The 2014 NFL Playoffs Thread

It is if you've followed the thread and know the error that Warren Sharp made. It's there for anybody to see.

so are we just going to pretend that the Pats are not going to be punished at all?

The story has been so blown out of proportion that the NFL may have to do something just to save face. I don't think that the NFL will find any evidence that the Patriots tampered with the footballs. The problem is that they don't need any, and can do what they want. They don't need a smoking gun, and there is no due process. The commissioner may have more to lose than the Patriots in this situation, and my guess is that there will be some sort of penalty levied after the Superbowl, quite possibly unfairly.

Meanwhile, ESPN sports scientist John Brenkus was on the radio today. He disputed Bill Belichick's experiments on footballs relating to weather, but also stated his belief that the difference in psi would result in no advantage for the Patriots. This is the belief that I have had all along. It has also been widely reported that the difference in psi would result in a difference of 2 pounds in the weight of the football. This misinformation has been so widely reported, that even major publications such as The New Yorker have copied it. This may help explain the wide range of opinions on the matter.

Here is the link to his interview-

http://media.weei.com/device/mobile/...te-1-28-14.htm

Yeah, but the question was about how you know in general. It's another conclusion based on subjective experience.

Also, isn't Sharp a professional handicapper? He may be right or wrong (or biased) but it seems kinda nuts to say he "doesn't know football."

Is this a playoff thread or a deflategate thread? I've heard very little about the actual game

If they didn't want people getting distracted by all sorts of stuff surrounding the game they shouldn't have given us a whole second week to kill time waiting for it.

We only had a week off in between. I mean we had the Pro Bowl. Everyone loves the Pro Bowl!

I say he doesn't know football because all the work he did in his original analysis was based on fumbles lost, which is meaningless. It actually had to be pointed out to the fraud that he needed to do his work all over again.

Professional handicapper? Does that mean he's a tout too? Those slugs are a dime a dozen-no respect for those pieces of crap who prey on the suckers of the world.

I thought it was a little off that Sharp decided to completely eliminate dome teams from his analysis, so I looked into it a little further. While many people blindly take his data as fact, some have began to question his methodology, and correctly suggest that numbers can, and sometimes do lie. Here are a couple articles that have recently come out challenging Sharp's findings. As a matter of fair disclosure, one of them is written by a admitted Patriots fan. Either way, good points are made-

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-t...mos-1681805710

http://www.drewfustin.com/2015/01/27...mble-comments/

Fumbles lost isn't meaningless, it's just not as good as fumbles. And the argument that it's meaningless is one of those geeky stat-based arguments about how fumbles recovered tends to regress to the mean, by the way.

Regardless, his initial use of that stat could just as well be evidence of bias. Or a simple failure to notice which one he was sorting a data table by (which would explain why he called it "fumbles").

Both are much more likely explanations than the idea that a professional handicapper doesn't know the game. Nor does whether or not he's a "slug" or a "piece of crap" have anything to do with his level of knowledge.

No matter how you slice it, he did all the work and than had to do it all again, and he needed someone to point out his mistake. And being a "professional handicapper" is nothing special. You don't even have to watch the games to "handicap". Successful betting is less about knowing football and more about knowing line movement.

So, professional handicappers and advanced analysis guys don't know football, but you do because you have "real football knowledge," and you can just tell when someone doesn't.

Alrighty.

No, I didn't say those things. I'm saying that having those labels doesn't mean that they know football, although that's what they would like you believe. As far as Sharp goes, I think his mistake speaks volumes about him individually. I also never claimed that I'm an expert on the NFL, but I know a few things.

So, what do you think of those articles? Still take Sharp's analysis as fact?

You claimed you "know very well what stats are relevant, which aren't" and could tell when someone didn't know football. You also said everyone who talks a lot about data doesn't know football.

Dude, if you thought I ever took Sharp's analysis as "fact," then you simply aren't paying attention.

It also makes me wonder whether or not you're reading these things. I've asked this a few times, and it's kind of conspicuous that you never answer. I'm guessing no, that you didn't/don't, because you've decided you already know all you need to, right? You already know "which stats are relevant, which aren't."

I would love to have a serious discussion about what the data do and do not say. That's literally what I've been trying to do the whole time. But you're clearly not interested in that. Any fact that doesn't jibe with the conclusion gets rationalized away with a completely subjective opinion based on how you just "know football."

Arguing data with someone who's willing to throw the entire concept under the bus at any moment is pointless.

I feel like you're trying to make this about other things than what I have been focused on. My whole point in this whole thing is that Warren Sharp's analysis is flawed, that his stats are not facts. My beef is with him.

I really don't know how to feel about all this and don't want to feed the fire. However something about this is really bothering me, it make the whole thing smell fishy, and I don't think anyone has mentioned. Taking Belicick and Brady out of the equation because they obviously have stake in all this. There have been a lot of players, coaches, both current and former who have weighed in on the subject. Some are telling us that they are very particular about the balls they use. Who touches them and when and the like. Then there are a bunch who are saying they had no clue about these rules and are shocked that this is an issue. These two competing comments are baffling to me because they are so at odds with each other. It just doesn't make sense to me that there would be two vastly different thoughts on something like this at the professional level.

This is just my gut talking so take it for what its worth. I think most everyone knew that people have been messing with the balls for years but it is just now blowing up because someone blew the whistle. I have a feeling there a lot of guilty lying parties here. In that way it reminds me of steroids in baseball, the only way it reminds me of that, so no one go nuts on me. Everyone was fine with what was going on until someone wasn't. Then everyone had the who me look on their face. I say just make the rules what they should be, make sure someone is enforcing those rules, move on. It worked in baseball it will work here.

__________________
Letterboxd

I would tend to agree with you, Sean.

Yes, I am making it about other things, because your "beef" with this one dude is irrelevant. He could be the most biased, dishonest, fire-breathing Pats hater in the world. That has nothing to do with how we analyze (yes, and critique) the data he presents.

The whole point of using data is that you can study it independent of someone's personality, because biased people are not automatically wrong and objective people are not automatically right. You should assume everyone is biased and study it for yourself. This is why I almost laughed out loud when you asked me if "still took his analysis as fact." If that's what you think being a "stat geek" means, then no wonder you have such a low opinion of it.

I can go on, but I have no interest in playing a rigged game. Once you declared that you already knew which stats matter and which didn't, there was no point in continuing. You can't have a discussion about data with someone who's given themselves license to trump any piece of it with their self-credentialed Real Football Knowledge card.

Great points, sean. Aaron Schatz said recently (Pats fan and stats geek, by the way) that he thinks "everybody's been driving 70 and the Pats got caught going 85." Which I think is pretty likely. If everybody cheats sometimes, or a little, the team that gets caught is usually gonna be the one doing it more often and more obviously than the others.

There's another angle, too, which is that everybody doing something is still different than one team doing everything. For example, maybe a third of the teams tweak the air pressure, and maybe a third used to tape signals, but maybe nobody else did both, or did both all the time, etc. That would fit both with the idea that other teams break rules and explain why the Pats have been in the crosshairs.

I don't even know what point you're trying to make. My point is simply that Warren Sharp's data is off. And as far as stat geeks go, a stat geek could know football, but being a stat geek doesn't mean you do. I don't think that's an especially keen observation on my part. As far as Sharp goes, I don't see how a guy that really knows football could go out and base his entire argument on the wrong stat.

Just read that Phil Jackson said in '86 that his 70s Knicks team deflated the basketball:

"Less air pressure slowed down fast-break teams, helped the Knicks clear the boards -- since the ball wouldn't carom as far off the rim -- and didn't hinder the flow of New York's offense, which relied more on passing than dribbling.

"Jackson, who is now president of the Knicks, said the team carried around inflation needles to let air out of the ball."