The New England Patriots’ prevention of fumbles is nearly impossible • Hacker News Board

Re: The New England Patriots’ prevention of fumbles is nearly impossible

#21

Post by fecak » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 1:58 AM UTC

abram wrote: post #14

It would be interesting to get the stats on fumbles during kickoff/punt returns (when a neutral kicking ball is in use, not a team-supplied offensive ball), and on plays involving interceptions or fumble recoveries (where they would be using the other team's ball). If they rank highly in fumble prevention in those situations, it would suggest that this is a result of coaching, not using a particular ball.

Kickoff and punt return fumbles can be the result of other factors - players traveling at high speed over a long distance hitting a returner looking skyward is a unique football situation that only occurs on returns.

Interceptions and recoveries would be by defensive players, who would spend much less time focusing on ball handling since they rarely carry the ball.

Re: The New England Patriots’ prevention of fumbles is nearly impossible

#22

Post by Anechoic » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 2:07 AM UTC

For those of you who aren't keeping up with the up to the minute minutae of the New England Patriots (American football team) scandal (presumably because you have lives), head coach Bill Belichick gave a press conference a few hours ago where he provided a hypothesis of what might have happened: as many people know, quarterbacks like their game footballs prepared in specific (sometimes elaborate [0]) ways prior to use in games. Belichick says that the team went over the process they use for games a few days ago and they determine that the preparation process they use for their footballs (which he claims they do right up to the point they are given to officials for pre-game testing) increases the air pressure in the balls by about 1 psi [1]. Therefore, the balls appear legal when tested by officials, but after a few hours of sitting around, the pressure reduces to below the legal limit. He doesn't specify the process used by the team, but presumably it's some kind of rubbing that heats the ball up, and when it cools down the interior air pressure is reduced accordingly.

I'm sure someone will test this out and verify or discredit the claim.

[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/sports/football/eli-mannin...

[1] http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/...

Re: The New England Patriots’ prevention of fumbles is nearly impossible

#23

Post by asynchronous13 » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 2:09 AM UTC

xofer wrote: post #18

Is the author confusing "fumbles" and "fumbles lost" or am I?

The author starts out with a plot of lost fumbles, and further down shows a plot that includes all fumbles, not just lost fumbles.

Re: The New England Patriots’ prevention of fumbles is nearly impossible

#24

Post by zaroth » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 2:16 AM UTC

Anechoic wrote: post #22

For those of you who aren't keeping up with the up to the minute minutae of the New England Patriots (American football team) scandal (presumably because you have lives), head coach Bill Belichick gave a press conference a few hours ago where he provided a hypothesis of what might have happened: as many people know, quarterbacks like their game footballs prepared in specific (sometimes elaborate [0]) ways prior to us…

Going from 75 degrees to 50 produces something like a 1.5 psi reduction. 85 -> 35 wound be closer to a 2psi drop. Water vapor increases the drop. Funny thing is searching for the calculation produces highly variable results.

Re: The New England Patriots’ prevention of fumbles is nearly impossible

#25

Post by mrwarn » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 2:19 AM UTC

The game against the Colts the Patriots clearly cheated. It is beyond reasonable that 11 of 12 footballs are 2psi less than the rule allows. Especially since the 12th football of regulation weight is the football used for kicking as you want the football inflated properly. But using fumbles as proof of long term violation is tough because their are too many factors to consider. Patriots are a pass heavy team and have been for a long time. They use multiple RB's and a fresh RB is less likely to fumble than one RB used heavily throughout the game due to mental and physical fatigue. WR's fumble but are less likely than RB's. An under-inflated ball is easier to grip so it would be interesting to see how WR's who left have fared on their new teams and if any returned later, after playing poorly on new team, to play well for the Patriots. Since 2007 has Tom Brady's completion % and interception ratio on the road improved drastically? All these things could be explained by an under-inflated but not definitively.

Re: The New England Patriots’ prevention of fumbles is nearly impossible

#26

Post by fecak » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 2:20 AM UTC

jsyedidia wrote: post #19

fecak wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over the past two seasons there have been 9 total fumbles by Patriot running backs - only 1 all this year. All of those backs are still employed by the Patriots. Over those two seasons, the majority of fumbles came from Brady and Edelman. Of the backs that fumbled in 2012, only Woodhead is gone. He fumbled only once. Two backs fumbled in 2011, once each. Woodhead (who is gone) and Ridley, who is still a Patriot. Patr…

"Patriots backs simply don't fumble": Yes, because if they have a fumbling problem, they stop playing until they fix it (Ridley) or they cease being Patriots if they can't fix it (Maroney). Belichick is well-known for having a "doghouse" for running backs who fumble. "Your explanation isn't supported by the data": I wasn't trying to give an explanation supported by the data. I was trying to give an explanation for th…

I'm not sure how useful it is to compare a chess grandmaster to the relatively ordinary (other than fumbling) Patriot running back contingent, past or present. If Carlsen were found with an extra pawn on the board, that might raise eyebrows.

I understand that Belichick has a doghouse for backs that fumble. The point seems to be that his doghouse is likely to be rarely occupied since 2007, and whether that is due to coaching, drafting backs with good hands, or something less wholesome.

I appreciate the points on Maroney and Ridley.

Re: The New England Patriots’ prevention of fumbles is nearly impossible

#27

Post by joshuapayne » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 2:26 AM UTC

mrwarn wrote: post #25

The game against the Colts the Patriots clearly cheated. It is beyond reasonable that 11 of 12 footballs are 2psi less than the rule allows. Especially since the 12th football of regulation weight is the football used for kicking as you want the football inflated properly. But using fumbles as proof of long term violation is tough because their are too many factors to consider. Patriots are a pass heavy team and have…

You are incorrect with respect to your explanation of "the 12th football being used for kicking". An entire separate group of footballs are used for kicking, outside control of either team. The kicking balls are brand new and are not allowed to be broken-in. They still have the waxy coating a new ball has. This was done some years ago to try to reduce the effectiveness of kickers.

Re: The New England Patriots’ prevention of fumbles is nearly impossible

#28

Post by zcdziura » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 2:53 AM UTC

robryan wrote: post #8

As someone who doesn't follow the NFL I am surprised that they allow the teams to supply their own balls. Seems it would be less complicated and achieve an even playing field if everyone had to use the same balls supplied by the league. Does this happen in baseball/ basketball as well? From an Australian perspective it seems unusual.

We have to remember that the NFL, after everything is said and done, is a business. They want to make money any way they can. A great way to do that is by having its teams score lots of touchdowns. But not just any touchdowns: passing touchdowns. There's nothing as exciting to watch as a quarterback throwing a hail marry into the end zone and having the receiver diving for it. Those kinds of plays are more likely to happen if the ball is broken in to the quarterback's liking.

The ruling seems weird, but that's probably why the NFL allows its teams to supply their own game balls, instead of providing fresh ones for every game.

Re: The New England Patriots’ prevention of fumbles is nearly impossible

#29

Post by mrwarn » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 2:56 AM UTC

joshuapayne wrote: post #27

mrwarn wrote: post #25

The game against the Colts the Patriots clearly cheated. It is beyond reasonable that 11 of 12 footballs are 2psi less than the rule allows. Especially since the 12th football of regulation weight is the football used for kicking as you want the football inflated properly. But using fumbles as proof of long term violation is tough because their are too many factors to consider. Patriots are a pass heavy team and have…

You are incorrect with respect to your explanation of "the 12th football being used for kicking". An entire separate group of footballs are used for kicking, outside control of either team. The kicking balls are brand new and are not allowed to be broken-in. They still have the waxy coating a new ball has. This was done some years ago to try to reduce the effectiveness of kickers.

I stand corrected, I didnt know that tidbit and just assumed that the 12th ball was for kickoff/field goals. But what about punting is it the same ball used for kicking or would it be part of the 12?

Re: The New England Patriots’ prevention of fumbles is nearly impossible

#30

Post by asynchronous13 » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 2:59 AM UTC

I'm not convinced that it's okay to just remove all the dome-teams from the plot. Using the author's data, here's a plot of all the teams and total fumbles (not 'fumbles lost' that the author focuses on):

http://i.imgur.com/QP6LXWg.png

The Patriots are not even the top team! It's actually the Falcons that have the most plays per fumble. If it's "nearly impossible" for the Patriots, what does that say about the Falcons? The author focuses on "fumbles lost" because that number is more dramatic if one is trying to prove that the Patriots did something wrong. That number in isolation only shows that the Patriots were extremely good at recovering their own fumbles.

Looking at the graph, there is a notable bend at the top 4 teams. Either the top 4 teams have fewer fumbles through training, or the top 4 teams are all cheating somehow. It's hard to call the Patriots statistics impossible when they're in 2nd place.