Another Patriot Scandal??

[Pugger]

wow...you missed that by a mile. whoever the qb, if he likes the ball at a particular pressure let him have it the way. if brady likes it at 10.5 and flacco likes it at 11.25 who gives a crap? no one has an "advantage".

Under-inflated balls are easier for QBs, WRs and RBs to handle than firmer balls in inclement weather. If NE is using a football with a lower psi than their opponent you don't think the Pats would have an advantage? Even if the misdeed seems insignificant to us it was worth it to NE to break the rules. They must've felt it was worth getting caught to get a competitive advantage or else why bother?

[King Friday]

Under-inflated balls are easier for QBs, WRs and RBs to handle than firmer balls in inclement weather. If NE is using a football with a lower psi than their opponent you don't think the Pats would have an advantage? Even if the misdeed seems insignificant to us it was worth it to NE to break the rules. They must've felt it was worth getting caught to get a competitive advantage or else why bother?

It isn't just about throwing or even catching a ball. The greater importance of an under-inflated ball is ball security. A player is far less likely to fumble a ball that is under-inflated because they can get a far better grip on it.

Since the rules were changed (driven partially by Tom Brady's fight for the rule change) to allow road teams to bring their own footballs back in 2006, New England's penchant for fumbling has almost vanished when compared to league averages. A mere coincidence? Rather unlikely.

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com...-proof-in-2007

[Patler]

It isn't just about throwing or even catching a ball. The greater importance of an under-inflated ball is ball security. A player is far less likely to fumble a ball that is under-inflated because they can get a far better grip on it.

Since the rules were changed (driven partially by Tom Brady's fight for the rule change) to allow road teams to bring their own footballs back in 2006, New England's penchant for fumbling has almost vanished when compared to league averages. A mere coincidence? Rather unlikely.

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com...-proof-in-2007

Now, THAT is an interesting article.

[pbmax]

Now, THAT is an interesting article.

Its come under a bit of fire in the analytical community.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-t...mos-1681805710

I haven't gone through it all, but the first version of the article looked at lost fumbles which is problematic because fumble recovery is largely a matter of luck. He corrects this in an update to include all fumbles.

Second, he excludes Dome teams in some data. It has been argued that the Patriots are less outliers if you just exclude dome games, rather than teams.

Several of the probability numbers are miscalculated. Instead of using X, they use 1/X, and try to plot it against a normal distribution curve. Except no one know if 1/X has a normal distribution.

That said, Advanced Football Analytics (formerly Advanced NFL Stats) thinks despite Sharp's poor analysis, there is still enough of an outlier there to be worthy of investigation.

[Patler]

Its come under a bit of fire in the analytical community.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-t...mos-1681805710

I haven't gone through it all, but the first version of the article looked at lost fumbles which is problematic because fumble recovery is largely a matter of luck. He corrects this in an update to include all fumbles.

Second, he excludes Dome teams in some data. It has been argued that the Patriots are less outliers if you just exclude dome games, rather than teams.

Several of the probability numbers are miscalculated. Instead of using X, they use 1/X, and try to plot it against a normal distribution curve. Except no one know if 1/X has a normal distribution.

That said, Advanced Football Analytics (formerly Advanced NFL Stats) thinks despite Sharp's poor analysis, there is still enough of an outlier there to be worthy of investigation.

The article I read was apparently an updated one. It included all fumbles, not just fumbles lost. His play count seemed solid. You really don't have to look beyond those data points and the resultant "plays/fumble" calculation to see that something seems wrong, especially when the abrupt change after the rule modification is considered. How he subsequently massages and manipulates the numbers is mostly to generate pretty graphs. The raw numbers tell the story.

[pbmax]

The article I read was apparently an updated one. It included all fumbles, not just fumbles lost. His play count seemed solid. You really don't have to look beyond those data points and the resultant "plays/fumble" calculation to see that something seems wrong, especially when the abrupt change after the rule modification is considered. How he subsequently massages and manipulates the numbers is mostly to generate pretty graphs. The raw numbers tell the story.

Possibly not a complete story. Looking at his 5 year time periods, two teams dominate: the Patriots and the Colts.

Because, Manning and Brady are generally among the quickest in football at getting rid of the ball when dropping back to throw. In fact, according to Pro Football Focus (PFF), Manning led the league in time-to-throw in 2014, at a lightning-quick 2.24 seconds. Brady finished 3rd in 2014, and also ranked 3rd, 1st, and 4th between 2011 and 2013 (PFF stats only go as far back as 2011). Even better, Brady also posted the league's lowest sack-per-dropback rate in 2014.

It's not a great strategy to penalize Brady and the Patriots for a lack of fumbles when there was a lower chance of fumbling to begin with, based on the team's play-calling and personnel that yield quick throws and incompletions, as well as fewer sacks.

Is it the ball or the chance of a QB fumbling when they have the fastest hair triggers in the game?

Wilson and Rodgers wouldn't fare so well because both hold onto the ball much, much longer, looking to extend plays.

As the Deadspin article mentions, it might be better to look at RBs and WRs.

[woodbuck27]

It isn't just about throwing or even catching a ball. The greater importance of an under-inflated ball is ball security. A player is far less likely to fumble a ball that is under-inflated because they can get a far better grip on it.

Since the rules were changed (driven partially by Tom Brady's fight for the rule change) to allow road teams to bring their own footballs back in 2006, New England's penchant for fumbling has almost vanished when compared to league averages. A mere coincidence? Rather unlikely.

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com...-proof-in-2007

It looks to me like a preponderance of information is overwhelmingly in favor of finding against the New England Patriots.