1Robert F. Young Expose NFL hidden, bogus assumptions and Exponent data exonerates Patriots of #DeflateGate#FreeTomBrady -Robert F. Young, fan of clear logic and science first, Patriots second, dont ask about the Sox these days. August 14, 2015. Taking out of the bag two bogus, hidden assumptions that have gone unnoticed causes the Exponent data to indicate that the Patriots did NOT take air out of the footballs. If you take those assumptions out, then the other Exponent science (much good work in there) shows that it is most likely that no air was removed and impossible that any amount of air was removed large enough to be measured accurately. 1)Hidden assumption baked into the graph: Assumption the balls were removed from the bag an average of 4 minutes before the officials measured each balls pressure at halftime.Wrong!Wells report shows each ball was measured right as it came out of the bag and also that balls had no chance to warm up during the testing. 2)Assumption that most gauges out there are accurate (dont over-read by 3%) because the all gauges of the particular model the ref said he did not use read more accurately. Poor assumption: No legitimate reason exists to think that.Example: Honda cars were common in the world even though their odometers tended to over-read by 3%.The fact that Toyota odometers consistently read accurately doesnt provide any evidence to suggest what-ever car the Colts/Patriots both used was more likely to have been accurate (the Toyota) than misread (the Honda). More explanation and proof follows.None of it requires fancy statistics. 2Robert F. Young Out of the bag assumption:The Wells report depends on a crucial but hidden, bizarre, and false assumption that the NFL officials took the Patriots balls out of the bag at halftime and let them sit around in the open an average of four minutes before measuring the pressures.The assumption is baked into the two crucial graphs Exponent used to wrap up their most compelling proof:figures 29 and 30 on pages 60 and 61. It would make no sense for the officials to do that.In fact, the Wells report game-day-narrative and its air pressure data for the footballs both contradict that assumption.The proof is simple to see graphically without any fancy statistics needed (more on that later, starting new bottom of page 4). Take that bogus, out of the bag assumption away, and then the Exponent data proves that Patriots balls measured exactly what they were supposed to,as long as the ref was right about what gauge he used (graphical proof of that later).If the ref was right, the Patriots could not possibly have let out even a little air from the balls. Toyota vs. Honda assumption for which gauge was used: Hidden assumption: Most gauges in the world must be accurate because the particular model of gauges the ref said he did not use read accurately are like the 8 Exponent bought of the same model the ref claimed not to have usedThe only logical basis provided for the NFL claim that ref was wrong about what gauge he used was based on a yet another disguised assumption that works like this: Because Exponent bought 8 Toyotas to test the odometers, nearly everyone must drive Toyotas. Or to put it more precisely: Because 9 Toyota odometers we tested are consistently more accurate than the only Honda odometer we tested, which over-reads by 2%, the Colts/Patriots must drive Toyotas.Therefore the ref must have driven his Toyota that day, even though he recalls that he drove his Honda. Or: Accuracy Market share likely gauges teams used gauge the ref used That idiocy of that assumption is best illustrated by the fact that Honda for a time made cars with odometers that over-read by 2% and yet Hondas were very popular at the time.It wasnt just one car, it was all of them.The gauges differed by 3% rather than 2%, but the same logic applies. Exponent has data that contracts the idea that the refs particular Honda must have been unusual in over-reading.The test results strongly suggest that because the refs Honda odometer over-reads, all Honda odometers likely over-read:Given the gauge-to-gauge consistency verified by Exponent for the non-logo (i.e. Toyota) (starting on their page 18), it seems that the manufacturing process is consistent, such that the 3Robert F. Young design of a gauge is the primary determinant of its accuracy, rather than gauge-to-gauge manufacturing variability. Thus if one logo gauge over-reads by 3%, others likely do also. Proof that the above analogy accurately depicts Exponents assumption: Exponent tested 9 Toyotas and just the one Honda (the refs): See last paragraph of Exponents page 20), and Proof that this was the crux of logic (if there was any logic other than a presumption of guilt): If interpreted charitably to Exponent and Wells integrity, the last paragraph of page 44 of the Exponent report indicates that the inaccuracy of the one logo gauge, vs consistent accuracy of non-logo gauges, is what convinces Exponent that the teams must have used accurate gauges instead. We know from the pre-game data that the Colts and Patriots both drove cars whose odometers worked similarly that day, working the same as whichever car the ref dove that day.Therefore, once you accept the bogus assumption, it becomes logical to doubt the refs recollection of which of his cars he drove that day. It seems likely that the one true reason Wells and Exponent insist the non-logo gauge was used is simply that the other (logo) gauge over-reads.That is what the last paragraph on page 44 says: It has been shown that the Logo Gauge consistently reads higher than all other gauges analyzed in this investigation. As a result, it is very unlikely that the Logo Gauge would have read similarly to the gauges used by each team What motivates them is evidently not really accuracy but rather in which direction the inaccuracy occurs. Or put another way, because the Patriots only look guilty if we assume everyone dove Toyotas, we assume the ref was wrong in recalling that he drove his Honda that day. The NFL hid the notes from their questioning of the ref, claiming client-attorney privacy, while the ref allowed under cross-examination that is possible that his recollection was wrong about what gauge he used.How likely could that be considering that: He always brings the same two gauges.One gauge has a noticeably longer needle, thus making them different enough in use that hes likely to have a habit for which one he tends to use. If you had a Camry and an Accord, wouldnt you likely develop a habit for which one you use, and likely thus recall correctly which one you most likely drove. There is a great leap required to get from the ref simply admitting under cross examination that his recollection is not infallible to the conclusion that his recollection means little. Significance (or lack of it) not adequately discussed in the press: 4Robert F. Young Even if the ref was wrong about the gauge, the amount by which the Patriots presumably cheated was only the difference between the gauges: 0.37psi.For some perspective, thats: Less than 3% of the footballs normal pressure. (0.37/13) Less than 0.50psi by which the Colts voluntarily set their balls above the required limit 12.5psi minimum. Over 8x the amount by which the refs disadvantaged the Patriots by over-inflating balls for the Jets game to 16psi instead of the average 13psi Equal to the psi the ball gains or loses in only 2.5 minutes of exposure to game-day vs. locker room temperatures (see Exponent Figure 29 or 30 on their page 60 or 61) Equal to the amount of pressure change that occurs naturally if outdoor-vs-indoor temperature difference increases another 7.5 degrees (see Exponent Table 10 on their page 39, comparing rows for 65, 70, and 75 degrees)Over 5 times less than the amount by which all footballs used in 2nd half in 30-degree weather will be higher in pressure in 2015 than they were in all previous years of the NFL. (Assuming balls were and will continue to be first set to 13psi indoors, but that refs will pump them up to 13 again on the field at halftime.For ballpark proof, compare first and last row of Table 10, multiply by 2 for 40-degree differential (70 degree locker to 30 degree field) rather than 20 degrees to calculate 2.01psi difference.Divide by 0.37) 4 times the amount by which any football used in 2015 in 30-degree weather will be under the legal limit by start of Q2 (presuming the ref sets them to 13psi indoors). (For ball-park proof, subtract 0.5psi from the above 2.01 and divide by 0.37) Likely 4 times the amount by which the team that placed balls near the heater altered the PSI of their footballs illegally from what they would naturally be (if it resulted in 15 degrees difference).No draft pick losses or suspensions ensued. But isnt there evidence of intent to cheat -- maybe they just cheated by so little that the data wasnt precise enough to detect it? The data proves it was most likely that no air was removed at all. What can we say to those who figure that based on the test message and bathroom stop, some air must have been removed (just too little for the gauges to measure to prove)? The average seems that it could vary by 0.2 either way and not be provable.For the significance of that, take the above numbers and double level of insignificance they show. If you are going to tamper, why then call attention to your intense interest in air pressure by making a point to the ref that you want 12.5psi and not more?If youre going to deflate the balls anyway, why bother? 5Robert F. Young Doesnt it make more sense that Tom wanted only to prevent a recurrence of the ref screwing up by over-inflating the balls for the Jets game, and to avail himself of every completely legal benefit by specifying 12.5psi (the permissible low end), just as Aaron Rodgers wants 13.5 psi (the upper range)? Since the attendant had already used the deflator term before last season, why did he not deflate the wildly over-pressured balls in the Jets game? Doesnt it make more sense that what really upset folks was the clever and legal use of ineligible receivers to distract the Ravens from eligible receivers against the Ravens, but Deflategate was the only option for comeuppance? While the Patriots are known for taking every legal advantage, even if small (and one small illegal one last decade), why would anyone on the Patriots waste even the effort on this one to achieve a difference so small that it is wiped out by even 4 degrees of temperature change? Conclusion: The evidence having proven it more likely than not that the ref was right about what gauge he used, and data showing the balls measuring exactly what they were supposed to under those circumstances, the data thus proves it most likely that no air was removed at all, and impossible that significant air was removed. More info; Proof that NFL/Well/Exponent assumed the balls were each out of the bag an average of four minutes before they were measured: Below you can see how Wells depicted their wrong assumption graphically, leading to the erroneous conclusion that the most probable truth is that Patriots must have let 0.2psi of air out of the ball prior to the game to explain the actual measured average being lower than the most middle dot (assuming that the ref was right about what gauge was used. 6Robert F. Young Source: See page 61 of the Exponent report for the Figure 30 graphic, which is the graphic most central to their erroneous conclusion of claiming that if the ref is right, the best explanation for the air pressure is that the Patriots removed air. To that Figure 30 graphic I added the red arrows, red outline boxes, and the label Actual Patriot balls. The dots and curved lines are based on Exponent testing with balls freely exposed to the air, and thus not clumped together in a slightly damp bag.They posed three cases, the middle dot deemed most likely.Slight warming could have happened in the bag, but not nearly as much as suggested.Furthermore, the balls were tested quickly, as concluded by AEI and demonstrated graphically later below, thus leaving little time for the balls clumped in the damp bag to warm up. The solid curved lines being much higher than the dots, that are only slightly above the dotted lines, indicate that Exponent testing showed that even a little bit of moisture (spray and then immediately wipe off), brings the pressure far closer to a completely wet ball than to a completely dry ball. Only a few balls were relatively dry, and none likely to have been absolutely dry.Therefore a few balls perhaps being drier than the simulation depicted by the dots would have only a minor influence on the average. 7Robert F. Young Proof that the out-of-the-bag assumption was wrong, the easy part: Wells report contradicts the notion that each ball wasnt measured immediately after removal from the bag: See Wells report Once inside the Officials Locker Room, the game balls for both teams were brought to the back corner of the dressing area. Blakeman sat on a chair placed against the back wall of the dressing area next to the ball bags (facing into the dressing room with the bags to his right), and Prioleau sat on a second chair to Blakemans left (facing the same way). Blakeman and Prioleau were each given one of Andersons two pressure gauges, one of which had also been used to test the footballs before the game.37 Riveron stood next to the officials with Vincent, Grossi, and Farley observing nearby. Each ball was checked first by Blakeman and then by Prioleau, with each official calling out the pressure measurement for each ball tested and Farley writing down the measurement announced by each official before moving to the next ball. Wells report starting at the bottom of page 66[emphasis added] Further proof that the balls werent warming up prior to testing or during testing: As the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) report provided it in words and analysis they describe bottom left of their page 9, but a picture would have been helpful for most folks.Shown in green is the rate at which the measurements should be trending upward if the balls are out I the open as assumed by Exponent (Based on Exponents data in figures 29 or 30, same trend regardless of which figure you use). The actual data rather obviously shows that there was no trend like that. 8Robert F. Young The lack of a trend like the green line proves the balls werent out in the open being tested over a several minute period as Exponent assumed. The lack of any discernable upward trend at all proves that the balls werent warming up during the test.If the balls werent warming up, then the testing was done with the balls very close to their original field temperature.In case you dont trust your eyes that there is no upward trend in the actual measurements, take it from words of AIE: (page 9 lower left) The coefficient on the count variable for the order in which the balls were tested in our regression (Nk) varies in precisely the way that one would expect to observe if the individual Patriots balls were tested in rapid succession. Since they hadnt warmed up yet, the balls were supposed to measure exactly as they did, so it is mostly likely that no air was removed by the patriots, and impossible that significant air was removed.