Patriots Fumble Rates Compared to Other Teams

dikembe said:

IS RELATED TO STEVAN RIDLER NOT PLAYING IN GAME

Click to expand...

Yes! A Dikembe sighting!

No Browns receiver fumbled all season long on 274 receptions. No Viking or Jet receiver lost a fumble all season long on 322 and 287. Must all be because of the footballs.

NE and NYG runners had 1 fumble each, none lost. 438 and 449 rushes. MIN 3/1, 413.

Vikings on both lists. I guess they must be cheaters.

This is probably the dumbest piece of evidence haters are trying to use. Those of us who actually watch pats games know that the coaching staff emphasises ball security to an insane degree

At the end of the day, the turnover stat is one of the most compelling in all of football.

I say anything bb can do personnel wise or drill wise to help ensure we do not turn the ball over, especially on fumbles only makes us stronger.

In a normal world these numbers would be a testiment to BB coaching and insistance on ball security. Anyway very imcomplete Info.

Mark12 said:

Maybe this has to do with the fact that you will left in the doghouse if you fumble ONCE.

Que the conspiracy theories

Click to expand...

You don't end up in the doghouse you end up playing elsewhere. Every coach teaches ball security, Belichick demands it. You put the ball on the ground and you will be gone. That type of emphasis tends to breed results. And the truth of the matter is there are plenty of teams playing with footballs inflated to the lower end of the spec, and I solely doubt you would find any correlation to turnover numbers.

I respect the analysis but the suggested conclusion is infuriating and incomplete.

Here are the damning league rankings for the Patriots in terms of fumbles:


Clear evidence the Pats were using under-inflated footballs in every year since 2006. (Excepting 2013, when they inexplicably forgot to do so.)

Here are the unincriminating league rankings for the Colts in terms of fumbles:


In 7 of the last 8 years, the Pats put together an incredible run of rarely putting the ball on the turf. In the 7 years between 2004 and 2010, the Colts put together a similar, and more consistent run of never coughing the ball up. That both streaks coincide with both offenses running spread-out passing systems with elite QBs with famously quick releases and read progression is a meaningless correlation.

The implication that fumbles go up when you put in a bad QB (Indy 2011, Curtis Painter) or supply your QB with sub-standard WRs (NE 2013) is also a figment of your imagination.

What actually happened in 2013 is the Colts stole the Pats illegal footballs before the season and substituted their own rock-hard fumble-prone footballs in their place. The Pats detected the ruse this offseason and stole the rigged balls back.

Tom Brady didn't play in 2008. His knee was blown out. So I guess Cassel was a cheater too because he didn't fumble much either. Who gives a bleep? BB hates fumbles. It is a point of emphasis for him. He teaches his team to secure the ball. What is the problem here?

unoriginal said:

Here are the damning league rankings for the Patriots in terms of fumbles:

Code:

2003    14
2004    13
2005    12
2006    22
2007    1
2008    4
2009    4
2010    1
2011    4
2012    5
2013    24
2014    2

Click to expand...

This is what I was looking for, if we were actually doing something illegal and using softer balls and no one else in the league was, wouldn't be #1 every year in fumbles lost?

Other teams emphasize ball security, but other teams haven't had the same coaches for 15 years. All I see is the Patriots have been better than average most years, but not always. And not the best most years. I don't find that to be amazing.

PatsWickedPissah said:

It's fumbles lost. If you recover your fumbles the stat changes.
Graph the % running plays vs passing over the same timescale and you'll notice a decrease. Most fumbles are by RBs.

Click to expand...

If it is only fumbles lost - what is the purpose to this set of analytics? In the Ravens game, didn't the Pats fumble 3 times, yet recover all of them?

Ochmed Jones said:

At the end of the day, the turnover stat is one of the most compelling in all of football.

I say anything bb can do personnel wise or drill wise to help ensure we do not turn the ball over, especially on fumbles only makes us stronger.

Click to expand...

Turnovers are also the most variance induced stat in the NFL, which is already a game of huge variance anyway due to small sample sizes. Even with this, the Patriots are still within a couple standard deviations of the league norm so this article is yet another case of using stats to try and make a point.

What actually happened in 2013 is the Colts stole the Pats illegal footballs before the season and substituted their own rock-hard fumble-prone footballs in their place. The Pats detected the ruse this offseason and stole the rigged balls back.[/QUOTE]


Where did this come from?

Jim Colclough fan said:

Unoriginal said:

What actually happened in 2013 is the Colts stole the Pats illegal footballs before the season and substituted their own rock-hard fumble-prone footballs in their place. The Pats detected the ruse this offseason and stole the rigged balls back.

Click to expand...

Where did this come from?

Click to expand...

The data I provided.

unoriginal said:

The data I provided.

Click to expand...

How do you know the Colts "stole the Pats illegal footballs in 2013 and the Pats detected the ruse and stole them back?"

The implications (if true) are obvious

VectorPrime said:

Of course I do.

It's kind of odd that BJGE started fumbling in Cincy though. Reverting to the mean makes sense especially being coached by Marvin Lewis but its not like he forgot what he learned in New England. So why the sudden increase?

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure law firm hadn't fumbled in college, either, though. That wouldn't explain the increase in Cincinnati but it would indicate that it wasn't simply something about the Patriots that led him not to fumble pre-Cinci.

Jim Colclough fan said:

How do you know the Colts "stole the Pats illegal footballs in 2013 and the Pats detected the ruse and stole them back?"

The implications (if true) are obvious

Click to expand...

The data is incontrovertible that the Pats and the Colts had complete opposite results in 2013 for team fumbles. Since the Pats performance in the surrounding years was caused by the properties of Patriots footballs, the only way to explain this statistical anomaly is by concluding the Colts must have had the Patriot footballs that year.

unoriginal said:

The data is incontrovertible that the Pats and the Colts had complete opposite results in 2013 for team fumbles. Since the Pats performance in the surrounding years was caused by the properties of Patriots footballs, the only way to explain this statistical anomaly is by concluding the Colts must have had the Patriot footballs that year.

Click to expand...

Oh gosh..........you're statistical data as a basis for actual theft? Come on.....................

The spike was Steven Ridely replacing the law firm, and the drop after that spike is Ridely being placed on IR....

Jim Colclough fan said:

Oh gosh..........you're statistical data as a basis for actual theft? Come on.....................

Click to expand...

Go back and re-read everything Unoriginal posted in that thread trail. Then think. If it doesn't come to you after that, go find yourself a new sarcasm meter.