Here Willie I'll take a page from your book listing numbers. Can't wait for your response lol!
Belicheat won loss record before cheating 36-44 winning percentage .450
won loss record after cheating (spygate,deflategate, and waiting for the next scandal) 201-71 winning percentage .739
Now let's look at regular season fumbles since 2001 Brady's first season.
2001 29 fumbles
2002 24 fumbles
2003 25 fumbles
2004 19 fumbles
2005 24 fumbles
2006 27 fumbles
Now Brady lobbies NFL to have each team supply their own balls and Belicheat forwards the physics of football and the fumbles go down. Pats get caught with spygate so time to break other rules. Oh wait according to the Northeast Belicheat starts "coaching" ball security (LMFAO) like this is some revolutionary new discovery no other coach understands :missingte. Or is it Brady's hands grow a few inches.
2007 14 fumbles
2008 13 fumbles
2009 9 fumbles
2010 17 fumbles
2011 17 fumbles
2012 14 fumbles
2013 24 fumbles (5 in week one, ball boy was on dl lol)
2014 13 fumbles
Now Pats get caught cheating AGAIN, and the fumbles are creeping back, although it's still early. Sample size is small but I posted this thread because last year a similar thread was posted stating Pats were number one in fumbles after eight or nine weeks. Keep defending Willie!
2015 14 fumbles
2016 27 fumbles
And answer the question. Did you lie or change your mind? It's a simple question. I realize you can't actually put Vit on ignore because you NEED him or you are nothing here. Which is why I think you lied. You have no intention of ever putting him on ignore. You simply can't live on this site without him lol
I have never made personal bets with strangers over the Internet and I never will. Just something I will not do. As for Vit I have seen him accept many bets on here and offer many more to people who have refused, namely Ace and Joe. So if you are looking for pussies you should go to the poly forum where the pussies hang out.
Winners do things that win, any questions?
They pass better, they catch better, they tackle better, they fumble less, they game plan better, they shoot better, they rebound better, they hit better, they pitch better, and they defend the goal better
You're acting like you don't know anything about sports and being better. Do you think MJ cheated? how about the C's under Auerbach? Obviously the Cubs must have cheated this year, and the Yankees cheated for generations. Everyone in the Hall of Fame must have cheated too, because the NUMBERS prove they did things better so they obviously cheated. Your argument is not one of brilliance like you think, it's more about being blinded by hate and silly.
By Michael Lopez
Assistant professor of statistics at Skidmore College
@StatsbyLopez
Last winter, much was made about the extremely low fumble rates of the Patriots, leading many to speculate or conclude that their potentially deflated footballs were responsible. See FiveThirtyEight for a general summary of the arguments.
In any case, the 2015 season makes for an excellent out-of-sample test with respect to New England's fumble tendencies. Although the Patriots have been accused of going crazy lengths to gain a winning edge, it seems safe to assume that any suspect ball routine could not have been a part of the game-day preparation process this season. (The NFL implemented new procedures for inspecting game balls.) As a result, if one initially made the link between the Patriots low fumble rates and deflated footballs, the natural follow-up would be to assume that New England's fumble rates would revert toward the league average in 2015.
So what happened in 2015?
• The Patriots had the fewest fumbles of any NFL offense.
• The Patriots had the best fumble rate of any NFL offense.
• The Patriots had one of their best fumble rates of the past decade.
Here's a barplot of each offense's 2015 fumble rate. To match a previous author's chart, I'll use plays per fumble, which means that teams fumbling less often will have higher numbers. (Using the NFL's website, I grabbed the relevant offensive team information—fumbles and number of plays—and subtracted non-offensive team fumbles to ensure that fumbles using the ‘K’ balls weren't counted.)
That's the Patriots on the far right, leading the league while fumbling only once every 105 plays.
There are several explanations for their continued success of hanging on to the ball, none of which have to do with deflated footballs. As explained here, the Patriots have consistently led the league in plays that are associated with low fumble rates, including kneel downs, plays in opponent territory, and plays when holding a lead. Related, the Patriots, Broncos, and Panthers—three teams that went a combined 39-9 in 2015—finished first, fourth and fifth, respectively, in plays per fumble.
A link between low football PSI's and high fumble rates was never established by anyone, so a check of the 2015 data shouldn’t mean much as far as the likelihood of the Patriots cheating. But the information provides a nice confirmation to what Gregory Matthews and I wrote back in January: Statistics is hard, and this can lead to deception, either willful or otherwise.
The idea that the Patriots were a 1 in 16,000 type-of-outlier made for a nice story, and it was quite easy to use aggregated statistics that implicated New England. As often happens, however, there's more to data than meets the eye. In the case of fumble rates, New England has routinely led the league. It's a result that seems more likely to be accounted for by differences in points on the scoreboard, and not by differences in the pressure levels of footballs.
Assistant professor of statistics at Skidmore College
@StatsbyLopez
Last winter, much was made about the extremely low fumble rates of the Patriots, leading many to speculate or conclude that their potentially deflated footballs were responsible. See FiveThirtyEight for a general summary of the arguments.
In any case, the 2015 season makes for an excellent out-of-sample test with respect to New England's fumble tendencies. Although the Patriots have been accused of going crazy lengths to gain a winning edge, it seems safe to assume that any suspect ball routine could not have been a part of the game-day preparation process this season. (The NFL implemented new procedures for inspecting game balls.) As a result, if one initially made the link between the Patriots low fumble rates and deflated footballs, the natural follow-up would be to assume that New England's fumble rates would revert toward the league average in 2015.
So what happened in 2015?
• The Patriots had the fewest fumbles of any NFL offense.
• The Patriots had the best fumble rate of any NFL offense.
• The Patriots had one of their best fumble rates of the past decade.
Here's a barplot of each offense's 2015 fumble rate. To match a previous author's chart, I'll use plays per fumble, which means that teams fumbling less often will have higher numbers. (Using the NFL's website, I grabbed the relevant offensive team information—fumbles and number of plays—and subtracted non-offensive team fumbles to ensure that fumbles using the ‘K’ balls weren't counted.)
That's the Patriots on the far right, leading the league while fumbling only once every 105 plays.
There are several explanations for their continued success of hanging on to the ball, none of which have to do with deflated footballs. As explained here, the Patriots have consistently led the league in plays that are associated with low fumble rates, including kneel downs, plays in opponent territory, and plays when holding a lead. Related, the Patriots, Broncos, and Panthers—three teams that went a combined 39-9 in 2015—finished first, fourth and fifth, respectively, in plays per fumble.
A link between low football PSI's and high fumble rates was never established by anyone, so a check of the 2015 data shouldn’t mean much as far as the likelihood of the Patriots cheating. But the information provides a nice confirmation to what Gregory Matthews and I wrote back in January: Statistics is hard, and this can lead to deception, either willful or otherwise.
The idea that the Patriots were a 1 in 16,000 type-of-outlier made for a nice story, and it was quite easy to use aggregated statistics that implicated New England. As often happens, however, there's more to data than meets the eye. In the case of fumble rates, New England has routinely led the league. It's a result that seems more likely to be accounted for by differences in points on the scoreboard, and not by differences in the pressure levels of footballs.
[FONT="]Fumble Study Findings[/FONT]
[FONT="]The table shows the NFL teams with the lowest fumble rates, expressed in fumbles per 100 plays, from 2012 through 2014, as well as the NFL average for those three years:[/FONT]
[FONT="]
<caption style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0.5em; border-width: 0px 0px 4px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(239, 63, 35); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline: 0px; font-size: 20px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(248, 248, 248); height: 40px; line-height: 40px; white-space: nowrap; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; text-align: left;">NFL fumble rates (2012-2014)</caption><tbody style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: 0px 0px;">
</tbody>
[FONT="]"Fumbles" for the context of this study includes offensive fumbles lost and recovered, but not special teams fumbles or the rare plays where a defensive player fumbled after a turnover—because we are interested in Patriots offensive fumbles, after all. Botched snaps are included to account for the remote chance that an underinflated football might make the center exchange a little easier.[/FONT]
[FONT="]As you can see, the Patriots have had a low fumble rate over the last three seasons—but not the lowest in the NFL, let alone some kind of shockingly aberrant rate.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Perhaps Brady alone is reaping the benefits of an easier-to-clutch football. The next table isolates quarterback fumbles.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
<caption style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0.5em; border-width: 0px 0px 4px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(239, 63, 35); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline: 0px; font-size: 20px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(248, 248, 248); height: 40px; line-height: 40px; white-space: nowrap; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; text-align: left;">Quarterback fumble rates (2012-14)</caption><tbody style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: 0px 0px;">
</tbody>
[FONT="]These are fumbles that come as a result of sacks, sneaks, scrambles or botched snaps.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Again, Brady and the Patriots rank among the NFL's best at avoiding fumbles, but there is nothing statistically damning in his data. If anything, he is just hanging out among his few peers.[/FONT]
[FONT="]A funky home/road fumble split could also implicate Brady and the deflators. The Patriots can bring their own footballs to road games, but the Wells Report (warning: NSFW language) suggests that it would be harder for minions to fiddle with footballs on the road than in Foxborough, where they know the locations of the most secluded lavatories.[/FONT]
[FONT="]But there is no such split from 2012 through 2014. The Patriots fumbled 21 times at home in the last three seasons, 20 times on the road.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Teams generally fumble slightly more often at home than on the road because they get to run more plays at home than on the road. As for the cold weather in Foxborough playing a role, the following sample of home and road dome and bad-weather teams shows little rhyme or reason for home-road splits.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]That brings us back to the Patriots' 2014 home fumble total. They fumbled just three times in Foxborough in the regular season, once more in the playoffs. It's a very low fumble total, but not an unprecedented one. The Saints and Panthers each fumbled only three times at home in 2013. Five other teams have fumbled just four times at home in the past three years, including the cold-weather Ravens and Giants in 2012.[/FONT]
[FONT="]We could push back further in history to search for a Patriots advantage. The Patriots fumbled just 11 times in 2011, losing six. The Packers fumbled only nine times that year, losing five. The Saints lost five of seven fumbles that year. The Patriots had an exceptional fumble-avoidance season in 2010: six fumbles, four lost. The 2010 data truly stands out, as the Patriots had a net turnover differential of plus-28 that year.[/FONT]
[FONT="]But if you have to go back five years to find a smoking gun, you face a major problem: The gun ain't smoking anymore. Pile the remarkable 2010 season atop very good low-fumble seasons in 2011 and 2014, and a trend begins to emerge. The Patriots excel at avoiding fumbles, year in and year out, whereas most teams' fumble totals fluctuate much more wildly. If you are looking for reasons to be suspicious about tampered, easy-to-grip footballs, the consistently low fumble rates will make you suspicious.[/FONT]
[FONT="]But those suspicions may not hold up under scrutiny.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]The table shows the NFL teams with the lowest fumble rates, expressed in fumbles per 100 plays, from 2012 through 2014, as well as the NFL average for those three years:[/FONT]
[FONT="]
| Team | Fumbles per 100 plays |
| Ravens | 1.05 |
| Saints | 1.14 |
| Patriots | 1.21 |
| Falcons | 1.23 |
| Browns | 1.30 |
| NFL Average | 1.63 |
<caption style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0.5em; border-width: 0px 0px 4px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(239, 63, 35); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline: 0px; font-size: 20px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(248, 248, 248); height: 40px; line-height: 40px; white-space: nowrap; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; text-align: left;">NFL fumble rates (2012-2014)</caption><tbody style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: 0px 0px;">
</tbody>
Football Outsiders
[/FONT][FONT="]"Fumbles" for the context of this study includes offensive fumbles lost and recovered, but not special teams fumbles or the rare plays where a defensive player fumbled after a turnover—because we are interested in Patriots offensive fumbles, after all. Botched snaps are included to account for the remote chance that an underinflated football might make the center exchange a little easier.[/FONT]
[FONT="]As you can see, the Patriots have had a low fumble rate over the last three seasons—but not the lowest in the NFL, let alone some kind of shockingly aberrant rate.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Perhaps Brady alone is reaping the benefits of an easier-to-clutch football. The next table isolates quarterback fumbles.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
| Team (QB) | QB fumbles per 100 plays |
| Falcons (Matt Ryan) | 0.42 |
| Bengals (Andy Dalton) | 0.45 |
| Patriots (Brady) | 0.47 |
| Broncos (Peyton Manning) | 0.48 |
| Saints (Drew Brees) | 0.49 |
| NFL Average | 0.77 |
<caption style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0.5em; border-width: 0px 0px 4px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(239, 63, 35); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline: 0px; font-size: 20px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(248, 248, 248); height: 40px; line-height: 40px; white-space: nowrap; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; text-align: left;">Quarterback fumble rates (2012-14)</caption><tbody style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: 0px 0px;">
</tbody>
Football Outsiders
[/FONT][FONT="]These are fumbles that come as a result of sacks, sneaks, scrambles or botched snaps.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Again, Brady and the Patriots rank among the NFL's best at avoiding fumbles, but there is nothing statistically damning in his data. If anything, he is just hanging out among his few peers.[/FONT]
[FONT="]A funky home/road fumble split could also implicate Brady and the deflators. The Patriots can bring their own footballs to road games, but the Wells Report (warning: NSFW language) suggests that it would be harder for minions to fiddle with footballs on the road than in Foxborough, where they know the locations of the most secluded lavatories.[/FONT]
[FONT="]But there is no such split from 2012 through 2014. The Patriots fumbled 21 times at home in the last three seasons, 20 times on the road.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Teams generally fumble slightly more often at home than on the road because they get to run more plays at home than on the road. As for the cold weather in Foxborough playing a role, the following sample of home and road dome and bad-weather teams shows little rhyme or reason for home-road splits.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]That brings us back to the Patriots' 2014 home fumble total. They fumbled just three times in Foxborough in the regular season, once more in the playoffs. It's a very low fumble total, but not an unprecedented one. The Saints and Panthers each fumbled only three times at home in 2013. Five other teams have fumbled just four times at home in the past three years, including the cold-weather Ravens and Giants in 2012.[/FONT]
[FONT="]We could push back further in history to search for a Patriots advantage. The Patriots fumbled just 11 times in 2011, losing six. The Packers fumbled only nine times that year, losing five. The Saints lost five of seven fumbles that year. The Patriots had an exceptional fumble-avoidance season in 2010: six fumbles, four lost. The 2010 data truly stands out, as the Patriots had a net turnover differential of plus-28 that year.[/FONT]
[FONT="]But if you have to go back five years to find a smoking gun, you face a major problem: The gun ain't smoking anymore. Pile the remarkable 2010 season atop very good low-fumble seasons in 2011 and 2014, and a trend begins to emerge. The Patriots excel at avoiding fumbles, year in and year out, whereas most teams' fumble totals fluctuate much more wildly. If you are looking for reasons to be suspicious about tampered, easy-to-grip footballs, the consistently low fumble rates will make you suspicious.[/FONT]
[FONT="]But those suspicions may not hold up under scrutiny.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
Conclusion
Let's face it: If deflating the football a few tenths of a PSI below 12.5 inoculates teams against fumble-itis, the NFL should deflate footballs to a few tenths of a PSI below 12.5. Coaches should order the footballs inflated to exactly 12.5 PSI, the minimum NFL requirement, to get the most anti-fumble benefit permissible by the rulebook. If a quarterback liked highly inflated, easy-to-fumble footballs, it should affect his draft status. If there was a tangible benefit here, it wouldn't be something Belichick and Brady discovered and were able to sit on for eight years. Josh McDaniels, Bill O'Brien, Matt Cassel and others would have spread the secret around the NFL by now.
The January study looks damning: It shows the Patriots as a far-fringe statistical outlier. But the Sharp study has several problems. One of them has already been hinted at: Using "plays per fumble" as a metric mathematically magnifies tiny changes in very volatile data. But there is a much simpler problem: The Sharp study eliminated dome teams before collecting the data!
<article class="article article--article cf " style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; width: 630px; min-height: 300px; margin: 0px;"><section class="article_page js-article-page-1 cf is-active article_page--last" data-page="1" style="overflow: hidden;">Eliminating dome teams compensates for any impact weather might have on fumble tendencies. It also eliminates the Saints, probably the most Patriots-like team of the last decade in every way except climate. The Saints have been contenders with stable, high-quality coaching and quarterback play for most of the last six seasons. Not coincidentally, their fumble rates have been lower than the Patriots' rates over the last three years.
The Falcons, another team with stable quarterback play and coaching for several recent seasons, are also chopped off the back of any study that eliminates dome teams. Assuming Lucas Oil Stadium is considered a dome because of its retractable roof, some signature Peyton Manning seasons were also excluded from the mix.
Such omissions would make sense if domed stadiums had a major impact on fumble totals. That is not the case, as one of the earlier tables illustrated. The Saints, notorious for massive home-road splits, fumbled 17 times at home in the last three years, 20 times on the road. The Falcons fumbled 24 times at home, 14 times on the road. The Lions, who mix dome home games with annual trips to places like Chicago and Green Bay, fumbled 31 times at home in the last three years, 28 times on the road. The Rams, who are likely to deal with extreme heat, damp conditions or nerve-racking crowd noise in NFC West road games, fumbled 30 times at home, 27 times on the road in the last three seasons.
Weather has, at most, a tiny impact on fumble totals. Sack rates and the presence of a backup quarterback in the lineup have much greater impact. Any attempt to isolate Tom Brady's fumble tendencies that excludes Drew Brees, Matt Ryan and several seasons of Peyton Manning is going to include some massive built-in distortions.
Like most sane people living west of Interstate 91, I believe Tom Brady strongly persuaded some equipment guys to underinflate footballs because that's the way he likes to grip and throw them. I am also certain that Tom Brady would be a Hall of Famer and multi-Super Bowl champion given any regulation football to throw.
If the Patriots received any additional advantage from using deflated footballs, like a significant decrease in fumbles, I might be persuaded to become a hard-liner on the team's punishment: Brady's four-game suspension and the team's lost draft picks would almost seem lenient, and the "tarnished legacy" crowd would have my sympathetic ear.
But if Deflategate is all about a veteran quarterback bending some rules to get a little customization for his footballs, then I am as eager as ever to get the appeals over with, welcome any reduced sentences and forget this whole thing five minutes after Brady returns to the field.
The research suggests that the Patriots got no significant fumble advantage from Brady's choice of footballs in the last three years. The Patriots are good at not fumbling because the Patriots are good at avoiding the many things that lead to fumbles.
That doesn't exonerate Brady, but it does prove that previous statistical studies failed to implicate him. And it also underlines, once again, what trivial events these dire offenses sprung from.
Mike Tanier covers the NFL for Bleacher Report.
</section>
<footer class="article_footer"></footer></article>
Let's face it: If deflating the football a few tenths of a PSI below 12.5 inoculates teams against fumble-itis, the NFL should deflate footballs to a few tenths of a PSI below 12.5. Coaches should order the footballs inflated to exactly 12.5 PSI, the minimum NFL requirement, to get the most anti-fumble benefit permissible by the rulebook. If a quarterback liked highly inflated, easy-to-fumble footballs, it should affect his draft status. If there was a tangible benefit here, it wouldn't be something Belichick and Brady discovered and were able to sit on for eight years. Josh McDaniels, Bill O'Brien, Matt Cassel and others would have spread the secret around the NFL by now.
The January study looks damning: It shows the Patriots as a far-fringe statistical outlier. But the Sharp study has several problems. One of them has already been hinted at: Using "plays per fumble" as a metric mathematically magnifies tiny changes in very volatile data. But there is a much simpler problem: The Sharp study eliminated dome teams before collecting the data!
<article class="article article--article cf " style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; width: 630px; min-height: 300px; margin: 0px;"><section class="article_page js-article-page-1 cf is-active article_page--last" data-page="1" style="overflow: hidden;">Eliminating dome teams compensates for any impact weather might have on fumble tendencies. It also eliminates the Saints, probably the most Patriots-like team of the last decade in every way except climate. The Saints have been contenders with stable, high-quality coaching and quarterback play for most of the last six seasons. Not coincidentally, their fumble rates have been lower than the Patriots' rates over the last three years.
The Falcons, another team with stable quarterback play and coaching for several recent seasons, are also chopped off the back of any study that eliminates dome teams. Assuming Lucas Oil Stadium is considered a dome because of its retractable roof, some signature Peyton Manning seasons were also excluded from the mix.
Such omissions would make sense if domed stadiums had a major impact on fumble totals. That is not the case, as one of the earlier tables illustrated. The Saints, notorious for massive home-road splits, fumbled 17 times at home in the last three years, 20 times on the road. The Falcons fumbled 24 times at home, 14 times on the road. The Lions, who mix dome home games with annual trips to places like Chicago and Green Bay, fumbled 31 times at home in the last three years, 28 times on the road. The Rams, who are likely to deal with extreme heat, damp conditions or nerve-racking crowd noise in NFC West road games, fumbled 30 times at home, 27 times on the road in the last three seasons.
Weather has, at most, a tiny impact on fumble totals. Sack rates and the presence of a backup quarterback in the lineup have much greater impact. Any attempt to isolate Tom Brady's fumble tendencies that excludes Drew Brees, Matt Ryan and several seasons of Peyton Manning is going to include some massive built-in distortions.
Like most sane people living west of Interstate 91, I believe Tom Brady strongly persuaded some equipment guys to underinflate footballs because that's the way he likes to grip and throw them. I am also certain that Tom Brady would be a Hall of Famer and multi-Super Bowl champion given any regulation football to throw.
If the Patriots received any additional advantage from using deflated footballs, like a significant decrease in fumbles, I might be persuaded to become a hard-liner on the team's punishment: Brady's four-game suspension and the team's lost draft picks would almost seem lenient, and the "tarnished legacy" crowd would have my sympathetic ear.
But if Deflategate is all about a veteran quarterback bending some rules to get a little customization for his footballs, then I am as eager as ever to get the appeals over with, welcome any reduced sentences and forget this whole thing five minutes after Brady returns to the field.
The research suggests that the Patriots got no significant fumble advantage from Brady's choice of footballs in the last three years. The Patriots are good at not fumbling because the Patriots are good at avoiding the many things that lead to fumbles.
That doesn't exonerate Brady, but it does prove that previous statistical studies failed to implicate him. And it also underlines, once again, what trivial events these dire offenses sprung from.
Mike Tanier covers the NFL for Bleacher Report.
</section>
<footer class="article_footer"></footer></article>
