re: Donald Trump: It's ridiculous the way the NFL has mistreated my friend Tom Brady

They have been debunked in the way to they are completely twisted
statistics.

LINK

They are exaggerated to paint a picture.

quote:

---

It's not a great strategy to penalize Brady and the Patriots for a lack of fumbles when there was a lower chance of fumbling to begin with, based on the team's play-calling and personnel that yield quick throws and incompletions, as well as fewer sacks. So what's a better metric? Well, one idea would be to compare running backs on fumbles per rush, or receivers on fumbles per reception. To look at quarterbacks is a much more difficult task, given the different speeds at which they get rid of the ball and how often they take sacks, but you might look at something like fumbles per sack or fumbles per QB hit. But the point remains: when quarterbacks throw quickly and avoid sacks, it's seemingly much less likely for the play to end in a fumble. More on this later.

---

quote:

---

Could it be that the Patriots have one of the best quarterbacks of all time? Or perhaps it's because they have the best coaches of all time? Or perhaps it's because Gisele taught Tom Brady and his receivers how to fake hanging onto the ball using secret supermodel makeup tips—she and Brady started dating in 2007, after all. Or perhaps it's Robert Kraft's blue shirt/white collar combo. It could be any combination of the above, this line of inquisition would argue. If we're really worried about quarterbacks playing the balls the way they like, why aren't we talking about Aaron Rodgers, who led the league with the fewest interceptions and has admitted that he likes his ball over-inflated?

---

quote:

---

And back to the caps. And the fact remains, it's difficult to learn anything from this analysis. There are a few other problems with the SharpFootball investigation that we didn't even bring up—issues of multiple testing and the post-hoc fallacy, for example—but we figured it was more important to provide a different look at New England's fumble rates than to continue rambling about best practices.

---

There's a reason no one is using this analysis in any of the arguments of deflategate. It's bogus statistical reporting


More

quote:

---

New England running backs have the fewest fumbles per 100 rushes (about 0.6) of any NFL team going back to 2007, but the difference between New England and the rest of the league isn't as extreme as previous authors suggested—its about 1.5 to 2 fumbles per season. And this puts a point on the whole indictment of these posts: There are some broad and relatively minor observations to be made, if you're conspiratorially-minded enough to make the effort, they just don't have the statistical muscle that you'd expect given how widely they've traveled.

---

quote:

---

New England finished with the third-lowest fumble rate on receptions, looking at all regular season plays between 2007 and 2014. Interestingly enough, the Ravens, who have been cited as one of the possible whistle blowers for Ballghazi, post the lowest per-reception fumble rate. Given the number of teams in the league, it is not far-fetched to see one with fumble rates this low. Neither of these results appear all that extreme or insane, and, most certainly, they are not "extremely abnormal."

---

quote:

---

all 11 of Tate's fumbles during his four years with the Bengals came on kick or punt returns, and because special teams fumbles use different balls, there is no reason for them to be included in this analysis.

---

all I see is a clear admittance that the type of ball used does influence the odds of a fumble happening.

quote:

---

all I see is a clear admittance that the type of ball used does influence the odds of a fumble happening.

---

Ask Tony romo how he feels about K balls.

By your statement, do you think any type of ball management is against the rules? Might want to tell NFL films that who just filmed the Houston texans rubbing down the K Balls into regular game balls on hard knocks last week.

good god I'm done with this. You keep citing an data set with clear bias and falsities that you have even admitted, and just keep thumping the same book with it despite the flaws already pointed out. There's a reason no one has even mentioned that bogus interpretation of the data in the past 4 months. Even lsupride87 and goldrush25 (the biggest NFL defenders on here) gave up on that crap.

Such a shame. I liked Trump before this. Any friend of my enemy is my enemy. frick Tom Brady's cheating arse.