Tired of Deflategate

[Matt in KC]

#7 on Page 158 of the report:

A series of environmental factors were evaluated for their potential contribution(s) to the

difference in the observed pressure drops at halftime. These included:

a. The effect of external temperature on the pressure inside the football:

i. The likely temperature of the room when the pressures of the footballs were

measured prior to the game (67–71°F).

ii. The likely temperatures on the field during the first half (48–50°F).

iii. The likely temperature of the room when the pressures of the footballs were

measured at halftime (71–74°F).

b. The impact of timing on the halftime measurements (i.e., when and in which sequence

the measurements were made during the period of time in which the balls were inside

the Officials Locker Room at halftime (the “Locker Room Period”), which we have been

told by Paul, Weiss was approximately 13.5 minutes).

c. The effect of ball surface conditions on the pressure of the footballs (i.e., wet vs. dry

ball).

d. The impact of which gauge was used prior to the game (Non-Logo or Logo).

The ranges listed above were based either on weather reports, measurements made by

Exponent, or information provided by Paul, Weiss, and represent the lower and upper

bounds for the realistic ranges of these factors.

 

 

The highlighting above is mine.

[Kelly the Dog]

Summarize it for me then. I'm all ears. The AEI report says that the Wells report dealt with the gauge issue, but in an incorrect way. The AEI report seemed convincing, but I have not gone back and looked at the Wells report on that issue.

 

Also (and again), are there any published critiques of the AEI report that are from reputable sources? I haven't seen any, and I looked. I would be happy to see some if they're available. By "reputable," I'm referring to a source who is able to competently engage with pp. 3-6 of the AEI report. My hunch is that you are not one of those people. That's no shame. Neither am I.

Many if not most of Exponent's appendix from page 3-59 mention the gauges and the two different gauges and the difference between the two and the experiments they did after using both gauges. Then the tables labeled like A-3, A-4, etc have gauge and different gauge info. There are several of them.

The difference in density of air at 10psi from 40 degrees to 70 degrees is 0.008 lb/ft^3. And that's even assuming the air in the ball heated up to 70 degrees after coming from outside into a heated room. It's pretty clear that 8/1000ths isn't going to change the PSI of the ball that much.

Oh, and the president of Wilson, who makes the footballs and who puts 95% of the air in them, says it was impossible for atmospheric conditions to cause that drop.

[dave mcbride]

#7 on Page 158 of the report:

 

The highlighting above is mine.

Thanks. This doesn't tell me a lot though. Did they do it incorrectly? Were they shoddy? AEI claims that they were. Who is right?

[Matt in KC]

Thanks. This doesn't tell me a lot though. Did they do it incorrectly? Were they shoddy? AEI claims that they were. Who is right?

I trust the stats-geeks at 538 to show how smart they are by poking holes in any methodological or analytical problems.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/fivethirtyeight-dissects-the-deflategate-report/

 

Their take:

cwick: To your eyes, is this the most high-profile statistical model of the year? and were you impressed by it?

andrewflowers: What I love about this report is the various extents the researchers went to make their analysis iron-clad: the natural experiment of comparing the Colts (control group) and Pats’ footballs; the statistical inference (p-values!) in examining the differences in the pressure changes; and the hard-science engineering to test the environmental effects. I mean, just look at this photo…

....

benm: Honestly, it’s probably overkill. But that is, in a sense, a product of the incredibly strong statistical case. So I kind of give them credit for going so far to address alternate possibilities. A model a lot of stats people could probably learn from. I mean, once it’s clear that this didn’t happen by chance, the discussion moves to: So what explains it.

 

[Kelly the Dog]

Summarize it for me then. I'm all ears. The AEI report says that the Wells report dealt with the gauge issue, but in an incorrect way. The AEI report seemed convincing, but I have not gone back and looked at the Wells report on that issue.

 

 

Iirc the AEI report says it looks like there was a problem with the balls. And then said something to the effect of because there were two different gauges and two different times they were used there were four different possible permutations. And the Wells report didn't go into the fourth one very much because they concluded based on certain stuff that wasn't possible. I'm not sure exactly how it goes but that was the gist of it. I am sure there is an explanation for why in the Wells report. It's incredibly thorough in this section.

[K-9]

Not to mention nothing in the AEI report really proves the exponent or the Princeton professor were wrong.

I question Hassett and Veuger, the authors of the AEI report, on credentials alone. I also question their assertion that Dr. Marlow only made a superficial reading of the Exponent findings.

 

At least they agree that regardless of deflated footballs or not, the NFL has the authority to issue punishment for non-cooperation. Their assertion that the punishment levied "is much harsher than you would typically do for those counts," is just editorial hot air. Unless, of course, they are privy to information concerning punishment levels for all the other times the league found a team's footballs to be inflated to similar levels of "those counts."

 

Their entire aim was an attempt to discredit a portion of the Wells report in order to have the punishment lessened. And they admit that.

 

More evidence the fix was in to lessen the punishment. Goodell has another greased skid.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[PromoTheRobot]

 

 

That strikes me as an odd burden-of-proof standard, even if used elsewhere. If Wells assessed that there was a 51% chance of Brady's complicity and 49% chance of his innocence, then he'd have to find against Brady.

 

Though reading the report highlights, it seems the circumstantial evidence went far beyond the minimum for "more probable than not" despite the lack of a smoking gun and may have reached the 'reasonable doubt' standard.

How on earth do you measure evidence in hard percentages? The phrase simply means that, looking at the evidence, any reasonable person would conclude more evidence exists that proves something than doesn't. If something were 51/49 as you put it, it would seem that threshold would not be met.

[The Wiz]

I question Hassett and Veuger, the authors of the AEI report, on credentials alone. I also question their assertion that Dr. Marlow only made a superficial reading of the Exponent findings.

 

At least they agree that regardless of deflated footballs or not, the NFL has the authority to issue punishment for non-cooperation. Their assertion that the punishment levied "is much harsher than you would typically do for those counts," is just editorial hot air. Unless, of course, they are privy to information concerning punishment levels for all the other times the league found a team's footballs to be inflated to similar levels of "those counts."

 

Their entire aim was an attempt to discredit a portion of the Wells report in order to have the punishment lessened. And they admit that.

 

More evidence the fix was in to lessen the punishment. Goodell has another greased skid.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Which is why I find it hard to believe that Krafts have nothing to do with the Kraft foundation that funds/donates to AEI.

Edited June 24, 2015 by The Wiz

[Canadian Bills Fan]

Sorry if this has been answered but anyone hear when we might get a ruling on this appeal?

 

 

CBF

[The Wiz]

Sorry if this has been answered but anyone hear when we might get a ruling on this appeal?

 

 

CBF

They only answer so far is "no time table has been set" but I would likely assume before TC starts. It's been a month since Hardy's appeal without a verdict yet.

[dave mcbride]

I trust the stats-geeks at 538 to show how smart they are by poking holes in any methodological or analytical problems.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/fivethirtyeight-dissects-the-deflategate-report/

 

Their take:

Thanks. That said, what I'm most interested in at present is a reputable critique of the AEI report.

 

I question Hassett and Veuger, the authors of the AEI report, on credentials alone. I also question their assertion that Dr. Marlow only made a superficial reading of the Exponent findings.

 

At least they agree that regardless of deflated footballs or not, the NFL has the authority to issue punishment for non-cooperation. Their assertion that the punishment levied "is much harsher than you would typically do for those counts," is just editorial hot air. Unless, of course, they are privy to information concerning punishment levels for all the other times the league found a team's footballs to be inflated to similar levels of "those counts."

 

Their entire aim was an attempt to discredit a portion of the Wells report in order to have the punishment lessened. And they admit that.

 

More evidence the fix was in to lessen the punishment. Goodell has another greased skid.

 

GO BILLS!!!

K-9: I'll confess to being no fan at all of Hassett's politics, but it is the case that he received tenure at Columbia, and he has published in a number of top 10 econ journals, including the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the American Economic Review (both are always in the top 3 for rankings): https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/09/05/Engemann.pdf. I also would never assume that physicists are better at statistical analysis than top-tier economists, and as for the science, the ideal gas law is pretty darn basic - high school level.

 

The point is, he's a very reputable -- and highly credentialed -- economist ( https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Hassett-short-CV-04-15.pdf).

Edited June 24, 2015 by dave mcbride

[Kelly the Dog]

Kevin Murphy was also interviewed by Wells for the report, as was another high ranking Wilson Sporting Goods official as to wether the cold could have caused that drop in PSi...

 

From the NYT... "Despite reports that the cold weather or a player spiking the ball might have led to the deflation, the only way to remove that much air that quickly would be to put a needle in the valve and to let the air seep out, said Kevin Murphy, who runs the American football division at Wilson."

[dave mcbride]

Kevin Murphy was also interviewed by Wells for the report, as was another high ranking Wilson Sporting Goods official as to wether the cold could have caused that drop in PSi...

 

From the NYT... "Despite reports that the cold weather or a player spiking the ball might have led to the deflation, the only way to remove that much air that quickly would be to put a needle in the valve and to let the air seep out, said Kevin Murphy, who runs the American football division at Wilson."

Again, I'm most interested in a reputable critique of the AEI report by someone who can challenge them on methods, assumptions, data analysis, etc. An exec for a sporting goods company isn't going to convince me, at least with regard to debunking the AEI report.

 

Ideally, I'd like to see a response from Exponent or Marlow. Neither has said anything yet in the two weeks (roughly) since it was released.

Edited June 24, 2015 by dave mcbride

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Come on Roger - Lay the hammer down!!!!

 

Defend the shield at all costs

[Kelly the Dog]

Again, I'm most interested in a reputable critique of the AEI report by someone who can challenge them on methods, assumptions, data analysis, etc. An exec for a sporting goods company isn't going to convince me, at least with regard to debunking the AEI report.

 

Ideally, I'd like to see a response from Exponent or Marlow. Neither has said anything yet in the two weeks (roughly) since it was released.

It isn't always about you, Dave.

 

I was just adding another one out of one hundred reasons why the concept that the Patriots didn't cheat is 100% preposterous.

[The Wiz]

Again, I'm most interested in a reputable critique of the AEI report by someone who can challenge them on methods, assumptions, data analysis, etc. An exec for a sporting goods company isn't going to convince me, at least with regard to debunking the AEI report.

 

Ideally, I'd like to see a response from Exponent or Marlow. Neither has said anything yet in the two weeks (roughly) since it was released.

For what reason though? What does Exponent gain with a rebuttal of what AEI wrote. It would basically be circular logic.

 

Exponent: I think this

AEI: I think you're wrong because of this

Exponent: here's my reasoning for this

AEI: I think it's wrong still based on this

 

and so on....

Edited June 24, 2015 by The Wiz

[papazoid]

With one path jeopardizing his job and the other path not triggering even a peep of substantial criticism, the smart play for Goodell will always be to uphold a suspension and let the player and his union fight for further reduction or outright elimination of it in court. And that’s the kind of inherent conflict that arguably makes Goodell unfit to be the final decision-maker in any of these cases.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/24/leagues-reaction-to-tom-brady-testimony-not-as-glowing/

[K-9]

Thanks. That said, what I'm most interested in at present is a reputable critique of the AEI report.

 

K-9: I'll confess to being no fan at all of Hassett's politics, but it is the case that he received tenure at Columbia, and he has published in a number of top 10 econ journals, including the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the American Economic Review (both are always in the top 3 for rankings): https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/09/05/Engemann.pdf. I also would never assume that physicists are better at statistical analysis than top-tier economists, and as for the science, the ideal gas law is pretty darn basic - high school level.

 

The point is, he's a very reputable -- and highly credentialed -- economist ( https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Hassett-short-CV-04-15.pdf).

I respect that he's a credentialed economist. I just don't happen to think that qualifies him to critique scientific studies with impunity nor make the assertion that Dr. Marlow, Chair of the Princeton Physics Dept., made a superficial reading of a scientific report he is more than qualified to assess.

 

If I remember correctly, the Ideal Gas Law predicted the drop in pressure inside the balls should have been far less drastic given the conditions at Foxboro on game day (unseasonable air temp outside, air temp in the officials room, and time elapsed between measurements). If I am not recalling that correctly, I apologize. I'll try to dig up the reports from that time period.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[dave mcbride]

For what reason though? What does Exponent gain with a rebuttal of what AEI wrote. It would basically be circular logic.

 

Exponent: I think this

AEI: I think you're wrong because of this

Exponent: here's my reasoning for this

AEI: I think it's wrong still based on this

 

and so on....

Oh, I don't know -- Hassett et al basically attacked their credibility. He's regarded as a serious person, as his organization (whether one likes it or not). Most people/organizations tend to respond at some point if their credibility is challenged. Maybe they have an agreement with the league to stay silent though.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

With one path jeopardizing his job and the other path not triggering even a peep of substantial criticism, the smart play for Goodell will always be to uphold a suspension and let the player and his union fight for further reduction or outright elimination of it in court. And that’s the kind of inherent conflict that arguably makes Goodell unfit to be the final decision-maker in any of these cases.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/24/leagues-reaction-to-tom-brady-testimony-not-as-glowing/

dag nabbit missed by that much

 

Per a league source, Brady simply reiterated his denial regarding any involvement in or knowledge of whatever it was that John Jastremski and Jim McNally may have been doing with the team’s footballs. When pressed on certain facts relating to Brady’s potential knowledge or involvement, the answers were regarded by some in the room (i.e., some who aren’t paid to exonerate Brady) as not entirely credible !!

 

LOVE IT