil Can Boyd said:“[W]hen Gronk scores – it was like his eighth touchdown of the year – he spikes the ball and he deflates the ball,” Brady said in November 2011. “I love that, because I like the deflated ball. But I feel bad for that football, because he puts everything he can into those spikes.”
I mean, "I like the deflated ball" is pretty unambiguous.
I just don't get why he would say he never thought about it before the Jets game.
( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:Brady's answers are only evasive if you read it from that view point. This is unfortunately another piece where people will apply their own pre existing biases to arrive at the point they have already determined.
I read this as an asshole lawyer trying to trick Tom Brady into saying something, anything, just a tiny bit that could be twisted and spun.
Brady answered like it was no big funking deal what the psi were. Presumably Because it was no big fucking deal.
Cmon guys, it's not a good look. It doesn't change anything but clearly Brady didn't want to admit something that is the core of the "generally aware" accusation.DrewDawg said:
If you can't tell that Brady is giving a somewhat humorous answer to a question about Gronk and how he spikes the ball, I don't know what to tell you.
Do you also think that Brady really feels bad for the football?
Peak Oil Can Boyd said:“[W]hen Gronk scores – it was like his eighth touchdown of the year – he spikes the ball and he deflates the ball,” Brady said in November 2011. “I love that, because I like the deflated ball. But I feel bad for that football, because he puts everything he can into those spikes.”
I mean, "I like the deflated ball" is pretty unambiguous.
I still don't really know if this is a big deal, I just think he unnecessarily dodged this question in a way that is, IMO, troubling.
Edit: The NFL is clearly trying to get him to say "I like the footballs deflated as much as possible" so they can infer he likes them under the legal limit. So I'm fine with the dodging, I just don't get why he would say he never thought about it before the Jets game.
https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/628673864046899200RedOctober3829 said:
Haven't read the whole transcript yet - where does this point get addressed - when was the issue first raised and who was aware?
To me, Wells' comments are kind of a red herring. As an "independent investigator" is he even technically able to speak with any kind of authority about what punishments Brady may or may not face?ivanvamp said:I can't get over this point. Wells flat-out tells Brady that he doesn't require his cell phone. And that "I did not tell Mr. Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that."
At no point does the CBA or any league rule explain that a player will be subject to punishment for not turning over his cell phone. The only precedent for any penalty whatsoever wasn't a suspension, but a fine - given to Favre in 2010.
In the bounty gate ruling, Tagliabue said, In my forty years of association with the NFL, I am aware of many instances of denials in disciplinary proceedings that proved to be false, but I cannot recall any suspension for such fabrication. This is no evidence of a record of past suspensions based purely on obstructing a League investigation.
So no warning from Wells to Brady. In fact, the opposite. Nothing but reassurance that he didn't need Brady's phone, and no hint that not turning over his phone could lead to penalties. Nothing in the CBA. Nothing in the rulebook. The only precedent being a $50k fine.
Yet Brady gets a 4 game suspension and loss of nearly $2 million?
“Two concerns came up as of yesterday on footballs at New England,” Sullivan wrote, via Ben Volin of the Boston Globe. “First off the special teams coordinator from the Baltimore Ravens called Coach Pagano and said that they had issues last week at the game that when they were kicking (Baltimore that is) they were given new footballs instead of the ones that were prepared correctly.”
And the other thing that is known in general
3 statistical practice is that if you have a finding
4 of non-significance and that finding is based on a
5 relatively limited amount of data, you have to be
6 somewhat cautious about taking that as evidence of
7 no difference, because when statisticians encounter
8 that situation, what they think about is what they
9 call the power.
10 They are saying, well, do I have enough data
11 so that if the difference actually existed and it
12 was appreciable in magnitude that I would have
13 enough data, that I would have a high probability of
14 detecting that?
15 And so, findings of non-significance have to
16 be treated, especially in situations with small
17 sample sizes, with a little bit of circumspection as
18 opposed to findings of significance.
19 If you get a finding of significance with a
20 small amount of data, that's generally an indication
21 that you have a pretty strong effect and it's strong
22 enough to manifest itself even with a relatively
23 limited amount of data.
Harry Hooper said:From Volin's tweet:
Quote
“Two concerns came up as of yesterday on footballs at New England,” Sullivan wrote, via Ben Volin of the Boston Globe. “First off the special teams coordinator from the Baltimore Ravens called Coach Pagano and said that they had issues last week at the game that when they were kicking (Baltimore that is) they were given new footballs instead of the ones that were prepared correctly.”
So the NFL crooks stealing game balls were in action for the game against the Ravens, and yet the Pats get the blame?
Q. Okay. So do you know why Mr. Gardi thought that the Colts game balls all met the requirements when on one of the gauges, three out of the four didn't go to 12.5?
A. Well, here it is -- he's specifying that one of the two gauges -- that's how we looked at the Colts -- I mean, the Patriots' ball as well, neither of the gauges none or both gauges with the Colts' ball, none of them were in compliance. Or at least here with the Colts' ball, what we saw was that at least one of the gauges, they all were in compliance.
I agree, a lot of the testimony focused on red herrings in the exponent report that didn't get at its major flaws.Super Nomario said:
- Exponent's statistician says that a statistical significance of p=.05 isn't a necessary standard here because they're talking "more probably than not," not a more stringent standard. He also poo-pooh's Synders (NFLPA's statistician) significance analysis by saying they're different variabilities even though they had determined the difference in variabilities was not statistically significant. He brings up the variability repeatedly in fact. Then Marlow brings it up.
- I think Kessler / NFLPA made a mistake bringing up a lot of things like the wet / dry differences that Exponent tested and don't make much of a difference. There are two or three serious problems with Exponent's work and he should have hammered those. Bringing up a bunch of different things didn't serve to create a boatload of doubt; it just made it seem like they were throwing mud to see what stuck. The Snyder thing was good and he did a good job hammering the Exponent stat guy on cross; I wish he'd stuck to that sort of thing.
- A lot of this report is lawyers trying to make scientists and mathematicians give black or white answers to non-black-and-white questions.
- Marlow said he studied the post-game data and wanted to put it in the report but was overruled. He says it would have made the variability of the Pats' footballs look bad (AGAIN, WHY ARE THEY HARPING ON VARIABILITY), but an analysis the raw numbers would have helped the Pats (they indicated the Pats the Pats played the second-half with over-inflated footballs because the NFL didn't understand the ideal gas law, and by basically the same amount that they were under in the first half, suggesting no tampering - but with the caveat that we're dealing with uncertain starting points and two sample sizes of four).
I was just debating posting this. I've read that paragraph 5 times now and have no idea what he's saying.PhilPlantier said:
Can someone who is fluent in bullshit unpack this statement for me? I'm a little rusty...
For the umpteenth time, reason #whatever why BB is a genius. Never would have made the "read the rule book" comment in a million years. Innocuous? Yes. Made in jest? Surely. But here we are.DrewDawg said:The NFL may have been, but that doesn't mean Vincent was.
A Ravens coach called the Colts.
Despite Harbaugh denying it.
Clesse expand on this, if you could and have time?EricFeczko said:I agree, a lot of the testimony focused on red herrings in the exponent report that didn't get at its major flaws.
As an aside, I'm still surprised at how everyone simply accepted a linear mixed effects model, where the distribution of PSI in the 12 Pats balls and 4 colts balls did not meet the assumptions of a linear mixed model in the first place.
EricFeczko said:I agree, a lot of the testimony focused on red herrings in the exponent report that didn't get at its major flaws.
As an aside, I'm still surprised at how everyone simply accepted a linear mixed effects model, where the distribution of PSI in the 12 Pats balls and 4 colts balls did not meet the assumptions of a linear mixed model in the first place.
https://imgflip.com/i/p3we1grsharky7 said:The principal from Billy Madison should've been in the appeal hearing
"Mr. Goodell, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Would make a fun GIF
Holy Shit that is ridiculous.EricFeczko said:Not to nitpick on less relevant parts of the investigation but WTF:
This is just flat-out, factually incorrect. Significant findings in small sample sizes that are underpowered are, almost by definition, inaccurate and generally overestimated.
To be fair, there's a number of SoSHers that could expand on this: Crystalline, kickerinthered(sic), Iayork. Hopefully, they'll correct the mistakes I make here.There is no Rev said:Clesse expand on this, if you could and have time?
I've seen claims about the problems with and disagreements about the appropriateness of statistical models used. I have not seen a good explanation, though, and you have shown yourself in the past to have the knowledge and patience to make one, so I think you are the man for the job.
If you would be so kind.
Eddie Jurak said:Holy Shit that is ridiculous.
I assume exponent's "model" was "keep fiddling with things until we find the magic p<0.05."
PhilPlantier said:
Can someone who is fluent in bullshit unpack this statement for me? I'm a little rusty...
EricFeczko said:Not to nitpick on less relevant parts of the investigation but WTF:
This is just flat-out, factually incorrect. Significant findings in small sample sizes that are underpowered are, almost by definition, inaccurate and generally overestimated.
hoothehoo said:
Wait wait wait. Aren't kicking balls *supposed* to be new, out of the box, and touched by only the officials?
edit - correct quote
The Kicking Ball Coordinator (every game has one) walks in and sees Mackie. “Got the ‘K’ balls?” he says, and Mackie hands him the six balls that one team rep from both Baltimore and Chicago will be able to condition for the next 45 minutes; the proviso is they’re only allowed to use brushes, towels and water to get the sheen and wax and new-football feel off for the game.
Harry Hooper said:
Per Peter King's story of the pre-game ritual of the officials, the kicking balls are new out of the box something like 2 hours before the game, but each team gets to run off with a set and scrub them up for a short period of time before the game starts. See the Wells Report appendix about the NFL guys stealing balls. Ghost was upset because the K ball his guys had worked up the most was being taken out of the game after very limited use.
And in that quote he very clearly talked about how many psi are released during a Gronkspike.Peak Oil Can Boyd said:“[W]hen Gronk scores – it was like his eighth touchdown of the year – he spikes the ball and he deflates the ball,” Brady said in November 2011. “I love that, because I like the deflated ball. But I feel bad for that football, because he puts everything he can into those spikes.”
I mean, "I like the deflated ball" is pretty unambiguous.
If this is what the statistician was attempting to refer to, then it is irrelevant here. A priori, theoretical, simulations of a comparison of means via ANOVAs or t-tests will show that with small sample sizes, when one is at five to ten percent power, a significant effect overestimates the true effect size by a factor of 10 or so. Linear mixed models are slightly different but will show similar effects.slamminsammya said:
I am not a statistician, but I believe what the Exponent guy is referring to is the "power approach paradox". Here is a snippet of the description in Wikipedia:
"all post-hoc power analyses suffer from what is called the "power approach paradox" (PAP), in which a study with a null result is thought to show MORE evidence that the null hypothesis is actually true when the p-value is smaller, since the apparent power to detect an actual effect would be higher. In fact, a smaller p-value is properly understood to make the null hypothesis LESS likely to be true." Link
hoothehoo said:
Of course, it still doesn't make sense that the Ravens would think the Patriots had anything to do with new kicking balls.
Yes, but the relevant point is that the Patriots had no way of tampering with the Ravens' kicking balls.Harry Hooper said:Per Peter King's story of the pre-game ritual of the officials, the kicking balls are new out of the box something like 2 hours before the game, but each team gets to run off with a set and scrub them up for a short period of time before the game starts. See the Wells Report appendix about the NFL guys stealing balls. Ghost was upset because the K ball his guys had worked up the most was being taken out of the game after very limited use.
Yeah, you're cluttering this beautiful thread with your statistical rigor. More questions about things that were answered 15 pages ago and dumb theories, please!EricFeczko said:Eh. Screw it. Here's both of my prior posts on the problem with using a linear mixed model approach for the stats. As I've said before, I don't think anyone really understood the statistical analysis, and I'm not confident that it played much of a role in Goodell's decision. Blame Rev for the posts, if any mod wants to delete it go ahead.
We know there's a difference between the Patriots' and Colts' balls, because the Colts' balls were measured later and thus have a higher temperature / pressure (as they had more time to come up to room temperature). To be clear, you are not accounting for this, correct? This was Snyder's point, basically - the statistical significance tests aren't valid because they don't include the time.EricFeczko said: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.
You are absolutely correct, but let us forget about time for a second. The tests don't dissociate whether this difference is greater than the noise level (of which time, wetness, improper gauge usage, are all factors).Super Nomario said:Yeah, you're cluttering this beautiful thread with your statistical rigor. More questions about things that were answered 15 pages ago and dumb theories, please!
We know there's a difference between the Patriots' and Colts' balls, because the Colts' balls were measured later and thus have a higher temperature / pressure (as they had more time to come up to room temperature). To be clear, you are not accounting for this, correct? This was Snyder's point, basically - the statistical significance tests aren't valid because they don't include the time.
By "switch the ratings," do you mean assuming that Blakeman and Prioleau switched who had the logo and non-logo gauge between measuring the Patriots' and Colts' balls?EricFeczko said:Forget about time for a second. The tests don't dissociate whether this difference is greater than the noise level (of which time, wetness, improper gauge usage, are all factors).
The critical thing here is that the data are sloppy and basically tell us nothing regarding the differences between halftime colts and pats balls. The only way you can get it to is if you switch the ratings between blakeman and piroleau, which is the definition of overt data manipulation.
Are you talking about the Mona Lisa Vito press conferences? Because Belichick was the one who went on television claiming that he had never thought about air pressure before, not Brady.Peak Oil Can Boyd said:I get that, but then why say "I've never thought about air pressure before this" when you're on television saying you like the ball underinflated? Isn't that like, not true?
Yes. IIRC there was no evidence that they did so, apart from the ratings themselves. I could be wrong about it, it's been awhile since I've read the report.Super Nomario said:By "switch the ratings," do you mean assuming that Blakeman and Prioleau switched who had the logo and non-logo gauge between measuring the Patriots' and Colts' balls?