Quote:didnt feel like digging up that chart you posted with pats fumbles vs the rest but here is this for you too.

 
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/your-guide-to-deflate-gateballghazi-related-statistical-analyses/'>http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/your-guide-to-deflate-gateballghazi-related-statistical-analyses/</a>

Thanks, it's interesting.

 

I do read 538.com quite a bit and like most of their work. I've read Neil Paine's articles in the past and it's fairly obvious he's not a big follower of football with an almost rudimentary understanding of it (he's more of a baseball guy). He was justifiably crucified for his last article which basically concluded that cheating should can overlooked because the game was a blowout. I've also read the sources he's used for this last article. All attacked the analysis by pointing out the flaws, but none attempted to explain the difference before and after 2007.

 

He wrote a new blog entry addressing the criticism of his work: http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/


The Advanced Football Analytics (Brian Burke) also looked at Sharp's work and think, while not perfect, does show a trend that needs more investigation. Burke tweeted this about one of the articles Paine used as a rebuttel:

 


<div style="color:rgb(41,47,51);font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Roboto, 'Segoe UI', Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:12px;">
<div><span style="font-size:16px;font-weight:bold;color:rgb(41,47,51);">Brian Burke </span>@Adv_NFL_Stats
Follow</div>

<p style="font-size:18px;">This article is so disingenuous it makes stat guys look bad and I don't like it. http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710<span> …</span>


</div>

---