# NYTimes: No evidence that Patriots deflated balls **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [January 23, 2016, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013 "2016-01-23T20:27:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/21 "2016-01-24T15:08:38Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > No, I don’t agree, so your conclusion doesn’t follow. > > But the main point is that no one has shown, to a reasonable level of proof, that any balls were artificially deflated. Until you have that, I think all the other stuff is pointless. The texts are very strong proof of that. I suspect if you ask 100 people who don’t follow the NFL or have any allegiances, they would agree. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/22 "2016-01-24T15:12:06Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The texts are very strong proof of that. I suspect if you ask 100 people who don’t follow the NFL or have any allegiances, they would agree. Once again, whatever the text messages prove, they cannot prove that the footballs violated the laws of physics. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/23 "2016-01-24T15:32:10Z")
The NFL started with an assumption that the balls were deflated and looked for evidence that it happened. We all know what that leads to. There was never any evidence sufficient to suspect the Patriots of deflating the balls to start with, and this report demonstrates that to be the case. The balls measured at half time showed the expected pressure under the conditions after they had been inflated to the minimum requirement before the game. There is still no reason to believe that the balls were deflated. If you want to consider innuendo and suspicion as evidence then the burden of proof is on the Colts, I suspect they deflated the balls in order to frame the Patriots. It is very suspicious that they made this claim in the first place, and there is no doubt that they were motivated by the rampant but totally debunked conspiracy theories about the Patriots cheating. There is no one who can establish that deflating the balls would give the Patriots any kind of advantage, so any motive to deflate the balls would have to be held by the Colts. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/24 "2016-01-24T15:51:33Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Once again, whatever the text messages prove, they cannot prove that the footballs violated the laws of physics. Yes, but that’s rather missing the point. Physics affects the balls, no doubt. So does the guy who deflated the balls for Tom Brady. The physics would be really persuasive if the only evidence were a difference in PSI. But that’s not the strongest evidence. The strongest evidence is the guy on record talking about deflating balls for Brady. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/25 "2016-01-24T15:57:20Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Yes, but that’s rather missing the point. > > Physics affects the balls, no doubt. So does the guy who deflated the balls for Tom Brady. The physics would be really persuasive if the only evidence were a difference in PSI. But that’s not the strongest evidence. The strongest evidence is the guy on record talking about deflating balls for Brady. So if the game had been played in 70 degree weather, and the balls had been measured at 12.5 PSI at halftime, and we had this guy talking about deflating balls for Brady, then we should conclude that the balls were deflated? _Because that’s the situation we’re in right now, aside from the temperature on the field and horrible record-keeping with regards to PSI measurements_. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/26 "2016-01-24T16:11:47Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > So if the game had been played in 70 degree weather, and the balls had been measured at 12.5 PSI at halftime, and we had this guy talking about deflating balls for Brady, then we should conclude that the balls were deflated? > > _Because that’s the situation we’re in right now, aside from the temperature on the field and horrible record-keeping with regards to PSI measurements_. The most likely explanation is that this dude deflated the balls as necessary to suit Brady’s preferences based on the conditions. I doubt he had a specific PSI, but instead aimed for the right feel. I should add, I have no idea if that’s against the rules or if it only violated the rules if it dropped below a certain PSI. But denying that this guy deflated balls for Brady seems very odd to me. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/27 "2016-01-24T16:22:53Z")
The most likely explanation _for what_? What physics dude cited by the OP is saying is that the balls _contained the same amount of air all along_. The “best explanation” for the balls containing the same amount of air all along _cannot be_ that someone let air out of them, regardless of what someone’s SMS log says. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/28 "2016-01-24T16:27:12Z")
> [@Maserschmidt](#): > > Their evidence is no more circumstantial than yours. This is just an exercise in faith for everyone involved. You realize the vast majority of criminal cases are built on circumstantial evidence alone? DNA evidence is circumstantial. Fingerprints are circumstantial. Please stop using that word as if it means necessarily uncertain. > [@Telemark](#): > > Part of the problem is that many people don’t put much weight in the “mountains” of circumstantial evidence. Lots of people are not paying attention to the evidence. But please feel free to give a plausible explanation for the contents of the text messages, Brady’s desire to change the rules, the known “fact” that the Pats were deflating balls, and the fact that Brady threw out his phone. > [@Telemark](#): > > If the Pats cheated with the PSI I will be right along side of others who condemn them. But what has been presented as evidence up til now is pretty weak sauce. Really? What evidence would you expect to see? Absent a confession, what other evidence would you expect to see? The parties cannot be compelled to turn over documents generally speaking or testify under oath. > [@fachverwirrt](#): > > It’s actually possible for both of the following things to be true: > > McNally occasionally deflated balls because Brady liked a thinner ball, and; > He didn’t do so at the Indianapolis game. Sure, but is that really likely? Why would a guy who made a habit of breaking the rules to help his team fail to do so in the biggest game of the year? > [@Gorsnak](#): > > The argument is that the balls _must_ follow the Ideal Gas Law, and that if the balls measured 11.3 PSI at field temperature then they _must_ measure 12.5 PSI at room temperature. First, the NFL hired a firm that did these tests as well and they came to a different conclusion. See the report [here](https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/investigative-and-expert-reports-re-footballs-used-during-afc-championsh.pdf). Additionally, the MIT guy has no idea what the temps were in either place. That’s even putting aside the fact that other professors [disagree](http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/05/06/physics-professor-deflategate-report-science-holds/T2HqI3vFVivr9grXOD2VEI/story.html): > [@](#): > > But could there be any holes to the analysts’ logic? Not likely, says Boston University professor Martin Schmaltz. > > While the ideal gas law states air pressure in a given volume will drop along with temperature — and the balls used in the AFC Championship game likely dropped in temperature when moved from inside the stadium to the 51-degree field — the discrepancies between drops in pressure between the Colts balls and the Patriots balls was likely too much to be chance, according to Schmaltz. > > “I see that the Colts’ balls pressure dropped about half a PSI and the Patriots balls seem to be more like 1.5, or maybe between one and 1.5,” says Schmaltz. “So it’s a little mysterious why the Patriots’ balls dropped more.” > > According to the report, the Patriots’ balls began the game inflated to at least 12.5 PSI, while the Colts’ balls were around 13 PSI, give or take a tenth of a PSI. But it’s not the drop in PSI from that reference point that Schmaltz says looks bad for the Patriots, but the drops relative to each other. > > According to Schmaltz, the ideal gas law equation suggests a drop in temperature from 68 or 70 would produce a drop of less than 1 PSI in a ball inflated to 12.5 or 13 PSI. While the report found the Colts’ balls measured at or around the league-minimum 12.5 PSI at halftime, many of the Patriots balls were a PSI or more below that threshold, a drop so large its unlikely to have been caused by atmospheric conditions. > > While a 12.5 PSI ball could drop to 11.6 PSI, by his calculations, with a temperature drop from 68 or 70 degrees to 51, given both sets being subject to the same conditions, it’s suspicious the Patriots’ balls would drop so much further. So why do you trust one guy rather than the outside firm and various other professors and lawyers? > [@TriPolar](#): > > The NFL started with an assumption that the balls were deflated and looked for evidence that it happened. They didn’t start with that assumption. They measured and found them to be underinflated. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/29 "2016-01-24T16:45:50Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > The most likely explanation _for what_? What physics dude cited by the OP is saying is that the balls _contained the same amount of air all along_. The “best explanation” for the balls containing the same amount of air all along _cannot be_ that someone let air out of them, regardless of what someone’s SMS log says. Can you point to where the professor says that? I think you’re overstating his commentary. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/30 "2016-01-24T16:51:11Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > They didn’t start with that assumption. They measured and found them to be underinflated. They did not. They found that the pressure was not what they expected. That was because their expectations didn’t match reality. There is still no evidence of deflation. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/31 "2016-01-24T16:54:59Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > So why do you trust one guy rather than the outside firm and various other professors and lawyers? You didn’t watch his lecture, did you? He addresses all those issues, looking at the time it takes for balls to recover to original pressure when placed back in room temperature, and the effects of wetness on that rate of recovery. The upshot that I get from all of this is that determining the actual pressure of the balls at room temperature is impossible unless we have detailed, accurate information about either the internal temperature of the ball or precisely how long it has been sitting in a warm room along with their level of dampness. But we don’t have any of that data. This means that the error bars on the measurements we do have are so large that we can’t draw any conclusions from them at all. We’re trying to draw conclusions that require three significant digits of accuracy when the measurements we have are only good to two significant digits. The outside firm in question has in the past disputed the link between tobacco smoke and cancer, and the dangers of asbestos. It would seem that they’ll argue whatever you pay them to. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/32 "2016-01-24T17:03:52Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Can you point to where the professor says that? I think you’re overstating his commentary. Errr. That’s what the Ideal Gas Law results mean. A ball reading 12.5 PSI at 70 degrees will read 11.3 PSI at 50 degrees, because that’s what the same volume of air will pressurize a container of constant volume to at that difference in temperature. He doesn’t say it in those words, so I can’t point to him saying it in those words, but that’s the phenomena being described by the physics. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/33 "2016-01-24T17:06:05Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Errr. That’s what the Ideal Gas Law results mean. A ball reading 12.5 PSI at 70 degrees will read 11.3 PSI at 50 degrees, because that’s what the **same volume of air** will pressurize a container of constant volume to at that difference in temperature. He doesn’t say it in those words, so I can’t point to him saying it in those words, but that’s the phenomena being described by the physics. Sorry, that should be same quantity of air, not volume. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/34 "2016-01-24T17:29:49Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Errr. That’s what the Ideal Gas Law results mean. A ball reading 12.5 PSI at 70 degrees will read 11.3 PSI at 50 degrees, because that’s what the same volume of air will pressurize a container of constant volume to at that difference in temperature. He doesn’t say it in those words, so I can’t point to him saying it in those words, but that’s the phenomena being described by the physics. Right. But the physics doesn’t tell us what the inputs were. It only tells us what the equation is. So we don’t actually know if the conditions alone accounted for the difference in measured pressure, which is what you suggested. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/35 "2016-01-24T17:35:04Z")
Or, to put it another way: The physics is a convincing rebuttal of the pressure-based reasoning that the balls were deflated. But it is not in any way inconsistent with the other evidence of deflating. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/36 "2016-01-24T17:50:04Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Or, to put it another way: > > The physics is a convincing rebuttal of the pressure-based reasoning that the balls were deflated. But it is not in any way inconsistent with the other evidence of deflating. You’re misunderstanding. What the physics tells us is that if you measure 12.5 PSI at 70 degrees and 11.3 PSI at 50 degrees, then you have measured the same amount of air in the vessel both times. If those measurements are accurate, then you have a direct rebuttal of any alternate evidence of deflating because you have determined that no deflation took place, at least in the one specific instance. The lower PSI reading isn’t “deflation explained by Ideal Gas Law,” but rather a direct reading of zero deflation. Now there are at least two potential cases here for this to not be conclusive. There could have been deflating in other cases, with the texts and such providing circumstantial evidence for those cases where no one checked the ball pressure at all. And the measurements might not be accurate - specifically, the Patriots’ balls might have warmed up more than dude in the OP allowed for. However, the data is a mess and the collection procedure was horribly sloppy. Which, incidentally, it actually the point of the professor’s lecture. It’s only tangentially about Deflategate. He’s teaching about the importance of rigorous data collection procedures. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/37 "2016-01-24T18:15:31Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Now there are at least two potential cases here for this to not be conclusive. . . . And the measurements might not be accurate . . . He’s teaching about the importance of rigorous data collection procedures. I agree that if we know all the inputs, then applying physics we can determine whether the balls were deflated. I thought it was established that we don’t know the inputs well enough to say that. Indeed, didn’t you make that very point already in this thread? To quote you, “The upshot that I get from all of this is that determining the actual pressure of the balls at room temperature is impossible unless we have detailed, accurate information about either the internal temperature of the ball or precisely how long it has been sitting in a warm room along with their level of dampness. **But we don’t have any of that data**.” So what is it you think I’m misunderstanding? ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/38 "2016-01-24T18:43:03Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Sure, but is that really likely? Why would a guy who made a habit of breaking the rules to help his team fail to do so in the biggest game of the year? Here’s the thing; you can’t over deflate the ball, because then it doesn’t fly very well. Brady likes a softer ball–that’s not under dispute. But he doesn’t like it too soft. Maybe McNally gives the balls a squeeze and if they seem too hard, he lets a little air out. If they seem OK, he doesn’t.Given the variation between the two gauges used in the Indy game, it’s pretty clear that the PSI measurements in general aren’t terribly consistent. Maybe the balls at the Indy game seemed all right to him, so he didn’t want to mess with them, for fear of them being _too_ soft. There’s also the question of opportunity; there may be better opportunity to deflate balls secretly in some games and not others (90 seconds in a bathroom is a pretty tight window). At the end of the day, of course, it doesn’t really matter. The text messages are pretty compelling evidence that McNally at least sometimes let some air out of balls, which is illegal. That Brady didn’t know is stretching the bounds of implausibility. Whether they were actually deflated during the Indy game is an interesting question, but it has no real bearing on whether there was rule breaking in general. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/39 "2016-01-24T19:03:23Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I agree that if we know all the inputs, then applying physics we can determine whether the balls were deflated. I thought it was established that we don’t know the inputs well enough to say that. Indeed, didn’t you make that very point already in this thread? > > To quote you, “The upshot that I get from all of this is that determining the actual pressure of the balls at room temperature is impossible unless we have detailed, accurate information about either the internal temperature of the ball or precisely how long it has been sitting in a warm room along with their level of dampness. **But we don’t have any of that data**.” > > So what is it you think I’m misunderstanding? Okay, I think I understand what you’re saying now: The physical evidence, insofar as it shows anything, suggests that the balls weren’t deflated. However, it’s not very good data and given the circumstantial evidence the best conclusion is that the balls were deflated and the PSI readings under proper controlled conditions would actually have shown greater pressure loss than they did. We should throw out the physical evidence in preference to the circumstantial evidence. I had previously thought you to be taking it as given that the PSI readings showed the balls had lost air, and that of “physics did it” and “McNally did it” the circumstantial evidence gave more credence to the latter. This position doesn’t work, because the PSI readings, insofar as they show anything, show that the balls didn’t lose any air. I haven’t read the Wells report, but what I’ve read about it isn’t consistent with it adopting the view that the physical evidence would exonerate the Patriots if it were good data. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013/40 "2016-01-24T19:35:22Z")
You walk into a room and find a man lying on the floor. He’s not moving. He must be dead right? Something must have killed him. You call the police to report you’ve found a dead man. When they arrive you go back to the room and he’s no longer there. Someone must have moved the dead man right? Now someone could come up with the crackpot theory that he wasn’t actually dead but since there’s no body to examine you can’t conclude that so you have to continue trying to figure out what killed him right? Oh, by the way, you must work for the NFL. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nytimes-no-evidence-that-patriots-deflated-balls/744013.md?page=3)