BA Baracus Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Ask Stevan Ridley how much it prevents fumbles. Deflation won't fix sucking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Deflation won't fix sucking I can hear Belichick now, "Dammit, Ridley, we lower the PSI and you still can't hold on to the damn ball...take a seat!" 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 The Patriots lead the league in not fumbling, not one fumble by the backs. BJGE in 4 years never fumbled the ball in NE, but at Cinny he came back down to earth with 5 in about the same amount of carries. Just food for thought. Congrats. You've cracked the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Rookie Me........ Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Ask Stevan Ridley how much it prevents fumbles. I did and he said "I did not fumble for the first time in my football career it was great." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Rookie Me........ Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Congrats. You've cracked the case. NOt trying to crack honda just looking at stats and the numbers. Only three teams in the history of NFL have accomplished that feat! Maybe there is a reason, maybe there is not! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Bill Nye the Science Guy says Bill Belichick is full of shit. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Bill Nye the Science Guy says Bill Belichick is full of shit. Seattle homer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebob Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Congrats. You've cracked the case. Take a read through this article and see if you still don't think that something is up: http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/01/ballghazi_the_new_england_patriots_lose_an_insanely_low_number_of_fumbles.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Take a read through this article and see if you still don't think that something is up: http://www.slate.com...of_fumbles.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Brown Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Take a read through this article and see if you still don't think that something is up: http://www.slate.com...of_fumbles.html "Based on the assumption that fumbles per play follow a normal distribution, you’d expect to see, according to random fluctuation, the results that the Patriots have gotten over this period, once in 16,233.77 instances. Which in layman’s terms means that this result only being a coincidence, is like winning a raffle where you have a 0.0000616 probability to win. [in] other words, it’s very unlikely that it’s a coincidence." I don't know...didn't really have much of an opinion on deflate-gate; but not sure how you just gloss over this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 So just to summarize here.. over the past wk, people have handled footballs some with 11 lbs of air in them and some with 13lbs. Some people could tell the difference immediately, some couldn't tell at all. But we're supposed to agree that having a pound or 2 difference in a football has led to the Patrots fumbling far less than anyone else?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 The author states "the 187 plays per fumble lost dwarfs even the rest of the best seasons of the last 25 years." The Colts had 156 plays per fumble lost. I don't see 187 dwarfing 156. It's probably 1 or 2 less fumbles per year. Probably no coach in the league will yank a fumbling running back quicker than Belichick. I think Belichick's lack of tolerance for fumbling can explain these statistics entirely. please stop clogging this thread with common sense. TIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted January 25, 2015 Author Share Posted January 25, 2015 You sure seem to be posting a lot in a thread you have made clear does not interest you 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 "Based on the assumption that fumbles per play follow a normal distribution, you’d expect to see, according to random fluctuation, the results that the Patriots have gotten over this period, once in 16,233.77 instances. Which in layman’s terms means that this result only being a coincidence, is like winning a raffle where you have a 0.0000616 probability to win. [in] other words, it’s very unlikely that it’s a coincidence." I don't know...didn't really have much of an opinion on deflate-gate; but not sure how you just gloss over this. I guess if that's correct mathematically that is odd. But if there was really that big of a difference in the footballs, you're telling me over 8 years of games, not one ref or opposing player picked up the ball and thought to himself, this doesn't feel right? That to me, is much more incredible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 The author states "the 187 plays per fumble lost dwarfs even the rest of the best seasons of the last 25 years." The Colts had 156 plays per fumble lost. I don't see 187 dwarfing 156. It's probably 1 or 2 less fumbles per year. Probably no coach in the league will yank a fumbling running back quicker than Belichick. I think Belichick's lack of tolerance for fumbling can explain these statistics entirely. Warren also realized that using fumbles lost wasn't as important as total fumbles and added that info to his article. When compared to all other NON-dome teams, since 2010 the Pats average 75 plays per fumble, the next highest is 55. In a game where the turnover battle is significant if you win it, it is an important metric. Something I think people are missing is that Warren didn't go on a crusade, he, like me and many others, tries to find logical answers/reasons to things that happen. When deflategate first hit my initial feeling was that it was a big plus to the QB, then I heard someone say something about it making it easier to hold on to the ball and that made sense. Warren knows that his study doesn't prove that the Pats are doing something wrong, but he attempted to work backwards and what he found stood out. I see nothing wrong with his research or putting it out there in order to show that there could be something to it based on a statistical anomaly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I guess if that's correct mathematically that is odd. But if there was really that big of a difference in the footballs, you're telling me over 8 years of games, not one ref or opposing player picked up the ball and thought to himself, this doesn't feel right? That to me, is much more incredible. The refs touch the ball during games but for the most part they are moving it quickly and getting it set so I could see where they may not notice. Additionally, they may not have the grip that an athlete has and therefore may not notice as much a difference either. As for other opponents, it would have to be on a turnover and there's probably enough adrenaline going that that could be reason enough not to notice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Brown Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I don't see 187 dwarfing 156. It's probably 1 or 2 less fumbles per year. Ummm no. NFL teams averaged around 64 plays per game in 2012. It' more like 6 or 7 more fumbles per season for the Colts comparatively and 5 or 6 less for the Pats. Further, the Colts fumbling numbers are well within line with other teams. They are on the higher end of a normal distribution...not a statistical anomaly like the Pats are. I'm not claiming it's a smoking gun for deflate gate; but it is very interesting in it's statistically improbability to what every other team in the NFL has done over 5 seasons. Belicheck apparently hating fumbling more than all other NFL coaches doesn't really rationalize what the statistical analyses is showing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 So just to summarize here.. over the past wk, people have handled footballs some with 11 lbs of air in them and some with 13lbs. Some people could tell the difference immediately, some couldn't tell at all. But we're supposed to agree that having a pound or 2 difference in a football has led to the Patrots fumbling far less than anyone else?? I don't think that's what is being said...what's being said is that it could be the reason. You know there used to be a time when people thought the world was flat and ridiculed those that didn't conform to those beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Ummm no. NFL teams averaged around 64 plays per game in 2012. It' more like 6 or 7 more fumbles per season for the Colts comparatively and 5 or 6 less for the Pats. Further, the Colts fumbling numbers are well within line with other teams. They are on the higher end of a normal distribution...not a statistical anomaly like the Pats are. I'm not claiming it's a smoking gun for deflate gate; but it is very interesting in it's statistically improbability to what every other team in the NFL has done over 5 seasons. Belicheck apparently hating fumbling more than all other NFL coaches doesn't really rationalize what the statistical analyses is showing. Colts are also a dome team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Ummm no. NFL teams averaged around 64 plays per game in 2012. It' more like 6 or 7 more fumbles per season for the Colts comparatively and 5 or 6 less for the Pats. Further, the Colts fumbling numbers are well within line with other teams. They are on the higher end of a normal distribution...not a statistical anomaly like the Pats are. I'm not claiming it's a smoking gun for deflate gate; but it is very interesting in it's statistically improbability to what every other team in the NFL has done over 5 seasons. Belicheck apparently hating fumbling more than all other NFL coaches doesn't really rationalize what the statistical analyses is showing. Could actually be construed as a reason why he'd find a way to have his players fumble even less or why he's less tolerable of them because he already knows the scales are tipped favorably for the player. I just want people to realize that these are nothing more than theories. What will be interesting is to see if and how the NFL addresses the way footballs are taken care of and how that Patriots fumbles/play looks in 4-5 yrs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I just want people to realize that these are nothing more than theories. What will be interesting is to see if and how the NFL addresses the way footballs are taken care of and how that Patriots fumbles/play looks in 4-5 yrs. This Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I just want people to realize that these are nothing more than theories. yes. And maybe they're correct. But every time a Patriot fumbles whether its next Sunday or for the next yr, we'll hear " see what happens when the balls are inflated?" Lol. Which I find to be stupid. Though admittedly, I'm not much for conspiracy theories Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coordi88 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 The teams that were playing the patriots over the last however many years likely touched the Patriots team footballs multiple thousands of times and no one ever notice a discrepancy. Yet everyone seems ready to tack any number of crazy theories onto the situation that condemns the Patriots of cheating over the last decade. Its insane. Especially when talking heads are on the networks convincing people that all professionals would know the footballs were low just by touching them. More and more people are believing bullhonda like this. Its one thing to have a farfetched conspiracy theory and amuse it because its interesting. Its another to spew it all over the place with passion and no disclaimer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 As for Belichick's presser yesterday, I was animate on twitter that I wasn't buying what he was selling. What do I mean by that? I mean that I don't buy that he spent "significant time" (his words, not mine) on this. He's the guy that is always, "we're onto team x" but with the Super Bowl less than two weeks away he wants us to believe that he (and whoever else on his team and staff) spent significant time on deflategate...think about that for a moment...does that even seem like anything Belichick would ever do with the biggest game of the year on the horizon? Everyone is entitled to their opinion but mine is that I'm not buying that much if any time was spent on it. I get why he held his presser (wanting to squelch the controversy) and it made sense (albeit I think he should have done that in his first presser about it.) but I just can't believe he wasted any time on this versus saying we'll comply with the NFL's investigation and after the Super Bowl will be conducting our own investigation too. Instead, what he used the presser as was as a preemptive strike to tell the NFL to prove it or shut up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 The refs touch the ball during games but for the most part they are moving it quickly and getting it set so I could see where they may not notice. Additionally, they may not have the grip that an athlete has and therefore may not notice as much a difference either. As for other opponents, it would have to be on a turnover and there's probably enough adrenaline going that that could be reason enough not to notice. Possibly, i just can't believe that there was not one little inkling of suspicion that would've led someone to pull a ball aside to examine it more closely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.