Deflation-gate

Oh. When you said "by ear" I thought you were describing some procedure involving pitch or some other sound quality like timber.The procedure I was using in my deflation experiment could be performed by a deaf person. You hold an inflation needle with the needle between two fingers and your thumb covering the large end. You insert the needle into the football, then you remove your thumb for a quick one-two count (or whatever count seems appropriate), then you place your thumb over the end of the needle again and remove the needle from the football. Listening for a hiss isn't part of it, though I guess hearing would be helpful in identifying when your thumb isn't properly covering the end of the needle.Does McNally have hearing problems? If so, and if he did deflate the footballs, and if he wasn't placing his thumb squarely and firmly against the end of the needle, then that would be consistent with inconsistently deflated footballs. But arguing against this possibility is that air leaking past your thumb can be clearly felt, so McNally would also have to have a numb thumb. I never said anything about McNally being an idiot for believing he could get consistent results without using a gauge. I said that to believe he couldn't get consistent results requires one to also believe that he's far worse at deflating footballs than even me, a rank amateur performing the task for the very first time. Sheer speculation. I'm not sure what you're referring to here, so since I guessed so badly about what you meant by "by ear" I won't guess this time. Could you clarify? I don't recall introducing this notion. Certainly McNally isn't drawing high marks for intelligence, but that doesn't say anything about other Patriots or the organization in general. Might this more be a case of, "I have such a good answer for this argument that I shall raise it myself."--Percy

Ridicule wasn't my intent. You tend to come up with scenarios I don't anticipate, so I was just trying to be thorough and cover as many bases as I could think of.--Percy

Comcast Sportsnet today reported Boston columnist Ron Borges's claim that Belichick never believed Brady's story: Borges: ‘I'm told Belichick never believed Brady’Here's another article: New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick suspected Tom Brady wasn't being honest with him in DeflategateI just now saw this, haven't had a chance to assess how true it might be. If true it would be big because Belichick knows Brady very well.--Percy

Living within the Boston sports media radius I'm pretty familiar with all the sports guys on television, radio and in print, so I asked myself the question, "How reliable is Borges?" My initial reaction is that he's very opinionated and isn't afraid to throw strong opinions out there, but that he isn't a loose cannon either. His opinions can be speculative, but not usually unreasonably so.Then I started wondering how would I rank Borges with other Boston sports reporters/commentators/columnists concerning their reliability, and here's what I came up with:

• Dan Shaughnessy
• Mike Reiss
• Bob Neumeier
• Bob Ryan
• Jackie MacMullan
• Mike Gorman
• Michael Felger
• Tony Massarotti
• Christopher Gasper
• Mike Mutnansky
• Jerry Remy
• Steve Burton
• Gerry Callahan
• Mike Lynch
• Dan Roche
• Kirk Minihane
• Ron Borges
• Tom Curran
• Levan Reid
• Scott Zolak
• Greg Dickerson
• Tommy Heinsohn
• Gary Tanguay

The top five on that list could actually be in any order, or all tied for first. They're outstanding.There are some big names I left off the list simply because even though they're well known and respected (Gordon Edes is one, but he mostly follows baseball), I simply haven't read or seen enough of them to have an opinion.Borges comes out in the lower half, but these are all good guys. The only really bad one on the list is the last one.--Percy

AEI (American Enterprise Institute) has issued a report on deflategate: On the Wells report. The introduction includes this statement: What does AEI think went wrong? They think the Wells investigation used a flawed statistical model, and failed to consider explanations other than wrongdoing. One point made earlier in this thread was also made by the AEI report: --PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Actually, AEI made a slightly different point. They said that the statistical model presented in the Wells report was fine, but that it was not the statistical model actually used. AEI surmised that the Wells report had misapplied their model. When AEI used the same model and applied it across all possible permutations of gauges they found that it provided results that did not support the report's conclusions. Policies have varied over time. Until around 15 years ago the NFL provided the game balls, but year after year quarterbacks would complain about using new insufficiently prepped footballs on game day, and eventually the NFL changed the rules so that the teams provided their own game balls, with the referees inspecting them and adjusting the inflation pressure prior to the game. The main concern I hear voiced by quarterbacks is a good solid grip.--Percy

The Brady hearing before NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is today at 9:30 AM in New York City. Results likely won't be known for a few weeks. Science News chimed in with a brief summary article last week: Deflategate favored foul play over science--Percy

In Today's ESPN staff writer Mike Reiss mentions a third possible outcome of Brady's appeal of his four game suspension for deflating footballs (What we'll learn about top NFL decision-makers with Tom Brady appeal ruling). Everyone has been considering only these outcomes:

1. Keep the suspension at four games
2. Reduce the suspension to three, two or one game
3. Overturn the suspension

But Reiss mentions yet another possibility: Table the suspension "to gather more information on air pressure in footballs." He goes on: --Percy

To NoNukes:I said this in Message 73 of the What's the deal with motor vehicle violations? thread: NoNukes responded in Message 75: And then later in Message 80: So here in this thread please see Message 112 where you said: Look at how you began your argument: "The way civil law works is that preponderance of the evidence is used to select winners and losers. Period." You include no room for the strength of the evidence, arguing against my claim that the punishment has to fit the evidence. Civil awards frequently include degree of culpability based upon strength of the evidence, but you want to ignore that. Your world is very black and white.We discussed this a bit more, and I finally replied in Message 126: You never responded.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add salutation.

You've got some things wrong or maybe there's been a misunderstanding. It might be better to just address the actual point of difference. My point was that the punishment is uncommensurate with the evidence. In Message 126 I said: Here are your points that were incorrect: This is incorrect. You're probably thinking of some early comments I made about the agreement between the NFL and NFLPA, which uses the same standard as civil matters. I did question whether that was the best standard for these two groups to use. I in no way questioned that standard for civil matters. Not shoddy evidence - insufficient evidence. And I said it about the process the NFL attempted (unsuccessfully) to employ, not the process used in the civil courts. I was not making a comment about using the "preponderance of the evidence" standard in civil court, which I think is fine.It seems possible that the problem is that you thought I was criticizing the "preponderance of the evidence" standard used by civil courts? I wasn't. I was criticizing the way the NFL employed that standard to mete out unfair punishments.If ball inflation pressure were really such a critical issue then the pressure gauges would be validated, calibrated and tested, referees would be trained, and pre-game checks of the gauges would be employed. That they were using two different gauges that were 0.4 psi different speaks to how low a priority the NFL actually places on ball inflation pressure. To hand out such severe punishments on such flimsy and questionable evidence for something the NFL gives such a low priority makes no sense.--Percy

But Brady wasn't found guilty. Guilty is a criminal court designation. In civil matters you either find for the plaintiff or for the defendant. There is no guilt or innocence. Brady was found by a preponderance of the evidence to have been at least generally aware that the balls were being deflated. Given this somewhat weak and equivocal finding, the punishment is way beyond the pale. If he had instead been found guilty of deflating footballs beyond a reasonable doubt, the criminal standard for guilt, then the punishment would make perfect sense.The NFL thinks they found Brady guilty despite attempting to employ an essentially civil process, and this confusion is part of why I think the agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA should try to develop more appropriate criteria. But you're going by the Wells report, which says only that there was a "preponderance of the evidence." The evidence does not rise to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt," yet you're comfortable with Brady being punished as if this higher standard had been met and he was actually guilty of something. It's like we're speaking different languages. I definitely mean precisely what I said, that the punishment should be appropriate to the evidence. If the NFL has Brady dead to rights deflating footballs, throw the book at him, which is what a 4-game suspension represents. But they don't have that. They have a "preponderance of the evidence" that Brady was "generally aware."And if the NFL someday catches a quarterback in the act of actually deflating footballs, where do they go after giving Brady 4 games for the weaselly evidence of deflate-gate? Do they suspend this quarterback for 8 games? That would be absurd. It was an attempt to return to discussing the actual topic. I apologize. Didn't see that one coming. Nor that one. Culpability isn't in part a function of evidence? And are you implying there's more than one kind of standard of proof in civil cases? More than just a "preponderance of evidence?" It seems to me that I've been very clear in talking about both, that a verdict of a "preponderance of the evidence" showing that Brady was "generally aware" does not merit a punishment of four games. This is unintelligible, I'm not going to try to untangle it, except to say that all I said was that you didn't respond to Message 126.--Percy

NFL Nation's Kevin Seifert today reports the NFL has "produced a detailed process for measuring pregame football inflation, fortified its chain of custody for balls during warm-ups and arranged for random halftime and postgame testing." See Inside Slant: NFL policy changes undermine Tom Brady suspension. The article goes on to note that the changes weaken the NFL's case against Brady since it represents an implicit admission that the previous procedures were inadequate.The actual NFL process has not been made public yet, but the important details seem to be summarized in the above referenced article and in NFL to implement overhauled procedures for football inspections.About the new random checking of pressure at halftime and after the game, the articles didn't mention anything about how they would account for the effects of differences between inside and outside air temperatures, changing temperatures during the game, the amount of time it takes a ball to react to a change in ambient air temperature, and changes in barometric pressure over time, all of which affect measured ball pressure.--Percy

I'm saying something different, and I can't for the life of me figure out why you're not getting it.Let's go back to the example I just used. The NFL has decided that based upon a preponderance of the evidence that Brady was more likely than not to have been generally aware that footballs were being deflated, and they have suspended him 4 games. Now next season the NFL catches a quarterback red-handed deflating footballs. The standard is still just a preponderance of the evidence, but the actual evidence is a slam dunk. Should the NFL suspend him 8 games? That would be ridiculously harsh. Should they suspend him 4 games? That would be ridiculously unfair to Brady.I've been very consistent about this from the very beginning. When I first heard that the Wells report had found Brady guilty I posted that Brady should be suspended 4 games (see Message 100), because I believed the initial news reports that he'd actually been found guilty, that there was actual evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he was involved with tampering with football inflation pressure. But I learned later that the Wells report and the NFL used a lower standard, and that the NFL didn't have that kind of evidence, and so the punishment must be less. And because the evidence measures much, much less than the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, the punishment must be much, much less.The NFL is not always saddled with this lack of hard evidence. For example, in the Ray Rice case they didn't have to say that based upon a preponderance of the evidence that it was more likely than not that Ray Rice beat his fiance senseless in the elevator - they had videotape. Ray Rice was suspended indefinitely (later overturned in court because they didn't follow their own rules and (in a technical sense) suspended him twice for the same offense).The point is that hard evidence can justify hard punishment. Weak evidence cannot. This isn't rocket science. I don't know what thread you've been reading, but it can't be this one. See, for example, my Message 159. You're way out in left field. The entire public debate is about whether the NFL has sufficient evidence to justify so harsh a punishment. You're just going on and on trying to cobble together some chain of minutia to argue that the amount and quality of evidence makes no difference. Well, it does make a difference.--Percy

You're *still* arguing for black and white approaches. Look at what you just said in your earlier Message 167. You in essence say that as far as the evidence is concerned you don't think it matters by how far the standard of "more probable than not" is exceeded when it comes to meting out punishement: --Percy

Well, at least we agree that "if those two acts are distinguishable," whatever punishment Starr gets (two r's), it should not be the same as Fouts.--Percy