Ah Yes, That OTHER Framegate Urban Myth - - Fumbles

[leehanu]

Can you please change title? Title should say Framegate not Deflategate.

 

[Concussion Protocol]

No idea.

So I guess "Forced fumbles" doesn't include fumbled snaps, but "Recovered fumbles" does. That's the only way Chicago can have 1 forced fumble but 4 fumble recoveries.

 

[patchick]

Sure, and the original claim passed on about deflategate used fumbles lost over many years to claim NE was a huge outlier.

When it was redone for all fumbles it showed what this says, the Patriots are pretty good but not necessarily the best.

Bob, the Patriots have the #1 fewest fumbles in the NFL since 20004. They ARE the best at that. The nonsense wasn't so much in the stats as in the usual problem: punishing excellence, and using success as evidence of cheating.

(A much better debunking of the PSI/fumbles connection is that Green Bay, an acknowledged OVER-inflator, also has a below-average long term fumble rate.)

 

[A Defiant Goose]

The one I like is that I think the Patriots were up there in drops. This, of course, came after 10 drops against the Jets. One huge outlier of a game, and suddenly it's "SEE! PROPERLY INFLATED FOOTBALLS ARE HARDER TO CATCH...CHEATERZ!"

 

[BradyFTW!]

Now that the league is making sure the Patriots don't cheat with the football inflation, those Patriots stats on fumbling MUST be getting closer to the average, right????????

-----------

@MikeReiss
Patriots have league-low 3 turnovers through 7 games. Lions (20) & Colts (19) w/ NFL high. Patriots' plus-7 differential tied for 2nd in NFL
------


Soooo......(Given Brady's 1 INT - - and not his fault) that means the Pats have TWO total lost fumbles in 7 games this year. They are on a 5 pace.

Weren't "properly inflated" footballs supposed to bring them back to the pack?

And those were both by Dion Lewis in the first two games of the season. Pats haven't lost a fumble in 5 games.

 

[borg]

A more relevant set of facts would isolate the fumble rate exclusive to cold/wet games. The world believes Brady wants his balls deflated for every game. Some would argue Brady's "ball grip" only becomes an issue when balls are cold = slick, wet = slick, or cold + wet =very slick. Using September/October stats to demonstrate innocence is a bit premature.
Regardless........Pat's never deflated......Fire Goodell!!!

 

[Tony2046]

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Fumble Recovery Percentage on TeamRankings.com

Just went back over the data for the last 4 years for each teams fumble recovery success rate.

Each team has various success rates over the the 4 year rate. (rounded up)

The best 4 year avg was Jacksonville at 56%
The worst 4 year avg was Detriot at 42%

NE ranked 12th at 52%

Single season success rate not including this year: (2012,2013,2014)

Best: Dallas 2013 at 68%
Worst: Jets 2013 at 30%

NE Best: 2013 at 63%
NE Worst: 2012 at 47%

Current rates for 2015:

Best: San Francisco 73.33%
Worst: Tennessee 21.05%

NE: New England 38.46%

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

There were many fatal flaws in the fumble rate = cheating argument, but not the least of which was their "gotcha" observation that the Patriots fumbling rate went from somewhat high in 2006 to league's lowest in 2007. The fumble-truther allegation was that the rules changes for NFL football preparation went into effect for the 2007 season. The real truth: the rules changes for NFL football preparation went into effect for the 2006 season, when the Patriots fumbling rate rose by a large amount over the prior year.

The fumble-truthers altered a fact (the timing of the rule change) to best fit the fumbling data to their agenda-driven conclusion.

 

[Deus Irae]

2 things to note:

1. The argument about the Patriots fumbles was that they were a significant outlier in comparison to other outdoor teams. In other words, it was cherry picked.
   
2. The drop in Patriots fumble numbers is largely because of the drop in Tom Brady's fumble numbers.

In short, the "Patriots fumbles" argument really doesn't even deserve a civil response.

 

[Tony2046]

Another interesting site that covers each individual fumble by team and position.

Edit: Forgot the link. Most Fumbles and Fumbles Lost: 2015 NFL Season

2015

QB Fumble rates:

Fumbles: 118
Lost : 49

Tom Brady; 3/1
Worst: Josh McCown CLE 9/ 6

RB Rates:

Fumbles/Lost: 75/42

Dion Lewis: 2/1
Worst: Melvin Gordon SD 4/3

WR Rates:

Fumbles/Lost: 65/36

No Patriots
Worst: Brandon Marshall NYJ 3/2 (not sure if this includes his lateral attempt)

 

[shmessy]

Can you please change title? Title should say Framegate not Deflategate.

Good point.

Done.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Bob, the Patriots have the #1 fewest fumbles in the NFL since 20004. They ARE the best at that. The nonsense wasn't so much in the stats as in the usual problem: punishing excellence, and using success as evidence of cheating.

(A much better debunking of the PSI/fumbles connection is that Green Bay, an acknowledged OVER-inflator, also has a below-average long term fumble rate.)

Why did you use 2004? Did something happen to make that a good starting point?



I was referring to this chart from the original analysis on sharpfootball. He used 5 year periods, and used another chart since 2010. In either chart the Falcons were the best. 2010 is obviously arbitrary, as well as five year periods.

He did other analysis using 2000 (year BB became the coach) and 2007 (the year teams prepped their own balls) which is less arbitrary. Also others have looked at fumbles per play which is probably better.

 

[patchick]

Why did you use 2004? Did something happen to make that a good starting point?

LOL...honestly, what happened was that I realized I only had 3 minutes until my conference call started, so I had to stop compiling data and post! Ah, self-employment.

It may well be that a different sample would move the Pats down a notch or two, sorry if I overstated the case. But I still don't think that the Patriots "put the ball on the ground a lot" but just recover at an extraordinary rate, which was the statement I was disagreeing with.

 

[Tony2046]

There were many fatal flaws in the fumble rate = cheating argument, but not the least of which was their "gotcha" observation that the Patriots fumbling rate went from somewhat high in 2006 to league's lowest in 2007. The fumble-truther allegation was that the rules changes for NFL football preparation went into effect for the 2007 season. The real truth: the rules changes for NFL football preparation went into effect for the 2006 season, when the Patriots fumbling rate rose by a large amount over the prior year.

The fumble-truthers altered a fact (the timing of the rule change) to best fit the fumbling data to their agenda-driven conclusion.

This is an excellent article by Bleacher Report regarding the Sharp Analysis.

Did Balls Give Pats a Fumble Edge?

Consistency is a key factor apparently left out.

Have the same HC and QB for 15 years adds to the consistency of a lot of stats where as many teams have various HC changes, backup QB's etc.. during the same window of comparison.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

...He did other analysis using 2000 (year BB became the coach) and 2007 (the year teams prepped their own balls) which is less arbitrary. Also others have looked at fumbles per play which is probably better.

 

[Deus Irae]

LOL...honestly, what happened was that I realized I only had 3 minutes until my conference call started, so I had to stop compiling data and post! Ah, self-employment.

It may well be that a different sample would move the Pats down a notch or two, sorry if I overstated the case. But I still don't think that the Patriots "put the ball on the ground a lot" but just recover at an extraordinary rate, which was the statement I was disagreeing with.

Your cutoff date is significant, because it results in a situation similar to the 2007 date that those who made the original charge were dealing with.

Brady fumbles:
2001 - 12
2002 - 11
2003 - 13


2004 - 7
2005 - 4


2006 - 12


2007 - 6
2008 - 0 (IR year)
2009 - 4
2010 - 3
2011 - 6
2012 - 2


2013 - 10


2014 - 6


So, yeah.... If you start looking from 2004, you see a significant dropoff in fumbles. If you compare 2006 with the years following, you get a significant dropoff in fumbles. It mirrors the QB.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

...He did other analysis using 2000 (year BB became the coach) and 2007 (the year teams prepped their own balls) which is less arbitrary....

His choice of 2007 was flat-out wrong, because the ball prep rules were changed during the offseason that came BEFORE the 2006 season.

His use of 2007 was a mistake on his part, and not (I believe) one that was made by accident. His use of 2007 made it look like the Patriots fumbling rate went way down exactly as the new ball-handling procedures were introduced. The correct use of 2006 as the starting point would have troubled him, as the Patriots fumbling rate went WAY UP exactly as the new procedures were introduced.

Data sets often have significant random fluctuations, even ones that are large in magnitude. Correlation is not causation. He tried to fit one such large random fluctuation to a "cause" that would support his argument of cheating, blinded to truth that he was making a huge mistake.

 

[adam941]

Are Buttfumbles considered forced?

Those are [team] self-inflicted, obviously.

 

[Galeb]

Those are self-inflicted, obviously.

He didn't run into his own butt.

 

[lurker1965]

Now that the league is making sure the Patriots don't cheat with the football inflation, those Patriots stats on fumbling MUST be getting closer to the average, right????????

-----------

@MikeReiss
Patriots have league-low 3 turnovers through 7 games. Lions (20) & Colts (19) w/ NFL high. Patriots' plus-7 differential tied for 2nd in NFL
------


Soooo......(Given Brady's 1 INT - - and not his fault) that means the Pats have TWO total lost fumbles in 7 games this year. They are on a 5 pace.

Weren't "properly inflated" footballs supposed to bring them back to the pack?

My response to that was Your Guide To Deflate-gate/Ballghazi-Related Statistical Analyses So if you add back those teams cut out for "simplicity" the Patriots go from an outlier to not even the best? OK, good article, too bad it took less than a day to debunk.