4 ms·

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 ab

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.
- jsyedidia 12y ago
  "Patriots backs simply don't fumble": Yes, because if they have a fumbling problem, they stop playing until they fix it (Ridley) or they cease being Patriots if they can't fix it (Maroney). Belichick is well-known for having a "doghouse" for running backs who fumble. "Your explanation isn't supported by the data": I wasn't trying to give an explanation supported by the data. I was trying to give an explanation for the data that makes sense and is supported by observing the Patriots play. It's like saying Magnus Carlsen must cheat at chess, because the chance of him making so few errors is effectively zero assuming he makes errors at the rate that other grandmasters do.
  - fecak 12y ago
    I'm not sure how useful it is to compare a chess grandmaster to the relatively ordinary (other than fumbling) Patriot running back contingent, past or present. If Carlsen were found with an extra pawn on the board, that might raise eyebrows. I understand that Belichick has a doghouse for backs that fumble. The point seems to be that his doghouse is likely to be rarely occupied since 2007, and whether that is due to coaching, drafting backs with good hands, or something less wholesome. I appreciate the points on Maroney and Ridley.
  - tbrake 12y ago
    I think it would be pretty easy to show, similar to this article - Pre-computer era elite GMs and computer-era elite GMs have similar error rates[1], with the caveat that we presume disagreeing with the computer's top choice to be an error. They mostly agreed with the computer's assessment something like 50-57% of the time. As far as I know Magnus' games haven't been subjected to this kind of analysis, and I recall 2 pretty bad moves in the recent match with Anand, so I'd be interested to see it. I suspect he may be even slightly above 60%. Should it be something like high 70%'s though I think it would be time to start a conversation about it. It's how Ivanov was busted: overwhelmingly playing one of the top 2 engine moves, which is basically impossible. [2] 1 - http://en.chessbase.com/post/computers-choose-who-was-the-strongest-player- http://en.chessbase.com/post/computers-choose-who-was-the-st... 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr0J8SPENjM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr0J8SPENjM
skwirl 12y ago
Fumbling players being treated harshly by their coaches is true of every team as far as I know. That said, I still think it's more likely that the Patriots have some unique practice/drilling regimen that results in less fumbles than they are regularly using deflated balls to their advantage. This is interesting in and of itself, so no matter what, I think this is an interesting analysis. But it's hard for me to believe that they were regularly using under-inflated balls for FOUR YEARS before being detected (or perhaps I should say reported). Of course, giving the context of its publication, we know what it's trying to imply.
- gopher2 12y ago
  Wouldn't be particularly surprising if the ball PSI gradually decreased over time. Brady likes ball as low PSI as is allowed within the rules, and they probably became more and more comfortable with pushing the boundaries over time.
ellyagg 12y ago
No one is claiming the Patriots aren't good. They are claiming that, with extremely good evidence at this point, they also cheated. There are other teams that try really hard to train their players not to fumble, including taking them out until they learn not to fumble. Belichick has been otherworldly good at this training. The Patriots were not always otherworldly at not fumbling. In fact, this acumen started the same year the NFL changed the rules so that the team was allowed to have full control of the balls after pregame inspection. This isn't a minor issue. Turnovers are hugely predictive of game outcomes. The Patriots were caught with deflated footballs. They had deflated footballs for a reason.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jsyedidia 12y ago
  "They had the deflated footballs for a reason.": It's called the ideal gas law. http://nesn.com/2015/01/boston-college-professor-weather-had-to-play-role-in-deflategate/ http://nesn.com/2015/01/boston-college-professor-weather-had... If you're concerned that the chairman of BC's physics department didn't do his calculations correctly, I also have a Ph.D. in physics and corroborated them. Make sure you use both absolute pressure and absolute temperature if you want to do the computations yourself; it's really quite simple. By the way, about why the Colts balls didn't deflate: the BC professor says they may have over-inflated them, but I think a simpler explanation is that if the Colts prepared their balls outdoors and they equilibrated to outdoors temperatures before giving them to the refs, you would not expect them to deflate. Watch Belichick's press conference today, with an understanding of the ideal gas law, and the fact that working in a ball will also increase the temperature of the gas inside it, and it becomes obvious that if they followed the legal procedure Belichick claimed they followed, the Patriots did not cheat, unless you think having your footballs obey the ideal gas law is cheating.
  - fecak 12y ago
    >"if the colts prepared their balls outdoors..." >"they may have over-inflated them..." You are certainly speculating quite a bit here, no? As opposed to assuming the Pats under inflated their balls, intentionally or unintentionally, you are speculating that the Colts over inflated theirs and/or inflated them in a different environment?
bjterry 12y ago
The author of this article did a follow-up post in which he compared individual players before, during and after playing for the Patriots, and found very suspicious trends. On average the players were only good at fumbles when they were playing for New England. Of course, one can still argue that Belichick's focus on fumbling is only effective during the time that players are employed by New England, but you'd still expect to see SOME carryover to players' later teams if only because of whatever good habits they picked up playing for NE. http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/new-england-patriots-fumble-more-often-when-playing-for-other-teams http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/new-england-p...
- ragtimepiano 12y ago
  Assessing Belichick's attitudes toward fumbles is subjective, not objective. The number of player fumbles is objective. Anyone know an NFL coach who likes fumbles? Brady has fumbled multiple times and still starts.

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.
jsyedidia 12y ago
"Patriots backs simply don't fumble": Yes, because if they have a fumbling problem, they stop playing until they fix it (Ridley) or they cease being Patriots if they can't fix it (Maroney). Belichick is well-known for having a "doghouse" for running backs who fumble. "Your explanation isn't supported by the data": I wasn't trying to give an explanation supported by the data. I was trying to give an explanation for the data that makes sense and is supported by observing the Patriots play. It's like saying Magnus Carlsen must cheat at chess, because the chance of him making so few errors is effectively zero assuming he makes errors at the rate that other grandmasters do.
- fecak 12y ago
  I'm not sure how useful it is to compare a chess grandmaster to the relatively ordinary (other than fumbling) Patriot running back contingent, past or present. If Carlsen were found with an extra pawn on the board, that might raise eyebrows. I understand that Belichick has a doghouse for backs that fumble. The point seems to be that his doghouse is likely to be rarely occupied since 2007, and whether that is due to coaching, drafting backs with good hands, or something less wholesome. I appreciate the points on Maroney and Ridley.
- tbrake 12y ago
  I think it would be pretty easy to show, similar to this article - Pre-computer era elite GMs and computer-era elite GMs have similar error rates[1], with the caveat that we presume disagreeing with the computer's top choice to be an error. They mostly agreed with the computer's assessment something like 50-57% of the time. As far as I know Magnus' games haven't been subjected to this kind of analysis, and I recall 2 pretty bad moves in the recent match with Anand, so I'd be interested to see it. I suspect he may be even slightly above 60%. Should it be something like high 70%'s though I think it would be time to start a conversation about it. It's how Ivanov was busted: overwhelmingly playing one of the top 2 engine moves, which is basically impossible. [2] 1 - http://en.chessbase.com/post/computers-choose-who-was-the-strongest-player- http://en.chessbase.com/post/computers-choose-who-was-the-st... 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr0J8SPENjM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr0J8SPENjM

skwirl 12y ago

Fumbling players being treated harshly by their coaches is true of every team as far as I know. That said, I still think it's more likely that the Patriots have some unique practice/drilling regimen that results in less fumbles than they are regularly using deflated balls to their advantage. This is interesting in and of itself, so no matter what, I think this is an interesting analysis. But it's hard for me to believe that they were regularly using under-inflated balls for FOUR YEARS before being detected (or perhaps I should say reported). Of course, giving the context of its publication, we know what it's trying to imply.

gopher2 12y ago
Wouldn't be particularly surprising if the ball PSI gradually decreased over time. Brady likes ball as low PSI as is allowed within the rules, and they probably became more and more comfortable with pushing the boundaries over time.

ellyagg 12y ago

No one is claiming the Patriots aren't good. They are claiming that, with extremely good evidence at this point, they also cheated. There are other teams that try really hard to train their players not to fumble, including taking them out until they learn not to fumble. Belichick has been otherworldly good at this training. The Patriots were not always otherworldly at not fumbling. In fact, this acumen started the same year the NFL changed the rules so that the team was allowed to have full control of the balls after pregame inspection. This isn't a minor issue. Turnovers are hugely predictive of game outcomes. The Patriots were caught with deflated footballs. They had deflated footballs for a reason.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jsyedidia 12y ago
"They had the deflated footballs for a reason.": It's called the ideal gas law. http://nesn.com/2015/01/boston-college-professor-weather-had-to-play-role-in-deflategate/ http://nesn.com/2015/01/boston-college-professor-weather-had... If you're concerned that the chairman of BC's physics department didn't do his calculations correctly, I also have a Ph.D. in physics and corroborated them. Make sure you use both absolute pressure and absolute temperature if you want to do the computations yourself; it's really quite simple. By the way, about why the Colts balls didn't deflate: the BC professor says they may have over-inflated them, but I think a simpler explanation is that if the Colts prepared their balls outdoors and they equilibrated to outdoors temperatures before giving them to the refs, you would not expect them to deflate. Watch Belichick's press conference today, with an understanding of the ideal gas law, and the fact that working in a ball will also increase the temperature of the gas inside it, and it becomes obvious that if they followed the legal procedure Belichick claimed they followed, the Patriots did not cheat, unless you think having your footballs obey the ideal gas law is cheating.
- fecak 12y ago
  >"if the colts prepared their balls outdoors..." >"they may have over-inflated them..." You are certainly speculating quite a bit here, no? As opposed to assuming the Pats under inflated their balls, intentionally or unintentionally, you are speculating that the Colts over inflated theirs and/or inflated them in a different environment?

bjterry 12y ago

The author of this article did a follow-up post in which he compared individual players before, during and after playing for the Patriots, and found very suspicious trends. On average the players were only good at fumbles when they were playing for New England. Of course, one can still argue that Belichick's focus on fumbling is only effective during the time that players are employed by New England, but you'd still expect to see SOME carryover to players' later teams if only because of whatever good habits they picked up playing for NE. http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/new-england-patriots-fumble-more-often-when-playing-for-other-teams http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/new-england-p...

ragtimepiano 12y ago
Assessing Belichick's attitudes toward fumbles is subjective, not objective. The number of player fumbles is objective. Anyone know an NFL coach who likes fumbles? Brady has fumbled multiple times and still starts.