Merged all things Brady, cheating, bellicheat, etc.

[CommissarSpartacus]

Shiva, the best way I can explain it to you is to use the Flo Jo analogy.

You can mark a point in time her sprint times vastly improved against her own previous personal best and against the rest of the competion.

Although she was never caught for illegal doing, logic backed by comparative statistical analysis leads one to that conclusion that she did do something illegal.

I don't see how comparing sprinting to fumbling is valid in any way.

If you try to answer my questions, which now you have dodged like all the others, you'll reali2e where you go wrong.

I know you aren't a hater, but you've been manipulated by a hater generated meme, ie. that if someone or some group is significantly better than the rest, cheating must be involved.

Think about it - when was the last time you saw someone hang onto the ball and said to yourself "Wow, that looked strange to me, almost as if he would have fumbled if the ball's air pressure was a psi greater!"?

The fact is their is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to suggest a 12. 0 psi ball is ANY easier to hang onto and throw than a 13.0 psi ball.

NONE. 2IPPO. NADA.

To go 1. The Pats have a better record of hanging on to the ball than everyone else... 2. Tom Brady likes his balls on the soft side, which is entirely legal...3. The Pats are more successful than anyone else... therefore, the Pats have to be cheating by intentionally deflating the balls...

is...not...justified...in...any...way...

[Joe Fo Sho]

I don't see how comparing sprinting to fumbling is valid in any way.

Maybe you should read what he said, he's not comparing sprinting to fumbling. He's comparing sets of statistics and anomalies found within them.

The fact is their is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to suggest a 12. 0 psi ball is ANY easier to hang onto and throw than a 13.0 psi ball.

Are you saying you want a study done to determine this? The less pressure, the further you can dig your fingers into it and hold onto it. It doesn't take a genius to know that a nerf football is easier to hold onto than a professional football. Use some of that intelligence you claim to have, big guy.

[ticatfan]

Canadians are pissed off at the NFL because they missed their one and only shot at having a team this year, so they're bats-it crazy with anger and striking out at the league at every opportunity.

Not all Canadian s, just Canadians that hate all things Canadian. And Grigson cut his teeth in the CFL , maybe he had seen that trick up here.

[CommissarSpartacus]

Maybe you should read what he said, he's not comparing sprinting to fumbling. He's comparing sets of statistics and anomalies found within them.

What are the set of statistics about? You can't just compare sets of numbers without understanding what those numbers represent. Until you do, it's just gibberish...

Are you saying you want a study done to determine this? The less pressure, the further you can dig your fingers into it and hold onto it. It doesn't take a genius to know that a nerf football is easier to hold onto than a professional football. Use some of that intelligence you claim to have, big guy.

Use your brain, dumbass. It's a FEEL issue. Just because an iron ball is harder than a baseball doesn't mean the baseball is any easier to grip. There are other issues involved as well.

But even IF the ball was slightly easier to grip, you have no way of knowing how much, if ANY, of the anomaly can be attributed to the slightly softer ball.

Once again, just because Tom Brady prefers soft balls and soft balls are incrementally "easier" to grip than slightly harder balls andf the Pats fumble less than others IS NOT PROOF that the fumbles stat is as a result of deflated balls.

To insist that it is, when there are plenty of other possibilities is JUST...NOT...LOGICAL...

Tell me, how long do I have to show you how to think properly until I decide you just aren't worth the effort?

After all, while it's fun to watch you enthusiastically shove your foot down your throat again and again, it gets tired after awhile.

Do you have another schtick or is this it?

[Bellowing4DaBills]

The big difference is that the Pats just do not have a "better" record of hanging on to the ball; they are statistically phenomenal outliers against their previous rate before the rule change and against the rest of the league. The sprinting analogy is used not because the actions are similar but because the outlier results in a sporting event are analogous.

As I mentioned above there are no clinical studies or experiments that been done to test the deflated ball/fumble to touch ratio correlation/causation hypothesis. Thus, there is no counter against your "NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE" at +-1 psi differentiation. Again, inductive reasoning and experience around balls in all types of sports tells us a softer object is easier to grasp and manipulate. You know this at 10 flinging around a nerf ball.

I missed replying to your Grigson question. Maybe he just got pissed at seeing his team getting destroyed and fired the only bullet he had left and that bullet was based on an overwhelming suspicion that the Pats are doing something illegal with balls. So why not just throw it out there and let the chips fall whether any of the balls were proved to be illegal or not.

Definitely, not the smartest way to go about it but what the hell. You know you are gonna face these guys again.

[CommissarSpartacus]

The big difference is that the Pats just do not have a "better" record of hanging on to the ball; they are statistically phenomenal outliers against their previous rate before the rule change and against the rest of the league. The sprinting analogy is used not because the actions are similar but because the outlier results in a sporting event are analogous.

You are still jumping to an unjustified conclusion.

Just because Flojo cheated and put up outlier numbers does not mean that all outlier numbers are as a result of cheating, especially in an area where performance varies widely from team to team.

orld class sprinters do one thing - run - and the top 100 at any time are close, because the activity is so simple and refined.

Whereas fumbling in football is a chaotic act that could be the result of a do2en different factors on any given play.

Ever think that it's the lousy teams that skew the averages down whereas some teams do a superior job?

And if more teams did a better job, the anomaly wouldn't seem nearly as egregious?

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." ~Mark Twain,

"I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity. ~George Gallup

[Joe Fo Sho]

Once again, just because Tom Brady prefers soft balls and soft balls are incrementally "easier" to grip than slightly harder balls andf the Pats fumble less than others IS NOT PROOF that the fumbles stat is as a result of deflated balls.

To insist that it is, when there are plenty of other possibilities is JUST...NOT...LOGICAL...

Nobody is saying it's PROOF. We're saying that you can come to a reasonable conclusion if you look at the facts and have some sort of intelligence. It's easy to see why you can't do that.

[CommissarSpartacus]

Nobody is saying it's PROOF. We're saying that you can come to a reasonable conclusion if you look at the facts and have some sort of intelligence. It's easy to see why you can't do that.

Is it the only reasonable conclusion?

Or are there others?

[Bellowing4DaBills]

As I said, it is correlation/causation hypothesis. And yes, because there are large variables with the act of fumbling there is a greater variation for causation.

I am deeply involved with metrics analysis for a large financial institution. When we see high variations, it is a trigger to investigate to validate and to find the most reasonable cause for it before reporting.

The most reasonable answer based on the numbers that would be impacted by a rule change that would allow teams to use balls to their psi specifications within league guideline, is that the Pats have been able to substantially improve their touch/fumble ratio in comparison to their own previous pre-rule change ratios and to the rest of their competitors by taking advantage of the new rules impacting psi specifications.

It is arguable whether the Pats have illegally been below league guidelines all these years, but it is beyond reason to think their vast superiority in this specific stat is not directly attributable to the advantage they gained with the rule change. You are just being purposely obtuse to continuously refute this point.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Is it the only reasonable conclusion?

Or are there others?

If there's no proof, then of course there are other potential conclusions. That's why this is a debate. Just as there's no proof in my argument, there's also no proof in yours.

You seem to be taking an innocent until proven guilty stance on this, which is weird for someone who knocks America every chance he gets.

[WagonCircler]

It's the fumbles, Stupid.

Brady benefits a little bit, but the lack of fumbles are the true motive. They provide a massive advantage over the course of a season.

[Bellowing4DaBills]

… Think about it - when was the last time you saw someone hang onto the ball and said to yourself "Wow, that looked strange to me, almost as if he would have fumbled if the ball's air pressure was a psi greater!"?...

Scene: Week 11. Pats scrub, Jonas Gray runs for 201 yards on 37 carries against the Colts.

GM Grigson: Christ, that guy killed us tonight.

Stats Guy: Yea, almost 40 carries and no fumbles either. You know, the Pats haven’t lost a fumble all season.

GM Grigson: They run all those plays on O and still haven’t lost a fumble? I swear on the play Redding whooped Gray, his head whiplashed but the ball did not jiggle an inch from the kid’s basket.

Stats Guy: Year in, year out, the Pats are one of the best at holding on to the rock.

GM Grigson: How well? Even with Ridley? Run the numbers and let’s find the edges we can build on.

A Week Later, Stats Guys shows his numbers to Grigson

GM Grigson: Whoa! What did they do in ’07?

Stats Guys: I don’t know. We need to investigate further.

GM Grigson: You do that. Even against dome teams, theirs are totally off the charts.

And after multiple back and forth between astute human beings, they draw the conclusions that prompts Grigson to play the deflate card.

[CommissarSpartacus]

As I said, it is correlation/causation hypothesis. And yes, because there are large variables with the act of fumbling there is a greater variation for causation.

So, now that you've agreed with me, you feel free to ignore it?

I am deeply involved with metrics analysis for a large financial institution. When we see high variations, it is a trigger to investigate to validate and to find the most reasonable cause for it before reporting.

I fail to see how dealing with probabilities for the purposes of gambling is analogous to an accusation of cheating. Fumbling is not playing the market and taking greater care with the preparation of the footballs is not insider information. Plus, there's a reason why probabilities are not taken as proof of guilt in criminal trials. It's because of the "not necessarily" part of correlation/causation. People can be framed, and using correlation/causation as the device is one of the best ways.

The most reasonable answer based on the numbers that would be impacted by a rule change that would allow teams to use balls to their psi specifications within league guideline, is that the Pats have been able to substantially improve their touch/fumble ratio in comparison to their own previous pre-rule change ratios and to the rest of their competitors by taking advantage of the new rules impacting psi specifications.

Indeed, this may account for a PART of it, but it by no means implies that the Pats broke the rule to achieve it. Other peoples' incompetence is not proof of another's evil intent.

It is arguable whether the Pats have illegally been below league guidelines all these years, but it is beyond reason to think their vast superiority in this specific stat is not directly attributable to the advantage they gained with the rule change. You are just being purposely obtuse to continuously refute this point.

No, I am not being obtuse, you are not recogni2ing how these stats are being misused.

I have NEVER denied that PART of the improvement can be attributed to the rule change, but there is NO WAY to say to what extent, unless you are willing to say it's 100% a result of the rule change, which no one seems wiling to claim.

Plus, even IF it's 100% the result of the rule change, there is NO PROOF that the rule was broken to achieve it. Comparing the Pats competence to the rest of the league's INCOMPETENCE proves nothing but the Pats competence and the rest of the leagues incompetence.

It'slike taking 5 apples and 5 oranges and saying they're the same because 5 and 5 are the same.

You are falling victim to a sophist strategy that wants to use a questionable analogy to smear people who stand accused of intentional cheating with NO PROOF so far that points to their guilt, other than a stats anomaly.

[CommissarSpartacus]

If there's no proof, then of course there are other potential conclusions. That's why this is a debate. Just as there's no proof in my argument, there's also no proof in yours.

You seem to be taking an innocent until proven guilty stance on this, which is weird for someone who knocks America every chance he gets.

Only an idiot American would consider innocent until proven guilty an American invention.

Read a book, for god's sake...

[CommissarSpartacus]

Scene: Week 11. Pats scrub, Jonas Gray runs for 201 yards on 37 carries against the Colts.

Superbowl Wk 21. Pats scrub Whatshisname Butler wins Superbowl by catching the football, doesn't fumble. In fact, NONE of the Pats fumbled in the Superbowl, and the Pats played a lot of scrubs.

Did they find a way to cheat in the Superbowl too?

In fact, I can't remember the Seahawks fumbling either! What's up with that, neither team fumbling? If you extrapolate that to 16 games, both teams would go through the ENTIRE SEASON with 2ERO fumbles?

What's up with that? They fumbled during the season. Both teams did.

I smell something fishy!

[Joe Fo Sho]

Only an idiot American would consider innocent until proven guilty an American invention.

Read a book, for god's sake...

Did I say America invented it?

Maybe you have a comprehension problem. You should find a capable adult to help you navigate around the internet.

[Discotrish]

C'mon, admit it, you were wrong.

What we have here is a guy who was wupped previously by BB trying to get revenge by arranging an embarrassing incident for the pats and an uncomfortable situation for Tom Brady DURING THE GAME.

Let me ask all the haters a question.

If it turns out that this is all a creation of Ryan Grigson and the Pats had nothing to do with it, are you going to go after the Colts with the same hysterical fervor as you did with the Pats?

Will you apologi2e if it turns out the Pats are 100% innocent?

Good for the Colts. The Patriots have been cheating since 2007, the stats show that clearly. If there is a new policy on how the football is handled prior to the game next year I'm confident that their extreme outlying stats in this category re: fumbling will go back to normal.

It is interesting to watch you go all BelliFanboy on this.

He isn't that pretty.

Patti

[CommissarSpartacus]

Did I say America invented it?

Maybe you have a comprehension problem. You should find a capable adult to help you navigate around the internet.

You didn't say it? Then what does "You seem to be taking an innocent until proven guilty stance on this, which is weird for someone who knocks America every chance he gets." mean?

Why does my knocking America make it weird that I take an innocent until proven guilty stance?

In fact, what does my "knocking America" have to do with anything? Are not Robert Kraft, Bill Belichek and Tom Brady ALL AMERICANS?

It's not me with the comprehension problem pal, it's you with an explanation problem.

[CommissarSpartacus]

The Patriots have been cheating since 2007, the stats show that clearly.

The stats show no such thing.

But the USE of the stats to try to push an anti-Patriots political agenda shows that people will delude themselves and others if it suits their purposes.

[Bill Cody]

I did not know until I read this thread that the one ball that was significantly low was the ball the Colts turned in to the refs. Wow.