and pretty damning. It will be interesting to see what their fumble rate is like assuming the NFL begins to better enforce the proper inflation of footballs.
Belichik and Brady have definitely shown they're willing to exploit any advantage they can get to win. And really, it's pretty clever of them to have come up with some of these schemes.
But assuming it's true that deflating these footballs since 2007 has helped them in some respects, it's rather ironic that it has not led them to the Super Bowl glory they had beforehand.
The have a coach who will absolutely not tolerate turnovers. Not saying under inflated balls haven't helped them. But first I would want to see their fumbles at home and away. And how that compares to the league.
If they have a statistical impossible fumble rate on the road - how would the author explain that too?
Was how unusually candid he was about their practice habits with the football. Perhaps he realizes this data is out there and tried to get out in front of it. But a particularly closed lip coach opened up about all the things they do with footballs to make it hard to practice with - why? What did that have to do with deflating the ball on game day? Nothing. He knew the stats were going to be damning when found out
I saw this the other day, and am surprised the media has not picked up on it. I was of the thought that as far as throwing and catching, while still cheating, the outrage was a little overdone.
If this is picked up, and i am sure it will be, it will get interesting. That is a staggering deviation from the norm.
as another side note, my original thought on this, was that the pats didn't tamper with the balls, per se. I thought what they did was fill the balls with hot air close to the time that the balls would be checked. as the air cooled, the psi would come down. This would fit the MO ofdistinguishing between cheating and being more clever then the next guy.
anyway i have seen this theory put forward yesterday.
The have a coach who will absolutely not tolerate turnovers. Not saying under inflated balls haven't helped them. But first I would want to see their fumbles at home and away. And how that compares to the league.
If they have a statistical impossible fumble rate on the road - how would the author explain that too?
We are a week into this you should know that Pats get to use their balls even when they are on the road. There is almost no way to be sure they weren't cheating on the road with these balls.. Also this phenomena started in 2007.. What do you think Bellicheat tolerated fumbles prior to that? Some people still believe that Gronk spiking the ball make them lose air... really 11 out of 12 were under inflated by 2 PSI.. the last one was within tolerance which means 10% lower than 12.5 is ok... seriously... this was intentional.. and no one in their mind would do this for the first time in a conference finals game.. this has been done before and 2 PSI makes a whole lot of difference when fumbling..
Somewhat surprised that it hasn't received more play in the mainstream media. Some on ESPN but not much elsewhere--unless I've missed it.
It changes the issue from a quarterback's quirky (if technically illegal) preference to one that has a profound effect on games, seasons, careers and franchises.
Hard to see how, if this holds up, there won't be huge hammer coming down on New England. (Though if form holds it will likely be after the SB.)
The have a coach who will absolutely not tolerate turnovers. Not saying under inflated balls haven't helped them. But first I would want to see their fumbles at home and away. And how that compares to the league.
If they have a statistical impossible fumble rate on the road - how would the author explain that too?
C'mon Shecky. You haven't been paying attention, have you?
a span of 112 regular season games, the Pats have been deflating their footballs and the refs, who routinely handle the balls throughout every game haven't noticed? Haven't become the slightest bit suspicious? They inspected the balls before the games and didn't notice a difference during the games?
Shame on the NFL if that's true.
a span of 112 regular season games, the Pats have been deflating their footballs and the refs, who routinely handle the balls throughout every game haven't noticed? Haven't become the slightest bit suspicious? They inspected the balls before the games and didn't notice a difference during the games?
Shame on the NFL if that's true.
Unless you are squeezing the ball tightly, you don't notice the difference. If the balls are deflated after the refs check them, I doubt anyone would notice the difference of 2 psi.
The data is certainly interesting. If it is not deflated balls causing the lack of fumbles, it would be interesting to see what is. BB is a great coach, but I don't think that alone would explain it.
a span of 112 regular season games, the Pats have been deflating their footballs and the refs, who routinely handle the balls throughout every game haven't noticed? Haven't become the slightest bit suspicious? They inspected the balls before the games and didn't notice a difference during the games?
Shame on the NFL if that's true.
Unless you are squeezing the ball tightly, you don't notice the difference. If the balls are deflated after the refs check them, I doubt anyone would notice the difference of 2 psi.
The data is certainly interesting. If it is not deflated balls causing the lack of fumbles, it would be interesting to see what is. BB is a great coach, but I don't think that alone would explain it.
The difference in pressure would be greater than 15% at a minimum. I think over that length of time and that many games, a person responsible for the integrity of the game should have had his suspicions aroused at the very least.
I'm assuming since 2007. And I haven't read anything where the Pats were cited for a non-compliant PSI issue until last Sunday. So I don't see how the chart is relevant to PSI manipulation if they were compliant...
Check this out, they tested the difference between both balls
Nooe. Didn't realize road team supplies own balls. I thought NFL did, and home team supplies their own. So to answer the question, I will humbly admit - no I haven't been paying attention lol.
Belichik and Brady have definitely shown they're willing to exploit any advantage they can get to win. And really, it's pretty clever of them to have come up with some of these schemes.
But assuming it's true that deflating these footballs since 2007 has helped them in some respects, it's rather ironic that it has not led them to the Super Bowl glory they had beforehand.
If they have a statistical impossible fumble rate on the road - how would the author explain that too?
If this is picked up, and i am sure it will be, it will get interesting. That is a staggering deviation from the norm.
as another side note, my original thought on this, was that the pats didn't tamper with the balls, per se. I thought what they did was fill the balls with hot air close to the time that the balls would be checked. as the air cooled, the psi would come down. This would fit the MO ofdistinguishing between cheating and being more clever then the next guy.
anyway i have seen this theory put forward yesterday.
If they have a statistical impossible fumble rate on the road - how would the author explain that too?
We are a week into this you should know that Pats get to use their balls even when they are on the road. There is almost no way to be sure they weren't cheating on the road with these balls.. Also this phenomena started in 2007.. What do you think Bellicheat tolerated fumbles prior to that? Some people still believe that Gronk spiking the ball make them lose air... really 11 out of 12 were under inflated by 2 PSI.. the last one was within tolerance which means 10% lower than 12.5 is ok... seriously... this was intentional.. and no one in their mind would do this for the first time in a conference finals game.. this has been done before and 2 PSI makes a whole lot of difference when fumbling..
It changes the issue from a quarterback's quirky (if technically illegal) preference to one that has a profound effect on games, seasons, careers and franchises.
Hard to see how, if this holds up, there won't be huge hammer coming down on New England. (Though if form holds it will likely be after the SB.)
If they have a statistical impossible fumble rate on the road - how would the author explain that too?
C'mon Shecky. You haven't been paying attention, have you?
Link - ( New Window )
Shame on the NFL if that's true.
2013 there were only 4 teams who fumbled more than the Pats
2012 the Pats were 16th in fumbles. The Saints had no fumbles that year
2011 they were tied for the least with 2 other teams at 3 and there 4 more teams with 4
2010 the Bears had the least and the Pats were tied with 2 other teams
2009 they were 16th in fumbles
Shame on the NFL if that's true.
Unless you are squeezing the ball tightly, you don't notice the difference. If the balls are deflated after the refs check them, I doubt anyone would notice the difference of 2 psi.
The data is certainly interesting. If it is not deflated balls causing the lack of fumbles, it would be interesting to see what is. BB is a great coach, but I don't think that alone would explain it.
I have no idea if the stats on the original link are correct, but that was the basis of the analysis.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
a span of 112 regular season games, the Pats have been deflating their footballs and the refs, who routinely handle the balls throughout every game haven't noticed? Haven't become the slightest bit suspicious? They inspected the balls before the games and didn't notice a difference during the games?
Shame on the NFL if that's true.
Unless you are squeezing the ball tightly, you don't notice the difference. If the balls are deflated after the refs check them, I doubt anyone would notice the difference of 2 psi.
The data is certainly interesting. If it is not deflated balls causing the lack of fumbles, it would be interesting to see what is. BB is a great coach, but I don't think that alone would explain it.
The difference in pressure would be greater than 15% at a minimum. I think over that length of time and that many games, a person responsible for the integrity of the game should have had his suspicions aroused at the very least.
You can bet they'll be checking from now on. *grin*
That fumble rate per play......is off the charts
link - ( New Window )