Dibs

I think that the perception of just how many fumbles we are talking about is generally over valued. Simply looking at Brady fumbles, he only improves by 23 fumbles, and 10 fumbles lost between his first 182 sacks and his second lot of 182 sacks. (Coincidentally has the exact same amount of sacks pre-2007 as post-2006). That is around 1.5 lost fumble per year....or about 3 fumbles per year. Having a very quick look, the number of fumbles lost per year by the average NFL team is only around 10....and that includes special teams fumbles lost. If you were an average team in 2014 at fumbles lost(like the Bills were), you would only need to improve by 5 fumbles to become top 3. Brady is a superstar QB....and I would assume that he generally gets sacked far less than the average QB(no stats looked at by me here)....and therefore would generally have a lower fumble/game rate than a majority of NFL QBs. His improving from from a 1 in 3 fumble/sack rate to a 1 in 5 does not indicate that the Patriots had a massive advantage.....simply that they had an advantage in the odd games where he didn't fumble(and then lose) due to deflated balls(or whatever reason caused the lowering of fumbles). In other words I think the whole fumble thing is only a slight advantage.....but an advantage non the less. Edit: And those other reasons we have discussed are really just wild stabs in the dark with nothing apart from speculation to back them up. Of the few QBs that I have looked at, only Brady (and Cassel) have shown to have a substantial lowering in Fumble Per Sack rate. I'll look at a bunch more soon & let you know what I find.

Yeah, that would be a possible reason as well.....but still a bit of a stretch. I thought of looking at this situation from a different angle. Imagine if you will, that there was no deflategate(no balls discovered to be deflated).....and the fumbling statistics were discovered showing the Patriots fumbling dramatically improved post-2006. We would all be looking as to why this occurred. We would rule out coaching as it was the same coach in many years before and after the change. We would rule out the concept that the Patriots search out players who have exceptional ball security.....as the players that they actually obtained were no better/worse on average than the rest of the league in regards to fumbling(as shown prior and post to playing with the Patriots). We would look at the QBs, as the QB position typically fumbles the most....and we would find that the Pats QBs dramatically reduced their Fumble to Sack rate after the 2006 season......and the only player to play substantially before and after the 2007 change was Tom Brady who improved his Fumble Per Sack rate from 1 in 3 to 1 in 5. We would then be throwing out the theories that we have been. Did he simply naturally improve? Possible, but upon looking would see that it didn't correlate to other QBs. Perhaps it was the protection rules(as you postulated above)? Possible, but other QBs also benefited from the new rules. Even if we think that Brady gets extra special treatment, there should be a change in fumble rates for other star QBs due to those rules....which there isn't. So now we have a total conundrum. How did Brady improve his fumble rate? I guess it must be one of those extremely unlikely reasons we thought of. But wait! There was a rule change regarding balls post-2006........and what's that? The Patriots have been caught deflating their balls. Though obviously one cannot prove things either way, deflated balls becomes by far the best explanation as to why Tom Brady radically improved his fumble rate post-2006. I don't believe that anything can(or will) be done in regards to the fumble rate change(since 2007).....and nor should it. It really remains speculation and the NFL should leave that part alone. But as a fan looking in, I see no logical reason why the deflated balls wouldn't be considered by all(except Patriots fanatics) to be by far the most likely reason for the statistical anomaly.

It shouldn't be factored in at all because it is only supposition. How does that go? "We have caught the Patriots cheating but since we guess that all of the other teams cheat we will give them a lesser penalty." The NFL can't simply assume other teams have been cheating. On top of that the fumbling stats show a clear disparity to the Patriots. Unless you mean that it should only be factored in by us fans who think that they all cheat.....in which case the response surely should be....."Ha Ha. The cheating Patriots got caught and our team didn't. Tough luck Pats!"

You seem to be championing this point that the rest of the league also tampered with balls......which I typically wouldn't be surprised about. It doesn't address the reasons as to why the Patriots had such a decrease to their fumble rate post-2006(coinciding with the rule change), nor does it change the fact that only the Patriots have been caught and therefore should pay the penalty for cheating. With their history, I see no reason to feel sorry for them.

My responses in red above......with the big question being......Why did Tom Brady's Fumble Per Sack rate improve from 1 in every 3 sacks pre-2007 to 1 in every 5 sacks post 2006? Dave Mcbride suggested natural improvement......which though possible, does not seem likely as a quick look shows that other QBs have not had a similar extreme stat change in this area.

But that highest priority ball security seemed to only have an effect compared to the rest of the league after 2006.

It could be....but it didn't happen with Cassel or Manning.....and I'd bet that it wouldn't happen with most QBs to the extent it is with Brady. I could run some stats on it but I doubt it would make a difference in this discussion. You state a softer ball would not help against strip sacks as a fact. Apart from the concept that one would really want to know what percent of sack/fumbles typically come from strip sacks.....I do not subscribe to your point of view. On the instant of player impact the QB would naturally(in most cases) grip down on the ball. If that ball has a little more give, that could be difference between a fumble and bringing the ball in. Sure, there are some that it would make no difference due to the nature of the hit....but many (some?) would make a difference IMO. I know not why so many people here are forcing excuses at this situation. I understand playing devil's advocate.....and anyone who has followed my posting throughout the years knows that I like to have ample facts before drawing some sort of conclusion......but everything pretty much points in the one direction on this topic and the counter arguments are more like possible excuses rather than reasons for why it isn't so.

I guess I must be a fool then. It certainly is strange how Brady went from fumbling 1 in every 3 sacks to fumbling 1 in every 5 sacks post 2006. Many people espouse the concept that QBs with large hands tend to fumble less. At the time of impact the automatic gripping of the football would be a little more effective than somebody with smaller hands......similarly it would be a little bit more effective if the ball had a little bit more give in it. No.....ignore all that, I'm just a fool.

Though it is a simple Fumbles Per Sack stat, I am happy to ignore Cassel for all of the reasons you gave. Brady however is a different story. What difference do the surrounding talent make on a Fumbles Per Sacks statistic? Do the better receivers help Brady hang onto the ball better when he gets hit? Do the RBs? The Defense? The OL? It is a simple Fumbles Per Sack stat. Pre-2007, Brady fumbled once every 3 times he was sacked. Post-2006, Brady fumbled once every 5 times he was sacked. Why are you so desperate in trying to disbelieve this?

Yes, it seems apparent that you are not following what I am saying. The number of fumbles is not as important as the rate one fumbles. If one only gets sacked 10 times but fumbles 5 times, this would be a worse fumble rate than someone getting sacked 100 times and fumbling 30 times. I assume you follow what YPA(Yards Per Attempt) means. This is the same concept but it is Fumbles Per Sack. As the time in question is the pre-2007/post-2006, one can compare the percentage times that Patriot QBs fumbled per sack. To make it simpler to digest I will base things on every 100 sacks.... For every 100 sacks, Pre-2007 Tom Brady fumbled(coughed up the ball) 32 times. For every 100 sacks, Post-2006 Tom Brady fumbled(coughed up the ball) 20 times. For every 100 sacks, Pre-2007(and post Patriots) Matt Cassel fumbled(coughed up the ball) 30 times. For every 100 sacks, Post-2006(with Patriots) Mat Cassel fumbled(coughed up the ball) 17 times. Both Brady and Cassel had a much lower fumble rate per sack while on the Patriots after the 2006 season.

I was using QB runs plus sacks......but if you want to simply use sacks(and there is a good argument that runs are misleading as many of them result in QB slides)....here they are: Source: NFL.com player stats Cassel(http://www.nfl.com/p...562/careerstats) NFL.com player stats Brady(http://www.nfl.com/p...211/careerstats) Matt Cassel fumble rates pre-2007 with Patriots and post Patriots(2009+) 135 sacks 40 fumbles (1 in 3.8...29.6%) 15 fumbles lost (1 in 9...11.1%) Matt Cassel fumble rates with Patriots(2007+2008): 47 sacks 8 fumbles (1 in 5.9...17%) 4 fumbles lost (1 in 11.8...8.5%) Tom Brady fumble rate pre-2007 182 sacks 59 fumbles (1 in 3.1...32.4%) 25 fumbles lost (1 in 7.3...13.7%) Tom Brady fumble rates 2007+ 182 sacks 36 fumbles (1 in 5.1...19.8%) 15 fumbles lost (1 in 12.1...8.2%) Again Cassel had a mainly a lower fumble percent per sack than Brady.......but that really isn't the important point. The important point is that both Brady's and Cassel's fumble rate was drastically reduced since 2007(on Patriots). How do you explain this? For interest sake, here is P.Manning's equivalent stats: Source: NFL.com player stats Cassel(http://www.nfl.com/player/peytonmanning/2501863/careerstats) Manning fumble rate pre-2007 170 sacks 45 fumbles (1 in 3.8...26.5%) 16 fumbles lost (1 in 10.6...9.4%) Manning fumble rates 2007+ 117 sacks 29 fumbles (1 in 4...24.8%) 12 fumbles lost (1 in 9.8...10.3%) As one can see, Mannings fumble percentages remained relatively constant comparing pre-2007 with post-2006. Insignificant decrease in fumbles post-2006, but an insignificant increase in fumbles lost post-2006. Both Brady and Cassel had significant decreases in fumbles and fumbles lost post-2006. Again, how do you explain this?

That's all well and good.........but what do you think explains the fact that he fumbled substantially less times per hit after 2006.....or that Matt Cassel's numbers followed suit and actually fumbled less times per hit than Brady did? I'll do the pre-2007/post-2006 stats for Manning later if you like. Maybe they too will show a substantially lowering in fumble rate.

Quite likely true......but what do you think explains the fact that he fumbled substantially less times per hit after 2006.....or that Matt Cassel's numbers followed suit and actually fumbled less times per hit than Brady did?

The plays I looked at were QB runs and sacks. The WRs never touched the balls in the plays that I listed. I showed the number of times per play where the QB fumbled(on plays where they were likely hit).

Posted this in other threads....can see it best placed here.... """"" I think that the "Patriots don't get sacked much" devil's advocate argument for the reason that they have an extremely low fumble percentage is fair.....so I thought I would crunch some numbers and see what happens.... Below are Tom Brady's and Matt Cassel's numbers through their careers. I have decided to use the combined sack and rush numbers as those were the plays where the QB theoretically has to hold onto the ball. Source: NFL.com player stats Cassel(http://www.nfl.com/p...562/careerstats) NFL.com player stats Brady(http://www.nfl.com/p...211/careerstats) Matt Cassel fumble rates with Patriots(2007+2008): 124 plays 8 fumbles (1 in 15.5) 4 fumbles lost (1 in 31) Matt Cassel fumble rates pre-2007 with Patriots and post Patriots(2009+) 305 plays 40 fumbles (1 in 7.6) 15 fumbles lost (1 in 20.3) Tom Brady fumble rates 2007+ 413 plays 36 fumbles (1 in 11.5) 15 fumbles lost (1 in 27.5) Tom Brady fumble rate pre-2007 421 plays 59 fumbles (1 in 7.1) 25 fumbles lost (1 in 16.9) It looks like there is a clear reduction in the fumble rate for the Patriots QBs after the 2006 season. """""

I thought the best of those arguments was the low sack numbers argument.....which I debunked in another thread:

The 12th ball was left at full psi for kicking.

I think that the "Patriots don't get sacked much" devil's advocate argument for the reason that they have an extremely low fumble percentage is fair.....so I thought I would crunch some numbers and see what happens.... Below are Tom Brady's and Matt Cassel's numbers through their careers. I have decided to use the combined sack and rush numbers as those were the plays where the QB theoretically has to hold onto the ball. Source: NFL.com player stats Cassel(http://www.nfl.com/p...562/careerstats) NFL.com player stats Brady(http://www.nfl.com/p...211/careerstats) Matt Cassel fumble rates with Patriots(2007+2008): 124 plays 8 fumbles (1 in 15.5) 4 fumbles lost (1 in 31) Matt Cassel fumble rates pre-2007 with Patriots and post Patriots(2009+) 305 plays 40 fumbles (1 in 7.6) 15 fumbles lost (1 in 20.3) Tom Brady fumble rates 2007+ 413 plays 36 fumbles (1 in 11.5) 15 fumbles lost (1 in 27.5) Tom Brady fumble rate pre-2007 421 plays 59 fumbles (1 in 7.1) 25 fumbles lost (1 in 16.9) It looks like there is a clear reduction in the fumble rate for the Patriots QBs after the 2006 season.

No, I got an A. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule%E2%80%93Thomson_effect the Joule–Thomson effect (also known as the Joule–Kelvin effect, Kelvin–Joule effect, or Joule–Thomson expansion) describes the temperature change of a gas or liquid when it is forced through a valve...... The method of expansion discussed in this article, in which a gas or liquid at pressure P1flows into a region of lower pressure P2 via a valve or porous plug under steady state conditions and without change in kinetic energy, is called the Joule–Thomson process. The region of lower pressure in this case is the football. Pretty much right. The air expands into the football......and reduces in temperature as it does so.

Didn't you know that all-pro Mario isn't elite, or that Searcy was one of our best players? PFF has all of the deep insight in player evaluation!

Compressed air comes out of the nozzle extremely cold(due to technical math/science reasons). Even heated air would be reduced in temperature enough when focused through a small point to not effect the end result. Simple science experiment.....blow air onto your hand with an open mouth.....then do it through purced lips. The open mouth blowing is significantly warmer than purced lips. The narrower the hole, the colder the temperature.

Isn't that what everyone said about A.Williams?

Also Huston is a roofed stadium. From memory(because the link seems to have crashed), the domed teams typically fumbled less than the non-domed teams. The Patriots fumbled 60% less than the rest of the league....so that figure would be a lot higher compared to just the non-domed teams.

Wow! Good find.....I hope the NFL reads this.

This highlights my point above. He had full knowledge of making a ball firmer or softer......but didn't actually know the air pressure.....thus when he stated that he has never discussed the air pressure of balls to anybody, he could remain truthful.