Armando Salguero: Ted Wells is not an investigator, he is a prosecutor

[upstater1]

I've twisted nothing. Three of the balls came in slightly below the expected measurements. You don't think that's compelling, I don't think that's compelling, but neither has anything to do with whether it is evidence.

All you have to do is change your rant to say they don't have any compelling evidence and I'd agree with you. But to say they have no evidence at all is factually incorrect. I honestly don't know any other way to say this, so if you still disagree I guess we're at an impasse.

I read Palm Beach's post about the balls where he averaged the two together. That's why I wrote what I did. If you're looking at one of the ref's measurements, then yeah, you'll find balls below. But then other questions come in that neither you nor I have info on. Who measured the balls first? Is the divergence because of gauges? Was air coming out with each measure? The fact that one ref had higher and lower readings on either set shows that additional info is needed. Presumably, Wells has this info.

If his info is that the gauges were differently calibrated or that one refs initial readings are more credibble, then that gets me right back to my original point. There is no evidence period. Not even compelling evidence.

I will go one step further for you. The reason that Wells states that the scientific stuff is not convincing is because the Colts balls were considered the control set, and they didn't show enough of a drop.

He is not at all making any requirements as to the Patriots balls. He might even be convinced. What makes him suspicious is the Colts balls.

But while he thinks the divergence between the two sets is some evidence, it actually is not.

UNLESS he believes that the Colts balls somehow defied the rules of Physics.

 

[Oswlek]

I think the issue is that they have "evidence" but that "evidence" can lead to multiple different interpretations

That's precisely what evidence often does, it is then incumbent on the observer to find additional evidence or explain why his conclusion is the best possible one.

 

[karguy85]

That's precisely what evidence often does, it is then incumbent on the observer to find additional evidence or explain why his conclusion is the best possible one.

I'm a lawyer. I know what evidence does. But there was an immediate disqualification of any benign interpretation by Wells and his team. That to me speaks of a biased investigation. They buried a lot of this in the appendices and footnotes.

 

[Ring 6]

I read Palm Beach's post about the balls where he averaged the two together. That's why I wrote what I did. If you're looking at one of the ref's measurements, then yeah, you'll find balls below. But then other questions come in that neither you nor I have info on. Who measured the balls first? Is the divergence because of gauges? Was air coming out with each measure? The fact that one ref had higher and lower readings on either set shows that additional info is needed. Presumably, Wells has this info.

If his info is that the gauges were differently calibrated or that one refs initial readings are more credibble, then that gets me right back to my original point. There is no evidence period. Not even compelling evidence.

I will go one step further for you. The reason that Wells states that the scientific stuff is not convincing is because the Colts balls were considered the control set, and they didn't show enough of a drop.

He is not at all making any requirements as to the Patriots balls. He might even be convinced. What makes him suspicious is the Colts balls.

But while he thinks the divergence between the two sets is some evidence, it actually is not.

UNLESS he believes that the Colts balls somehow defied the rules of Physics.

What about how can you consider a difference of less than .40 psi significant if the instruments you use vary by .40?
Add .40 to all measurements and they are more than within the Ideal Gas Law expectation.
If a gauge calibrated to .40 psi is acceptable how can a result within .40 not be?

 

[upstater1]

What about how can you consider a difference of less than .40 psi significant if the instruments you use vary by .40?
Add .40 to all measurements and they are more than within the Ideal Gas Law expectation.
If a gauge calibrated to .40 psi is acceptable how can a result within .40 not be?

The thing that really kills me about the total dismissal of the science is that they admit they use the Colts ball as a control set.

And this morning I read of how 538.com on ESPN read right past that and agreed that the Colts balls should be treated as the control.

As though the Colts balls ability to defy physics was unworthy of attention.

 

[Oswlek]

I'm a lawyer. I know what evidence does. But there was an immediate disqualification of any benign interpretation by Wells and his team. That to me speaks of a biased investigation. They buried a lot of this in the appendices and footnotes.

I completely agree. That's probably my biggest beef with the report.

 

[Oswlek]

The thing that really kills me about the total dismissal of the science is that they admit they use the Colts ball as a control set.

Yet another enormous problem, particularly when there is no journal and the person cannot recall which gauge they used.

 

[Ring 6]

The thing that really kills me about the total dismissal of the science is that they admit they use the Colts ball as a control set.

And this morning I read of how 538.com on ESPN read right past that and agreed that the Colts balls should be treated as the control.

As though the Colts balls ability to defy physics was unworthy of attention.

The trick they pulled was that even though the Colts balls are above the expectation from the IGL that is in compliance because they probably warmed up before they were measured.
If you read the study it isn't to determine how the psi of the balls reacted to the conditions, but to determine if they were deflated. Therefore if the Colts balls measure 16 they would have said they were fine.

The IGL actually suggests that it is more likely than not that air was added to the Colts balls.