8 ms·

The New England Patriots’ prevention of fumbles is nearly impossible

54 points by _pius 12y ago

robryan 12y ago
As someone who doesn't follow the NFL I am surprised that they allow the teams to supply their own balls. Seems it would be less complicated and achieve an even playing field if everyone had to use the same balls supplied by the league. Does this happen in baseball/ basketball as well? From an Australian perspective it seems unusual.
- skwirl 12y ago
  Quarterbacks like their footballs to be broken in a bit, and they all have their own preference for doing it. They lobbied the NFL years back to let them break in the game footballs and the NFL said OK. They have to use official NFL footballs and they are SUPPOSED to be properly inflated at game time. Each team uses their own footballs while on offense. I doubt this happens in basketball because the same ball is being handled by numerous people on both teams, so it wouldn't be fair to let one player or team break the ball in to their own preferences. The same would be true of your AFL. In the NFL, teams are using their own broken in balls, and the quarterback is (usually) the only guy who has to actually throw it. Baseballs only last a couple of pitches and offense/defense are completely different games, so I seriously doubt anyone is allowed to do anything to any ball before the game. When a pitcher gets a new ball it is already pre-rubbed in a special mud, and they can rub it in dirt a bit but they can't put anything that will stick to the ball on it as it gives the pitcher an advantage.
- sehr 12y ago
  They all use the exact same model of ball, they're just not carried around by league officials to every game.
- Reebles 12y ago
  Baseballs are heavily regulated in game due to the long legacy of doctoring the ball to achieve otherwise impossible movement on pitched balls. Each ball in play goes through the home plate umpire before making it to the pitcher/catcher. Of course in baseball you'll still occasionally see the pitcher with a hidden "foreign substance" used to doctor the ball once they get ahold of it. Back 20ish years ago it was not too rare for a pitcher to be discovered with a nail file or scratching the ball on their belt buckle. Generally this is seen as "part of the game", and well, there are admitted spitballers/nail-filers in the hall of fame and nobody really cares. Nowadays, if a pitcher gets caught with a "foreign substance" (usually pine tar), they are usually suspended for a few games, the media goes into a frenzy, and retired baseball players say they all did it too.
- zcdziura 12y ago
  We have to remember that the NFL, after everything is said and done, is a business. They want to make money any way they can. A great way to do that is by having its teams score lots of touchdowns. But not just any touchdowns: passing touchdowns. There's nothing as exciting to watch as a quarterback throwing a hail marry into the end zone and having the receiver diving for it. Those kinds of plays are more likely to happen if the ball is broken in to the quarterback's liking. The ruling seems weird, but that's probably why the NFL allows its teams to supply their own game balls, instead of providing fresh ones for every game.
- Bulkington 12y ago
  In baseball, cheating is a worthwhile art and a science. http://a.espncdn.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1380568.html http://a.espncdn.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1380568.html
jonjenk 12y ago
Analyzing outlying statistics across all the available variables would be an interesting technique to try to predict other potential rules violations. This could apply to many different types of sporting events. I wonder if anyone is working on this problem? Despite a few nit picky issues I have with this particular analysis of the Patriots fumble data it's probably the strongest evidence I've seen so far that there has likely been a persistent rules violation.
- JustinJBM 12y ago
  Not sure if anyone's working on that yet, but I agree it would be incredibly interesting.
- Anechoic 12y ago
  it's probably the strongest evidence I've seen so far that there has likely been a persistent rules violation. That's only true if ball inflation tracks with fumbles. There have been lots of assertions that's the case, but I haven't seen any evidence. Two counter examples: - If you look at AFCC, that's Patriots had 1 fumble in the first half playing with an underinflated ball in dry weather conditions, and had zero fumbles in the second half playing with properly inflated balls, and in wet conditions. - Aaron Rodgers is on record stating that he likes his footballs to be inflated as high as possible. But if you look at GB's fumble data in the link, they're #6 behind NE in total fumbles. There are a whole bunch of confounding variables here, including coaching techniques (look at how Tiki Barber's corrected his fumble problems in one year after coaching changes).
  - jonjenk 12y ago
    I agree that we don't have a controlled study in this case. However, it will be interesting to look at this data at the end of next season. If the Patriots fumble stats revert to pre 2007 levels it will certainly raise some interesting questions.
    - twoodfin 12y ago
      Why? Fumbles are rare and highly variable.
_croz 12y ago
Wouldn't pass completion ratio be a better metric?
jsyedidia 12y ago
If you watch Patriots games, you'll see that if Patriots running backs fumble, they get benched. If they do it again they get released. Belichick is maniacal about getting on his players about fumbling. That is a simple explanation. The team has been well-coached for a long time. If you think the Patriots' success is all from deflated balls, you need to explain how they out-scored the Colts 28-0 in the second half (and didn't fumble in horrible conditions).
- fecak 12y ago
  Over the past two seasons there have been 9 total fumbles by Patriot running backs - only 1 all this year. All of those backs are still employed by the Patriots. Over those two seasons, the majority of fumbles came from Brady and Edelman. Of the backs that fumbled in 2012, only Woodhead is gone. He fumbled only once. Two backs fumbled in 2011, once each. Woodhead (who is gone) and Ridley, who is still a Patriot. Patriot backs simply don't fumble. Brady and Edelman do, and Welker did a bit. Your explanation isn't supported by the data. Source. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2014.htm http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2014.htm EDIT - I'm not sure my source differentiates fumbles from lost fumbles, although that doesn't seem to impact the conclusion regarding parent's comment.
  - roganp 12y ago
    Couldn't this be tested by looking a the frequency of fumbles made by backs before and after they play for the patriots? I mean, if the explanation of the patriots low fumble rate is because they deflated the balls then it should cause a corresponding jump in fumbles for those running backs that move on to other teams (who presumably are not deflating the balls).
    - Anechoic 12y ago
      Danny Woodhead: 0 fumbles with NY Jets in 2009-2010 (didn't play much), 1 fumble with NE Pats from 2010-2012, 1 fumble with SD Chargers 2013-2014 (did not play full year with SD in 2014 due to injury, but had many more attempts in 2013 with SD than with NE). http://www.nfl.com/player/dannywoodhead/4327/careerstats http://www.nfl.com/player/dannywoodhead/4327/careerstats LeGarrette Blount: 3 fumbles each year with TB Bucs, 2010-2011 & no fumbles in 2012, 3 fumbles with NE Pats, 2013, 1 fumble with Steelers in early 2014, 0 fumbles with NE Pats in late 2014 http://www.nfl.com/player/legarretteblount/497149/profile http://www.nfl.com/player/legarretteblount/497149/profile Laurance Maroney: 1 fumble in 2006, 4 fumbles in 2009 with NE Pats, 0 fumbles with Den Broncos in 2010 http://www.nfl.com/player/laurencemaroney/2506884/profile http://www.nfl.com/player/laurencemaroney/2506884/profile Sammy Morris: I'm not going to summarize his stats, but he has a whole bunch of fumbles with a bunch of teams including NE. http://www.nfl.com/player/sammymorris/2504126/profile http://www.nfl.com/player/sammymorris/2504126/profile Those are all the running backs I can think of who played for the Patriots and other teams in recent years. I'm not going to bother with Corey Dillion since he was before 2007. ftr I am a Patriots who hopes that there is no wrong doing but is trying to keep an open mind.
itsdrewmiller 12y ago
plays per fumble is not a very good metric - as fumbles go down it increases exponentially. If you look at the total fumbles, the patriots are #1 but only 7 ahead of #2. The two worst teams are 10 behind the next two teams. I didn't run the numbers, but eyeballing it, it seems like the Patriots are pretty easily within a couple standard deviations there.
- donchipotle 12y ago
  I think Brian Burke did a more thorough take on it. http://advancednflstats.com/index.php/home/research/general/224-the-patriots-have-great-ball-security http://advancednflstats.com/index.php/home/research/general/... It's not as damning for the Patriots. But very interesting that it suddenly started in 2007, the same year the NFL changed the rules to allow visiting teams to use their own balls.
  - chockablock 12y ago
    Thanks this is a much more mathematically reasonable analysis. I especially like the idea of using the #fumbles made by Pats' opponents as a control for the weather (although that confounds the Pats' defense's ability to generate fumbles). The OP gets credit for noticing an unusual trend in the data, but does all kinds of weird seat-of-the-pants analysis that I found pretty hard to even look at. E.g. Sorting the teams by fumble frequency, and then running a regression on the ranked list (!!?); using plays/fumble instead of fumbles/play; reporting stats with the null hypothesis that the Pats fumble rate is drawn randomly from other teams (instead of asking what the likelihood is of an extreme value at least that high).
abram 12y ago
It would be interesting to get the stats on fumbles during kickoff/punt returns (when a neutral kicking ball is in use, not a team-supplied offensive ball), and on plays involving interceptions or fumble recoveries (where they would be using the other team's ball). If they rank highly in fumble prevention in those situations, it would suggest that this is a result of coaching, not using a particular ball.
- fecak 12y ago
  Kickoff and punt return fumbles can be the result of other factors - players traveling at high speed over a long distance hitting a returner looking skyward is a unique football situation that only occurs on returns. Interceptions and recoveries would be by defensive players, who would spend much less time focusing on ball handling since they rarely carry the ball.
xofer 12y ago
Is the author confusing "fumbles" and "fumbles lost" or am I?
- asynchronous13 12y ago
  The author starts out with a plot of lost fumbles, and further down shows a plot that includes all fumbles, not just lost fumbles.
Anechoic 12y ago
For those of you who aren't keeping up with the up to the minute minutae of the New England Patriots (American football team) scandal (presumably because you have lives), head coach Bill Belichick gave a press conference a few hours ago where he provided a hypothesis of what might have happened: as many people know, quarterbacks like their game footballs prepared in specific (sometimes elaborate [0]) ways prior to use in games. Belichick says that the team went over the process they use for games a few days ago and they determine that the preparation process they use for their footballs (which he claims they do right up to the point they are given to officials for pre-game testing) increases the air pressure in the balls by about 1 psi [1]. Therefore, the balls appear legal when tested by officials, but after a few hours of sitting around, the pressure reduces to below the legal limit. He doesn't specify the process used by the team, but presumably it's some kind of rubbing that heats the ball up, and when it cools down the interior air pressure is reduced accordingly. I'm sure someone will test this out and verify or discredit the claim. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/sports/football/eli-mannings-footballs-are-months-in-making.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/sports/football/eli-mannin... [1] http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2015/01/bill_belichick_defends_patriots_on_deflategate_we.html?p1=feature_pri_hp http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/...
- zaroth 12y ago
  Going from 75 degrees to 50 produces something like a 1.5 psi reduction. 85 -> 35 wound be closer to a 2psi drop. Water vapor increases the drop. Funny thing is searching for the calculation produces highly variable results.
  - axiak 12y ago
    Belichick specifically said he was not talking about atmospheric temperature conditions, but the conditions of the ball. Presumably whatever rubbing of the ball was necessary for preparation heated the air in the ball. He must have explained this in the most obtuse way possible to reduce the chance people call him a cheater for heating the air in the ball.
  - jlcummings 12y ago
mrwarn 12y ago
The game against the Colts the Patriots clearly cheated. It is beyond reasonable that 11 of 12 footballs are 2psi less than the rule allows. Especially since the 12th football of regulation weight is the football used for kicking as you want the football inflated properly. But using fumbles as proof of long term violation is tough because their are too many factors to consider. Patriots are a pass heavy team and have been for a long time. They use multiple RB's and a fresh RB is less likely to fumble than one RB used heavily throughout the game due to mental and physical fatigue. WR's fumble but are less likely than RB's. An under-inflated ball is easier to grip so it would be interesting to see how WR's who left have fared on their new teams and if any returned later, after playing poorly on new team, to play well for the Patriots. Since 2007 has Tom Brady's completion % and interception ratio on the road improved drastically? All these things could be explained by an under-inflated but not definitively.
- joshuapayne 12y ago
  You are incorrect with respect to your explanation of "the 12th football being used for kicking". An entire separate group of footballs are used for kicking, outside control of either team. The kicking balls are brand new and are not allowed to be broken-in. They still have the waxy coating a new ball has. This was done some years ago to try to reduce the effectiveness of kickers.
  - mrwarn 12y ago
    I stand corrected, I didnt know that tidbit and just assumed that the 12th ball was for kickoff/field goals. But what about punting is it the same ball used for kicking or would it be part of the 12?
    - etrevino 12y ago
      Punting balls are also the special kicking balls.
asynchronous13 12y ago
I'm not convinced that it's okay to just remove all the dome-teams from the plot. Using the author's data, here's a plot of all the teams and total fumbles (not 'fumbles lost' that the author focuses on): http://i.imgur.com/QP6LXWg.png http://i.imgur.com/QP6LXWg.png The Patriots are not even the top team! It's actually the Falcons that have the most plays per fumble. If it's "nearly impossible" for the Patriots, what does that say about the Falcons? The author focuses on "fumbles lost" because that number is more dramatic if one is trying to prove that the Patriots did something wrong. That number in isolation only shows that the Patriots were extremely good at recovering their own fumbles. Looking at the graph, there is a notable bend at the top 4 teams. Either the top 4 teams have fewer fumbles through training, or the top 4 teams are all cheating somehow. It's hard to call the Patriots statistics impossible when they're in 2nd place.
asynchronous13 12y ago
I'm becoming more disappointed in this analysis. "But in 2007, something happened to propel [the Patriots] to a much better rate." The author is using a 5-year average, and then concluding that something must have happened in a single year that is suddenly different. What that implies to me, is that they had a particularly terrible year in 2002. So, when the really bad year slides off of the 5-year moving average, then the 5-year average suddenly looks much better.
- twoodfin 12y ago
  Also, while the article ultimately looks at both, the "money chart" is for fumbles lost, rather than total fumbles. I'm pretty sure the stat guys at footballoutsiders.com have more than once run the numbers to show that fumble recovery is pure chance; hard to see how having easier to handle balls increases those odds.
ragtimepiano 12y ago
Listen, engineers and scientists: 11 out of 12 balls, markedly different and underinflated compared to the other team's balls? This is a priori evidence of tampering. Any jury would convict. We don't need a Perry Mason-type confession; we don't need to identify the culprit. The team should be strongly punished for breaking the NFL rules. I think the NFL should do an extensive investigation, after the initial punishment, which justly would be done BEFORE the Super Bowl. This investigation needs to determine whether the Pats have cheated with underinflated balls over a period of months and years. It can be done. Then is the time for scientific analysis, testimony by physicists, and so on. My point is: We don't need to identify the person responsible, and we don't need a confession. Guilt is obvious, a priori. Punishment should be swift.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

54 points by _pius 12y ago

As someone who doesn't follow the NFL I am surprised that they allow the teams to supply their own balls. Seems it would be less complicated and achieve an even playing field if everyone had to use the same balls supplied by the league. Does this happen in baseball/ basketball as well? From an Australian perspective it seems unusual.

skwirl 12y ago
Quarterbacks like their footballs to be broken in a bit, and they all have their own preference for doing it. They lobbied the NFL years back to let them break in the game footballs and the NFL said OK. They have to use official NFL footballs and they are SUPPOSED to be properly inflated at game time. Each team uses their own footballs while on offense. I doubt this happens in basketball because the same ball is being handled by numerous people on both teams, so it wouldn't be fair to let one player or team break the ball in to their own preferences. The same would be true of your AFL. In the NFL, teams are using their own broken in balls, and the quarterback is (usually) the only guy who has to actually throw it. Baseballs only last a couple of pitches and offense/defense are completely different games, so I seriously doubt anyone is allowed to do anything to any ball before the game. When a pitcher gets a new ball it is already pre-rubbed in a special mud, and they can rub it in dirt a bit but they can't put anything that will stick to the ball on it as it gives the pitcher an advantage.
sehr 12y ago
They all use the exact same model of ball, they're just not carried around by league officials to every game.
Reebles 12y ago
Baseballs are heavily regulated in game due to the long legacy of doctoring the ball to achieve otherwise impossible movement on pitched balls. Each ball in play goes through the home plate umpire before making it to the pitcher/catcher. Of course in baseball you'll still occasionally see the pitcher with a hidden "foreign substance" used to doctor the ball once they get ahold of it. Back 20ish years ago it was not too rare for a pitcher to be discovered with a nail file or scratching the ball on their belt buckle. Generally this is seen as "part of the game", and well, there are admitted spitballers/nail-filers in the hall of fame and nobody really cares. Nowadays, if a pitcher gets caught with a "foreign substance" (usually pine tar), they are usually suspended for a few games, the media goes into a frenzy, and retired baseball players say they all did it too.
zcdziura 12y ago
We have to remember that the NFL, after everything is said and done, is a business. They want to make money any way they can. A great way to do that is by having its teams score lots of touchdowns. But not just any touchdowns: passing touchdowns. There's nothing as exciting to watch as a quarterback throwing a hail marry into the end zone and having the receiver diving for it. Those kinds of plays are more likely to happen if the ball is broken in to the quarterback's liking. The ruling seems weird, but that's probably why the NFL allows its teams to supply their own game balls, instead of providing fresh ones for every game.
Bulkington 12y ago
In baseball, cheating is a worthwhile art and a science. http://a.espncdn.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1380568.html http://a.espncdn.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1380568.html

jonjenk 12y ago

Analyzing outlying statistics across all the available variables would be an interesting technique to try to predict other potential rules violations. This could apply to many different types of sporting events. I wonder if anyone is working on this problem? Despite a few nit picky issues I have with this particular analysis of the Patriots fumble data it's probably the strongest evidence I've seen so far that there has likely been a persistent rules violation.

JustinJBM 12y ago
Not sure if anyone's working on that yet, but I agree it would be incredibly interesting.
Anechoic 12y ago
it's probably the strongest evidence I've seen so far that there has likely been a persistent rules violation. That's only true if ball inflation tracks with fumbles. There have been lots of assertions that's the case, but I haven't seen any evidence. Two counter examples: - If you look at AFCC, that's Patriots had 1 fumble in the first half playing with an underinflated ball in dry weather conditions, and had zero fumbles in the second half playing with properly inflated balls, and in wet conditions. - Aaron Rodgers is on record stating that he likes his footballs to be inflated as high as possible. But if you look at GB's fumble data in the link, they're #6 behind NE in total fumbles. There are a whole bunch of confounding variables here, including coaching techniques (look at how Tiki Barber's corrected his fumble problems in one year after coaching changes).
- jonjenk 12y ago
  I agree that we don't have a controlled study in this case. However, it will be interesting to look at this data at the end of next season. If the Patriots fumble stats revert to pre 2007 levels it will certainly raise some interesting questions.
  - twoodfin 12y ago
    Why? Fumbles are rare and highly variable.

_croz 12y ago

Wouldn't pass completion ratio be a better metric?

jsyedidia 12y ago

If you watch Patriots games, you'll see that if Patriots running backs fumble, they get benched. If they do it again they get released. Belichick is maniacal about getting on his players about fumbling. That is a simple explanation. The team has been well-coached for a long time. If you think the Patriots' success is all from deflated balls, you need to explain how they out-scored the Colts 28-0 in the second half (and didn't fumble in horrible conditions).

fecak 12y ago
Over the past two seasons there have been 9 total fumbles by Patriot running backs - only 1 all this year. All of those backs are still employed by the Patriots. Over those two seasons, the majority of fumbles came from Brady and Edelman. Of the backs that fumbled in 2012, only Woodhead is gone. He fumbled only once. Two backs fumbled in 2011, once each. Woodhead (who is gone) and Ridley, who is still a Patriot. Patriot backs simply don't fumble. Brady and Edelman do, and Welker did a bit. Your explanation isn't supported by the data. Source. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2014.htm http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2014.htm EDIT - I'm not sure my source differentiates fumbles from lost fumbles, although that doesn't seem to impact the conclusion regarding parent's comment.
- roganp 12y ago
  Couldn't this be tested by looking a the frequency of fumbles made by backs before and after they play for the patriots? I mean, if the explanation of the patriots low fumble rate is because they deflated the balls then it should cause a corresponding jump in fumbles for those running backs that move on to other teams (who presumably are not deflating the balls).
  - Anechoic 12y ago
    Danny Woodhead: 0 fumbles with NY Jets in 2009-2010 (didn't play much), 1 fumble with NE Pats from 2010-2012, 1 fumble with SD Chargers 2013-2014 (did not play full year with SD in 2014 due to injury, but had many more attempts in 2013 with SD than with NE). http://www.nfl.com/player/dannywoodhead/4327/careerstats http://www.nfl.com/player/dannywoodhead/4327/careerstats LeGarrette Blount: 3 fumbles each year with TB Bucs, 2010-2011 & no fumbles in 2012, 3 fumbles with NE Pats, 2013, 1 fumble with Steelers in early 2014, 0 fumbles with NE Pats in late 2014 http://www.nfl.com/player/legarretteblount/497149/profile http://www.nfl.com/player/legarretteblount/497149/profile Laurance Maroney: 1 fumble in 2006, 4 fumbles in 2009 with NE Pats, 0 fumbles with Den Broncos in 2010 http://www.nfl.com/player/laurencemaroney/2506884/profile http://www.nfl.com/player/laurencemaroney/2506884/profile Sammy Morris: I'm not going to summarize his stats, but he has a whole bunch of fumbles with a bunch of teams including NE. http://www.nfl.com/player/sammymorris/2504126/profile http://www.nfl.com/player/sammymorris/2504126/profile Those are all the running backs I can think of who played for the Patriots and other teams in recent years. I'm not going to bother with Corey Dillion since he was before 2007. ftr I am a Patriots who hopes that there is no wrong doing but is trying to keep an open mind.

itsdrewmiller 12y ago

plays per fumble is not a very good metric - as fumbles go down it increases exponentially. If you look at the total fumbles, the patriots are #1 but only 7 ahead of #2. The two worst teams are 10 behind the next two teams. I didn't run the numbers, but eyeballing it, it seems like the Patriots are pretty easily within a couple standard deviations there.

donchipotle 12y ago
I think Brian Burke did a more thorough take on it. http://advancednflstats.com/index.php/home/research/general/224-the-patriots-have-great-ball-security http://advancednflstats.com/index.php/home/research/general/... It's not as damning for the Patriots. But very interesting that it suddenly started in 2007, the same year the NFL changed the rules to allow visiting teams to use their own balls.
- chockablock 12y ago
  Thanks this is a much more mathematically reasonable analysis. I especially like the idea of using the #fumbles made by Pats' opponents as a control for the weather (although that confounds the Pats' defense's ability to generate fumbles). The OP gets credit for noticing an unusual trend in the data, but does all kinds of weird seat-of-the-pants analysis that I found pretty hard to even look at. E.g. Sorting the teams by fumble frequency, and then running a regression on the ranked list (!!?); using plays/fumble instead of fumbles/play; reporting stats with the null hypothesis that the Pats fumble rate is drawn randomly from other teams (instead of asking what the likelihood is of an extreme value at least that high).

abram 12y ago

It would be interesting to get the stats on fumbles during kickoff/punt returns (when a neutral kicking ball is in use, not a team-supplied offensive ball), and on plays involving interceptions or fumble recoveries (where they would be using the other team's ball). If they rank highly in fumble prevention in those situations, it would suggest that this is a result of coaching, not using a particular ball.

fecak 12y ago
Kickoff and punt return fumbles can be the result of other factors - players traveling at high speed over a long distance hitting a returner looking skyward is a unique football situation that only occurs on returns. Interceptions and recoveries would be by defensive players, who would spend much less time focusing on ball handling since they rarely carry the ball.

xofer 12y ago

Is the author confusing "fumbles" and "fumbles lost" or am I?

asynchronous13 12y ago
The author starts out with a plot of lost fumbles, and further down shows a plot that includes all fumbles, not just lost fumbles.

Anechoic 12y ago

For those of you who aren't keeping up with the up to the minute minutae of the New England Patriots (American football team) scandal (presumably because you have lives), head coach Bill Belichick gave a press conference a few hours ago where he provided a hypothesis of what might have happened: as many people know, quarterbacks like their game footballs prepared in specific (sometimes elaborate [0]) ways prior to use in games. Belichick says that the team went over the process they use for games a few days ago and they determine that the preparation process they use for their footballs (which he claims they do right up to the point they are given to officials for pre-game testing) increases the air pressure in the balls by about 1 psi [1]. Therefore, the balls appear legal when tested by officials, but after a few hours of sitting around, the pressure reduces to below the legal limit. He doesn't specify the process used by the team, but presumably it's some kind of rubbing that heats the ball up, and when it cools down the interior air pressure is reduced accordingly. I'm sure someone will test this out and verify or discredit the claim. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/sports/football/eli-mannings-footballs-are-months-in-making.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/sports/football/eli-mannin... [1] http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2015/01/bill_belichick_defends_patriots_on_deflategate_we.html?p1=feature_pri_hp http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/...

zaroth 12y ago
Going from 75 degrees to 50 produces something like a 1.5 psi reduction. 85 -> 35 wound be closer to a 2psi drop. Water vapor increases the drop. Funny thing is searching for the calculation produces highly variable results.
- axiak 12y ago
  Belichick specifically said he was not talking about atmospheric temperature conditions, but the conditions of the ball. Presumably whatever rubbing of the ball was necessary for preparation heated the air in the ball. He must have explained this in the most obtuse way possible to reduce the chance people call him a cheater for heating the air in the ball.
- jlcummings 12y ago

mrwarn 12y ago

The game against the Colts the Patriots clearly cheated. It is beyond reasonable that 11 of 12 footballs are 2psi less than the rule allows. Especially since the 12th football of regulation weight is the football used for kicking as you want the football inflated properly. But using fumbles as proof of long term violation is tough because their are too many factors to consider. Patriots are a pass heavy team and have been for a long time. They use multiple RB's and a fresh RB is less likely to fumble than one RB used heavily throughout the game due to mental and physical fatigue. WR's fumble but are less likely than RB's. An under-inflated ball is easier to grip so it would be interesting to see how WR's who left have fared on their new teams and if any returned later, after playing poorly on new team, to play well for the Patriots. Since 2007 has Tom Brady's completion % and interception ratio on the road improved drastically? All these things could be explained by an under-inflated but not definitively.

joshuapayne 12y ago
You are incorrect with respect to your explanation of "the 12th football being used for kicking". An entire separate group of footballs are used for kicking, outside control of either team. The kicking balls are brand new and are not allowed to be broken-in. They still have the waxy coating a new ball has. This was done some years ago to try to reduce the effectiveness of kickers.
- mrwarn 12y ago
  I stand corrected, I didnt know that tidbit and just assumed that the 12th ball was for kickoff/field goals. But what about punting is it the same ball used for kicking or would it be part of the 12?
  - etrevino 12y ago
    Punting balls are also the special kicking balls.

asynchronous13 12y ago

I'm not convinced that it's okay to just remove all the dome-teams from the plot. Using the author's data, here's a plot of all the teams and total fumbles (not 'fumbles lost' that the author focuses on): http://i.imgur.com/QP6LXWg.png http://i.imgur.com/QP6LXWg.png The Patriots are not even the top team! It's actually the Falcons that have the most plays per fumble. If it's "nearly impossible" for the Patriots, what does that say about the Falcons? The author focuses on "fumbles lost" because that number is more dramatic if one is trying to prove that the Patriots did something wrong. That number in isolation only shows that the Patriots were extremely good at recovering their own fumbles. Looking at the graph, there is a notable bend at the top 4 teams. Either the top 4 teams have fewer fumbles through training, or the top 4 teams are all cheating somehow. It's hard to call the Patriots statistics impossible when they're in 2nd place.

asynchronous13 12y ago

I'm becoming more disappointed in this analysis. "But in 2007, something happened to propel [the Patriots] to a much better rate." The author is using a 5-year average, and then concluding that something must have happened in a single year that is suddenly different. What that implies to me, is that they had a particularly terrible year in 2002. So, when the really bad year slides off of the 5-year moving average, then the 5-year average suddenly looks much better.

twoodfin 12y ago
Also, while the article ultimately looks at both, the "money chart" is for fumbles lost, rather than total fumbles. I'm pretty sure the stat guys at footballoutsiders.com have more than once run the numbers to show that fumble recovery is pure chance; hard to see how having easier to handle balls increases those odds.

ragtimepiano 12y ago

Listen, engineers and scientists: 11 out of 12 balls, markedly different and underinflated compared to the other team's balls? This is a priori evidence of tampering. Any jury would convict. We don't need a Perry Mason-type confession; we don't need to identify the culprit. The team should be strongly punished for breaking the NFL rules. I think the NFL should do an extensive investigation, after the initial punishment, which justly would be done BEFORE the Super Bowl. This investigation needs to determine whether the Pats have cheated with underinflated balls over a period of months and years. It can be done. Then is the time for scientific analysis, testimony by physicists, and so on. My point is: We don't need to identify the person responsible, and we don't need a confession. Guilt is obvious, a priori. Punishment should be swift.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]