|
Post by Sonny Werblin on Jan 27, 2015 16:11:26 GMT -5
You need to change Deflatriots to patriots
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeakejet on Jan 27, 2015 16:18:30 GMT -5
You need to change Deflatriots to Deflatriots cute
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 17:47:01 GMT -5
Some interesting rebuttals for anyone who wants to try and use their brain... I doubt anyone will read them because they use like, numbers and stuff to point out some of the problems with the Sharp analysis and goes against people's preconceived notions: regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-Deflatriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflowsoshcentral.com/football-science/football-statistics/2015/01/27/fumbling-data-truth-Deflatriots-fumble-rate/Some big issues involve including fumbles on kickoffs and punt returns, and not including postseason games, for which the Flats* have much more data than the average NFL team. KOs and punt returns use the "K-balls" and the opposing team's balls, and fumbling rates on special teams are higher than passing/running plays, for which the experiment is intended. Brandon Tate, for instance, returned a lot more kickoffs for the Bengals than he did the Flats*, and dropped a bunch, giving him "credit" for fumbles with the Bengals. Take those out and the Pats aren't even close to the outlier the Sharp analysis declares. There are a lot of problems with the data and overall methodology used, but obviously no one cares because hurrr durrr, 16,000-to-1 sounds ZOMG unpossible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 17:47:19 GMT -5
edit: double post
|
|
|
Post by rexneffect on Jan 27, 2015 18:26:13 GMT -5
Some interesting rebuttals for anyone who wants to try and use their brain... I doubt anyone will read them because they use like, numbers and stuff to point out some of the problems with the Sharp analysis and goes against people's preconceived notions: regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-Deflatriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflowsoshcentral.com/football-science/football-statistics/2015/01/27/fumbling-data-truth-Deflatriots-fumble-rate/Some big issues involve including fumbles on kickoffs and punt returns, and not including postseason games, for which the Flats* have much more data than the average NFL team. KOs and punt returns use the "K-balls" and the opposing team's balls, and fumbling rates on special teams are higher than passing/running plays, for which the experiment is intended. Brandon Tate, for instance, returned a lot more kickoffs for the Bengals than he did the Flats*, and dropped a bunch, giving him "credit" for fumbles with the Bengals. Take those out and the Flats* aren't even close to the outlier the Sharp analysis declares. There are a lot of problems with the data and overall methodology used, but obviously no one cares because hurrr durrr, 16,000-to-1 sounds ZOMG unpossible. Let's not miss that you are quoting clickbait-leaders deadspin as a source of meaningful analysis and before you throw in a "shooting the messenger" argument let's also point out that half the deadspin article is taking swipes at the writing style and format of the Sharp piece. Both pieces you cite agree the Pats have superior ball security, which isn't far from Sharp's conclusions. The difference is in the disparity between the pats and other teams. There is some legitimate criticism to be had about Sharp's methodology but the deadspin article's authors do their argument no justice and detract from their legitimate analysis by inserting how great they think brady is and how that is a better explanation than the statistical analysis. It reads strongly of two pats fans who happen to be statistics profs who can't keep to an objective analysis. We don't get that in the second piece but the second piece is also less critical of Sharp. I'm sure we will see more review of Sharp's work. At least Sharp brought something with substance to the discussion rather than arguing whether your meathead TE could spike the balls enough to deflate them.
|
|
|
Post by rangerous on Jan 27, 2015 18:46:38 GMT -5
imo, it's more of an attempt to do a statistical study without understanding what is relevant. i'm not patsie fan. i think both bellichicken and tommy boy are pond scum but the statistics as they are presented are pretty meaningless as some of the commenters pointed out. the patsies had some guys who were very good at protecting the ball over those seasons either as running back or receiver. they stress not fumbling more than about any other team. the sample of players who contributed to the data is really small. how many receivers? 5? 8? how many running backs? 4? 5? so it isn't so surprising to see them post the numbers presented. it really needs to be separated into fumble per carry or completed pass.
of course since this does have a bearing on the deflation issue, a softer ball is probably less likely to be stripped, studies like this do have their place.
|
|
|
Post by astoria on Jan 27, 2015 19:05:06 GMT -5
Some interesting rebuttals for anyone who wants to try and use their brain... I doubt anyone will read them because they use like, numbers and stuff to point out some of the problems with the Sharp analysis and goes against people's preconceived notions: regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-Deflatriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflowsoshcentral.com/football-science/football-statistics/2015/01/27/fumbling-data-truth-Deflatriots-fumble-rate/Some big issues involve including fumbles on kickoffs and punt returns, and not including postseason games, for which the Flats* have much more data than the average NFL team. KOs and punt returns use the "K-balls" and the opposing team's balls, and fumbling rates on special teams are higher than passing/running plays, for which the experiment is intended. Brandon Tate, for instance, returned a lot more kickoffs for the Bengals than he did the Flats*, and dropped a bunch, giving him "credit" for fumbles with the Bengals. Take those out and the Flats* aren't even close to the outlier the Sharp analysis declares. There are a lot of problems with the data and overall methodology used, but obviously no one cares because hurrr durrr, 16,000-to-1 sounds ZOMG unpossible. What's really sad is you've been silent in this thread, sweatily poised on your haunches until someone finally writes an article that helps you gain the courage to join the conversation ...and said article STILL concludes the Patriots have an uncanny record of ball security. Things are going well for you.
|
|
|
Post by jcappy on Jan 27, 2015 20:01:22 GMT -5
Louis CK on the Pats and cheating - nails it, pretty funny even coming from a Pats fan
|
|
|
Post by jcappy on Jan 27, 2015 22:34:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jan 28, 2015 20:44:53 GMT -5
Yeah, check ESPN, it details pretty well how bad this guys stats are.
But you don't really care.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 21:02:01 GMT -5
Salty nuts and nut butter a NE staple at the Kraft house.
|
|
|
Post by rangerous on Jan 29, 2015 7:08:43 GMT -5
the syn guy lost me when he threw in the crack about the jets. shows he's just another patsie fan with a man crush on tommy boy. he probably hung around bugis street when he was back in singapore. the point is while i take some of the sharp analysis with a grain of salt , syn also agreed with it but at a lower rate. it still looks like the patsies have a decided advantage on fumbles and possibly still out of the normal range. obviously some can be coaching but there is no nfl coach who doesn't preach protecting the ball.
|
|
|
Post by Sonny Werblin on Jan 29, 2015 7:41:38 GMT -5
Yeah, check ESPN, it details pretty well how bad this guys stats are. But you don't really care. I took a look and didn't notice anything about it on the NFL page or the Patriots NFL Nation page. Could you provide a link?
|
|
|
Post by afceastfan on Jan 29, 2015 8:46:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jan 29, 2015 9:27:39 GMT -5
Yeah, check ESPN, it details pretty well how bad this guys stats are. But you don't really care. I took a look and didn't notice anything about it on the NFL page or the Patriots NFL Nation page. Could you provide a link? Sorry Sonny, I honestly didn't think anyone would read it...kudos to you. fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/your-guide-to-deflate-gateballghazi-related-statistical-analyses/ Its actually interesting stuff. Especially about outliers and what can be taken from stats.
|
|