[Mod Edit] Must Read: Drew Fustin Article on Deflategate Science

[jeffro]

I noticed that too but I don't think many have seen it. It is actually a pretty good point by Exponent. Both the Colts and Patriots would have had to be using gauges that were off similar to the logo gauge or both would have had to supply balls that were under the requested specs by the same variance. Seems unlikely. Then again, since Walt's recollection is off as to which gauge he used, it could certainly mean that it was off elsewhere as well. And with such a vary low tolerance between passing and not, every little detail counts. Its way too many assumptions to really be a conclusive judgement. This is my biggest problem with the report.

Below is the reasoning in the Exponent appendix in the report. Now why didn't they try to get the Colts and Patriots gauges to shore up this point? This is a big lapse by Exponent/Wells if you ask me. If Pats can show that McNally's gauge reads high then they blow away the Exponent conclusions.

From exponent:

It has been shown that the Logo Gauge consistently reads higher than all other gauges analyzed in this investigation. As a result, it is very unlikely that the Logo Gauge would have read similarly to the gauges used by each team. Therefore, it is most likely that the gauge used by Walt Anderson prior to the game was the Non-Logo Gauge, which read similarly to the Master Gauge and other gauges tested during the investigation.

 

[Tony2046]

I think all parties on either side of this investigation would agree that...at best...there's a 0.3 psig differential that can't be explained. And in the worst case, where the 0.3 differential occurred for one ball, the differential was less than 0.3 for the remaining 10 balls. So....

1) has anyone attempted to see how precisely an individual could deflate 13 balls (from a starting psia of 12.5) in increments as small as 0.1 psig?
2) furthermore, could such preciseness be uniformly replicated given 100 seconds to accomplish this feat??
3) and lastly, what would be the motivation to deflate the balls by such a small increment - i.e. to make such a practice worthy of the inherent risk?

This is what leads me to believe that if anything happened it was McNally trying to make sure they were at 12.5 and not 16. But they did not keep any footballs for evidence instead they re-inflated them. If there was ever a need for back up footballs that was the time to use them.

 

[patsfan13]

Below is the reasoning in the Exponent appendix in the report. Now why didn't they try to get the Colts and Patriots gauges to shore up this point? This is a big lapse by Exponent/Wells if you ask me. If Pats can show that McNally's gauge reads high then they blow away the Exponent conclusions.

From exponent:

It has been shown that the Logo Gauge consistently reads higher than all other gauges analyzed in this investigation. As a result, it is very unlikely that the Logo Gauge would have read similarly to the gauges used by each team. Therefore, it is most likely that the gauge used by Walt Anderson prior to the game was the Non-Logo Gauge, which read similarly to the Master Gauge and other gauges tested during the investigation.

Smoke and mirrors from Exponent, which of course is their job.

IF as "More Likely Than Not" Anderson used the Logo gauge and approved the balls then the rest is noise which is why Wells suggested to Anderson that his recollection of the PSI for 48 balls were spot on but that his recollection which gauge he used to make his precision measurement wasn't. Otherwise he couldn't provide the 'work product' that Goodell and Kensil were paying millions for.

 

[NashuaPats]

Smoke and mirrors from Exponents for sure.

They determined the non logo gauge was used because it was closer to the master gauge and thus probably closer to the gauges the Patriots and Colts used. This makes sense upon first reading, but it is so flawed.

They found that the non logo gauge was 0.07 below the master and the logo gauge was 0.31 higher than the master. So the non logo was 0.24 closer to the master. If we were to slide the master scale down just 0.12, it would fall exactly in the middle. 0.12 psi translates to 2.4 degrees F. So if the master guage measurement was done in a room just 2.5 F higher than the room that the logo and non logo gauge measurements were taken, that measurement would fall closer to the logo gauge.

In other words, if the Pats and Colts balls were set in a room 2.5F warmer than the pregame officials locker room, the logo gauge would fall more in line with those measurements than the non logo gauge. The pregame locker room was 67-71F. If the Pats and Colts locker rooms were 69.5-73.5 F, then the logo gauge would gave been more in line with each team's psi settings. Keep in mind the half time officials locker room was set at 71-74, so is it not unlikely that the Colts and Pats locker rooms where the balls were worked on and set was also set to 71-74?

This is rather simple, yet Exponent failed to address this despite the many pages of analysis between the two gauges and the master gauge. That's extremely suspicious. Did anyone even bother finding out the temoerature of the rooms the teams were in when they set the pressure of the balls? I did not see it in the report. So suspicious.

Further, if Jastremski rubbed the balls down prior to setting them, they would be artificially high at the time (something he may not think about). It would then drop in pressure by the time the ref checked them again, this would favor the logo gauge. As per the report, "Jastremski told us that he set the pressure level to 12.6 psi after each ball was gloved". The report talked about how the balls would be in equilibrium when Anderson measured them, failed (or chose not) to mention that they could be artificially high when set by Jastremski. And then threw out the notion that Anderson used the gauge with the higher reading.

Smoke and mirrors.

 

[patsfan13]

Exponents history is 'proving' nonsense to fulfill their clients agenda. Which is fine, part of the legal system and subject to challenge. The fact that this was the best they could come up with trying to push the PAtriots tampered with the balls meme shows how little the NFL really has.

This was a sting and a prosecution and the science doesn't hold up with out a lot of smoke, mirrors and stretching credulity. Goodell, Wells, Kensel, Blandino et al understood that the media and the vast majority of fans wouldn't make it by the Predetermined conclusion.

 

[jeffro]

Further, if Jastremski rubbed the balls down prior to setting them, they would be artificially high at the time (something he may not think about). It would then drop in pressure by the time the ref checked them again, this would favor the logo gauge. As per the report, "Jastremski told us that he set the pressure level to 12.6 psi after each ball was gloved". The report talked about how the balls would be in equilibrium when Anderson measured them, failed (or chose not) to mention that they could be artificially high when set by Jastremski. And then threw out the notion that Anderson used the gauge with the higher reading.

This is brilliant. I think there is a good chance that this is exactly what happened. Someone should email Drew Fustin or otherwise get this point out there tied to Fustin's analysis.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Further, if Jastremski rubbed the balls down prior to setting them, they would be artificially high at the time (something he may not think about). It would then drop in pressure by the time the ref checked them again, this would favor the logo gauge. As per the report, "Jastremski told us that he set the pressure level to 12.6 psi after each ball was gloved". The report talked about how the balls would be in equilibrium when Anderson measured them, failed (or chose not) to mention that they could be artificially high when set by Jastremski. And then threw out the notion that Anderson used the gauge with the higher reading.

Exponent said that the rubbing treatment raised the pressure by 0.7psi. They also said that they tested how long that effect lasted and said it was gone in 15-20 minutes. The Wells Report said it was way more than 20 minutes (I can't remember the exact interval) between when the balls were rubbed and when they were given to the refs. Therefore the effects of rubbing would have "worn off" by the time the balls were submitted to the refs and so there would be no post-check pressure drop due to the rubbing effect "wearing off" because it already had "worn off".

Now, you can say that's all lies , but they did address it.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

This is brilliant. I think there is a good chance that this is exactly what happened. Someone should email Drew Fustin or otherwise get this point out there tied to Fustin's analysis.

Isn't that what Belichick said actually happened in his Mona Lisa Vito press conference?

Edit: just saw above post, thanks for providing the information!

 

[jeffro]

Exponent said that the rubbing treatment raised the pressure by 0.7psi. They also said that they tested how long that effect lasted and said it was gone in 15-20 minutes. The Wells Report said it was way more than 20 minutes (I can't remember the exact interval) between when the balls were rubbed and when they were given to the refs. Therefore the effects of rubbing would have "worn off" by the time the balls were submitted to the refs and so there would be no post-check pressure drop due to the rubbing effect "wearing off" because it already had "worn off".

We are talking about the ball condition when the Pats set it, not when the refs checked it. Apparently the Pats set the ball pressure soon after the rubbing.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

We are talking about the ball condition when the Pats set it, not when the refs checked it. Apparently the Pats set the ball pressure soon after the rubbing.

Yeah, but so what? When the balls go the the refs the refs re-set them within spec. In fact, Anderson said two of the NE balls were too low and he brought them up to 12.5. So regardless of when rubbing was done (as long as it was done more than 15-20 minutes before balls were submitted to refs), when the balls left the Official's Locker Room they were all 12.5 or higher (with respect to whatever gauge Anderson used). Thus the rubbing will have zero effect on what subsequently happened to ball pressure.

 

[RobertWeathers]

When it comes to math, science and reading we are the Jacksonville Jaguars of the world.

Looks like Denmark is the Raiders.

 

[jimache]

The ideal gas law has NOT been repealed.

... not YET, wait until the next Competition Committee meeting.

 

[Sciz]

The rubbing was worthwhile to bring up when Belichick thought he had to explain a drop to 10.1 PSI. Now that we know the real readings, we can assume there was no effect and the math still adds up.

 

[jeffro]

Yeah, but so what? When the balls go the the refs the refs re-set them within spec. In fact, Anderson said two of the NE balls were too low and he brought them up to 12.5. So regardless of what rubbing was done, when the balls left the Official's Locker Room they were all 12.5 or higher (with respect to whatever gauge Anderson used). Thus the rubbing will have zero effect on what subsequently happened to ball pressure.

It all goes to figuring out if Anderson used the logo gauge like he thinks he did, which reads a little high. If he used the logo gauge then the exponent conclusions fall apart because they assume he used the non-logo gauge.

 

[emoney_33]

Further, if Jastremski rubbed the balls down prior to setting them, they would be artificially high at the time (something he may not think about). It would then drop in pressure by the time the ref checked them again, this would favor the logo gauge. As per the report, "Jastremski told us that he set the pressure level to 12.6 psi after each ball was gloved". The report talked about how the balls would be in equilibrium when Anderson measured them, failed (or chose not) to mention that they could be artificially high when set by Jastremski. And then threw out the notion that Anderson used the gauge with the higher reading.

Exactly. The conclusion that the non-logo gauge was used goes against the facts presented in the report. The report itself directly proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Logo gauge was used.

Jastremski told us that he set the pressure level to 12.6 psi after each ball was gloved and then placed the ball on a trunk in the equipment room for Brady to review.

After about 20 minutes of rubbing, the pressure increased in a given ball by approximately 0.7 psi.

Walt Anderson did not inspect the Patriots game balls until approximately 3:45 p.m., more than thirty minutes after the balls were delivered to the Officials Locker Room, and when he did, he found them to be set at or near 12.5 psi, neither artificially high (as they would have been if still subject to the effects of gloving) nor artificially low (as they would have been once, according to Belichick, they reached equilibrium after the gloving).

This means that the 12.6 that Jastremski set the balls to was actually artificially high since it happened right after gloving. 30 minutes later the balls would have come down to around 12.0 as measured on the Patriots gauge. So the readings of the balls that Walt Anderson took would have read around 12.0 on the Patriots gauge. Which means they would have read around 12.0 on the non-logo gauge and around 12.5 on the logo gauge. Walt Anderson remembers using the logo gauge and remembers all but 2 balls being around 12.5. It is thus a virtual certainty that the logo gauge was used.

Using the logo gauge in the simulation shows that weather **alone** explains all of the measurements, even without addressing the evaporative cooling that the simulation failed to account for. It is far more probable than not that no one on the Patriots stuck a needle in any football after Walt Anderson measured them.

 

[juny]

Check out this link and its scientific rebuttal to the Wells report

http://wellsreportcontext.com/

 

[jeffro]

Look at the tweets to the right. Pats writers are reading the Fustin analysis. I hope they also become aware of NashuaPats point about the Pats setting the football pressure after they were rubbed, and how this points to the logo gauge being used.

 

[emoney_33]

Yeah, but so what? When the balls go the the refs the refs re-set them within spec. In fact, Anderson said two of the NE balls were too low and he brought them up to 12.5. So regardless of what rubbing was done, when the balls left the Official's Locker Room they were all 12.5 or higher (with respect to whatever gauge Anderson used). Thus the rubbing will have zero effect on what subsequently happened to ball pressure.

What it means is that if Walt Anderson used a gauge that closely resembled the calibration of the gauge the Patriots used, he should have measured the Patriots balls at 12.0. The fact that he measured them at 12.5 means the gauge he was using (which he recalls as the logo gauge) would have been reading around 0.5 higher. Not coincidentally, the Logo gauge consistently measures ~.5 higher than the other gauges. This means Walt had to have used the Logo gauge, and the simulation using the Logo gauge shows that the half-time measurements of Patriots footballs are entirely explained by the effect of weather on air pressure.

 

[wahwho]

And just to be clear, when you say 'variance' you actually mean 'range' because statistical variance is calculated by summing the squared differences between observations and the mean and dividing by sample size. Using the right terminology might keep things less confusing.

Right, sorry.

 

[NashuaPats]

This is brilliant. I think there is a good chance that this is exactly what happened. Someone should email Drew Fustin or otherwise get this point out there tied to Fustin's analysis.

This would also explain why the refs would frequently have to add pressure to the Patriots balls even though Jastremski had been setting them to 12.8. That would also explain why McNally would have to constantly have to tell the refs to deflate them back down.... Thus the deflator comment.