Deflating deflategate --[Mod Edit] AEI Opinion Piece in NY Times

MagicMarker said:

So (and anyone can correct me if I'm wrong), the two big complaints about the Wells Report were

1. You have to assume the balls were measured pre-game using the opposite gauge from the one Anderson was reasonably sure he used.

2. It doesn't take into account (at least not in the conclusions) the warming of the Colts balls for being in the locker room longer.

Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by BIG? In no priority seq (just as I think):

3. Compared pats 11 vs only 4 of 12 colts balls; yet based conclusion on pats lost more psi than colts
4. Stated organization had no knowledge, but nfl used to give org largest penalty in history
5. Failed to provide psi post game after spending 5m (yet supposedly info now avail -- 4 were measured and all balls were OVERINFLATED post game after warming)
6. Obscured dates of the oh so sinister text messages to conclude that offseason texts PREDATING the SEASON by four months could point to a conspiracy to deflate footballs in postseason play
7. Failed to investigate nfl leaks, lies, sting etc
8. Ignored that colts violated the no changing game balls rule by testing pats ball
9. Ignored that nfl NEVER cared about this issue before ( Rogers, Vikes-jags game )
9b. Ignored that refs had pumped balls to 16 before jesters game
10. Accuses TB of lying because he doesn't know name of game day employee (8 days out of 365) who he would not have the time-opportunity to interact with hardly at all (while TB dresses this guy is sitting in refs locker room)
11. Makes wildly gross allegations based on slimest margins of proof (if you accept all their flawed 'logic', you are still left with only slightly more probable than not) and the brand new std for crimes: "SHOULD have been generally aware"
12. Latest stats based analysis claims they actually did numerical analysis two different ways and based accusation /proof on the PRELIMINARY analysis, which internally they said needed to be refined, then ignored all the refinements (ideal gas law) analysis that disproved their case when making the conclusion

And now I'm tired, but I'm sure there are a few more. 3, 5, 6, 10,11, 12 seem like big complaints to me

At least curran tells bedard like it is

Tom E. Curran ‏@tomecurran 9h9 hours ago
Tom E. Curran retweeted Greg A. Bedard

I'd say the guy without the obvious financial stake for himself and his firm. But that's me.

Tom E. Curran added,

Greg A. Bedard @GregABedard
@SVN2010 @BenVolin Ted Wells, his lab and a renowned scientist say math is good. These guys say no. Who am I supposed to believe?

SVN said:

At least curran tells bedard like it is

Tom E. Curran ‏@tomecurran 9h9 hours ago
Tom E. Curran retweeted Greg A. Bedard

I'd say the guy without the obvious financial stake for himself and his firm. But that's me.

Tom E. Curran added,

Greg A. Bedard @GregABedard
@SVN2010 @BenVolin Ted Wells, his lab and a renowned scientist say math is good. These guys say no. Who am I supposed to believe?

Click to expand...

Seeing some prominent posters in those chains on Curran's twitter feed, good job guys!

Gumby said:

Depends what you mean by BIG? In no priority seq (just as I think):

3. Compared pats 11 vs only 4 of 12 colts balls; yet based conclusion on pats lost more psi than colts
4. Stated organization had no knowledge, but nfl used to give org largest penalty in history
5. Failed to provide psi post game after spending 5m (yet supposedly info now avail -- 4 were measured and all balls were OVERINFLATED post game after warming)
6. Obscured dates of the oh so sinister text messages to conclude that offseason texts PREDATING the SEASON by four months could point to a conspiracy to deflate footballs in postseason play
7. Failed to investigate nfl leaks, lies, sting etc
8. Ignored that colts violated the no changing game balls rule by testing pats ball
9. Ignored that nfl NEVER cared about this issue before ( Rogers, Vikes-jags game )
9b. Ignored that refs had pumped balls to 16 before jesters game
10. Accuses TB of lying because he doesn't know name of game day employee (8 days out of 365) who he would not have the time-opportunity to interact with hardly at all (while TB dresses this guy is sitting in refs locker room)
11. Makes wildly gross allegations based on slimest margins of proof (if you accept all their flawed 'logic', you are still left with only slightly more probable than not) and the brand new std for crimes: "SHOULD have been generally aware"
12. Latest stats based analysis claims they actually did numerical analysis two different ways and based accusation /proof on the PRELIMINARY analysis, which internally they said needed to be refined, then ignored all the refinements (ideal gas law) analysis that disproved their case when making the conclusion

And now I'm tired, but I'm sure there are a few more. 3, 5, 6, 10,11, 12 seem like big complaints to me

Click to expand...

I would add:

There is a single "Deflator" text that is hard to put in context. It was written in May.

In October, McNally measures some footballs after Brady complains and says the refs ****ed them, several were at 16 psi.

If there was a scheme to deflate footballs after the ref approves them way back in May how did these 16 psi footballs ever get put into play?

Why does Brady bother telling the ballyboys to carry a copy of the 12.5 to 13.5 rules and show them to the refs each game if in fact they were simply getting the balls where they wanted them in the bathroom afterwards anyway?

MagicMarker said:

So (and anyone can correct me if I'm wrong), the two big complaints about the Wells Report were

1. You have to assume the balls were measured pre-game using the opposite gauge from the one Anderson was reasonably sure he used.

2. It doesn't take into account (at least not in the conclusions) the warming of the Colts balls for being in the locker room longer.

Click to expand...

-----------------------------------------
Regarding which gauge was used....If we operate under the assumption that the logo gauge was used, the balls fall right in line with where they should have been. BUT.....Even if you switch gauges, the average difference between the 2 gauges was roughly .4 PSI (forget the exact figure). So this would mean that the result of a risky, well organized, cloak and dagger scheme was to achieve less than a half pound per square inch of reduction per ball. That strikes me as far-fetched, and it did from day one. It also just HAPPENS to be the amount that the 2 gauges were off by. Right.
Regarding using the Colt's balls as an ersatz control group: 1. Most of them were not tested. At all. 2. Yes, had longer to warm up. 3. Were likely inflated and stored in different conditions that the Pats' balls before the pre game inspection. 4. Very likely less exposed to the elements during the first half than the Pats' balls.
The fundamental characteristic of a "control group" is that all conditions are kept the same except for one variable, in order to determine if that variable induces a different result. In this case the variable in question should have been that the Patriots had control of the footballs. But there were many more differences involved, so that part of the science is junk. What isn't junk is that the measurements of the Pats' balls was directly in line with what one would expect, and even if you go by the non-logo gauge, were so close to that as to make any effort to achieve that difference pretty pointless.

SVN said:

At least curran tells bedard like it is

Tom E. Curran ‏@tomecurran 9h9 hours ago
Tom E. Curran retweeted Greg A. Bedard

I'd say the guy without the obvious financial stake for himself and his firm. But that's me.

Tom E. Curran added,

Greg A. Bedard @GregABedard
@SVN2010 @BenVolin Ted Wells, his lab and a renowned scientist say math is good. These guys say no. Who am I supposed to believe?

Click to expand...

You are supposed to believe the one that is correct. But even if you believe Wells, and the assumption that the non-logo gauge was used, the end results while statistically significant would not warrant the necessary effort it would have taken to achieve them.
You are also not supposed to believe the one that uses the Colts' balls as a control group. That would not pass muster in a high school science class.

Beethree said:

So this would mean that the result of a risky, well organized, cloak and dagger scheme was to achieve less than a half pound per square inch of reduction per ball. That strikes me as far-fetched, and it did from day one. It also just HAPPENS to be the amount that the 2 gauges were off by. Right.

Click to expand...

Well, you know how those rascally Cheatriots are! Always sneaking around, using their evil magical psychic Cheatriot powers for nefarious ends.

(The voice-recognition on my phone actually had a match for Cheatriots. Ugh.)

Whichever gauge you use, the few Colts footballs tested were the biggest outliers, so the all-important gotcha (important, according to Wells) that the Colts footballs were different, with statistical significance, from the Patriots footballs only can happen if...

-the Colts footballs that were tested had much more time to warm up (which we KNOW is true),
or
-the Colts illegally inflated their footballs
or
-the ref mis-remembered, he had indeed used the non-logo gauge, the Colts balls STILL had time to warm up (or they illegally inflated them), and the Patriots bizarrely took (on average) about 0.2 psi out of their footballs (2 a little more, 3 none at all, and the rest by this imperceptible amount).

That last scenario seems like a bizarre half-assed plan for anyone to follow to hope to gain any meaningful advantage.

Plus, and this is important but mostly overlooked:

You also need to take into account the results of the NFL official who pressure-tested the football that the Colts had intercepted. He checked it 3 times, getting readings of 11.35, 11.45, and 11.75 psi. Thus the same person, with the same gauge, testing the same ball, likely in the same MINUTE in time, got readings that varied by 0.4 psi.

Thus even in the most bizarre scenario, where you allege that the Pats took out 0.2 psi, this amount is not reliably detectable as significant in one reading, because of the INHERENT error of the measurement

To me, the most mind-boggling assertion of the Wells' report is not scientific but logical in its basis: Walt Anderson said he's never had the locker room attendant take the balls without being accompanied by a league or game official and that it was only the chaos of people watching the NFC Championship game that gave McNally the opportunity to take off with the balls. Okay, how could there be a pre-planned conspiracy to tamper with the footballs when, ordinarily, there would never be an opportunity to do so?

Kenneth Sims said:

To me, the most mind-boggling assertion of the Wells' report is not scientific but logical in its basis: Walt Anderson said he's never had the locker room attendant take the balls without being accompanied by a league or game official and that it was only the chaos of people watching the NFC Championship game that gave McNally the opportunity to take off with the balls. Okay, how could there be a pre-planned conspiracy to tamper with the footballs when, ordinarily, there would never be an opportunity to do so?

Click to expand...

And the fact that McNally also went out unattended with the balls AFTER halftime...

Danger Zone said:

I would add:

There is a single "Deflator" text that is hard to put in context/

Click to expand...

McNally used deflator once according the Wells report. Yet, deflator shows up 16 times in the report. If the NFL's case wasn't so flimsy, the case wouldn't rely on such a singular piece of circumstantial evidence.

It would be interesting if McNally used deflator with others in his text messages and what the context of that was.

SVN said:

At least curran tells bedard like it is

Tom E. Curran ‏@tomecurran 9h9 hours ago
Tom E. Curran retweeted Greg A. Bedard

I'd say the guy without the obvious financial stake for himself and his firm. But that's me.

Tom E. Curran added,

Greg A. Bedard @GregABedard
@SVN2010 @BenVolin Ted Wells, his lab and a renowned scientist say math is good. These guys say no. Who am I supposed to believe?

Click to expand...

Bedard believes the science is a toss up, but believes Wells' opinion (which he shares) of how he interpreted the texts is beyond question.

Koma said:

Bedard believes the science is a toss up, but believes Wells' opinion (which he shares) of how he interpreted the texts is beyond question.

Click to expand...

My opinion of Bedard has vastly changed during this whole thing. Ya he may know how to break down film but I think his season spent on the 2-6 98.5 douchebag show did something to him. I also don't ignore the fact that he is now a "national" guy working for MMQB and he doesn't want to lose people who hate the Pats. But still there is a way to be unbiased and saying the science is a toss up and believing wells' opinion on the whole text thing is beyond question is not taking an unbiased view.

Gumby said:

6. Obscured dates of the oh so sinister text messages to conclude that offseason texts PREDATING the SEASON by four months could point to a conspiracy to deflate footballs in postseason play

Click to expand...

Not to mention said predated text was used to paint the Pats as uncooperative. Pats legal counsel said that wells would get 1 interview barring any unforeseen future circumstances. Which wells then deliberately held that deflator text from that interview and then requested another interview later on because "his team hadn't gone that far back in the texts before the interview."

Well his team not looking that far back in the messages isn't an unforeseen circumstance, he was given the text messages in advance, s0 that is on him for not going through all of the texts.

Which then he knew the Pats counsel would deny it because 1 interview was agreed. But then Pats counsel agreed to a phone interview which wells declined. Why if you are an unbiased investigator and you want to get context on that message why are you declining a phone interview?

Kenneth Sims said:

To me, the most mind-boggling assertion of the Wells' report is not scientific but logical in its basis: Walt Anderson said he's never had the locker room attendant take the balls without being accompanied by a league or game official and that it was only the chaos of people watching the NFC Championship game that gave McNally the opportunity to take off with the balls. Okay, how could there be a pre-planned conspiracy to tamper with the footballs when, ordinarily, there would never be an opportunity to do so?

Click to expand...

That's a great point. Anderson has been a head referee since 2003. Over the course of those 11 seasons, including any Patriots games he worked, someone has always accompanied the locker room attendant to the field with the footballs.

If Wells was really investigating this, he would have reached out to the officials to find out what their protocol is in that situation. I imagine the response would be "We never leave the footballs unattended. Someone always accompanies them to the field." That may just be the officials covering themselves and not wanting to admit to lax behavior, but it also might be true. In that case, you'd be left with zero opportunities to tamper with the footballs, which is probably why no one has ever asked the officials about that.

Koma said:

Bedard believes the science is a toss up, but believes Wells' opinion (which he shares) of how he interpreted the texts is beyond question.

Click to expand...

Well, it's science. Deciding who you choose to believe is not how you decide what is the right answer. The proper thing to do is peer review the results.

MagicMarker said:

Well, it's science. Deciding who you choose to believe is not how you decide what is the right answer. The proper thing to do is peer review the results.

Click to expand...

True, but the science isn't that hard. I haven't taken a science class in twenty years and I was able to tear apart Exponent's report myself coming up with the points that AEI, Drew Fustin, and others came up with. I was even able to calculate the expected PSI levels myself the day after the AFC Championship game by simply googling the IGL formula. I'm not bragging, it just isn't very hard. You don't need MIT math PHDs to solve or peer review an algebra problem. That's why this is so maddening. This whole witch hunt would have played very well in the movie Idiocracy. Maybe they can make a sequel with Goodell as the President and Wells as VP.

MagicMarker said:

Well, it's science. Deciding who you choose to believe is not how you decide what is the right answer. The proper thing to do is peer review the results.

Click to expand...

But that is how Goodell determined BB was lying in Spygate, when he said he took the phrase "during the playing of the game" to mean that he could tape as long as the information gained was not used in that game, but Rex Ryan and Mike Westhoff were telling the truth in Tripgate when they claimed they were not aware of what was going on on their own sidelines. Mike Westhoff also used "The Pats do it too" as part of his defense, so he was apparently able to recognize the practice in others, but was never curious to see if his own team might be doing the same thing.

One man, with ultimate power, got to determine how those two cases were resolved just by deciding who he would choose to believe, and who he would choose to disbelieve.

NashuaPats said:

True, but the science isn't that hard. I haven't taken a science class in twenty years and I was able to tear apart Exponent's report myself coming up with the points that AEI, Drew Fustin, and others came up with. I was even able to calculate the expected PSI levels myself the day after the AFC Championship game by simply googling the IGL formula. I'm not bragging, it just isn't very hard. You don't need MIT math PHDs to solve or peer review an algebra problem. That's why this is so maddening. This whole witch hunt would have played very well in the movie Idiocracy. Maybe they can make a sequel with Goodell as the President and Wells as VP.

Click to expand...

It's not really the physics science, but the statistics science.

Leaving out for a minute if this were to be decided by a court, it would be thrown out before calculating anything because they didn't record the pre-game readings, they didn't confirm which gauge they used, they didn't record the timing of the half time readings and other pieces of missing information.

What I'm talking about is the statistics...You try to define a model and fit the data. AEI says Exponent didn't use more than one variable and didn't use a constant term. Is that wrong? I don't know...seems like it. But from my stats courses, I recall you create a model, run the data through it and then calculate how accurate the data fits the model (that's the coefficient of determination, or r-squared). If the r-squared is too low, you add more variables. One problem with this case is every time you add a variable, your standard deviation goes up -- and there wasn't many data points to begin with.

Still, having to assume the opposite gauge was used by Walt Anderson and having to include the Colts over inflated balls to show a significant difference seems like cherry picking to me.

I did try to tweet to AEI and ask them what the r-squareds were, but they didn't respond.