It is actually pages 175-176. Can't believe we collectively missed this.Hoya81 said:It's true. Page 15 of the WR.
It is actually pages 175-176. Can't believe we collectively missed this.Hoya81 said:It's true. Page 15 of the WR.
This New Yorker story is a good overview with some links:Section15Box113 said:
Can you point me to that research? (My google-ninja moves failed me.)
That is correct. Let's recycle this point yet again.JimBoSox9 said:Don't both the rigged photo and the fair photo come from the Exponent report?
Dan Patrick has been all over this. Keeps clarifying that they (the Colts) never knew for sure, but they were taking precautions. One of the minions said, "isn't it clear, at this point, that the Pats are in the Colts heads', and have been for years?" Patrick agreed.jimbobim said:
Tony Dungy better be calling a stooge to "clarify" because the League has shown with Deflategate any concern raised by another team about the Patriots could plausibly spawn an investigation. What a piece of excrement...
Tom E. Curran @tomecurran 2m2 minutes ago
Tom E. Curran retweeted ProFootballTalk
Is this what Ted Wells would call #chatter ?
Tom E. Curran added,
ProFootballTalk @ProFootballTalk
Peyton Manning feared Patriots bugging visitors' locker room http://wp.me/p14QSB-9PvT
3 retweets4 favorites
Reply
Retweet
3
Favorite
4
More
jimbobim said:
Tony Dungy better be calling a stooge to "clarify" because the League has shown with Deflategate any concern raised by another team about the Patriots could plausibly spawn an investigation. What a piece of excrement...
Tom E. Curran @tomecurran 2m2 minutes ago
Tom E. Curran retweeted ProFootballTalk
Is this what Ted Wells would call #chatter ?
Tom E. Curran added,
ProFootballTalk @ProFootballTalk
Peyton Manning feared Patriots bugging visitors' locker room http://wp.me/p14QSB-9PvT
3 retweets4 favorites
Reply
Retweet
3
Favorite
4
More
I don't know where you're getting this idea from. According to the Wells Report, Exponent tested with both gauges and the conclusion that the Non-Logo Gauge was likely used was based on Exponent testing (see pg. 116 of Wells report). Even if you think this was a bag job from the beginning, Paul Weiss is not a science firm - how are they going to know which gauge is going to make sense for their results? Maybe they told Exponent what outcome they wanted and that steered Exponent to their conclusion that the Non-Logo gauge was used, but your statement is baseless as far as I can tell.EricFeczko said:That is correct. Let's recycle this point yet again.
The assumptions tested by Exponent were provided by Paul Weiss' team. The conclusion that the non-logo gauge was used did not come from exponent, it was an assumption provided to Exponent by Paul Weiss' team.
EricFeczko said:The introduction in the Exponent report contradicts Wells testimony during the arbitration hearing regarding whether exponent's report was independent. I have no idea why Kessler didn't push wells on this during the hearing (I speculated professional courtesy at the time).
Hoya81 said:It's true.
edit: corrected. Page 15 of the exponent report, 175-177 of the Wells.
ImageUploadedBySons of Sam Horn1440083667.818525.jpg
sittingstill said:This New Yorker story is a good overview with some links:
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right
Super Nomario said:I don't know where you're getting this idea from. According to the Wells Report, Exponent tested with both gauges and the conclusion that the Non-Logo Gauge was likely used was based on Exponent testing (see pg. 116 of Wells report). Even if you think this was a bag job from the beginning, Paul Weiss is not a science firm - how are they going to know which gauge is going to make sense for their results? Maybe they told Exponent what outcome they wanted and that steered Exponent to their conclusion that the Non-Logo gauge was used, but your statement is baseless as far as I can tell.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:An interesting read about the Exponent evidence regarding the gauges in the Wells report:
Jesus Christ, they deliberately moved the ruler to make the gauges appear similar. Remember, Andersen says he thought he used one gauge but the Wells report insisted he actually used the other.
Here's what the gauges looked like when not shot to seem straight:
You think Andersen wouldn't remember which one he used now?
The league office is LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH.
has someone tweeted it/ emailed him?DrewDawg said:
That's the shit Florio needs to show.
In this figure, the average is identified as the average produced by the Non-Logo Gauge on Game Day for each team and is represented by the solid line. Using our statistical model, we calculated the standard errors for the Non-Logo Gauge for each team. The overall error band is ±2 standard errors for each team. This error band is graphically represented by the shaded areas extending above and below the solid line representing the average.
Makes sense... When has ESPN ever issued a correction without eitherjsinger121 said:
Chad Finn @GlobeChadFinn 59s59 seconds ago
The Patriots asked ESPN to correct its erroneous references to the retracted Herald story from 2002. ESPN didn't do it on its own volition.
cshea said:I know it's not feasible and all, but I really wish the Pats could pull all credentials from ESPN.
I'm not going to cite the entire PDF, but go and re-read exponent's executive summary, and then re-read wells testimony:Super Nomario said:I don't know where you're getting this idea from. According to the Wells Report, Exponent tested with both gauges and the conclusion that the Non-Logo Gauge was likely used was based on Exponent testing (see pg. 116 of Wells report). Even if you think this was a bag job from the beginning, Paul Weiss is not a science firm - how are they going to know which gauge is going to make sense for their results? Maybe they told Exponent what outcome they wanted and that steered Exponent to their conclusion that the Non-Logo gauge was used, but your statement is baseless as far as I can tell.
I have no idea what happened, and I never have said that this was a bag job (I did argue that Exponent's work was sloppy and disingenuous, but that had to do with the statistical analysis, not this). What I did say is that Wells' testimony at the hearing suggests that Exponent was an independent expert, whereas Exponent's report clearly stated that it relied on Wells to make some conclusions. I was sort of surprised that Kessler didn't push Wells' on Exponent's independence as an expert.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On January 18, 2015, the American Football Conference (AFC) Championship Game between
the New England Patriots and indianapolis Colts was played at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough,
Massachusetts. The Patriots won the game by a score of 45–7 and subsequently went on to win
Super Bowl XLIX two weeks later, beating the Seattle Seahawks 28–24.
After the conclusion of the AFC Championship Game, media reports surfaced claiming that
footballs used by the Patriots during the game had been found to be underinflated, and questions
were raised as to possible deliberate tampering by the Patriots. Shortly thereafter, Exponent was
retained by Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP (hereafter referred to as “Paul, Weiss”)
to provide advice and scientific support during its investigation of issues relating to the footballs
used during the AFC Championship Game.
Based on information from Paul, Weiss, we learned that two digital air pressure gauges had been
used to measure both the Patriots and the Colts footballs at halftime, one identified herein as the
Non-Logo Gauge and the other identified as the Logo Gauge. One of these gauges had also been
used to check (and in a few cases, set) the pressure of the footballs prior to the game. We have
been told by Paul, Weiss that there remains some uncertainty as to which of the two gauges was
used prior to the game. We have also been told by Paul, Weiss that the pressures of the Patriots
balls were set at or near 12.5 psig
1
following pre-game inspection by the game officials, and the
pressures of the Colts balls were set at or near 13.0 psig following pre-game inspection by the
game officials.
2
When tested at halftime, the air pressure in the Patriots balls measured between
10.50 psig and 11.80 psig, and 10.90 psig and 12.30 psig, depending on the gauge used.
Four of the Colts footballs were also measured and found to have dropped in pressure from their
reported pre-game pressure levels, to between 12.50 psig and 12.75 psig, and 12.15 psig
and 12.95 psig, depending on the gauge used. What is most significant about the halftime
measurements is that the magnitude of the reduction in average pressure was greater for the Patriots
footballs when compared to that of the Colts footballs. The question then becomes: what factor(s)
could explain this difference?
...
5. I nformation provided by Paul, Weiss to Exponent indicates that the Patriots and the Colts
inflated the game balls for the AFC Championship Game at or near 12.5 psig and
13.0 psig, respectively. Information from Walt Anderson (which was also provided by
Paul, Weiss), the referee who checked the pressure of the game balls prior to the game,
indicates that the game balls measured at or near 12.5 psig and 13.0 psig, respectively,
when measured. Although there remains some uncertainty about which gauge was used to
measure or set the game balls prior to the game, because we found the Logo Gauge to read
at least 0.35 psig high in our experiments, while the Non-Logo Gauge reads closer to a
calibrated gauge and most of the other gauges tested during the investigation, and because
we found during our testing that the Non-Logo Gauge never produced a reading higher
than the Logo Gauge, we conclude that it is more likely that the Non-Logo Gauge was used
to measure the balls prior to the game. This conclusion is based on data provided to us by
Paul, Weiss and data generated by our experiments. It also is consistent with the pressure
readings reported by the Patriots, the Colts, and Walt Anderson.
Skipper probably cleared the apology with the NFL first.soxhop411 said:Makes sense... When has ESPN ever issued a correction without either
A: public backlash
or
B: a team forcing them to?
Ostensibly the conclusion as to gauge used was based on relation to the "master gauge" (i.e., true pressure).Shelterdog said:They came to that conclusion based on the temperature and timing assumptions they got from Paul, Weiss.
This I buy.Shelterdog said:Of course in real life Paul, Weiss tells them the result they want and then Paul, Weiss and exponent go back and forth on what assumptions Paul, Weiss is going to give exponent to make exponent's model work. That's how these things go.
I'm still confused as to what you see as the smoking gun here.EricFeczko said:I'm not going to cite the entire PDF, but go and re-read exponent's executive summary, and then re-read wells testimony:
I have no idea what happened, and I never have said that this was a bag job (I did argue that Exponent's work was sloppy and disingenuous, but that had to do with the statistical analysis, not this). What I did say is that Wells' testimony at the hearing suggests that Exponent was an independent expert, whereas Exponent's report clearly stated that it relied on Wells to make some conclusions. I was sort of surprised that Kessler didn't push Wells' on Exponent's independence as an expert.
Although there remains some uncertainty about which gauge was used to measure or set the game balls prior to the game, because we found the Logo Gauge to read at least 0.35 psig high in our experiments, while the Non-Logo Gauge reads closer to a calibrated gauge and most of the other gauges tested during the investigation, and because we found during our testing that the Non-Logo Gauge never produced a reading higher than the Logo Gauge, we conclude that it is more likely that the Non-Logo Gauge was used to measure the balls prior to the game.
Super Nomario said:I'm still confused as to what you see as the smoking gun here.
This is Exponent's statement, not Paul Weiss', and I read it as Exponent is making that conclusion. Maybe you think they're lying or being disingenuous or whatever, but you stated, "The conclusion that the non-logo gauge was used did not come from exponent, it was an assumption provided to Exponent by Paul Weiss' team." and the Wells Report says differently.
You're right that I misspoke earlier. What I should've said is that Exponent's conclusion regarding which gauge was used is based upon the assumptions ("data") provided by Paul Weiss's team. If that is what a "court-appointed" expert is supposed to do, then I'm wrong. I thought a "court-appointed" expert looks at all the data provided by the "judge" and makes a conclusion.
This conclusion is based on data provided to us by Paul, Weiss and data generated by our experiments. It also is consistent with the pressure readings reported by the Patriots, the Colts, and Walt Anderson.
tims4wins said:I still don't understand that explanation from Exponent. It doesn't make any sense. In essence it seems like they are saying:
A) Logo reads .35 avg higher
B) Non-logo reads closer to calibrated gauge
C) Logo always reads higher than non-logo
=
non-Logo was used.
How is this at all logical or proof of anything?
Also, I think EricFeczko is saying this is the proof that Exponent relied on Wells:
"This conclusion is based on data provided to us by Paul, Weiss and data generated by our experiments."
Yes, the Wells Report does a horrible job of explaining this. Basically, they are assuming as fact that rhe Pats balls came in at 12.5 psi and the Colts at 13.0'because that's what both teams said they did, using a third gauge. That third gauge was never found, but they are saying it is is less likely that 2 out of the 3 gauges used to measure balls that day were off true ("master") pressure by the same amount.tims4wins said:I still don't understand that explanation from Exponent. It doesn't make any sense. In essence it seems like they are saying:
A) Logo reads .35 avg higher
B) Non-logo reads closer to calibrated gauge
C) Logo always reads higher than non-logo
=
non-Logo was used.
How is this at all logical or proof of anything?
Also, I think EricFeczko is saying this is the proof that Exponent relied on Wells:
"This conclusion is based on data provided to us by Paul, Weiss and data generated by our experiments."
EricFeczko said:You're right that I misspoke earlier. What I should've said is that Exponent's conclusion regarding which gauge was used is based upon the assumptions ("data") provided by Paul Weiss's team. If that is what a "court-appointed" expert is supposed to do, then I'm wrong. I thought a "court-appointed" expert looks at all the data provided by the "judge" and makes a conclusion.
EDIT: Tims beat me to it. I still wanted to rephrase my earlier statement, though. The quotes I use come from Wells' own words during the hearing regarding how he considered Exponent's hiring; it is not intended as sarcasm.
It reads 0.35 "high," not "higher." That is, the 0.35 isn't just relative to the other gauge, it's relative to what in reality was the true pressure of the footballs.tims4wins said:I still don't understand that explanation from Exponent. It doesn't make any sense. In essence it seems like they are saying:
A) Logo reads .35 avg higher
Yeah, of course there was data provided by Wells. Exponent didn't oversee the pre-game measurements of the footballs or the halftime measurements, or record timing or pressure data at halftime, or see where the balls were kept pregame or measured at halftime or what the procedure was to do any of that stuff. It's fair to argue (and I would) that it's a "garbage-in garbage-out" operation and Exponent shouldn't have drawn the conclusions they did from the scanty information they had, but the fact that they were provided information is not in-and-of-itself controversial or suspect. It's just reality - Exponent wasn't there that day and so any information about what happened that day had to come from someone else.tims4wins said:B) Non-logo reads closer to calibrated gauge
C) Logo always reads higher than non-logo
=
non-Logo was used.
How is this at all logical or proof of anything?
Also, I think EricFeczko is saying this is the proof that Exponent relied on Wells:
"This conclusion is based on data provided to us by Paul, Weiss and data generated by our experiments."
Furthermore, they are assuming it because that information came from Paul Weiss' team.djbayko said:Yes, the Wells Report does a horrible job of explaining this. Basically, they are assuming as fact that rhe Pats balls came in at 12.5 psi and the Colts at 13.0'because that's what both teams said they did, using a third gauge. That third gauge was never found, but they are saying it is is less likely that 2 out of the 3 gauges used to measure balls that day were off true ("master") pressure by the same amount.
There are many holes in that argument, but it is somewhat defensible.
So, he's insinuating that former Pats players told Manning the Pats bugged the locker room? Yeah, ok, I'm sure Belichick is telling his players he tapes locker rooms and it's managed to stay behind closed doors for 15 years.“I know that that is very true, and, you know, as Peyton talked to guys who played for the Patriots, some of the guys who came over — whether it’s true or not he treated it as true. We didn’t have a lot of strategy discussions inside the locker room there,” Dungy said.
Ed Hillel said:The funny thing about Pope Dumbo whining about being scared of the Pats rigging the locker rooms is that the Saints actually did that in 2012, and nobody cared.
Ed Hillel said:Dungy is so bitter, and he's as overrated as they come.
Well doneBergs said:
Plus, he's a shitty dad. He left his kid just hanging there.
This is the essence of Roderick McKinnon's rebuttal of Exponent in The Wells Report in Contexf. He doesn't do an exhaustive point-for-point attack on Exponent's science. Instead, he argues that the data is garbage, and GIGO, so it doesn't really matter what Exponent says at all.EricFeczko said:Furthermore, they are assuming it because that information came from Paul Weiss' team.
I don't want to go through this again, but a qualified expert would take one look at the data available and state that no conclusions can be made because the data were insufficient and the assumptions egregious. Whether you want to blame that on sloppy science by Exponent or a consipiracy between Wells and Exponent is one thing. However, there is no question that the report's conclusions are dependent upon the interpretations of witness statements made by Wells' team and not the statements themselves. Namely, the assumption that the pats, colts, and Walt used gauges that had the same error to measure PSI.
It looks like the Louisiana State Police investigated after the ESPN Outside the Lines story and found no evidence that it occured nor was there evidence of the infrastructure to have ever done so.AB in DC said:
Wait, was that actually confirmed? There were some allegations against Mickey Loomis, but I didn't think they went anywhere.
cshea said:I know it's not feasible and all, but I really wish the Pats could pull all credentials from ESPN.
Which party are you referring to in regards to going to ESPN? Are you insinuating that the Patriots think Brady is going to lose or do you think the NFL is acting like they think they'll lose?dcmissle said:Shifting gears again, briefly, to a point made Sunday, which I reiterated Wednesday:
Is it curious to anybody else that ESPN had to be bludgeoned by the Pats before it pulled the false report that Pats taped Rams' SB walk through and that this came up yesterday? And how bizarre is it that we see today comments from Peyton Manning that he operated on the presumption that the Pats bug vistor's locker room?
People who think they are going to win do not behave like this, if they behave like this ever.
It is all quite amazing. And in my estimation, the court, if it is paying attention, clearly sees the purpose in this.
djbayko said:Like I said, there are holes in Exponent's argument. However, if you accept the input data as valid - which Wells / Exponent obviously did - their argument is *somewhat* defensible.
troparra said:
You can't accept the input data as valid. That is the biggest trickExponentWells played in this whole affair.
We have no actual pressure measurements for the balls pregame. This is a huge amount of uncertainty. But Exponent ran their statistical analyses and based their conclusions on the assumption that the Patriots balls were at 12.50 psi. Not the average of the balls, mind you,but the assumption that each ball was at exactly 12.50 psi.
Thus, there is no error included in any calculation they did that involved the starting pressures.
Look at Table A-1 as an example of how they present such data.
The NFL is behaving as if it believes it will lose. The Manning stuff -- channeled through Saint Tony Dungy -- is quite something. ESPN issued its apology and retraction of the other stuff at 12:20 am.RedOctober3829 said:Which party are you referring to in regards to going to ESPN? Are you insinuating that the Patriots think Brady is going to lose or do you think the NFL is acting like they think they'll lose?
RedOctober3829 said:Which party are you referring to in regards to going to ESPN? Are you insinuating that the Patriots think Brady is going to lose or do you think the NFL is acting like they think they'll lose?
Not to rehash too much.troparra said:
You can't accept the input data as valid. That is the biggest trick Exponent played in this whole affair.
We have no actual pressure measurements for the balls pregame. This is a huge amount of uncertainty. But Exponent ran their statistical analyses and based their conclusions on the assumption that the Patriots balls were at 12.50 psi. Not the average of the balls, mind you,but the assumption that each ball was at exactly 12.50 psi.
Thus, there is no error included in any calculation they did that involved the starting pressures.
Look at Table A-1 as an example of how they present such data.
dcmissle said:Shifting gears again, briefly, to a point made Sunday, which I reiterated Wednesday:
Is it curious to anybody else that ESPN had to be bludgeoned by the Pats before it pulled the false report that Pats taped Rams' SB walk through and that this came up yesterday? And how bizarre is it that we see today comments from Peyton Manning that he operated on the presumption that the Pats bug vistor's locker room?
People who think they are going to win do not behave like this, if they behave like this ever.
It is all quite amazing. And in my estimation, the court, if it is paying attention, clearly sees the purpose in this.
dcmissle said:The NFL is behaving as if it believes it will lose. The Manning stuff -- channeled through Saint Tony Dungy -- is quite something. ESPN issued its apology and retraction of the other stuff at 12:20 am.
I view self serving coincidence with a very skeptical eye. Vlad Putin really should buy ESPN when oil revenues recover. They are quite good at the dark arts.