Ted Wells' Assistant: Doesn't Matter Which Gauge Was Used

upstater1 · May 13, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
You initial post ignores the part that says ONLY if they were measured in the first 4 months and the majority were wet, which they then say was not the case.

They also did not conduct proper tests on the wet factor.

They do say they were wet.

The 4 minutes thing seems pretty reasonable, no, for 11 balls? How long would it take to measure 11 balls? They actually don't say the balls weren't measured in 4 minutes.

Where did you get that?

Ross12 · May 13, 2015

I also find it funny that their recording arrangement was for the refs to measure and then "yell out" to a third guy to write down the numbers. For all we know this guy could've misheard the referee measuring or simply fudged the numbers.

Ring 6 · May 13, 2015

upstater1 said:
They do say they were wet.

They tested the effect of being wet by spritzing the balls every 15 minutes then wiping them off. Not a good representation.

The 4 minutes thing seems pretty reasonable, no, for 11 balls? How long would it take to measure 11 balls? They actually don't say the balls weren't measured in 4 minutes.

Where did you get that?

Nope, they dismiss it, based on wells telling them what to use:

Page 52
In addition, the Patriots halftime measurements will only fall within this small window if they were taken immediately after the footballs arrived in the Officials Locker Room at halftime and were completed no more than 4 minutes later. Based on information provided by Paul, Weiss, however, we understand that testing is likely to have begun no sooner than 2 minutes after the balls were brought into the locker room and was estimated to have taken approximately 4 to 5 minutes (leading to an ending time of between 6 and 7 minutes, and thus, an average measurement time of between 4 and 4.5 minutes, assuming a start time of 2 minutes). The timing conditions required for the transient curves to overlap with, and thus explain, the average pressure measured for the Patriots balls at halftime (even at the outer edge of the error band) are, therefore, unlikely to have been met. Given the likely timing of the testing, one would expect the average halftime pressure measured for the Patriots footballs on Game Day to be higher than what was actually recorded.

neuronet · May 13, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
Can we please stop making things up, and placing them in quotes and attributing them to be funny?
It really screws up the discussion.

Crap, were those not real quotes I was responding to?

Ring 6 · May 13, 2015

This is another interesting excerpt:

They are concluding the results of the Patriots balls based upon assuming things about the Colts balls.
Here they are explaining that the temperatures they use for pre-game and halftime measurements in the locker room are different because of how the Colts balls measured, assuming when they were measured.
Given that there was no consideration put into whether the balls had reached equilibrium at 67 degrees when measured pre-game, this is an extraordinary assumption.

In recognition of the remaining uncertainty as to which gauge was used to measure the footballs pre-game and in the interest of completeness, similar tests were run using the Logo Gauge. The Logo Gauge was used to set the pressure of two balls to 12.50 psig (representative of the Patriots) and two balls to 13.00 psig (representative of the Colts). From each set (corresponding to each team), one ball remained dry while exposed to the game temperature and the other was wet. In this scenario, the game temperature and the halftime measurement temperatures were set to the same values (for the same reasons) as the experiments done with the Non-Logo Gauge (48°F for the game and between 72 and 73°F for the halftime measurement temperatures). However, the pre-game temperature was set at 67°F because this was the only temperature that allowed the Colts balls to subsequently reach their average pressure during the simulated Locker Room Period. Any pre-game temperature that was higher than 67°F resulted in the Colts balls reaching the Game Day halftime average pressure later than 13.5 minutes into the Locker Room Period.

neuronet · May 13, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
They tested the effect of being wet by spritzing the balls every 15 minutes then wiping them off. Not a good representation.

Yes, they should actually use wetness as a parameter in its own right, treat it as a variable that they systematically measure the effects of, finding levels that would cause overlap with the actual PSI measured.

neuronet · May 13, 2015

Palm Beach Pats fan, we need you again. time to write another 900 page post, my friend, looking at all the ins-and-outs, including information from the report, and Wells' press conference.

I'd start a 1000 dollar gofundme to fund you to do this....Anyone game?

Bobsyouruncle · May 13, 2015

tombonneau said:
This is why you just keep your mouth shut and why you don't turn over your phone. You slip up and say something dumb and give yourself enough enough rope to hang yourself.

Wells had no upside only downside holding this call. Glad Kraft rattled his cages.

Now Blandino caught in bald face lie is all they need to seal the deal on this one.

Or this is why you don't lie. Easy to not get caught in a lie when you're telling the truth.

upstater1 · May 13, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
They tested the effect of being wet by spritzing the balls every 15 minutes then wiping them off. Not a good representation.

Nope, they dismiss it, based on wells telling them what to use:

Page 52
In addition, the Patriots halftime measurements will only fall within this small window if they were taken immediately after the footballs arrived in the Officials Locker Room at halftime and were completed no more than 4 minutes later. Based on information provided by Paul, Weiss, however, we understand that testing is likely to have begun no sooner than 2 minutes after the balls were brought into the locker room and was estimated to have taken approximately 4 to 5 minutes (leading to an ending time of between 6 and 7 minutes, and thus, an average measurement time of between 4 and 4.5 minutes, assuming a start time of 2 minutes). The timing conditions required for the transient curves to overlap with, and thus explain, the average pressure measured for the Patriots balls at halftime (even at the outer edge of the error band) are, therefore, unlikely to have been met. Given the likely timing of the testing, one would expect the average halftime pressure measured for the Patriots footballs on Game Day to be higher than what was actually recorded.

Which gauge?

Because I'm reading from a page in the 200s using the other gauge.

hambone1818 · May 13, 2015

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:
The wetness of footballs, as we know, causes a pressure drop by expansion of the leather

Wet footballs brought into a warm environment at first experience, counter-intuitively, a further drop in pressure due to the phenomenon of evaporative cooling.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/new-england-patriots-tom-brady-deflategate-scientist-050715

Wet footballs will not follow the curves shown in the Wells report. They will drop in pressure a little more, until they are somewhat dry, and then they will warm up and the pressure will rise.

Playing football in a downpour is also not mimicked by their spray bottle spritz test.

The change in pressure over time will not be linear, it is likely even partly bell-shaped: down, then up. And the testing of the Patriots footballs would have been in this non-linear part of the real pressure/time graph.

For them to say that choosing to throw out half of the data, and then choosing WHICH half to throw out (so that the one remaining best fits their story, even if it goes against the memory of the ref)

had no effect on their analysis

is just flat out SLEAZY.

Serious question: can you put something together, similar to what you did for Peter King, and get in contact with Mr. Kessler, put the bug in his ear about the biased/incomplete scientific data? He's a fantastic lawyer, I'm sure he's spending time trying to poke holes in the report and will have experts look at the Exponent data. But if he had a little birdie point out various flaws right from the get-go he and the experts can drill right into how shoddy their analysis was. Couldn't hurt to send it to Yee as well, maybe he works behind the scenes getting this stuff out to the public through some media channels.

BradyFTW! · May 13, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
They tested the effect of being wet by spritzing the balls every 15 minutes then wiping them off. Not a good representation.

Nope, they dismiss it, based on wells telling them what to use:

Page 52
In addition, the Patriots halftime measurements will only fall within this small window if they were taken immediately after the footballs arrived in the Officials Locker Room at halftime and were completed no more than 4 minutes later. Based on information provided by Paul, Weiss, however, we understand that testing is likely to have begun no sooner than 2 minutes after the balls were brought into the locker room and was estimated to have taken approximately 4 to 5 minutes (leading to an ending time of between 6 and 7 minutes, and thus, an average measurement time of between 4 and 4.5 minutes, assuming a start time of 2 minutes). The timing conditions required for the transient curves to overlap with, and thus explain, the average pressure measured for the Patriots balls at halftime (even at the outer edge of the error band) are, therefore, unlikely to have been met. Given the likely timing of the testing, one would expect the average halftime pressure measured for the Patriots footballs on Game Day to be higher than what was actually recorded.

I think the issue that's ultimately going to come up if/when this comes up in front of a neutral third party, is pretty much as follows: if you're 75% sure that 50 different things happened, you simply can't say with any confidence at all that ALL of those things happened, which would have to be the case to construct the argument that the Wells report has constructed.

So if they're 75% sure that Andersen used the gauge that fits their case, and 75% sure that the balls were measured within the appropriate timeline, and 75% sure that Brady was lying about not knowing McNally, and 75% sure that Andersen's recollection of the pregame ball pressure is correct, and 75% sure that McNally was lying about what he did in the bathroom, and 75% sure that McNally was referring to a deflation scheme when he called himself the deflator, and 75% sure that the deflation was done after the balls were submitted to the refs... well, the result would be that they can't be even remotely confident that all of these things happened, thus indicating that a) the balls were deflated after referee inspection and b) Brady was aware of it.

The argument presented in the report simply doesn't meet the preponderance of evidence standard.

chasa · May 13, 2015

neuronet said:
Wait...what?! Are you sure Wells said this, again contradicting someone who was actually there? If you are reporting this correctly (I have no reason to doubt you, I'm just trying to give the benefit of the doubt to both sides, which is becoming increasingly apparent is stupid on my part) this is ****ing ridiculous!? WTF? Brady, please please please fight this.

My reports are about as accurate as Ted Wells.

upstater1 · May 13, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
This is another interesting excerpt:

They are concluding the results of the Patriots balls based upon assuming things about the Colts balls.
Here they are explaining that the temperatures they use for pre-game and halftime measurements in the locker room are different because of how the Colts balls measured, assuming when they were measured.
Given that there was no consideration put into whether the balls had reached equilibrium at 67 degrees when measured pre-game, this is an extraordinary assumption.

In recognition of the remaining uncertainty as to which gauge was used to measure the footballs pre-game and in the interest of completeness, similar tests were run using the Logo Gauge. The Logo Gauge was used to set the pressure of two balls to 12.50 psig (representative of the Patriots) and two balls to 13.00 psig (representative of the Colts). From each set (corresponding to each team), one ball remained dry while exposed to the game temperature and the other was wet. In this scenario, the game temperature and the halftime measurement temperatures were set to the same values (for the same reasons) as the experiments done with the Non-Logo Gauge (48°F for the game and between 72 and 73°F for the halftime measurement temperatures). However, the pre-game temperature was set at 67°F because this was the only temperature that allowed the Colts balls to subsequently reach their average pressure during the simulated Locker Room Period. Any pre-game temperature that was higher than 67°F resulted in the Colts balls reaching the Game Day halftime average pressure later than 13.5 minutes into the Locker Room Period.

LOL, it was all a big clusterfrig.

First off, that previous bit about the balls being measured in the first 4 minutes doesn't account for the fact the Colts balls were measured just before the half, a full 14 minutes in the locker room.

upstater1 · May 13, 2015

The thing to do is to attack that poor fool retired professor from Princeton who signed off on all this stuff.

NashuaPats · May 13, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
They tested the effect of being wet by spritzing the balls every 15 minutes then wiping them off. Not a good representation.

Nope, they dismiss it, based on wells telling them what to use:

Page 52
In addition, the Patriots halftime measurements will only fall within this small window if they were taken immediately after the footballs arrived in the Officials Locker Room at halftime and were completed no more than 4 minutes later. Based on information provided by Paul, Weiss, however, we understand that testing is likely to have begun no sooner than 2 minutes after the balls were brought into the locker room and was estimated to have taken approximately 4 to 5 minutes (leading to an ending time of between 6 and 7 minutes, and thus, an average measurement time of between 4 and 4.5 minutes, assuming a start time of 2 minutes). The timing conditions required for the transient curves to overlap with, and thus explain, the average pressure measured for the Patriots balls at halftime (even at the outer edge of the error band) are, therefore, unlikely to have been met. Given the likely timing of the testing, one would expect the average halftime pressure measured for the Patriots footballs on Game Day to be higher than what was actually recorded.

One thing they do not address in the Exponent report, was where were the balls in the two minutes before testing and as the testing was going on.

The test seems to assume the balls were perfectly exposed to the warmer air of the locker room the whole time.
However, the balls were brought into the locker room in a zipped up duffle bag which does have some insulation. If they remained in that zipped up bag for the first two minutes, the bag would have kept them cool. If they tested each ball as it was retrieved from the bag, the rest of the balls would still be bunched up against each other in the bag which would slow the warming process thus making Exponent's transient curve incorrect and would falsely push the Patriots' balls below the expected range.

If I had done the testing as a referee at half time, I would have taken each ball out one by one as I tested them. It seems like the most logical way to do it.

I don't know what the referees did, but the fact that Exponent did not address this seems rather suspicious to me and even nefarious as does many of the factors they ignored or misled on such as the rain simulation.

RDS11 · May 13, 2015

BradyFTW! said:
So if they're 75% sure that Andersen used the gauge that fits their case, and 75% sure that the balls were measured within the appropriate timeline, and 75% sure that Brady was lying about not knowing McNally, and 75% sure that Andersen's recollection of the pregame ball pressure is correct, and 75% sure that McNally was lying about what he did in the bathroom, and 75% sure that McNally was referring to a deflation scheme when he called himself the deflator, and 75% sure that the deflation was done after the balls were submitted to the refs...

I'm going to one up this scenario...instead of 75%, let's say 90% just for fun, to give Wells a chance.
Well, then the chances that each and everyone of these assumptions are true (at the same time) is less than 50% (47.8%).

Thus, that would make the report conclusion 'less probable than not'.

Of course, I'm just playing with numbers...but wasn't it what Wells did ?

Dr Pain · May 13, 2015

Lorin Reisner was a government lawyer with the SEC before he joined this firm. What the heck does he know about this subject and he misrepresents his own report Page 228 "In sum, the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain."...

Ross12 · May 13, 2015

Dr Pain said:
Lorin Reisner was a government lawyer with the SEC before he joined this firm. What the heck does he know about this subject and he misrepresents his own report Page 228 "In sum, the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain."...

This is one of the most important parts of the report... Exponent specifically stating that they can't make any real determinations because the critical data is a load of BS.

Ring 6 · May 13, 2015

upstater1 said:
Which gauge?

Because I'm reading from a page in the 200s using the other gauge.

Logo

Ring 6 · May 13, 2015

upstater1 said:
LOL, it was all a big clusterfrig.

First off, that previous bit about the balls being measured in the first 4 minutes doesn't account for the fact the Colts balls were measured just before the half, a full 14 minutes in the locker room.

At some point they mention that. In fact I think they use it as the proof that Anderson is wrong about the gauge, because the Colts balls could only reach a certain number by 13 1/2 minutes.
Ironically they are using exact numbers to assume occurances while using gauges that differ by .35 to .4 psi and also football that do not all measure the same even though they assume they all started the same.

Ted Wells' Assistant: Doesn't Matter Which Gauge Was Used

Hall of Fame Poster

Moderator

PatsFans.com Supporter

Homer Little

PatsFans.com Supporter

Homer Little

Homer Little

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Hall of Fame Poster

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

Goodell sucks

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Hall of Fame Poster

Hall of Fame Poster

In the Starting Line-Up

On the Game Day Roster

In the Starting Line-Up

Moderator

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Similar threads