Just intall on of these in every football. You could even display the pressure on the TV with the score and the clock.
Posted on 01/24/2015 1:08:10 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
...One can clearly see the Patriots, visually, are off the chart. There is no other team even close to being near to their rate of 187 offensive plays per fumble lost. The league average is 105 plays per fumble lost. Most teams are within 21 plays of that number.
I spoke with a data scientist whom I know from work on NFLproject.com and sent him the data. He said:
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Is that assumption correct? If it is not then the while issue is moot.
Don’t know if this is true, but there was a play where Dobler was flagged and he asked the ref why? The ref told him he tried to trip a guy to which Dobler replied “I missed, there’s no rule against attempted tripping.”
Turn over ratio is one of the most important aspects of winning a game. The Patriots have their players PRACTICE holding the ball while their teammates try to strip the ball from their grip.
This isn’t a random process. BTW the Patriots put the ball on the ground a number of times against the Ravens but recovered their own fumbles.
Just intall on of these in every football. You could even display the pressure on the TV with the score and the clock.
Unwarranted assumption alert...
Bingo! I am a Giants' fan, but I am also a math guy who doesn't like to see statistics being misused. Perhaps there are reasons other than cheating to account for the Patriots' low fumble rate. Maybe Brady's quick, short passes and excellent decision-making allow him to get the ball out of his own hands quickly, thus reducing the number of strip-sacks, a very common means of turning the ball over. Maybe Belichick stresses ball security more than most, and makes that a priority when finalizing his roster.
A normal distribution would not result from superior coaching, play calling or quarterbacking. Those are not random aspects. Now, if I find that New England wins the coin toss 90% of the time, I'd believe all of the "cheating" hype.
Normalcy is probably a good starting point to assume but by just plotting the data it can be eyeballed. Don’t know if this is valid but it is interesting. Even if the distribution is odd shaped if they are way down in one tail it is interesting.
Bell, RB from the Stillers was the number 2 runner this past year and had ZERO fumbles, while the cowgirls number 1 RB murray had SIX fumbles.
Based on normal distribution, according to random fluctuation, both running backs should have had three fumbles each.
Did Bell from the Stillers cheat?
BINGO!
I’m still skeptical.
Like I said before, if a deflated football really gives the offense a quantifiable advantage, every defensive coordinator in the league would be demanding pressure measurements during, or after, the game.
I’ve been watching NFL football for almost 60 years, and the first time I heard about this issue was last week!
I remember when he played for the Bills(my hometown team).
Not only did he bite. He would try to break guys fingers by bending them backwards. This is why most lineman have their fingers taped together. He would also poke guys in the eye and grab their nuts at the bottom of the pile. Kidney punches were also in vogue. Oh, the good old days.
What made it more gritty?
What amazes me is the level of faux outrage, and the incredible lack of knowledge of all the pundits and jealous ex-jocks piling on.
Everyone is convinced that ‘Spygate” was about taping the pre-game of the Rams before the superbowl - even though that is a myth.
Everyone is convinced 2psi is enough to change the cpourse of a game - when it is not. I’d really like to know what the actual psi of the balls were. There has been NO confirmation of the ball pressure.
Joe Theisman does a demonstration and says that there is no appreciable difference. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about - but Bettis, and the other choir boys are adamant that it’s some sort of huge advantage - while at the same time saying it’s just a minor infraction... it cannot be both.
The Patriots are going to beat the Hawks. It’s probably not going to be as close as everyone thinks, and anything less than a massive facial damage will still not be enough for me.
The one’s that squawk the loudest are, no doubt, some of the biggest cheaters to ever play the game.
I did not read the article.
I would like to see a breakdown of the ratio for teams with less than 4 losses only.
Exactly - but you;re thinking - not emoting.
Wow! A data scientist, you say?!
Not if their own QB has squishy balls.
It was leaked to a sports reporter that 11 of the 12 balls were at 10.5 psi, with the 12th also below the legal limit of 12.5 psi.
Right. It’s tantamount to saying, assuming the team is average, the number of fumbles will be average.
There’s a video on Wall Street Journal where a reporter inflated a ball to 12.5 PSI. Then he placed outside where the temp was 30 degrees. After 2 hours, the ball had lost 1.5 PSI.
P=nRT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.