Of course he is. He says he is. And Sh!tter is never wrong about anything.
I do question if he has an actual job, or anything to keep him from drowning this board, and probably others, with his delusional BS.
N Y Times: Deflating Deflategate, the evidence & methodology of the Wells report is deeply flawed
- Thread starter outside shooter
- Start date
Of course he is. He says he is. And Sh!tter is never wrong about anything.
I do question if he has an actual job, or anything to keep him from drowning this board, and probably others, with his delusional BS.
Do you even know what a p-value is? I use them DAILY.
This can help you: http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/what_are_conf_inter.pdf
The standard threshold, at least in the biological sciences, is p < 0.05. When the set of mice with tumors gets my test anticancer drug, I want the size of those tumors to be different from the size of the tumors for the set of mice getting only a dummy shot (no drug) with p <0.05. I also want the magnitude of the difference to be huge.
Sample size if of course important. My tests cannot use two mice, or four mice. Ten might be good though.
Easy to see example: suppose you want to decide if a coin is "rigged" by flipping it. Suppose you get 5 heads in five tries. Is it a fair coin? For 5 flips, the p-value would be 2/32 = 0.0625, which is not significant at the 0.05 level. But suppose you do 10 flips and get 10 heads. The p-value would be 2/1024 ≈ 0.002, which is significant at the 0.05 level. It is even significant at the p<0.01 level (99%). It is a more "highly powered" study. So you would reasonably conclude that the coin is rigged in the second case, because of the statistical significance. You would also realize that your conclusion does not necessarily mean that the effect is absolutely guaranteed to be real: by chance alone about one in 100 significant findings (where p ~0.01) will be spurious. That's why the FDA will want multiple highly powered clinical trials, even if some are redundant, for my anticancer drug. They want to leave little to chance.
So there is a nonzero chance, based on the one set of data, that while Tom Brady looks to be innocent, that appearance of innocence is due solely to random variation in the data, after cheating occurred. What sort of chance? 0.33%.
This can help you: http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/what_are_conf_inter.pdf
The standard threshold, at least in the biological sciences, is p < 0.05. When the set of mice with tumors gets my test anticancer drug, I want the size of those tumors to be different from the size of the tumors for the set of mice getting only a dummy shot (no drug) with p <0.05. I also want the magnitude of the difference to be huge.
Sample size if of course important. My tests cannot use two mice, or four mice. Ten might be good though.
Easy to see example: suppose you want to decide if a coin is "rigged" by flipping it. Suppose you get 5 heads in five tries. Is it a fair coin? For 5 flips, the p-value would be 2/32 = 0.0625, which is not significant at the 0.05 level. But suppose you do 10 flips and get 10 heads. The p-value would be 2/1024 ≈ 0.002, which is significant at the 0.05 level. It is even significant at the p<0.01 level (99%). It is a more "highly powered" study. So you would reasonably conclude that the coin is rigged in the second case, because of the statistical significance. You would also realize that your conclusion does not necessarily mean that the effect is absolutely guaranteed to be real: by chance alone about one in 100 significant findings (where p ~0.01) will be spurious. That's why the FDA will want multiple highly powered clinical trials, even if some are redundant, for my anticancer drug. They want to leave little to chance.
So there is a nonzero chance, based on the one set of data, that while Tom Brady looks to be innocent, that appearance of innocence is due solely to random variation in the data, after cheating occurred. What sort of chance? 0.33%.
Last edited:
No, you are still misrepresenting what the data mean. Plus you were using loaded terms incorrectly. A study that shows a significance to a 95% confidence level does NOT "establish scientific fact." If you know what you are talking about, you should know not to state such nonsense.
I was of course dumbing it down for the masses, sheesh. I am not a statistician, so if you are, you can logically take offense to my dumbing down efforts.
A study that shows a result significant to a 95% confidence level very strongly suggests that the result is real and not an artifact of random data fluctuation. It is a scientifically valid conclusion to a generally agreed-upon level of certainty (95%)
A study that shows a result significant to a 99% confidence level EXTREMELY strongly suggests that the result is real and not an artifact of random data fluctuation. It is a scientifically valid conclusion, to an extent even far above the generally agreed-upon level of certainty.
Different fields have different standards. Biological data is inherently highly variable compared to, say, measuring the rate of a chemical reaction multiple times. But this practically just means that in each case you shoot for p<0.05, and in the case where you measure the rate of the chemical reaction you just have to do it fewer times than you would the animal experiment. The inherently variable types of studies must be more highly powered to hope for significance.
A study that shows a result significant to a 95% confidence level very strongly suggests that the result is real and not an artifact of random data fluctuation. It is a scientifically valid conclusion to a generally agreed-upon level of certainty (95%)
A study that shows a result significant to a 99% confidence level EXTREMELY strongly suggests that the result is real and not an artifact of random data fluctuation. It is a scientifically valid conclusion, to an extent even far above the generally agreed-upon level of certainty.
Different fields have different standards. Biological data is inherently highly variable compared to, say, measuring the rate of a chemical reaction multiple times. But this practically just means that in each case you shoot for p<0.05, and in the case where you measure the rate of the chemical reaction you just have to do it fewer times than you would the animal experiment. The inherently variable types of studies must be more highly powered to hope for significance.
Last edited:
More:
After reading more of the AEI report, it's not just OS who is getting this wrong. The AEI report is flawed, as well. When OS says there is only a 1 in 3 or a 1 in 300 (depending on gauge used) chance of the Pats cheating, what he's actually reporting from the AEI report is that there is a 1 in 3/300 chance of the ball that the Colts intercepted reading at the level it did if it had been deflated by 1 full PSI by the Pats.
This is flawed for at least two reasons:
1. It relegates to the footnotes the unjustified dismissal of the possibility not all the balls were deflated.
2. It doesn't even address the possibility (probability) that not all the balls were deflated consistently.
In other words, it's wholly improper to set aside this one individual reading of one individual ball as a means to demonstrate the statistical unlikelihood of the balls being deflated at all.
OS, I think part of your mistake here may simply be that the report was sloppily written. But if you actually noticed that the report was reporting the significance of the measurement of the one (intercepted ball), and reported it here as a measurement of the significance of measurements of all the balls as a group, that's disingenuous on your part, especially for someone who should know better. That's not just "dumbing it down." It's misrepresentation.
After reading more of the AEI report, it's not just OS who is getting this wrong. The AEI report is flawed, as well. When OS says there is only a 1 in 3 or a 1 in 300 (depending on gauge used) chance of the Pats cheating, what he's actually reporting from the AEI report is that there is a 1 in 3/300 chance of the ball that the Colts intercepted reading at the level it did if it had been deflated by 1 full PSI by the Pats.
This is flawed for at least two reasons:
1. It relegates to the footnotes the unjustified dismissal of the possibility not all the balls were deflated.
2. It doesn't even address the possibility (probability) that not all the balls were deflated consistently.
In other words, it's wholly improper to set aside this one individual reading of one individual ball as a means to demonstrate the statistical unlikelihood of the balls being deflated at all.
OS, I think part of your mistake here may simply be that the report was sloppily written. But if you actually noticed that the report was reporting the significance of the measurement of the one (intercepted ball), and reported it here as a measurement of the significance of measurements of all the balls as a group, that's disingenuous on your part, especially for someone who should know better. That's not just "dumbing it down." It's misrepresentation.
Goat, AEI does the analysis many ways, all permutations. Which gauge, logo/non-logo, and to how much a level of deflation is substantial.
1-in-300 is the most Patriots-favorable analysis, in that it assumes logo gauge & 1 psi deflation. (99.67%, yeah, innocent)
1-in-3 is the least Patriots-favorable analysis, in that it assumes non-logo gauge & 0.4 psi deflation. (67%, yeah, innocent, thus the worst case is above the more-likely than not threshold)
There is other evidence that I have described elsewhere that the ref's memory is correct about the logo gauge. So the value of greatest import is the entire range of 0.4-1.0 deflation using logo. This may be in their appendix of their pdf but I haven't poured over the appendix just yet.
0.4 psi is, I think you would agree, even a conservative level of minimum cause for concern. Why? Even one person using one gauge on one ball in a short time frame saw values differing by 0.4 psi in three tries (the only test that was done in triplicate). See Wells report page 70: "The pressure of the Patriots ball that had been intercepted by the Colts was separately tested three times and the measurements—11.45, 11.35 and 11.75 psi, respectively— were written on athletic tape that had been placed on the ball for identification". see also page 65: "Daniel retrieved a gauge that was near the air pump in the dressing area of the Locker Room, and tested the intercepted ball three times before the balance of the game balls were brought back to the Officials Locker Room" footnote: "We believe that Daniel located and used the pressure gauge supplied by the Patriots. We further believe that this is the gauge that John Jastremski considers his normal gauge."
Why is this one ball so important? It was tested immediately, so it had NO time to warm up, and it was tested in triplicate. And it was right where it ought to have been based on its temperature (a little on the high end, but not with statistical significance to argue that the Patriots are guilty of inflategate). It is overall more likely that they are guilty of inflategate rather than deflategate, but neither is established to any acceptable standard of certainty.
I wish they had attached rigorous statistical evaluations to the data on the 11 other footballs, but they don't. I'm just guessing, but the singlicate data is unlikely to give high confidence (>90%) even though it largely mirrors the triplicate data for the one ball.
So yes, "99.67% confidence" is misleading without listing the conditions.
Remember, though, the standard of guilt is 51% confidence (more likely than not). Confidence in guilt never approaches 50% or anywhere in the neighborhood.
1-in-300 is the most Patriots-favorable analysis, in that it assumes logo gauge & 1 psi deflation. (99.67%, yeah, innocent)
1-in-3 is the least Patriots-favorable analysis, in that it assumes non-logo gauge & 0.4 psi deflation. (67%, yeah, innocent, thus the worst case is above the more-likely than not threshold)
There is other evidence that I have described elsewhere that the ref's memory is correct about the logo gauge. So the value of greatest import is the entire range of 0.4-1.0 deflation using logo. This may be in their appendix of their pdf but I haven't poured over the appendix just yet.
0.4 psi is, I think you would agree, even a conservative level of minimum cause for concern. Why? Even one person using one gauge on one ball in a short time frame saw values differing by 0.4 psi in three tries (the only test that was done in triplicate). See Wells report page 70: "The pressure of the Patriots ball that had been intercepted by the Colts was separately tested three times and the measurements—11.45, 11.35 and 11.75 psi, respectively— were written on athletic tape that had been placed on the ball for identification". see also page 65: "Daniel retrieved a gauge that was near the air pump in the dressing area of the Locker Room, and tested the intercepted ball three times before the balance of the game balls were brought back to the Officials Locker Room" footnote: "We believe that Daniel located and used the pressure gauge supplied by the Patriots. We further believe that this is the gauge that John Jastremski considers his normal gauge."
Why is this one ball so important? It was tested immediately, so it had NO time to warm up, and it was tested in triplicate. And it was right where it ought to have been based on its temperature (a little on the high end, but not with statistical significance to argue that the Patriots are guilty of inflategate). It is overall more likely that they are guilty of inflategate rather than deflategate, but neither is established to any acceptable standard of certainty.
I wish they had attached rigorous statistical evaluations to the data on the 11 other footballs, but they don't. I'm just guessing, but the singlicate data is unlikely to give high confidence (>90%) even though it largely mirrors the triplicate data for the one ball.
So yes, "99.67% confidence" is misleading without listing the conditions.
Remember, though, the standard of guilt is 51% confidence (more likely than not). Confidence in guilt never approaches 50% or anywhere in the neighborhood.
Last edited:
The point is that the confidence measure you cited is only the confidence that one particular ball was not deflated. You portrayed it as something else entirely. For someone so intent on proving an objective scientific case, that was very sloppy of you.
Also, the "more probably than not" standard takes into account all the evidence, not just the ball measurements. It's the text messages that put it over the 50% threshold.
The noncooperation by Brady, McNally and Jastremski and the tremendous increase in phone calls, texts and meetings between those three were also cited.
This just occurred to me too: is it plausible that Kraft suspended McNally and Jastremski so that the NFL couldn't require the Patriots to produce them for hearings? That wouldn't work, of course, if Brady is so stupid to take this to court.
You aren't irrational AT ALL! You talk about the Colts hatred for the Pats and you spend ALL your time talking about the Colts and Manning. Way more than anyone on here does. Pot meet kettle?
http://
An artistic representation of what I feel about Outside Shooter's obsession?
Or a bunch of cysts. I really don't want to look at it again.
Whats wrong? I was just keeping with the theme of this thread. When OS posts, its like a boil erupts....spewing everywhere.
I guess not all of you are happy that the AEI report exonerates Brady. Strange reaction. Someone obviously falsely accused for so long, and now the facts are out.
You will see him opening night, on the field, under a REAL banner.
You will see him opening night, on the field, under a REAL banner.
Brady will settle for nothing less than a full exoneration:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...eal-calls-wells-report-dubious-contradictory/
The hearing for Tom Brady to appeal his four-game Deflategate suspension is a week away, and the NFL Players Association has sent the NFL a letter decrying the Ted Wells Report that formed the basis of the Brady suspension.
In the letter, according to Sal Paolantonio of ESPN, the Wells Report is described as containing “dubious, contradictory and mischaracterized circumstantial evidence” which fails to prove Brady did anything wrong...
According to Paolantonio, Brady would not be satisfied with a reduced suspension: He wants to be fully exonerated and not suspended at all, feeling he has done nothing wrong. And Patriots owner Robert Kraft believes that’s exactly what will happen, that Brady will win his appeal and will play Week One.
See you in court, Roger Goodell!
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...eal-calls-wells-report-dubious-contradictory/
The hearing for Tom Brady to appeal his four-game Deflategate suspension is a week away, and the NFL Players Association has sent the NFL a letter decrying the Ted Wells Report that formed the basis of the Brady suspension.
In the letter, according to Sal Paolantonio of ESPN, the Wells Report is described as containing “dubious, contradictory and mischaracterized circumstantial evidence” which fails to prove Brady did anything wrong...
According to Paolantonio, Brady would not be satisfied with a reduced suspension: He wants to be fully exonerated and not suspended at all, feeling he has done nothing wrong. And Patriots owner Robert Kraft believes that’s exactly what will happen, that Brady will win his appeal and will play Week One.
See you in court, Roger Goodell!
Who cares what Tommy Boy wants? I hope it does go to court. It's pretty obvious that Kraft settled so it wouldn't go to court. The questioning merely toward the "deflator" would be hilarious. I imagine there are several other interesting things that might come up if it does go. Bring it!
The questioning regarding the data obtained on the footballs and Wells' bizarre interpretation will be more hilarious.
deflate or deflator was in two texts:
1) "deflate and give up that (oversized) jacket" is pretty clearly about size/weight
2) "come on, help the deflator" in May 2014 (in the offseason) is less certain.
The Patriots said, clearly and in plain language in their 'context report', that #2 might in fact, refer to his normal responsibilities that include regularly legally deflating all footballs as they come from the manufacturer, and then again legally deflating them to just above the near-minimum legal pressure for Brady's inspection.
So lost in all the yuk-yuks about the Patriots saying that deflating means losing weight was that the Patriots also said that it may refer to his specific job of legally deflating footballs on a regular basis.
support: "Duties in football preparation in fact routinely involve deflating every football at least twice. Every team in the League has developed a standard operating procedure for the preparation of new footballs for game play. The Patriots standard procedures are described in part on pgs. 37-40. Omitted from that description, but as Mr. Jastremski explained, is that the very first thing he routinely does when he opens a new box of Wilson footballs is to take a bit of air out of them. That makes them easier to prepare (rough up). The second time he takes air out of footballs is when he sets them for Mr. Brady’s pre-game review and selection. (pgs. 39-40). Prior to the Jets game in 2014, Mr. Jastremski set the footballs at 12.75-12.85 for Mr. Brady’s pre-game inspection and selection, since that is the range that had been used by Mr. Jastremski’s predecessor...In short, not “crediting” the evidence that footballs were historically set at 12.75-85 demonstrates mostly how the report lets its interpretation of the texts then control how it views all other evidence. In all events, there is no question that Mr. Jastremski had to deflate footballs a second time just before Mr. Brady’s selection. To get them to the desired (and permissible) level, one adds air and then releases the air to the desired psi. After mid-season in 2014 — i.e., after the Jets game issues with vastly over-inflated footballs — he set them at 12.6 (rather than at 12.75-12.85) for Mr. Brady’s inspection and selection — again adding air and releasing it to get down to the desired psi. So deflation of footballs cannot be presumed to refer to post-referee inspection conduct." - Wells context report
deflate or deflator was in two texts:
1) "deflate and give up that (oversized) jacket" is pretty clearly about size/weight
2) "come on, help the deflator" in May 2014 (in the offseason) is less certain.
The Patriots said, clearly and in plain language in their 'context report', that #2 might in fact, refer to his normal responsibilities that include regularly legally deflating all footballs as they come from the manufacturer, and then again legally deflating them to just above the near-minimum legal pressure for Brady's inspection.
So lost in all the yuk-yuks about the Patriots saying that deflating means losing weight was that the Patriots also said that it may refer to his specific job of legally deflating footballs on a regular basis.
support: "Duties in football preparation in fact routinely involve deflating every football at least twice. Every team in the League has developed a standard operating procedure for the preparation of new footballs for game play. The Patriots standard procedures are described in part on pgs. 37-40. Omitted from that description, but as Mr. Jastremski explained, is that the very first thing he routinely does when he opens a new box of Wilson footballs is to take a bit of air out of them. That makes them easier to prepare (rough up). The second time he takes air out of footballs is when he sets them for Mr. Brady’s pre-game review and selection. (pgs. 39-40). Prior to the Jets game in 2014, Mr. Jastremski set the footballs at 12.75-12.85 for Mr. Brady’s pre-game inspection and selection, since that is the range that had been used by Mr. Jastremski’s predecessor...In short, not “crediting” the evidence that footballs were historically set at 12.75-85 demonstrates mostly how the report lets its interpretation of the texts then control how it views all other evidence. In all events, there is no question that Mr. Jastremski had to deflate footballs a second time just before Mr. Brady’s selection. To get them to the desired (and permissible) level, one adds air and then releases the air to the desired psi. After mid-season in 2014 — i.e., after the Jets game issues with vastly over-inflated footballs — he set them at 12.6 (rather than at 12.75-12.85) for Mr. Brady’s inspection and selection — again adding air and releasing it to get down to the desired psi. So deflation of footballs cannot be presumed to refer to post-referee inspection conduct." - Wells context report
1. The rings cost $36,500 each and are the most expensive ever produced by Jostens.
2. Kraft purchased 150 rings for a total of $5.475 million.
3. There are 4.85 carats in each ring, and 205 diamonds
Brady did nothing wrong...except for not cooperating with an investigation....oh and telling people to deflate a few footballs.
Similar threads
