Brady 4 Game Suspension Upheld

[sharpe1027]

There is no physical evidence that air was let out of the footballs. The underlying crime does not appear to have occurred.

There is physical evidence, but subsequent reports suggest that the evidence is not 100% because there are possible ways it could have occurred without intentional deflation.

Do you have a murder conviction sustained when someone has not died?

You can have a murder conviction when the body can't be found, but the inference is that the person was killed.

There is a reason we are on charge #3 for Brady. Its because the first two charges had no basis in evidence.

It's because of what Brady did after-the-fact. Why push on the other points when you have an easier winner? It happens all the time in criminal proceedings (which this is not).

The originally reported PSI numbers were bogus. The science in the Wells report to support the charge in the face of more mundane PSI values uses tortured math like it was a budget projection in order to support the original assumption that the PSI values could only be obtained by manual deflation.

This is your opinionated generalization. The only basis for this opinion is two studies that provide alternative theories, that rely upon various assumptions that are not necessarily true.

Even the Wells report, bought and paid for by the NFL, cannot bring itself to call the evidence against Brady clear and convincing. But Goodell's ruling does.

The attorneys were only asked to satisfy one standard. I doubt they would stick there necks out and offer up another standard, even if they thought it was beyond reasonable doubt.

If this was a game played in September at 75 degrees and dry, are we having this debate? The answer is obviously no.

Yes.

And I don't think I am picking one point or post and objecting to the whole based on one contradiction or gap. There are problems with each piece of evidence which we have covered before, repeating them makes for very dull reading, if this is not already dull enough.

Not really. You basically offer generalizations about inferences and no physical evidence. Some of the individual points you made some comments about, but they were pretty weak arguments. You have admitted the evidence suggests they were trying to skirt the rules, but are hung up on the PSI evidence.

The guy stole the balls and took them directly into the bathroom. He talked about having a needle (not a pump, or a gauge, a needle). He called himself the deflator. He made a threat-based joke about going to ESPN if Brady didn't give him something. He was told he was getting things signed from Brady for something relating to game ball pressure. He got fired by the Pats for whatever it is he did or did not do. Brady destroyed his new phone presumably so that he didn't have to answer questions about the text messages.

What may have happened is he let out a little air from each ball, but not enough to make a huge difference that would be 100% provable absent very scientific measurements. Thus, any evidence they have would fall within the realm of "possible" natural deflation.

[Pugger]

There is physical evidence, but subsequent reports suggest that the evidence is not 100% because there are possible ways it could have occurred without intentional deflation.



You can have a murder conviction when the body can't be found, but the inference is that the person was killed.



It's because of what Brady did after-the-fact. Why push on the other points when you have an easier winner? It happens all the time in criminal proceedings (which this is not).



This is your opinionated generalization. The only basis for this opinion is two studies that provide alternative theories, that rely upon various assumptions that are not necessarily true.



The attorneys were only asked to satisfy one standard. I doubt they would stick there necks out and offer up another standard, even if they thought it was beyond reasonable doubt.



Yes.



Not really. You basically offer generalizations about inferences and no physical evidence. Some of the individual points you made some comments about, but they were pretty weak arguments. You have admitted the evidence suggests they were trying to skirt the rules, but are hung up on the PSI evidence.

The guy stole the balls and took them directly into the bathroom. He talked about having a needle (not a pump, or a gauge, a needle). He called himself the deflator. He made a threat-based joke about going to ESPN if Brady didn't give him something. He was told he was getting things signed from Brady for something relating to game ball pressure. He got fired by the Pats for whatever it is he did or did not do. Brady destroyed his new phone presumably so that he didn't have to answer questions about the text messages.

What may have happened is he let out a little air from each ball, but not enough to make a huge difference that would be 100% provable absent very scientific measurements. Thus, any evidence they have would fall within the realm of "possible" natural deflation.

I didn't realize he was fired.

[sharpe1027]

I didn't realize he was fired.

I read he was fired on the Internet, so it must be true. IDK.

[pbmax]

This is your opinionated generalization. The only basis for this opinion is two studies that provide alternative theories, no that rely upon various assumptions that are not necessarily true.

That is not the case. The NFLPA had convincing testimony that the statistical methods used to deduce the amount of pressure that would be lost under game conditions were flawed.

From Deadspin: http://deadspin.com/here-is-the-tran...ing-1722113452

Update (9:20 p.m.): After a lunch break, the NFLPA questions one of their expert witnesses Edward Snyder, Dean of the Yale School of Management. His role was to evaluate the findings of Exponent, the company used by Ted Wells’s team for scientific and statistical analysis of the deflation of the footballs. Snyder gets straight to the point, and identifies a number of errors he says Exponent made:

Q. Okay. So let’s go, let’s start with your slide deck. The first slide shows your three key findings. And if you could just sort of walk the Commissioner through each of the three key findings that you made and that we will elaborate on.

A. So first finding is that their analysis of the difference in differences, the analysis of the pressure drops and the difference in the average pressure drops is wrong because Exponent did not include timing and the effects of timing in that analysis.

Secondly, Exponent looked at the variation and the measurements between the Patriots’ balls and the Colts’ balls at halftime. They compared the variances. And despite conceding that there was no statistically significant difference between the two, they went ahead and drew conclusions, but those conclusions are improper.

And, last, and this goes to the issue of alternative assumptions, as well as error, if the logo gauge was used to measure the Patriots’ balls before the game, then given what the framework that Exponent provides us with scientifically, and if the analysis is done correctly, eight of the eleven Patriots’ balls are above the relevant scientific threshold.


OK. So 8 out of 11 meet the expected threshold of pressure loss due to conditions as calculated by Exponent. That still leaves 3 balls were tampering must have occurred, right? Not really, their analysis failed to be internally consistent.

Update (9:30 p.m.): Man, Snyder absolutely lays waste to the report Exponent prepared for the Wells Report. For instance, here he is explaining how quickly the PSI of a football changes when being brought into a warm room after spending a few hours out in the cold, and how Exponent didn’t even bother to account for timing in their report:

Q. So let’s go to our Slide 12. And what is this showing?

A. This takes the earlier Figure 22, and I will refer to that again. It takes the top schedule, what Exponent calls their transient analysis, that’s their scientific framework.

It says, okay, you bring in a Colts’ ball. It was pre-game at 13. It’s brought right into the locker room. It’s going to be 11.87. This is, like, so 2:40 is, like, in locker room terms, it’s minute zero. And then 12 minutes later, it’s warmed up and it’s roughly 1.1 psi greater in 12 minutes.

Q. The same ball?

A. The same ball.

Q. What did Exponent do in its difference in difference analysis to account for time?

A. Nothing.

Q. How do you know?

A. Absolutely nothing. If you look at their difference in difference equation in their appendix and you look at Table A3, where they report their results, they have explanatory variables for their difference in difference analysis and time is not an explanatory variable.

You can read the Exponent report forwards, backwards, upside down. You see time referred to again and again and again and again. However, you have to look at what they actually did, the statistical analysis that they actually did. They left time out of the analysis that they said was the most important.

[pbmax]

Exponent, at this point getting very sloppy, used a master gauge adjustment to reconcile the two different readings the two gauges were giving, so that one set of numbers could be used to consider changes during the first half. Except that they used the adjustment for the halftime PSI readings and not for the pregame readings.

Update (9:45 p.m.): One of the issues in the halftime measurement of the footballs’s PSI is that two different pressure gauges were used, and one of them consistently came back with readings .3 to .4 PSI higher than the other. The Exponent report used a “master gauge adjustment” to be able to use readings from both gauges, and found that there was funny business going on with eight of the 11 balls. But Exponent made, according to Snyder, “a very basic mistake.” They used the master gauge adjustment for the halftime PSI readings, but not the pre-game PSI readings. If they had done so, they would’ve had very different findings:

Q. Let’s go to the next slide. And were you able to correct for that inconsistency that you described in Exponent’s master gauge conversion?

A. Yes. Now, the effective starting value is not 12.5, it’s 12.17.

Q. How do you get the 12.17?

A. You apply the master gauge conversion consistently to both halftime measurements, as well as the starting value.

Q. Okay. And let’s go to the next slide. And what is the impact of making that correction on the results?

A. Now eight of the Patriots’ balls are above the critical threshold predicted by Exponent, three are below.

So I have two studies that demonstrate that loss of pressure in this range is quite possible. In the study that purports to show that the loss cannot be due to natural processes, when errors are corrected, 8 of 11 balls meet the threshold.

And this does not account for the timing of measurement between the Patriots balls and the Colts, which might explain the other 3.

The evidence for deflation stinks and its not simply an opinion. If the NFL wants to rule on this matter, it needs better data and procedures.

[sharpe1027]

Exponent, at this point getting very sloppy, used a master gauge adjustment to reconcile the two different readings the two gauges were giving, so that one set of numbers could be used to consider changes during the first half. Except that they used the adjustment for the halftime PSI readings and not for the pregame readings.

Update (9:45 p.m.): One of the issues in the halftime measurement of the footballs’s PSI is that two different pressure gauges were used, and one of them consistently came back with readings .3 to .4 PSI higher than the other. The Exponent report used a “master gauge adjustment” to be able to use readings from both gauges, and found that there was funny business going on with eight of the 11 balls. But Exponent made, according to Snyder, “a very basic mistake.” They used the master gauge adjustment for the halftime PSI readings, but not the pre-game PSI readings. If they had done so, they would’ve had very different findings:

Q. Let’s go to the next slide. And were you able to correct for that inconsistency that you described in Exponent’s master gauge conversion?

A. Yes. Now, the effective starting value is not 12.5, it’s 12.17.

Q. How do you get the 12.17?

A. You apply the master gauge conversion consistently to both halftime measurements, as well as the starting value.

Q. Okay. And let’s go to the next slide. And what is the impact of making that correction on the results?

A. Now eight of the Patriots’ balls are above the critical threshold predicted by Exponent, three are below.

So I have two studies that demonstrate that loss of pressure in this range is quite possible. In the study that purports to show that the loss cannot be due to natural processes, when errors are corrected, 8 of 11 balls meet the threshold.

And this does not account for the timing of measurement between the Patriots balls and the Colts, which might explain the other 3.

The evidence for deflation stinks and its not simply an opinion. If the NFL wants to rule on this matter, it needs better data and procedures.

You keep coming back to the PSI data, but it doesn't really matter that much. They can't go back and re-measure the balls to clarify, but they can look at the totality of the evidence and make an informed conclusion.