1/26: New Charts from Sharp Analysis

[Meathead]

Stats show the Patriots became nearly fumble-proof after a 2006 rule change backed by Tom Brady

While speculation exists that “Deflategate” was a one-time occurrence, data I introduced last week indicated that the phenomena could have potentially been an ongoing, long-standing issue for the New England Patriots. That possibility now looks much clearer.

Initially, looking at weather data, I noticed the Patriots performed extremely well in the rain, much more so than they were projected to. I followed that up by looking at the fumble data, which showed, regardless of weather or site, that the Patriots’ prevention of fumbles was nearly impossible. Ironically, both studies saw the same exact starting point: Something started for the Patriots in 2007 that is still going on today.

I wanted to compare the New England Patriots’ fumble rate from 2000, when coach Bill Belichick first arrived in New England, with the rest of the NFL. The below results also look only at total fumbles, not just lost fumbles. This brought us to the ability to capture plays per fumble.

To confirm something was dramatically different in New England, starting in 2007 and running through the present, I compared the 2000–06 time period (when the Patriots won all of their Super Bowls) with the 2007–2014 time period. The beauty of data is that results speak for themselves:

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/01/150126_SN_chart01.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg

This chart is jaw-dropping, and the visual perfectly depicts what happened. From a more technical perspective, John Candido, a data scientist at ZestFinance who is a colleague of mine over at the NFLproject.com website and was also involved in the development of this research, comments:


Based on the assumption that plays per fumble follow a normal distribution, you’d expect to see, according to random fluctuation, the results that the Patriots have gotten since 2007 once in 5,842 instances.

Which in layman’s terms means that this result only being a coincidence is like winning a raffle where you have a 0.0001711874 probability to win. In other words, it’s very unlikely that results this abnormal are only due to the endogenous nature of the game.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/01/stats_show_the_new_england_patriots_became_nearly_fumble_proof_after_a_2006.html

damn right its jaw dropping. even worse than the original one from a couple days ago, and that was smoking gun material

man they sooooo definitely cheated. now the nfl has to do the right thing. at this point just about any real evidence will seal the deal

how awesome would it be after all this time to have marcia go down in disgrace. i love everybody, but he brought it upon himself. i would enjoy watching that for sure

[Dr. Who]

Seems pretty damning, though I'm sure Bob Kraft's gladiator pal will explain how this is all hate propaganda.

[jamze132]

Your theory can be "deflated" by the Patriots claiming skill and luck.

I do agree though that there is something to this.

How have the Pats players that benefited during their tenure performed when they played elsewhere?

[Joe Fo Sho]

Your theory can be "deflated" by the Patriots claiming skill and luck.

I do agree though that there is something to this.

How have the Pats players that benefited during their tenure performed when they played elsewhere?

He did a piece on that too. Every player fumbled more. Benjarvis never fumbled in 4 years with New England, then he fumbles 5 times in Cincy in 2 years, which was his similar to his fumble rate in college.

[harmonkoz]

I said in the other thread this was posted in yesterday that I thought the first blog entry was the smoking gun, now into the fourth--I would say the gun is on fire.

I would like to see more major outlets pick this up besides the WSJ and Slate.

[justasportsfan]

you guys are crazy. Bill Bellichick has found the ultimate coaching secret for not fumbling the ball

- Spartacus

[Joe Fo Sho]

you guys are crazy. Bill Bellichick has found the ultimate coaching secret for not fumbling the ball

- Spartacus

Obviously, when Belichick says 'don't fumble,' his players listen to him. Players think that when other coaches say it it's a joke. Also, I'm sure there are a handful of coaches in the NFL that don't take fumbling seriously and never tell their players to hold on to the football.

[Meathead]

you guys disgust me. its obviously bills sheer genius that gave his team magical fumble avoidance powers

[justasportsfan]

BB can solve fumbling in the NBA.

[Meathead]

this is actually wonderful news

bill is obviously onto something. this skill could save the world. it could get kids to eat their broccoli every time, it could turn a visit to the dmv into a swift and pleasant experience, and it might even get jewish girls to swallow

[gebobs]

Based on the assumption that plays per fumble follow a normal distribution, you’d expect to see, according to random fluctuation, the results that the Patriots have gotten since 2007 once in 5,842 instances.
Or once every 200 years in a 32-team league.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Or once every 200 years in a 32-team league.

"...the results the Patriots have gotten since 2007 once in 5,842 instances."

His analysis spans an 8 year period, so by 'instance' he means 8 year span. He's saying that out of 32 teams, there would be 1 outlier like the Patriots in an 8 year span once out of every 5,842 measured 8 year spans.

[gebobs]

I said in the other thread this was posted in yesterday that I thought the first blog entry was the smoking gun, now into the fourth--I would say the gun is on fire.
Haha...you know if it was anyone else but Belichick, Shiva would be more convincing. Sure we can think up all kinds of crazy scenarios where the CIA smuggled the balls out of that bathroom through an a/c vent, dunked them in flaming thermite to raise the pressure, and then got them back for game time.

But this is Belichick, a guy with a long history of bending and breaking the rules just to give his team an advantage on the field they wouldn't otherwise have just playing mano a mano. Heck, it wasn't just a few weeks ago he was rushing in ineligible receivers to screw up the Ravens coverage.

[gebobs]

"...the results the Patriots have gotten since 2007 once in 5,842 instances."

His analysis spans an 8 year period, so by 'instance' he means 8 year span. He's saying that out of 32 teams, there would be 1 outlier like the Patriots in an 8 year span once out of every 5,842 measured 8 year spans.

Once every 1600 years then. The last time this happened was during the reign of Theodoric the Great. ;-)

[Joe Fo Sho]

Once every 1600 years then. The last time this happened was during the reign of Theodoric the Great. ;-)

Yeah, but that was a great team. They revolutionized the way players hold the football.

[Meathead]

wow what terrible luck for the cheatriots

they pull off a feat that happens only once in 1600 years and it has to come just a few years after spygate

just imagine what ppl with think

[Meathead]

BREAKING NEWS:

NFL researching ways to throw the whole internet into the incinerator

[Discotrish]

Your theory can be "deflated" by the Patriots claiming skill and luck.

I do agree though that there is something to this.

How have the Pats players that benefited during their tenure performed when they played elsewhere?

Their special skill & luck with regarding to fumbling deserts them after they leave the Magical Atmospheric Pressure of New England.

Patti

[harmonkoz]

Trolling the troll... Lol. Good stuff.

[Mr. Pink]

He did a piece on that too. Every player fumbled more. Benjarvis never fumbled in 4 years with New England, then he fumbles 5 times in Cincy in 2 years, which was his similar to his fumble rate in college.

Except guys like Randy Moss, Ben Watson and Wes Welker all fumbled less after they left New England.

[Strongman]

Stats show the Patriots became nearly fumble-proof after a 2006 rule change backed by Tom Brady

While speculation exists that “Deflategate” was a one-time occurrence, data I introduced last week indicated that the phenomena could have potentially been an ongoing, long-standing issue for the New England Patriots. That possibility now looks much clearer.

Initially, looking at weather data, I noticed the Patriots performed extremely well in the rain, much more so than they were projected to. I followed that up by looking at the fumble data, which showed, regardless of weather or site, that the Patriots’ prevention of fumbles was nearly impossible. Ironically, both studies saw the same exact starting point: Something started for the Patriots in 2007 that is still going on today.

I wanted to compare the New England Patriots’ fumble rate from 2000, when coach Bill Belichick first arrived in New England, with the rest of the NFL. The below results also look only at total fumbles, not just lost fumbles. This brought us to the ability to capture plays per fumble.

To confirm something was dramatically different in New England, starting in 2007 and running through the present, I compared the 2000–06 time period (when the Patriots won all of their Super Bowls) with the 2007–2014 time period. The beauty of data is that results speak for themselves:

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/01/150126_SN_chart01.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg

This chart is jaw-dropping, and the visual perfectly depicts what happened. From a more technical perspective, John Candido, a data scientist at ZestFinance who is a colleague of mine over at the NFLproject.com website and was also involved in the development of this research, comments:


Based on the assumption that plays per fumble follow a normal distribution, you’d expect to see, according to random fluctuation, the results that the Patriots have gotten since 2007 once in 5,842 instances.

Which in layman’s terms means that this result only being a coincidence is like winning a raffle where you have a 0.0001711874 probability to win. In other words, it’s very unlikely that results this abnormal are only due to the endogenous nature of the game.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/01/stats_show_the_new_england_patriots_became_nearly_fumble_proof_after_a_2006.html

damn right its jaw dropping. even worse than the original one from a couple days ago, and that was smoking gun material

man they sooooo definitely cheated. now the nfl has to do the right thing. at this point just about any real evidence will seal the deal

how awesome would it be after all this time to have marcia go down in disgrace. i love everybody, but he brought it upon himself. i would enjoy watching that for sure

The histograms are very interesting. The one from 2000-2006 looks to be skewed to the left. The 2007-2014 is screaming something is amiss. If a team had 60 plays/fumble, I'd start to think something was wrong.

Belichick is doing something: whether it is under-inflating them or putting a different coating on them to make them easier to handle.

It would be interesting to see if Cheatriots recover more of their own fumbles vs. the fumbles of other teams. The reason being an under-inflated ball might not bounce as much and thus be closer to a Cheatriot and easier to recover.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Except guys like Randy Moss, Ben Watson and Wes Welker all fumbled less after they left New England.

Randy Moss had 47 catches after he left New England, that's a pretty small sample size. You're right though if you compare his career not on NE vs with NE.

Randy on NE - 250 rec, 5 fumbles - 50 rec/fum
Randy not on NE - 723 rec, 11 fumbles - 65 rec/fum

Welker on NE - 672 rec, 11 fumbles - 61 rec/fum
Welker not on NE - 203 rec, 14 fumbles - 14.5 rec/fum

Welker on NE seems to have a significantly better fumble rate on NE versus any other team. However, he probably fumbled while returning kicks for Miami, so his touches/fum is better than 14.5, but I just don't have the return stats. I doubt it increases it that much though.

As far as Watson...I didn't actually look up the stats so I'll assume you're right.

[Mr. Pink]

Randy Moss had 47 catches after he left New England, that's a pretty small sample size. You're right though if you compare his career not on NE vs with NE.

Randy on NE - 250 rec, 5 fumbles - 50 rec/fum
Randy not on NE - 723 rec, 11 fumbles - 65 rec/fum

Welker on NE - 672 rec, 11 fumbles - 61 rec/fum
Welker not on NE - 203 rec, 14 fumbles - 14.5 rec/fum

Welker on NE seems to have a significantly better fumble rate on NE versus any other team. However, he probably fumbled while returning kicks for Miami, so his touches/fum is better than 14.5, but I just don't have the return stats. I doubt it increases it that much though.

As far as Watson...I didn't actually look up the stats so I'll assume you're right.

Watson on NE 6 fumbles 287 touches
Watson on Cle and N.O. 1 fumble on 316 touches

I love how all these studies only use players that advance the agenda but leave out other guys who were major contributors who don't prove the point.

Or the fact that the 2 worst weather games New England has played in this year were their 2 playoff games where they fumbled 3 times, recovering all. Since these studies love to say how good at NE is protecting the football in adverse weather conditions.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Another way to confirm this data is to look at the fumble rate of individual ball carriers before, during, and after they've played for the Patriots. If the hypothesis is correct then you should see a dramatic difference of a much lower fumbling rate during each player's time in New England.

Also there should be a clear and consistent difference in fumble rate between NE's home games and away games, as the home team supplies game balls for both teams.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Another way to confirm this data is to look at the fumble rate of individual ball carriers before, during, and after they've played for the Patriots. If the hypothesis is correct then you should see a dramatic difference of a much lower fumbling rate during each player's time in New England.

Also there should be a clear and consistent difference in fumble rate between NE's home games and away games, as the home team supplies game balls for both teams.

The home team only supplies balls for the home team, the away team brings their own. That's the whole reason this has been a big deal.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Watson on NE 6 fumbles 287 touches
Watson on Cle and N.O. 1 fumble on 316 touches

I love how all these studies only use players that advance the agenda but leave out other guys who were major contributors who don't prove the point.

Or the fact that the 2 worst weather games New England has played in this year were their 2 playoff games where they fumbled 3 times, recovering all. Since these studies love to say how good at NE is protecting the football in adverse weather conditions.

Ben Watson had 4 of his 6 fumbles before 2007, when the article states they made the change to football pressure. Ben Watson actually gets better then. The 3 years with normal balls - 4 fumbles. The 3 years with deflated balls - 2 fumbles.

[gebobs]

Except guys like Randy Moss, Ben Watson and Wes Welker all fumbled less after they left New England.

Moss only had 47 receptions post NE. Too small of a sample size to read much into it. Watson's whole career is a small sample size.

Welker definitely though. 175 receptions and one fumble with Denver. Fumbled once every 56 receptions with NE (672 receptions).

[Mr. Pink]

Moss only had 47 receptions post NE. Too small of a sample size to read much into it. Watson's whole career is a small sample size.

Welker definitely though. 175 receptions and one fumble with Denver. Fumbled once every 56 receptions with NE (672 receptions).

If you go into what Moss did with the Vikes his fumble rate wasn't higher than what it was in New England.

And Watson is a small sample size but the people trying to prove the point using BenJarvus Green-Ellis, Danny Amendola and Brandon LaFell is okay? LaFell and Amendola have about as many touches as Watson alone....Law firm only started 20 games as a Pat.

[gebobs]

Watson on NE 6 fumbles 287 touches
Watson on Cle and N.O. 1 fumble on 316 touches
Where are you getting "touches". Has he been used for anything other than TE?

[Mr. Pink]

Where are you getting "touches". Has he been used for anything other than TE?

He had 1 carry on New England and 1 carry on Cleveland, somehow. :rofl:

[Mr. Pink]

Watson on NE 6 fumbles 168 touches
Watson on Cle and N.O. 1 fumble on 194 touches

I screwed up my post above and since I edited it once, it won't let me re-edit.

I took targets as touches, not catches...this fixes that. My bad!

[gebobs]

If you go into what Moss did with the Vikes his fumble rate wasn't higher than what it was in New England.
About the same. Granted.


And Watson is a small sample size but the people trying to prove the point using BenJarvus Green-Ellis, Danny Amendola and Brandon LaFell is okay? LaFell and Amendola have about as many touches as Watson alone....Law firm only started 20 games as a Pat.
Watson has had 360 touches over an 11-year career. BGE has almost 1100 over 6 years.

Amendola and Lafell. Yeah...too small.

[Strongman]

It's a big mistake to look at one or two players and draw conclusions about the data. It's cherry picking the data.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Watson on NE 6 fumbles 168 touches
Watson on Cle and N.O. 1 fumble on 194 touches

I screwed up my post above and since I edited it once, it won't let me re-edit.

I took targets as touches, not catches...this fixes that. My bad!


You've got to differentiate between post 2007 and pre 2007. The balls were allegedly deflated from 2007 and on, according to the article.

[Meathead]

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Rates-Compared-Graph-1.png

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Rates-Compared-Graph-2.png

Once again, a key takeaway is deadly obvious: prior to 2007 the Patriots were RIGHT IN LINE with the league averages across the other non-dome teams. When you look team by team, they literally are in the middle of the pack for most seasons, as the histogram in the very first graphic at the top of this article shows. But starting in 2007, all similarities totally vanish.

The statistical “jump” the Patriots make in the 2006 offseason, from one fumble every 39 plays to one fumble every 76 plays is nothing short of remarkable. Their trendline over this period is not even close to that of the rest of the NFL.

The bottom line is, something happened in New England. It happened just before the 2007 season, and it completely changed this team. While NFL teams apparently are complaining to the league that they felt the Patriots played with deflated footballs during the 2014 season and postseason, all investigations into those allegations would be wise to reference my research herein, and begin the investigation in the 2006. That was when Tom Brady was able to persuade the NFL to change its rules to allow him (and other quarterbacks) to provide their own footballs for all road games. I will reiterate, this analysis cannot say it was, undoubtedly, illegal football deflation which caused the data abnormalities. But it does conclude that something absolutely changed, and it was not the result of simple random fluctuation.

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007

[Mace]

I, for one, find the science and the charts baffling. Deciphering them takes too long and my attention wanders as I lose focus.

Taking a hard look at these though,

[Strongman]

I, for one, find the science and the charts baffling. Deciphering them takes too long and my attention wanders as I lose focus.

Taking a hard look at these though,

In the last graph Meathead posted, Sharp basically put in some trend lines. Presumably, he did this to simply highlight the differences between NE and the rest of the outdoor teams before and after the rule change.

[DynaPaul]

Your theory can be "deflated" by the Patriots claiming skill and luck.

I do agree though that there is something to this.

How have the Pats players that benefited during their tenure performed when they played elsewhere?

And that my friend is why Brady will never leave. He will never go to another team and be exposed.

[gebobs]

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Rates-Compared-Graph-2.png
Interesting chart, but now I'd like to see all other teams broken out. If there are other teams that are similarly outlying, that would throw doubt on the accusation.

[chris66]

Stats show the Patriots became nearly fumble-proof after a 2006 rule change backed by Tom Brady

While speculation exists that “Deflategate” was a one-time occurrence, data I introduced last week indicated that the phenomena could have potentially been an ongoing, long-standing issue for the New England Patriots. That possibility now looks much clearer.

Initially, looking at weather data, I noticed the Patriots performed extremely well in the rain, much more so than they were projected to. I followed that up by looking at the fumble data, which showed, regardless of weather or site, that the Patriots’ prevention of fumbles was nearly impossible. Ironically, both studies saw the same exact starting point: Something started for the Patriots in 2007 that is still going on today.

I wanted to compare the New England Patriots’ fumble rate from 2000, when coach Bill Belichick first arrived in New England, with the rest of the NFL. The below results also look only at total fumbles, not just lost fumbles. This brought us to the ability to capture plays per fumble.

To confirm something was dramatically different in New England, starting in 2007 and running through the present, I compared the 2000–06 time period (when the Patriots won all of their Super Bowls) with the 2007–2014 time period. The beauty of data is that results speak for themselves:

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/01/150126_SN_chart01.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg

This chart is jaw-dropping, and the visual perfectly depicts what happened. From a more technical perspective, John Candido, a data scientist at ZestFinance who is a colleague of mine over at the NFLproject.com website and was also involved in the development of this research, comments:


Based on the assumption that plays per fumble follow a normal distribution, you’d expect to see, according to random fluctuation, the results that the Patriots have gotten since 2007 once in 5,842 instances.

Which in layman’s terms means that this result only being a coincidence is like winning a raffle where you have a 0.0001711874 probability to win. In other words, it’s very unlikely that results this abnormal are only due to the endogenous nature of the game.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/01/stats_show_the_new_england_patriots_became_nearly_fumble_proof_after_a_2006.html

damn right its jaw dropping. even worse than the original one from a couple days ago, and that was smoking gun material

man they sooooo definitely cheated. now the nfl has to do the right thing. at this point just about any real evidence will seal the deal

how awesome would it be after all this time to have marcia go down in disgrace. i love everybody, but he brought it upon himself. i would enjoy watching that for sure

Ridley would say otherwise. Bottomline is you fumble you dont play

[Discotrish]

Interesting chart, but now I'd like to see all other teams broken out. If there are other teams that are similarly outlying, that would throw doubt on the accusation.

The only teams that even come close are the dome teams, that aren't affected by the weather half the time. But New England's fumble rates are a lot better than the dome teams from 2007 on.

Patti

[Mr. Miyagi]

I, for one, find the science and the charts baffling. Deciphering them takes too long and my attention wanders as I lose focus.

Taking a hard look at these though,
Really? It's not that difficult. Just look at that last chart, that's all you need to understand.

What do you do for a living?

[Meathead]

Interesting chart, but now I'd like to see all other teams broken out. If there are other teams that are similarly outlying, that would throw doubt on the accusation.

its based on the same data as the other charts, which showed there was no other team that was similarly outlying. just the cheaters. thats it

[stuckincincy]

I don't understand the bar graphs cited by the OP.

The first one is for 8 "non-dome" clubs. The 2nd is for 10, the 3rd is for 12.

There are but 8 NFL clubs that have domed/retractable roof stadiums. Shouldn't these charts depict 24 clubs? Are they "cherry picked"? Are there other clubs close to NE?

I'm certainly not defending NE, but I am reminded of the old adage..."If you torture numbers long enough, they will admit to anything."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_National_Football_League_stadiums

[Meathead]

i assumed he was just taking a sample of teams in the normal spectrum so the chart wouldnt be freaking huge. doesnt really need to represent all teams since he has that data elsewhere in other graphs

and it is true that you can make stats say just about anything you want, but you have to use subterfuge to do that. this data is pretty straight forward i think - number of total fumbles. and the difference is so dramatic that its hard to imagine you could finagle a lie that big if the cheaters were actually close to the pack over that period

i did see an article someone else wrong trying to debunk sharps analysis but i thought it was rather poorly done and focused mostly on petty things that even if valid would not account for the huge disparity the cheaters enjoyed. ill see if i can find that article, it was just yesterday

[stuckincincy]

i assumed he was just taking a sample of teams in the normal spectrum so the chart wouldnt be freaking huge. doesn't really need to represent all teams since he has that data elsewhere in other graphs

and it is true that you can make stats say just about anything you want, but you have to use subterfuge to do that. this data is pretty straight forward i think - number of total fumbles. and the difference is so dramatic that its hard to imagine you could finagle a lie that big if the cheaters were actually close to the pack over that period

i did see an article someone else wrong trying to debunk sharps analysis but i thought it was rather poorly done and focused mostly on petty things that even if valid would not account for the huge disparity the cheaters enjoyed. ill see if i can find that article, it was just yesterday

Nah - the presentation really doesn't pass muster. It reminded me of Al Gore's charts in his political hack flick, "An Inconvenient Truth.", which garnered 2 Oscars and the awarding of a Nobel Peace prize for zinc mining, yacht-owning, multiple mansion-owning Al.

It's really unacceptable science - smells of an agenda - to reduce the population of a data set. Of course, governments do that as a matter of course all the time. And I'm wondering now if the referenced site is trying to now cover their fannies.

[Strongman]

I don't understand the bar graphs cited by the OP.

The first one is for 8 "non-dome" clubs. The 2nd is for 10, the 3rd is for 12.

There are but 8 NFL clubs that have domed/retractable roof stadiums. Shouldn't these charts depict 24 clubs? Are they "cherry picked"? Are there other clubs close to NE?

I'm certainly not defending NE, but I am reminded of the old adage..."If you torture numbers long enough, they will admit to anything."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_National_Football_League_stadiums

It's a histogram used to show frequency. In those graphs, each bar doesn't represent a team. A bar is a representation of fumbles per play, while the bar height shows how many teams this happened to.

Think of it look this: If you have 24 coins (teams) and flipped them all at once and counted the results (heads or tails). For illustration's sake we'll say 14 coins were heads and 10 coins were tails. You would make a histogram with two bars and the bars would be 14 and 10 units high.

[Strongman]

Nah - the presentation really doesn't pass muster. It reminded me of Al Gore's charts in his political hack flick, "An Inconvenient Truth.", which garnered 2 Oscars and the awarding of a Nobel Peace prize for zinc mining, yacht-owning, multiple mansion-owning Al.

It's really unacceptable science - smells of an agenda - to reduce the population of a data set. Of course, governments do that as a matter of course all the time. And I'm wondering now if the referenced site is trying to now cover their fannies.

Histograms are used in science all of the time. They are a valid way to illustrate the frequency of an occurence.

[gebobs]

I don't understand the bar graphs cited by the OP.

The first one is for 8 "non-dome" clubs. The 2nd is for 10, the 3rd is for 12.
Each bar shows a frequency i.e. how many teams were in each "bucket" of fumble rates. The first shows buckets of 4,4,2,4,3,4,1,1...totaling 23 teams. The second show 1,1,2,4,4,4,3,2,1,1...totaling 23 teams. The third shows one superimposed on the other.

[harmonkoz]

What I find interesting is all of the people who came out last week debunking Sharp. There were some good write-ups about how wrong Sharp was.

http://drewfustin.com/2015/01/27/patriots-fumble-comments/
http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710

There were many, many more. Almost a concerted push back.

I kind of forgot about it, but checked back in on Mr. Sharp today. http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/follow-up-to-discuss-differing-studies-regarding-the-new-england-patriots-fumble-rate-since-2000

Needless to say, he is sticking to his guns.

[gebobs]

http://drewfustin.com/2015/01/27/patriots-fumble-comments/

Sure, there are lots to take umbrage with in Sharp's analysis, but this one left me scratching my head...

"The Patriots are indeed nearly off the chart, but that is partially because the author uses the smallest y-axis possible to demonstrate the largest effect that he could. It's generally preferred to use a y-axis that begins at 0..."

I read this objection elsewhere and it's nonsense. In fact, it's generally preferable to use a tight axis in order to show the data with precision. There is no general rule for a y-axis origin at zero just as there is none for a y-axis maximum of 100. It's completely arbitrary. It's generally assumed that the reader is going to understand the scale. Regardless, changing that y-axis origin to zero wouldn't materially effect how the chart looks.