Bad Morty
-
Posts
981 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Bad Morty
-
-
The only reason the investigators weren't able to 100% prove his involvement is because he didn't cooperate with the investigation when he was asked for certain texts from his phone.
So...therefore we can conclude that you believe there were text messages to McNally that said "deflate all the balls after the refs check them", even though they read all of Brady's texts to McNally and Jastremski when they got their phones? I think Brady simply said "*" because he was understandably outraged that he was being treated like a criminal by a league he has represented with honor for the entirety of his career. Owners got rich in part because of him and other superstars like him...for them to treat him like a cheater is sad and embarrassing for the league.
-
Again, thanks for the laugh. The spin, the deflection, the non-answers, the paranoia, the hypocrisy it is all very funny coming from almost all the Pats fans here.
Says the person who seems more interested in psycho-analyzing Pats fans than addressing the report that is the subject of this thread.
I am legitimately interested in hearing why you dismiss the findings of this report. What is it about this particular analysis that you find is less credible than the Exponent analysis that was included in the Wells report?
-
That sums up the Pats fans on this board.
talk about keeping the comedy going...Colts fans are losing their minds here over the fact that a credible independent organization has cast serious doubt on the Wells Report. You like the story Wells provided you, even though that story was bought and paid for by the NFL whereas this one is just an honest research report by a group with no stake in this. Nobody wants to feel as though they've been duped, so I do understand why people don't want to accept the criticism...but that doesn't change the fact that the critique is legit. So much like you all have been saying, it's time to just accept the report here and stop fighting it. Wells blew it...he sold you all a lie.
-
Rape and murder are reality in today's world too...should we just accept that??? because it's reality does NOT justify it or in ANY way make it right!!! Same goes for cheating!!!
I wish Belichick would just stop it with all the rape, murder, and holding guys out of OTA workouts. He's an evil evil man.
-
My goodness. How many times are you going to blatantly ignore my response? Here is what the Wells report says:
in addition, the equations listed above are applicable only to the gas conditions inside the football. Given that the footballs are undergoing temperature transitions as they are taken from the relatively warm locker room to the colder field and back into the warm locker room, it takes some time for the internal gas temperature within the football to reach equilibrium with the environment in which the football is sitting. it is important, therefore, to understand not only the magnitude of the temperature/pressure changes once the football comes to equilibrium with its environment, but also the amount of time it takes for temperature inside the football to reach equilibrium
Then, if you continue actually reading the report, they going into the Transient Analysis section, with the intent of "measur[ing] the internal transient pressure and temperature changes of a football while being transferred between environments of varying temperature", which is exactly what your and the AEI report are complaining about. So yes, they do take those factors into consideration and they conclude that it doesn't make a difference. I've shown you what the report says and even provided you with page numbers and a URL. Meanwhile, you just continue to deny it and say no on the basis of another random report saying so.
It's incredibly obvious that you haven't even read the Wells report, even though I believe you claimed you did. If you're going to try to continue this discussion, I really recommend you, at the very least, read the report and the parts I've highlighted for you before saying anything else.
Given your comments, I think it's also quite obvious that you don't have a lot of experience in the world of scientific research. You say their methods are weak, but they are actually quite strong. Show me where in their methods you actually see a problem. If you haven't read them, I can explain how their testing works for you to clarify this point
Stop and ask yourself why this research organization with vast amounts of academic resources and a sterling track record would publish this thorough and detailed analysis concluding that the Wells report didn't properly account for the re-inflation of the Colts balls in the ambient room temperature during half-time while "internet guy" says "yes they did - it's right there in the Wells report!!!!"
I have read what you posted several times. Of COURSE Wells believes this was accounted for...but if you bothered to read the AEI report with any objectivity, you would see why they believe Wells is flat out wrong...his methods were flawed, therefore his results and conclusions are flawed. It's not that difficult to understand. People just don't want to understand it because it destroys a narrative they want desperately to believe in.
Nobody deflated any footballs. I said that from day 1, and I'm saying it now.
-
Except they take that into consideration when they do their analysis in the Wells report, so....
yeah except no they really don't. They say they took into consideration, but as the new report points out, it is impossible for them to have taken it into consideration with any accuracy if they have no idea how long the Colts balls sat.
At the very least, you'd have to agree that the science aspect of the Wells report is pretty weak, and understandably so. The people who were measuring balls weren't sensitive to creating the "controlled environment" you'd need to be able to draw legitimate scientific conclusions. Wells is trying to back-door his way into something that supports the narrative he believes exists because of a few text messages. That's not how real science works, and that's basically what this new report is saying.
-
If all there was to account for Deflategate was the report, then maybe -- maybe -- the Patriots would have a case.
But given the actions of Tom Brady, the actions of the guy who took the footballs into the bathroom, given the lack of cooperation by the franchise itself, I think that takes all the air out of the argument and all the silly reports.
Sorry kids, you're toast.
I think the NFL had no clue that balls deflated naturally when they launched this sting operation. I think they thought it would be as simple as getting the footballs, sticking a gauge in them at halftime, seeing that they were lower than when the refs checked them pre-game, and that was it...case closed. What they now have is an extremely expensive and flawed science report that is inconclusive at best. Kind of embarrassing.
-
You can't just copy and paste parts of a report without actually reading it in context and then say you know what they're talking about. If you actually read my responses, you'll see that I refuted your points. It's a discussion. You have to read my response and consider it before responding.
ha! You pasted the Wells report at me where they claimed they accounted for the increase in pressure in the Colts balls from the longer time in the warmer ambient air...what all of the above points out is that there is no way they could properly account for that change since there is no record of how long the balls were in the ambient air before they were measured. Wells might have allowed for 5 minutes in 75 degree temperatures for all we know.
-
I believe Brady's hearing is set for June 23
Perfectly for you, the Wells report addressed this.
Page 203 of the URL I posted twice:
it suggests the possibility that the lower pressures observed in the measurements of the Patriots footballs recorded at halftime could simply be due to the Patriots footballs being measured first, and that the higher pressures seen in the Colts footballs could be a result of being measured at a later time. Therefore, the main focus of the transient experiments was to determine if variation in measurement timing was sufficient to explain the variation in the observed differences in the average pressure drops between the teams, given the ranges of likely environmental factors present on Game Day and the realistic timing of measurements given the sequencing and duration of the various events known to have occurred at halftime. For the reasons described below and based on our experiments, the timing of the measurements taken during halftime of the AFC Championship Game does not on its own completely account for the difference in the observed average pressure drops between the two teams
Page 215:
Based on the above conclusions, although the relative “explainability” of the results from Game Day are dependent on which gauge was used by Walt Anderson prior to the game, given the most likely timing of events during halftime, the Patriots halftime measurements do not appear to be explained by the environmental factors tested, regardless of the gauge used.
It's like this institute that you keep quoting didn't even bother to read the Wells report and instead is just trying to come up with any excuse to invalidate it. It's like if someone were to say a person handling footballs uses the term "deflator" to reference his attempts at weight loss.....you'd have to be foolish to even think of saying this stuff to anyone....oh wait....
The only people who will think what the institute is saying is true (given what you've shown me so far) is people who didn't actually read the Wells report and are just looking for excuses.
Laughably false? When did this happen?
yeah I'm not sure you are getting how the AEI report has debunked this...
The pressure of a football depends on the ambient temperature of the atmosphere in which it is located. Footballs inflated to 12.5 PSI at room temperature will drop in pressure when taken into the cold. The pressure in the football will increase when it is brought back into a warm room. Estimating how much the pressure in the ball will decline when the external temperature changes involves straightforward physics.
An investigation that identifies wrongdoing on the part of the Patriots should document three things: that the pressure in the Patriots balls declined more than the pressure in the Colts balls, that the pressure in the Patriots balls was significantly below the level predicted by basic physics, and that the pressure in the Colts balls was not statistically above or below the level predicted by basic physics. The confluence of these three results would represent a smoking gun. However, the statistically different reduction in pressure could result either because the Patriots balls declined more than predicted or because the Colts balls declined less than predicted. The Wells report provides no statistical analysis on this key point.
The problem here is that ideally,
measurements would have been taken simultaneously for all balls, outdoors, at the end of the half, and with the same gauge that was used before the game. Instead, the balls were taken inside and measured there, but not measured simultaneously. The pressure was checked twice for the Patriots balls (once with each gauge), after which the Patriots balls were reinflated and the Colts ball pressure was measured. Only 4 of the Colts balls (instead of all 12) were measured because halftime ended and the officials ran out of time. The fact that the officials ran out of time is highly material: it implies that the Colts balls were inside a warm room for almost the entire halftime before they were measured and thus had a chance to warm up.
The Wells report’s analysis focuses on the pressure drop of the Patriots balls between their pregame and halftime measurements relative to the pressure drop of the Colts balls between their pregame and halftime measurements. The question the report attempts to answer is whether the pressure drop of the Patriots balls can be explained as
the natural pressure drop of a football used during the game, or whether only human intervention can explain the pressure reduction.
Fortunately, the Wells report provides sufficient data to test this. First, it specifies the range of pressures that the Ideal Gas Law suggests the balls could have read given the temperature change from indoors to outdoors. That range, according to the report, is 11.32 to 11.52 in the case of the Patriots and 11.80 to 12.00 in the case of the Colts (Wells Jr., Karp, and Reisner 2015). Again, as there is uncertainty concerning which gauge was used before the game, we explore all four possible permutations.
The Wells report also documents that the temperature of the surrounding environment influences the internal pressure of a football even over very short time intervals. The report notes, for instance, that the 0.7 PSI impact on a football of "vigorous rubbing" dissipates after a window of roughly 15–30 minutes. And a chart on page 31 of the Exponent section of the Wells report shows pronounced effects of air temperature on ball pressure in a span of what appears to be roughly 15 minutes (Wells Jr., Karp, and Reisner 2015, 31).
The report also notes that halftime was scheduled to last 13 minutes and that the Colts balls were measured toward the very end of that window, when they ran out of time. We can therefore infer that the Colts balls were tested after being indoors for a period of a bit less than 15 minutes. The first of the Patriots balls was measured right at the beginning of halftime, followed by the others.
The differences in the pressure drop of each team’s balls between pregame and halftime that are documented by the Wells report can be explained by this difference in the timing of measurements. Tables 6 and 7 report the results of a t-test for whether the pressure of the balls measured at halftime is statistically distinguishable from the bottom of the range predicted for the beginning of based on the Ideal Gas Law.6 In principle, one could take into account the duration of exposure to the ambient temperature of the Officials’ Locker Room, where the halftime testing occurred, when forming a benchmark for what the pressure of the each team’s balls should measure if there were no illegal tampering.
Yet the officials’ failure to record the precise time at which the balls were tested during halftime precludes the possibility of making precise adjustments for the expected pressure of the balls based on their exposure to the room’s ambient temperature.
-
I am not shooting the messenger or anyone else for that matter, only saying that Deflategate does not rise to the level of an important issue of the day, and that the authors are economists and not physicists or engineers, and that the lead author grew up in Massachusetts. The fact that they did research on Bounty Gate is irrelevant.
You may not be shooting the messenger, but you are reaching at straws trying to claim that AEI isn't a credible independent source. The authors are economists...you have said this twice now. Do you seriously believe that the organization didn't have actual scientists perform the scientific analysis described in their report? They have resources available to them in every academic discipline, so you can be certain that physicists performed the scientific studies. It's also a stretch to believe that the organization would put it's entire existence on the line because one of their researchers is an angry Patriots fan who grew up in Massachusetts and is mad about the NFL.
So instead of trying to discredit an organization with unquestionable credentials, why not think about what they are saying? Because it makes a lot of sense....you don't have to be a scientist to know that a football measured immediately after coming in from the cold can't really be compared to one that warmed up for 15 minutes before being measured. The Wells report ignored this in order to reach a conclusion. There's no denying this now.
-
Non profit, lol....You might want to do some research on AEI, specifically their involvement with exxon mobile.
They are a non-profit. That's not conjecture - it's fact. Read their website:
AEI is a private, nonpartisan, not-for-profit institution dedicated to research and education on issues of government, politics, economics and social welfare. AEI’s purpose is to serve leaders and the public through research and education on the most important issues of the day. AEI research is conducted through seven primary research divisions: Economics, Foreign and Defense Policy, Politics and Public Opinion, Education, Health, Energy and the Environment and Society and Culture.
-
No.. I don't feel like reading up on them. You claim to have done it , so just tell me how many scientist are employed by that group. and LOL.. is correct cause I'm laughing at you for thinking this is some earth shattering news that is going to reverse the whole decision. You and AM football are in for a big disappointment I'm afraid.
Excuse me for being rude but you people really are annoying with all your nonsense.
My favorite two were....
1) Kraft will destroy Goodall in court. He will be out of a job. For sure he will take this to the highest court. uh.. huh
2) Good chance that Wells will prove that it was the Colts that tampered with the intercepted ball. "it was the only ball that was deflated more than a tick to two." So .. NE innocent .. Colts guilty....uh huh.
Oh I don't expect Goodell will back down on the punishment at all. He is too gutless to do the right thing and risk the wrath of the pitchfork carrying mob who wants the Patriots punished in order to give them a better chance to win. I've accepted that. I'm just happy to see that the charges against them have been proven to be laughably false...it's a legacy thing now.
-
If I recall correctly, the Wells report concluded that the non-logo gauge was used because it would not have been possible to get the readings the referees did, under those conditions, using the logo gauge. So which is more likely? Someone misremembering, or the science being wrong?
no - their dismissal of the logo gauge depended on the claim that the difference in the pressure drops between the Colts balls and the Pats balls couldn't be explained. Here is a quote from one of the scientists:
On the key question of which gauge was used by referee Walt Anderson to test the PSI levels of the footballs used in the AFC Championship Game, Deflategate investigator Ted Wells punted.
Instead, on a conference call today, Wells turned that question over to his partner, Lorin Reisner. And Reisner then claimed that it doesn’t matter.
“The question of which gauge was used by Walt Anderson before the game — it just doesn’t effect any of the ultimate conclusions,” Reisner said. “The difference in the pressure drops between the two teams was found to be statistically significant regardless of the gauge used.”
This is what the AEI report has called foul on. They have proven that the Colts balls sitting in the warm room for 15 minutes longer than the Pats balls when they were measured makes the bold comment null and void. The Colts balls reinflated significantly during that 15 minutes.
-
How does Deflategate fit into there mission? Also, there seems to be a statement missing how their economics professors are qualified as experts in the Ideal Gas Law. If the AEI considers Deflategate to be a "most important issues of the day", then they really need to re-read their mission statement.
Under the "society and culture" part of their mission statement I would presume. They also did their own research on Bounty Gate. This organization is an independent think tank. They don't do contract work - they are a non-profit. So nobody goes to them and says "hey we'll pay you $x to study this". Secondly, they are NOT a "group of economists". They are a group of academics from all disciplines, representing I believe it said over 200 universities across the country.
These guys are legit, and they are heavyweights. This isn't a group of "Patriots fans"...and they say the Wells report's science was poorly done and not credible. That's reality. You can shoot the messenger all you like. Obviously, I love this report...but it can't be dismissed as a "bought and paid for" effort.
-
Maybe this will help http://www.aei.org/about/
AEI’s operations are financed by donations from corporations, foundations and individuals and by investment earnings from an internal endowment. The Institute does not perform contract research and does not accept government grants. Its research agenda is determined by its president in consultation with its trustees, scholars and fellows, and academic advisers; the substance and conclusions of its research and publications are determined by the individuals conducting the research. AEI operates at the intersection of scholarship and politics, aiming to elevate political debate and improve the substance of government policy. Many of the subjects of AEI research and publications are controversial, and many are the focus of political contention and intense interest-group advocacy. Many AEI scholars and fellows are or have been directly engaged in practical politics and policymaking as government officials, advisers or members of official commissions. For these reasons, AEI maintains policies and procedures for assuring the integrity and reputation of its work. The most important of these are set forth below.
The American Enterprise Institute is a community of scholars and supporters committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity and strengthening free enterprise. AEI pursues these unchanging ideals through independent thinking, open debate, reasoned argument, facts and the highest standards of research and exposition. Without regard for politics or prevailing fashion, we dedicate our work to a more prosperous, safer and more democratic nation and world.
AEI is a private, nonpartisan, not-for-profit institution dedicated to research and education on issues of government, politics, economics and social welfare. AEI’s purpose is to serve leaders and the public through research and education on the most important issues of the day. AEI research is conducted through seven primary research divisions: Economics, Foreign and Defense Policy, Politics and Public Opinion, Education, Health, Energy and the Environment and Society and Culture.
More than 200 people work at AEI’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. In addition, adjunct scholars and fellows, mainly at research universities around the United States, conduct research for AEI and participate in its conferences. In all our endeavors, AEI trustees, scholars and fellows, and officers and staff are responsible for maintaining the highest standards of integrity, intellectual rigor and excellence—and for sustaining AEI’s founding commitment to open inquiry, lucid exposition, vigorous debate and continuous improvement in the institutions of American liberty.
-
I don't view the report by people who are no more scientific knowledge than me as earth shattering. I also don't think the only damning evidence (all circumstantial) is the employee referring to himself as the deflator.
lol..do you really think that this AEI report was done by "economists who don't know anything about science"? Read up on AEI at some point...this isn't a hack outfit...they are extremely credible and not just a bunch of "economists".
-
Exponent's science report was commissioned by Wells and the NFL office. AEI's science report was commissioned by the NFLPA, who has interest in seeing these penalties overturned.
This is not true. The New York Times commissioned the AEI report, not the NFLPA. It's an independent report.
-
I think it's funny how you keep bashing the science, but don't actually read the science in the Wells report. Read page 200 of the document:
For example, using the most likely pressure and temperature values for the Patriots game balls on the day of the AFC Championship Game (i.e., a starting pressure of 12.5 psig, a starting temperature of between 67 and 71°F and a final temperature of 48°F prior to the balls being taken back into the Officials Locker Room), these equations predict that the Patriots balls should have measured between 11.52 and 11.32 psig at the end of the first half, just before they were brought back into the Officials Locker Room. Most of the individual Patriots measurements recorded at halftime, however, were lower than the range predicted by the ideal Gas Law. Once the game day measurements are converted into their corresponding Master Gauge pressures (in order to provide for a direct comparison with the results predicted by the calculations), the measurements for all but three of the footballs, as measured by both gauges, were lower than the range predicted by the ideal Gas Law
from the AEI report:
At halftime, 11 of the Patriots balls and only 4 of Colts balls were measured with both gauges. Unfortunately, the Logo gauge tends to give higher readings than the Non-Logo gauge (by about 0.4 PSI), and this has created some controversy. Anderson remembers that he used the Logo gauge before the game, but the Wells report, in a direct contradiction of that recollection, concludes that he used the Non-Logo gauge before the game. The Patriots have argued that this decision was crucial to the analysis and that the evidence of excessive deflation disappears if one assumes the Logo gauge was used. Wells, in a news conference after the report was released, has stated that his report’s results continue to hold and that "it doesn’t matter because regardless of which gauges were used the scientific consultants addressed all of the permutations in their analysis" (Boston Globe 2015).2
This statement is factually incorrect. The Wells report neither provides evidence for every possible permutation of gauge use nor proves that the report’s conclusions are independent of gauge use. If, as the Wells report asserts, Anderson’s recollection is unreliable, then it seems to logically follow that one way to perform a thorough analysis would be to address all four possible permutations of gauge use.
Two gauges and two teams implies four possible
permutations of pregame gauge use: (1) the Patriots balls were measured with the Logo gauge whereas the Colts balls were measured with the
Non-Logo gauge, (2) the Patriots balls were measured with the Non-Logo gauge whereas the Colts balls were measured with the Logo gauge, (3) both teams’ balls were measured with the Logo gauge, or (4) both teams’ balls were measured with the Non-Logo gauge. We analyze each possibility separately using a standard statistical model.
-
That is hilarious coming from you, thanks for the laugh.
If there was irrefutable scientific evidence that the Patriots tampered with footballs, I'd be the first to admit that they tampered with footballs.
But the science does not support the conclusion that footballs were tampered with. There's no getting around this anymore.
-
I'll be honest and say that I didn't read the whole Wells report . That said I was of the understanding that the conclusions of the report never relied on science to prove the balls were deflated by tampering. I'm sure they talked to scientist that understood as much as the economists that released this report.
so without knowing whether or not the balls actually measured at a level that wouldn't be considered 'normal' given the conditions, you made a decision because in a text from May, 2014, some low level employee referred to himself as "the deflator"? It doesn't seem like you are all that interested in the actual truth then.
-
What exactly does this line mean from the attached article Bad Morty provided? "... the Colts footballs were allowed to adjust to the indoors temperature prior to measurement."
The whole basis on which the Wells report came to the scientific conclusion that the balls had to have been artificially deflated hinged on the measurement of the Colts balls, which didn't show anywhere near the drop. I.e the logic was "The Pats balls read lower than the 12.5 they started at. Depending on which gauge was used, that reduction may be explainable by the ideal gas law (if you use the logo gauge that the ref says he used) or it may not be (if you use the other gauge). BUT, we don't think the gauge issue matters BECAUSE the Colts balls (4 of them that were measured) didn't deflate by anywhere near the same amount. Therefore, the Pats more probably than not tampered with the balls"
What this new report is saying is "hold on a sec...it's clear that the Colts balls that were used for comparison sat in a warm room for 15 minutes before they took the halftime measurements..now here is science that proves that those balls would have re-inflated significantly in that time frame, so you can't make the claim that the different rates of deflation is valid evidence"
-
Here we go again..... Not going to happen. Brady will get between 2 and 4 games and end of story.
Why... ? Because the guy took the balls into the pee place and stuck them. Brady was aware in some capacity no doubt.
How do you explain the fact that science doesn't prove that the balls were tampered with?
-
It was the same Kraft who expected NFL to apologize to the Pats before the wells report.
It was the same Kraft who accepted punishment from NFL after the wells report.
You do the math.
I understand why you'd want to ignore the fact that science disproves the story you want to believe. That's a natural fan reaction. But unfortunately, logic usually prevails over the long term. You don't need a science degree to understand that if the Colts balls sat in a warm dressing room for 15 minutes before 4 of them were measured for comparison purposes, that completely and unequivocally explains away the supposed damning evidence that the Patriots balls deflated more than the Colts balls did. That's kind of a huge blow to the forensic "evidence" in the Wells report. Remember - even with the Wells scientific analysis he couldn't arrive at anything stronger than "more probable than not"...now with this new evidence, that tips the scales back to "more improbable"
-
This.
Kraft is a smart man. By accepting the punishment, without exactly saying "we plead guilty", allows him to save face with the Pats fans. IMO, he knew there was guilt, didn't see winning in court, so he took the punishment and chose to move on.
Once again, IMO, this allows the Pats fans to say "he never admitted guilt, so they must be innocent" and leaves the rest of the Country viewing this clearly as guilt. Everyone will see it as it best suits their agenda.
What Kraft did or didn't do has no bearing on the facts of their guilt or innocence. There are a number of reasons why Kraft chose not to fight the punishment, chief among them being that per the by-laws of the league he has no legal standing to fight any punishment, and attempting to do so would have resulted 100% in him losing the case anyway AND inflicting damage on the league he earns his money off of. All of that is a side show.
What is reality is simply this: the science does not suggest that the balls were tampered with at all. The readings of both the Colts and Pats balls are all expected results per the ideal gas law and given the conditions that existed when each team's balls were tested. That is the beginning and the end of the story. If you are convinced someone committed murder only to find out that the supposed victim is actually alive and well, then it really doesn't matter what sketchy text messages the suspect might have sent, does it?
Deflategate merge -- pending appeal results
in NFL General
Posted
ok - so you are NOT dismissing the report, then. You are just saying that you believe the scientific tests in the report were performed by economists, not scientists, and that the people who authored the report have a tie to Massachusetts and are therefore willing to throw the credibility they worked their entire careers to earn out the window because they are upset that a football player got a suspension?