benm: I think the much-maligned study by Warren Sharp about the Patriots having a low fumble rate should be taken more seriously, for sure. I mean, though it had flaws, at a very minimum that author correctly identified that the Patriots fumble rate has been absurdly small. I did my own calculations using binomial and Poisson models and found the same.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/five ... te-report/But the fun part is when you get all Bayesian about it. As I said at the time, the existence of the Patriots’ extremely low fumble rate, as a Bayesian matter, makes it much more likely that the Patriots were intentionally cheating – even though the link between fumble rates and inflation levels is only speculative. That’s the beauty of Bayesianism. But it gets better: Now that it seems likely that the Patriots were violating the rules to gain an advantage, the fact that they also had an extremely low fumble rate makes it more likely that the relationship between inflation levels and fumbling is real – and more likely that the Patriots have materially benefited from their cheating.
When it's proven that teams that win the turnover battle win upwards of 78% of games
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/co ... ord/26247/Statistics show that in the NFL, teams with positive turnover ratios have a significantly higher probability of winning. Over the past five full seasons, clubs with more takeaways than giveaways have a combined 810-220-2 (.786) record.
this becomes a much larger issue in my eyes than Brady's grip on the football. It will be interesting to watch their fumble rates over the next two or three years now that their balls will obviously be even more closely monitored.
