thebandit27 Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 No, but since you're such a scientist you can certainly see the ridiculousness of supposing that somebody could get the two confused. It makes no sense. You learn about what a toilet is first. Then you're exposed to a urinal, which is certainly not a toilet. It's like saying perhaps some people don't know the difference between a sink and a bathtub. Also: Getting back to this point, from the Wells report (page 9), McNally initially said that he made no stops on the way to the field with the footballs. It was in later interviews that he provided "varying explanations" for the bathroom stop.
A Dog Named Kelso Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 I guess I wasn't clear but, temp isn't the only issue that prevents repeatability here. You also have non documented conditions relating to ball wetness, timing, gauges, leaks, etc. The science described in the Wells report is seriously flawed so cannot be used to predict the ball deflation because they rely on making gross assumptions. Science can explain if the ball deflated naturally (ie without being tampered) but only if certain conditions (some of which I have basically explained) are met. Say I agree with you on the point about the pats* football's(so as not to rehash the last x amount of pages). What is the reason you provide that none of the opposing team's equipment suffered the same fate? Was it the trip to the bathroom that was the biggest variable in this instance? As we know that the balls went from the same official's room to the same field under the same weather conditions, correct?
GG Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 "Wells admits that the NFL referees did not bother to document the pregame measurements despite the Colts tipping off the NFL to their suspicions and the NFL warning the referees to watch for ball pressure." "Wells states that “the Patriots balls should have measured between 11.52 and 11.32 psi at the end of the first half.” Ball 1 (11.80), Ball 3 (11.50), Ball 5 (11.45), Ball 6 (11.95), Ball 7 (12.30), Ball 8 (11.55), Ball 9 (11.35), and Ball 11 (11.35) all registered above 11.32 by Prioleau’s readings (Balls 1, 6, and 7 also did so by Blakeman’s)." "Apart from whitewashing the inconvenient truth that one referee judged a majority of Pats balls where Wells’s scientists said balls inflated to regulation before the game would read at halftime, this underhanded tactic enables Wells to gloss over the fact that three Colts balls lost so much pressure after a half, despite supposedly coming in at 13.0 to begin with, that they fell short of the NFL standard on at least one ref’s gauge." http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2015/05/12/top-10-reasons-why-an-appeal-overturns-tom-bradys-suspension/ That's all fine & dandy, except it doesn't answer my question. Why did Pats' balls deflate at more than twice the rate that the Colts balls in the same environment? You can go back in this thread to see my original question on this, before the Wells report came out, and now with better data from the report, there are now updated deviations, taking into account the separate officials' measurements. The average Pats* ball deflated by 9.62%, with a median deflation of 9.8%. The average Colts ball deflated by 3.61%, with a median deflation of 3.65%. But I know, there's no science about it, and Pats* didn't cheat.
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Say I agree with you on the point about the pats* football's(so as not to rehash the last x amount of pages). What is the reason you provide that none of the opposing team's equipment suffered the same fate? Was it the trip to the bathroom that was the biggest variable in this instance? As we know that the balls went from the same official's room to the same field under the same weather conditions, correct? The other variables (timing of measurements and wetness most certainly) not accounted for by the officials. I also firmly hold in place the very strong possibility that Wells flipped the chronology of the events to better serve his purposes, But that's as presumptuous of me as it is of those who do the same with the circumstantial evidence surrounding Brady in this fiasco.
GG Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 The other variables (timing of measurements and wetness most certainly) not accounted for by the officials. I also firmly hold in place the very strong possibility that Wells flipped the chronology of the events to better serve his purposes, But that's as presumptuous of me as it is of those who do the same with the circumstantial evidence surrounding Brady in this fiasco. Is you next argument going to be that * played in Foxboro and Colts played in Lucas Field to account for the difference in the balls?
Kelly the Dog Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Let me answer this way: All it needed to be was around a 20-23 delta T to see a weather induced psi drop that was suitable to cause the under-inflated ball condition. Here's a quick example. ASSUME (since the NFL didn't record this most useful data): Outdoor temp during game: 45F=280.4K=Tout Indoor temp when measuring balls: 72F=295.4K=Tin Knowns: Pb (ball psig) = 14.56 psi (atmosphere) Pi = Pb+12.5 (min psi of ball at time of weighing) = 27.06 psi Doing the maths: PV=nRT -> Pi/Tin = Po/Tout 27.06/295.4 = Po/280.4 Po=25.69 dP= dP=Pi-Po=27.06-25.69=1.37 P=12.5-1.37=11.13psi Not taken into consideration are other relevant factors (wetness, timing, ball compression, leaks, etc) as well as the fact that they didn;t perform a R&R nor did they employ a capable gauge system that ensured the tolerance isn;t consumed by the variability of the measurement itself. This is true. Still the science referenced to draw such conclusion is seriously faulty. But, this isn't about science. It's all about law. That's the important thing moving forward, unless this goes to the next legal level (defamation). Two of the balls were 10.5
thebandit27 Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 The other variables (timing of measurements and wetness most certainly) not accounted for by the officials. I also firmly hold in place the very strong possibility that Wells flipped the chronology of the events to better serve his purposes, But that's as presumptuous of me as it is of those who do the same with the circumstantial evidence surrounding Brady in this fiasco. I don't see how you can make that claim at all. Brady's explanation and the timing of events simply do not correlate at all. Reading his testimony at the appeal hearing, does he honestly strike you as someone that's telling the truth?
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Two of the balls were 10.5 Perhaps, these statistical blips can be explained by the other factors I posted above ..... ie not taken into consideration are other relevant factors (wetness, timing, ball compression, leaks, etc) as well as the fact that they didn't perform a R&R nor did they employ a capable gauge system that ensured the tolerance isn't consumed by the variability of the measurement itself. At any rate, even Exponent says their science was suspect, so not sure why this is even an issue at this stage of the game. I don't see how you can make that claim at all. Brady's explanation and the timing of events simply do not correlate at all. Reading his testimony at the appeal hearing, does he honestly strike you as someone that's telling the truth? The "timing" refers not to Brady but to the officials time sequence in measuring the balls at halftime.
thebandit27 Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Perhaps, these statistical blips can be explained by the other factors I posted above ..... ie not taken into consideration are other relevant factors (wetness, timing, ball compression, leaks, etc) as well as the fact that they didn't perform a R&R nor did they employ a capable gauge system that ensured the tolerance isn't consumed by the variability of the measurement itself. At any rate, even Exponent says their science was suspect, so not sure why this is even an issue at this stage of the game. The "timing" refers not to Brady but to the officials time sequence in measuring the balls at halftime. I know what you meant, and I'm asking you how you can say that assuming Wells flip-flopped time estimates is the same as being suspicious of Brady's story not correlating with his own testimony at several junctures. At any rate, even Exponent says their science was suspect, so not sure why this is even an issue at this stage of the game. Did they use the term "suspect", or did they say that there were too many variables that they couldn't recreate to depict the conditions on game day 100% accurately?
SRQ_BillsFan Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 But what about the science? There's no science in your scenario, so the entire premise is invalidated. I have no issue with the science you can work hard to poke holes in it but it's easier to accept. There is a difference in the balls. If time is a factor the balls should have all been higher PSI as they measured each one. The Well's report clearly states... "There is only a .4% likelihood -- a fraction of 1% -- that the difference in average pressure between the teams occurred by chance." You can argue a lack of procedure, but it's easier to say it makes sense given what they had, what was done was certainly reasonable. A better procedure or methodology does not mean in any way the results would have been any different. Just that they could have been. What they did was perfectly reasonable.
GG Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Did they use the term "suspect", or did they say that there were too many variables that they couldn't recreate to depict the conditions on game day 100% accurately? I think you should know by now that some people ignore a question they don't want to answer.
SRQ_BillsFan Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 The fact that the patriots tried to term the "Deflator" as a person trying to lose weight shows the great lengths that they would go to to try and come up with counterpoints to all of the circumstantial evidence. To me that alone makes every single response suspect at best and a lie at worst. Let's also not forget the Patriot ball boys admitted that they would turn Brady's balls into the referees at 12.5. Something that they never brought up again. So now we have 2 people saying the Parriots balls started at 12.5.
NoSaint Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 how quick of a prick with a needle would account for about a .5 psi drop, realistically?
4merper4mer Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 how quick of a prick with a needle would account for about a .5 psi drop, realistically? It's not nice to assume everyone from Boston is a prick. I know, I know....Occum's Shaver.
thebandit27 Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 how quick of a prick with a needle would account for about a .5 psi drop, realistically? Not sure if this answers your question or not: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/28/its-easy-to-quickly-deflate-a-football/
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 I know what you meant, and I'm asking you how you can say that assuming Wells flip-flopped time estimates is the same as being suspicious of Brady's story not correlating with his own testimony at several junctures. Did they use the term "suspect", or did they say that there were too many variables that they couldn't recreate to depict the conditions on game day 100% accurately? Cmon, wells got caught in an obvious lie during the 1/2 time measurement episode. He says that they didn't add air to 11 of the Pats under-inflated balls until AFTER they tested the Colts balls. We find out that they ran out of time and only managed to test 4 Colts balls at halftime ..... but all 11 of the Pats found a way to get re-inflated? This is one of those toilet or urinal type points. I have no issue with the science you can work hard to poke holes in it but it's easier to accept. There is a difference in the balls. If time is a factor the balls should have all been higher PSI as they measured each one. The Well's report clearly states... "There is only a .4% likelihood -- a fraction of 1% -- that the difference in average pressure between the teams occurred by chance." You can argue a lack of procedure, but it's easier to say it makes sense given what they had, what was done was certainly reasonable. A better procedure or methodology does not mean in any way the results would have been any different. Just that they could have been. What they did was perfectly reasonable. Given the glaring procedural flaws presented them, yes, they did alright. But they made a monumental mistake by not accounting for any propagation errors so that they could do more relevant statistical analysis for all possible combinations of gauges and the error bounds. This was critical since they didn't have any logged pregame pressure readings that had been converted, ball by ball, gauge by gauge, as reference.
GG Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Cmon, wells got caught in an obvious lie during the 1/2 time measurement episode. He says that they didn't add air to 11 of the Pats under-inflated balls until AFTER they tested the Colts balls. We find out that they ran out of time and only managed to test 4 Colts balls at halftime ..... but all 11 of the Pats found a way to get re-inflated? This is one of those toilet or urinal type points. Given the glaring procedural flaws presented them, yes, they did alright. But they made a monumental mistake by not accounting for any propagation errors so that they could do more relevant statistical analysis for all possible combinations of gauges and the error bounds. This was critical since they didn't have any logged pregame pressure readings that had been converted, ball by ball, gauge by gauge, as reference. I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that NONE of the eight measurements of the Colts balls were below 12.15 PSI and only ONE of the 22 measurements of the * balls were above 12.15 PSI? So, to repeat again, what is your scientific explanation for * balls to deflate at more than a 100% greater rate than the Colts balls under the same game conditions in the same game, in the same stadium and under the same time?
thebandit27 Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Cmon, wells got caught in an obvious lie during the 1/2 time measurement episode. He says that they didn't add air to 11 of the Pats under-inflated balls until AFTER they tested the Colts balls. We find out that they ran out of time and only managed to test 4 Colts balls at halftime ..... but all 11 of the Pats found a way to get re-inflated? This is one of those toilet or urinal type points. His report does not state the timing. He states only that the NE* footballs were tested first. Also--and I'm curious as to why this hasn't come up before--let's assume that temperature drop were responsible for the deflation. Those same footballs were filled in a room-temperature area at halftime, to a directed pressure of 13 psi. These footballs were then exposed to similar 51-degree conditions for the 2nd half, yet when tested after the game, were all within 0.15 psi of 13 psi (or 13.5 psi, depending upon the gauge). Why no drop that time? Furthermore, why didn't the Colts' footballs, which you're saying that you presume gained pressure due to sitting for a longer period of time in the warmth, drop below their halftime measurements when no pressure was added? Every one of them was at (or above) 12.5 psi, just as they were at halftime. The inconsistencies strongly support some reason other than temperature.
A Dog Named Kelso Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 The other variables (timing of measurements and wetness most certainly) not accounted for by the officials. I also firmly hold in place the very strong possibility that Wells flipped the chronology of the events to better serve his purposes, But that's as presumptuous of me as it is of those who do the same with the circumstantial evidence surrounding Brady in this fiasco. Wouldn't the wetness be very similar as they were used on the same field? As for timing ... wouldn't they need a multitude of hours(in the initial weighting) for any large disparity? Cmon, wells got caught in an obvious lie during the 1/2 time measurement episode. He says that they didn't add air to 11 of the Pats under-inflated balls until AFTER they tested the Colts balls. We find out that they ran out of time and only managed to test 4 Colts balls at halftime ..... but all 11 of the Pats found a way to get re-inflated? This is one of those toilet or urinal type points. Given the glaring procedural flaws presented them, yes, they did alright. But they made a monumental mistake by not accounting for any propagation errors so that they could do more relevant statistical analysis for all possible combinations of gauges and the error bounds. This was critical since they didn't have any logged pregame pressure readings that had been converted, ball by ball, gauge by gauge, as reference. Wait so in this situation we account for only Well's lying and no one else?
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that NONE of the eight measurements of the Colts balls were below 12.15 PSI and only ONE of the 22 measurements of the * balls were above 12.15 PSI? So, to repeat again, what is your scientific explanation for * balls to deflate at more than a 100% greater rate than the Colts balls under the same game conditions in the same game, in the same stadium and under the same time? This is simple. The balls measured at halftime weren't subjected to the exact same conditions during the first half. Especially not when it came to wetness just before halftime ...... Pats balls were soaked and being used in cold and rainy conditions whereas the Colts balls were being kept in garbage bags. And, while on this thought, why were the Colts balls used as the control group?
Recommended Posts