A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://beta1.vikingsmessageboard.com/
Is it equally a shame that Brady didn't just cooperate with the investigation? Would it be a shame if he knowingly put the livelihoods of 2 guys in jeopardy by asking them to knowingly break the rules? Is it a shame if he did that and didn't man up and admit it when this all came out if he in fact did do that?Mothman wrote: Its a shame the league didn't handle this much, much better.
I will give you everything in the case is circumstantial but there's a lot of circumstantial evidence right now: Brady saying he prefers "deflated footballs", the text messages, the coach and owner apparently thinking Brady lied to them about it all, the missing balls, the low PSI readings, the fact that other teams were aware the Patriots' balls might be underinflated, the "deflator" guy...I mean come on. That's an awful lot of smoke.Mothman wrote:I don't buy that any major outlier, if shown to be statistically significant, should be seen as evidence of rule-breaking either but that's essentially what Sharp is implying in regard to the Patriots. As for absolving the Patriots of foul play... I still don't think anyone has adequately demonstrated that they engaged in it in the first place when it comes to under-inflated footballs. The "deflator" text message is the best evidence and that's hardly conclusive, even though the explanation for it provided by the Pats lawyers isn't convincing at all.
OK. Then how would you go about answering the thought: "Hey, if the Patriots DID underinflate the balls, how might that have affected their grip on the football (i.e. fumble rates)?" Did he not go about trying to figure out an answer to this hypothesis the same way any scientist or number nerd would? I guess I fail to see how he could've gone at this any other way. His numbers may be off but I don't see how you can go about proving he was using this incident to gain publicity. There's no evidence in my mind that he's a Patriot-hater who went off to try and make a connection. He was trying to see if data supported a hypothesis.If he was looking for a correlation in the data that would constitute further evidence of tampering with the football then he was, indeed, looking for evidence that would support a particular conclusion.
This is how Sharp began his first post about deflategate:
It sure looks like he went searching for an answer to the question in bold and his methodology seems to reflect confirmation bias.
That's debatable. We're talking season fumble numbers in the 10-20 range for most teams. A 10-50% year-to-year variation has some significance. And we have no idea if you deflate a ball by X% it leads to X% fewer fumbles. Based on what's been presented there was a "marked difference" after 2007.That 2 fumble difference doesn't need to disprove anything. The default assumption should not be that the Patriots have been cheating since 2007 by tampering with footballs. Sharp's making the claim that what they've done is "nearly impossible" and that there's a marked difference between their fumble stats prior to 2007 and their stats after because "something happened". A claim like that needs to be strongly supported by evidence. A 2 fumble difference between those 2 seasons years and the 2005 season works against his assertion because a 2 fumble difference is too small to be considered statistically significant.
I'll go back to my performance enhancer metaphor. Let's say Alex Rodriguez was using PEDs for 10 years. If one of those years his batting average, slugging percentage, OB%, home runs, RBIs, etc. were a bit lower than his usual dominant numbers. By this logic you'd conclude that he couldn't have been on PEDs because one of the years he was closer to the MLB statistical norm. What if he got a divorce, his beloved cat died and he was in mourning, he had a small injury, mentally wasn't there, etc.? While there are advantages to small sample sizes, there are also drawbacks. I refer you to my climate change metaphor from before. If you look year-to-year you may miss the bigger picture. Sometimes you have to look at trends. From the charts I've seen there's a pretty stark trend change after 2007. But since I'm not convinced the data is 100% accurate (nor can it probably ever be) so I can't be sure.Do you see how that necessity to view the stats collectively becomes a problem? His argument only works if you look at the seasons that way. his contention that "something happened" to turn the Patriots into a much better team with regard to fumbles doesn't hold up very well if you look season-to-season. We see that in some seasons, NE wasn't much better (and in 2013 not any better) than in a pre-rule change season like 2005. As I said earlier, Sharp's argument here boils down to an argument against the Patriots overall consistency in this area since 2007 and that can be accounted for by other, wholly legal, factors.
Because there are so many variables this will probably never be explained and in two years this will all be like a fart in the wind.That's not the argument. The argument is that their stats can be explained without ever resorting to an explanation of illegal activity. The burden of proof for such activity falls on the accuser.
Right, and obviously just because everyone was doing it doesn't make it right. It wouldn't surprise me if the Patriots weren't the only team skirting the ball pressure issue either. Others have come out and said as much. But that doesn't absolve the Patriots. It's not right they they may have been the only team to get caught but if they got caught, they have to be punished. Kind of like not wearing your seat belt in states where it's required: they won't catch everybody but if you get caught you have to pay the fine.Everybody was recording signals. It's just that the rules required any video recording to be done in a location enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead. The Patriots continued a practice of recording from the sidelines, which they had done before the rules change, after it became illegal to do so. That was wrong (and foolish) and they deserved to be punished for it but I think people still have the idea that they were somehow unique in recording signals at all when it was actually a common practice at the time.
Yep. A definite possibility. It'd be nice to have those problems for a change.... or they could just be a good football team that's benefitted from of a great deal of quality and continuity in a league where that combination can be pretty rare.
Yep. But I expect nothing else from this "Hey, let's just make it up as we go" league. I also wonder how much of this whole thing is the result of the media as well. I can't help but wonder if this happened to a CFL team how how this would've been a 300-word paragraph on ESPN for a day with a $10,000 fine to the offending club.It's a shame the league didn't handle this much, much better.
i don't know. I can't begrudge someone their right to privacy.VikingLord wrote:it equally a shame that Brady didn't just cooperate with the investigation?
Of course.Would it be a shame if he knowingly put the livelihoods of 2 guys in jeopardy by asking them to knowingly break the rules?
Enough already! I get it. My point was if the league had handled the whole thing better after being alerted to a possible issue well before the AFC Championship game, a lot of what's followed could have been avoided or, at the very least, we'd have much more solid evidence. We might even know if Brady was actually guilty of anything or not. If the alleged tampering is enough of an issue to hand out a $1 million fine and a 4 game suspension to Brady, and to hit the organization with the loss of valuable draft picks, it is absolutely inexcusable that pre-game measurements of the balls weren't carefully recorded, that the officials ever lost track of the balls before the game, that the confusion over the gauges ever occurred, that an entire half of a championship game may have been played with illegal footballs, that inaccurate, exaggerated information about the psi of the balls was leaked to the press, fueled a media and fan frenzy and those numbers weren't corrected for a long time, etc. It's just irresponsible sloppiness, most of which could easily have been avoided. the NFl botched this and if they had handled it better, they might have firm evidence of tampering and then, if Brady is guilty, perhaps he would have cooperated more fully knowing the proverbial jig was up. On the hand, if things had been handled better, maybe we'd know, much more definitively, if the Patriots actually violated a rule at all and if not, Brady wouldn't be facing a suspension after having his reputation trashed. Either way, it's been handled poorly by the NFL.Is it a shame if he did that and didn't man up and admit it when this all came out if he in fact did do that?
@JasonLaCanfora The NFL has just rejected the NFLPA's formal request for Roger Goodell to recuse himself from the Tom Brady appeal. Goodell remaining as appeal officer likely only increases odds this goes to court barring total overturn of suspension.
I don't think most of it amounts to much. Accusations from other teams without supporting evidence? Useless. I know you put stock in the years-old comment about liking deflated footballs and maybe I should too but I don't see that as particularly relevant either. It implies nothing illegal. The coach and owner thinking Brady lied to them about it all? That's a completely unsubstantiated rumor at this point and Kraft has said more than once that he does believe Brady so which is true? The "deflator" text is the best circumstantial evidence thus far but it's presented with very little context so it's inconclusive too. The psi readings are problematic for reasons that have been explained numerous times. If this were a court case, I doubt anyone could get a conviction on evidence like the above.dead_poet wrote:I will give you everything in the case is circumstantial but there's a lot of circumstantial evidence right now: Brady saying he prefers "deflated footballs", the text messages, the coach and owner apparently thinking Brady lied to them about it all, the missing balls, the low PSI readings, the fact that other teams were aware the Patriots' balls might be underinflated, the "deflator" guy...I mean come on. That's an awful lot of smoke.
I never said he used it to gain publicity or that he was a Patriot-hater. I'm simply saying his work shows evidence of confirmation bias.OK. Then how would you go about answering the thought: "Hey, if the Patriots DID underinflate the balls, how might that have affected their grip on the football (i.e. fumble rates)?" Did he not go about trying to figure out an answer to this hypothesis the same way any scientist or number nerd would? I guess I fail to see how he could've gone at this any other way. His numbers may be off but I don't see how you can go about proving he was using this incident to gain publicity. There's no evidence in my mind that he's a Patriot-hater who went off to try and make a connection. He was trying to see if data supported a hypothesis.
If you consider a difference of two fumbles in a season to be a statistically significant difference, I'm not going to continue debating that point. I think that falls well with normal degrees of variation and I'll leave it at that.That's debatable. We're talking season fumble numbers in the 10-20 range for most teams. A 10-50% year-to-year variation has some significance. And we have no idea if you deflate a ball by X% it leads to X% fewer fumbles. Based on what's been presented there was a "marked difference" after 2007.
I'll go back to my performance enhancer metaphor. Let's say Alex Rodriguez was using PEDs for 10 years. If one of those years his batting average, slugging percentage, OB%, home runs, RBIs, etc. were a bit lower than his usual dominant numbers. By this logic you'd conclude that he couldn't have been on PEDs because one of the years he was closer to the MLB statistical norm.
Obviously, but everyone was doing it because it was legal.Right, and obviously just because everyone was doing it doesn't make it right.
I'm not trying to absolve the Patriots and I agree that if they got caught, they deserve to be punished but I don't see a compelling case for guilt in this situation and I believe evidence should be sufficient to justify severe punishment and tarnish reputations. If it isn't, and so far I think that's the case with "deflategate", it bothers me to see those things happen.It wouldn't surprise me if the Patriots weren't the only team skirting the ball pressure issue either. Others have come out and said as much. But that doesn't absolve the Patriots. It's not right they they may have been the only team to get caught but if they got caught, they have to be punished. Kind of like not wearing your seat belt in states where it's required: they won't catch everybody but if you get caught you have to pay the fine.
Indeed!Yep. A definite possibility. It'd be nice to have those problems for a change.
Oh, I have no doubt it would be no big deal. I think we would have seen different coverage and a different result if a less well-known player on a less successful team were at the center of all this. I doubt Goodell would have hit a player making the veteran minimum or even $1.5-2 million a year with the same fine he gave to Brady.Yep. But I expect nothing else from this "Hey, let's just make it up as we go" league. I also wonder how much of this whole thing is the result of the media as well. I can't help but wonder if this happened to a CFL team how how this would've been a 300-word paragraph on ESPN for a day with a $10,000 fine to the offending club.
Mothman wrote: I don't think most of it amounts to much. Accusations from other teams without supporting evidence? Useless. I know you put stock in the years-old comment about liking deflated footballs and maybe I should too but I don't see that as particularly relevant either. It implies nothing illegal. The coach and owner thinking Brady lied to them about it all? That's a completely unsubstantiated rumor at this point and Kraft has said more than once that he does believe Brady so which is true? The "deflator" text is the best circumstantial evidence thus far but it's presented with very little context so it's inconclusive too. The psi readings are problematic for reasons that have been explained numerous times. If this were a court case, I doubt anyone could get a conviction on evidence like the above.
I never said he used it to gain publicity or that he was a Patriot-hater. I'm simply saying his work shows evidence of confirmation bias.
If you consider a difference of two fumbles in a season to be a statistically significant difference, I'm not going to continue debating that point. I think that falls well with normal degrees of variation and I'll leave it at that.
No, I wouldn't... he could be on PEDs but the burden of proof in these situations is on the accuser. The default position should be "innocent until proven guilty". Sharp is the one who has asserted a nearly impossible trend here so the burden of proof to show the Patriots fumble numbers are nearly impossible is on him and frankly, he hasn't met it. Nobody is denying the Patriots showed an overall trend of improvement in their fumble numbers after 2007 but I wouldn't characterize it as "stark" and again, the only thing that's truly unusual about it is the team's relative consistency in that area. The numbers themselves, when compared to other teams who finish in the top 25-30% in the league in that stat each year, aren't unusual or exceptional. Only the consistency is exceptional.
Obviously, but everyone was doing it because it was legal.
I'm not trying to absolve the Patriots and I agree that if they got caught, they deserve to be punished but I don't see a compelling case for guilt in this situation and I believe evidence should be sufficient to justify severe punishment and tarnish reputations. If it isn't, and so far I think that's the case with "deflategate", it bothers me to see those things happen.
Indeed!
Oh, I have no doubt it would be no big deal. I think we would have seen different coverage and a different result if a less well-known player on a less successful team were at the center of all this. I doubt Goodell would have hit a player making the veteran minimum or even $1.5-2 million a year with the same fine he gave to Brady.
My righteous indignation? Please. I just flipped over your own coin and showed you the other side of it. If you think that is righteous indignation, then you're as guilty of it as I in this case.Mothman wrote:[If Brady is lying then some of your righteous indignation above is justified but even if it is, that doesn't excuse the poor job the league has done.
It's how your words came across to me. Remember, I'm just reading them, there's no other context. If that's not how you meant them, I'm sorry I misunderstood them. However, Brady's guilt isn't the other side of my "coin" because I'm not arguing for his innocence. I'm arguing for a higher standard of evidence and more responsible behavior from the league. I want people to think critically and not just accept things like the Wells Report or Sharp's fumble analysis at face value.VikingLord wrote:My righteous indignation? Please. I just flipped over your own coin and showed you the other side of it. If you think that is righteous indignation, then you're as guilty of it as I in this case.
I'm not eager to exonerate Brady at all. That's not my goal or my point. I don't know if he's innocent or guilty. What matters to me in this case is that before a person is punished and has their reputation permanently tarnished, there is sufficient evidence to justify it. I'm fully aware that the NFL doesn't need to meet the legal standard but that doesn't mean they shouldn't conduct honest, well-run investigations or, when the evidence collected is sloppy and the results produced by an investigation are inconclusive, react accordingly. I think their standards should be higher. I believe their investigations should be believable and unbiased. I don't believe in punishment without the adequate establishment of an actual transgression. The NFL knew Brady and the Patriots might be cheating, didn't take sufficient action to prevent or prove it in an important game, and then spent millions on the Wells Report and dished out a heavy punishment while talking about their "integrity". They deserve to be staunchly criticized. If someone actually builds a convincing case that Brady cheated, he'll deserve it too. Unfortunately, Ted Wells didn't do that. His report is too flawed and even in the wake of it, he's contradicting himself.I find your staunch criticism of the NFL fascinating while you seem almost eager to exonerate Brady based on standards that the NFL simply does not need to meet.
Rumors are not evidence. Their veracity is unknown and there's no more reason to believe that rumor about Belichick than there is to disbelieve it. If that changes, I'll be sure to take note of it. As for the rest of the chorus: I'm not in favor of conviction by public opinion.There is a growing chorus of people, including rumors of Brady's own coach, who think he is at fault here.
Wells and Goodell are working together to give the impression Wells scrutinized the people that hired him. He didn’t. He was, in fact, told not to, as e-mails between Patriots attorney Daniel Goldberg and league attorney Jeff Pash shows.
This dog-and-pony coverup Wells and Goodell are putting on critically undermines Wells’ findings and the basis on which the Patriots penalties were based. If Wells wasn't allowed to look at how the NFL behaved and is now, in fact, pretending -- with Goodell's aid -- that he did, how can anyone believe in the NFL's integrity? (They really love that word, I've found.)
Was there a review by Wells of texts, e-mails or phone records to establish why David Gardi from the league’s Game Operations office sent an e-mail to Robert Kraft stating that all the Colts balls measured at halftime were conforming when, in fact, three of the four balls measured were not? How did Gardi’s letter the day after the game stating the league had a “preliminary finding” the balls may have been tampered with after the official inspection compromise the investigation by causing the Patriots to feel prejudged? Did that impact at all the reluctance of Tom Brady to share his electronic correspondence?
Did Wells ask Mike Kensil, another Game Operations lieutenant, whether whether and why he would tell a Patriots equipment man that the team was in “big f****** trouble” during the game?
Why is there no mention made of the fact that Sean Sullivan, the Colts' equipment man who suggested via an e-mail that the league measure the balls during the game, actually took it upon himself to measure the ball that ended up on the Colts sideline? Sullivan emerges not only as the one who dropped the dime initially but found the “evidence”, and he escapes specific scrutiny in the Wells investigation.
I believe you've accused both Wells and Goodell of outright hypocrisy/dishonesty and questioned the motivations behind the investigation. That seems to me to be the flip side of "righteous indignation", especially considering the NFLPA bargained for exactly this sort of process. In fact, when one looks at it, Goodell didn't even technically need to retain Wells to reach his conclusion and punishment. The fact he did that demonstrates to me that he was trying to add a sense of impartiality and objectivity to what is otherwise an internal NFL process. But when he does that, he is accused of "manipulation" and dishonesty?Mothman wrote: It's how your words came across to me. Remember, I'm just reading them, there's no other context. If that's not how you meant them, I'm sorry I misunderstood them. However, Brady's guilt isn't the other side of my "coin" because I'm not arguing for his innocence. I'm arguing for a higher standard of evidence and more responsible behavior from the league. I want people to think critically and not just accept things like the Wells Report or Sharp's fumble analysis at face value.
Yes, there is. The evidence is Robert Kraft accepting the punishment handed out to the team. That is not a minor thing and I would hope you take note of it.Mothman wrote: Rumors are not evidence. Their veracity is unknown and there's no more reason to believe that rumor about Belichick than there is to disbelieve it. If that changes, I'll be sure to take note of it. As for the rest of the chorus: I'm not in favor of conviction by public opinion.
@AlbertBreer Here is commissioner Roger Goodell's full letter denying the union's request that he recuse himself from the ... http://tmi.me/1f570Y
