# Return of "Deflategate" **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [May 6, 2015, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401 "2015-05-06T17:33:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/301 "2015-05-24T13:07:34Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > This thread suddenly got very quiet. Until Brady’s appeal is ruled on, what more is there to say? You’ve made yourself look so bad for so long over Deflategate, that picking on you more would be like kicking a sick dog. And there’s no new information, other than you spamming bad things about Goodell said by other people, to change anything that’s been already said a hundred times before. It may be hard for you to deal with a sudden decrease in attention that you’re getting, but I’m sure you’ll find some other topic, one that is not done to death already, to fulfill your daily allowance of that. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/302 "2015-05-24T14:09:00Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > This thread suddenly got very quiet. How loud should it be? We’ve never been wrong, you’ve never been right, and we’re waiting for the end of it. Should we argue about whether Brady is going to serve the whole suspension or it’s going to be cut? You tell us what you think. Given that you’ve been wrong at every step so far, were I you I’d be posting every chance I got that Brady is going to get the full suspension, because then it will be sure to be cut. Be sure to include dumb backhand swipes and countless winking/rolleyes smilies when you do. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2015, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/303 "2015-06-14T13:47:25Z")
Nobody else here seems to have thought [this latest update](http://www.inquisitr.com/2169825/new-england-patriots-rumors-wells-report/) worth posting, and there’s no need to wonder why, is there? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > AEI was not hired either by the NFL or the New England Patriots to carry out the study. > > “We have no financial stake in the outcome of Deflategate,” the report’s authors made clear. > > An earlier AEI report on the New Orleans Saints “Bountygate” scandal played a part in the tossing aside of several suspensions in that case. > [@](#): > > “Contrary to the report, the significant difference between the changes in pressure of the two teams’ balls was not because the pressure of the Patriots balls was too low,” the AEI researchers wrote in a New York Times summary of their findings, “but because that of the Colts balls was too high.” So what does this mean? > [@](#): > > “Goodell will have to admit that he hired an investigator who did a poor job. Which would mean that Goodell did a poor job in hiring Ted Wells,” wrote NFL expert Mike Florio of the NBC-owned Pro Football Talk site. “Which could mean that Goodell will give no credence to the findings of AEI.” [PDF here.](https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/On-the-Wells-report.pdf) No reply required. None expected, frankly, other than “But _Steelers!_” [On a lighter note:](http://nesn.com/2015/06/judge-dismisses-fans-crazy-court-motion-against-tom-brady-patriots/) > [@](#): > > A federal judge today dismissed a motion from a fan who filed an injunction Jan. 26 to stop the Patriots from playing in Super Bowl XLIX. > … > The plaintiff, in a handwritten motion, also asked for $25 million, “to be divided up amongst every foot ball fan every where. (sic)” > … > Also from this motion (which is pure gold): Robert Kraft has fooled us into “believing his version of macaroni and cheese” is best. You can click yourself if you want to confirm what you already know, the home state of this poor sot. Is there something in the mine tailings that seeps into the drinking water there, or what? ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2015, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/304 "2015-06-14T14:48:36Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Nobody else here seems to have thought [this latest update](http://www.inquisitr.com/2169825/new-england-patriots-rumors-wells-report/) worth posting, and there’s no need to wonder why, is there? :rolleyes: Couldn’t be because it’s the weekend and people are busy with other things. Nah. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2015, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/305 "2015-06-14T15:53:29Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Nobody else here seems to have thought [this latest update](http://www.inquisitr.com/2169825/new-england-patriots-rumors-wells-report/) worth posting, and there’s no need to wonder why, is there? I assume that from now on, when one of your political opponents trots out something from the American Enterprise Institute, you will give it full credence. You’re seriously grasping at straws. ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2015, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/306 "2015-06-14T17:00:58Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > I assume that from now on, when one of your political opponents trots out something from the American Enterprise Institute, you will give it full credence. > > You’re seriously grasping at straws. It’s beyond grasping at straws. There is no need to wonder why, is there? He is so desperate for attention that he will post anything, in any forum, that will get people to reply. It is sad. It is one thing to take an unpopular side in a debate. It is quite another to be in abject denial for the sake of… Well, I am not sure what he gets out of this (other than attention). Seriously, has one person been swayed by his “arguments”? I don’t think one other poster has crossed to the dark side. That isn’t because everyone is a “hater” (here comes the “haters gonna hate” meme). It’s because there is nothing there. I think the next couple of months will have a predictable course… 1. NFL hears Brady’s appeal, and doesn’t reduce his suspension. - One poster will come in and announce how the system is fixed, Goodell’s days are “numbered” (aren’t all of our days numbered?) and Brady and the Patriots will tear up the NFL in federal court. 2. NFL hears Brady’s appeal and reduces his suspension. The same poster will come in and announce vindication, and use the reduction of the suspension as “proof” the NFL got it wrong, but they couldn’t remove the suspension completely to “save face”… Or some such nonsense. Kraft did the right thing by dropping his lawsuit. And Brady would be wise to do the same. But he can’t. When you go to the wall with a lie, you have to follow it all the way to the end, regardless of how bad it looks. Because to give up now would force the only people still clinging to his “innocence” to accept reality. And even then, most of them will come up with another justification, so their boy, Tom Terrific, will always be their GOAT. The attachment Brady fans have to him, and the importance they place on his achievements, border on pathological. Brady, no matter what his end career numbers end up to be, will ALWAYS be remembered for cheating. This will stick to him always because of not only who he is, but the way he’s handled it. If he would have said “yeah, I like the balls a bit softer. What’s the problem?” Most people wouldn’t have cared. Even if he got suspended, I think most people (except for the Brady/Belichick/Patriot haters out there who are just as blind as the unconditional Brady/Belichick/Patriots lovers) would just chalk it up to him getting dinged for a technicality. Not now. The entire Belichick/Brady era will always be remembered for cheating as much as the championships. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2015, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/307 "2015-06-14T23:11:48Z")
Still not right. Still tossing backhand insults. Still using rolleyes. At least you’re consistent. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/308 "2015-06-15T11:36:59Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > And Brady would be wise to do the same. But he can’t. When you go to the wall with a lie, you have to follow it all the way to the end, regardless of how bad it looks. Because to give up now would force the only people still clinging to his “innocence” to accept reality. And even then, most of them will come up with another justification, so their boy, Tom Terrific, will always be their GOAT. I agree with most of your post, but you do overlook an important part of Brady’s reason to appeal - the NFLPA. AIUI, part of Brady’s suspension is due to a “lack of cooperation” based on a failure to turn over cell phone records. Brady (and the NFLPA) seem to take the position (rightly IMHO) that a player shouldn’t be forced to turn over personal information so the league can investigate. Particularly given the leaks that spring regularly out of the NFL’s offices. Actually, I think this is the part that gives the NFL a bit of an “out” to reduce the suspension. “We’re still sure he did it, but based on the CBA we can’t suspend for the cell phone thing, so 4 down to 2.” And then the spin-machines take over. ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/309 "2015-06-15T14:41:57Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > I agree with most of your post, but you do overlook an important part of Brady’s reason to appeal - the NFLPA. > > AIUI, part of Brady’s suspension is due to a “lack of cooperation” based on a failure to turn over cell phone records. Brady (and the NFLPA) seem to take the position (rightly IMHO) that a player shouldn’t be forced to turn over personal information so the league can investigate. Particularly given the leaks that spring regularly out of the NFL’s offices. > > Actually, I think this is the part that gives the NFL a bit of an “out” to reduce the suspension. “We’re still sure he did it, but based on the CBA we can’t suspend for the cell phone thing, so 4 down to 2.” > > And then the spin-machines take over. You are right about the NFLPA. But I was under the impression that this appeal was pushed for by Brady and his “team”. The NFLPA is supporting him, but I don’t recall if they asked him to file the appeal or if they agreed to support him after he decided to appeal. I don’t know the answer to this, but maybe someone does. If Brady said “I don’t want to bother with an appeal. Let’s just stop this now.”, can the NFLPA force the appeal to continue? Because I agree with you that there is a privacy issue that the NFLPA may want to continue to explore on behalf of all their members. However, I don’t know how the NFLPA would approach this, especially if the aggrieved party decided he no longer wanted to pursue it. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/310 "2015-06-15T15:15:37Z")
Fun to see this old thread again. Here’s another data point: Tom Brady’s own fumble per sack rate: [Best Ball Fantasy Strategy: Week 17 Games To Stack](http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/fact-or-fiction-analyzing-another-deflategate-article) It went from 59 fumbles in 182 sacks during the period of 2001-2006 to 36 fumbles in 182 sacks during the period from 2007-2014. That’s a 64% improvement. Must have been Belicheck’s superior coaching around ball security! Or how he benches players who fumble. ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/311 "2015-06-15T17:44:02Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Fun to see this old thread again. > > Here’s another data point: Tom Brady’s own fumble per sack rate: [Clemson vs. Virginia Tech Prediction: Against the Spread Best Bet, Week 11](http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/fact-or-fiction-analyzing-another-deflategate-article) > > It went from 59 fumbles in 182 sacks during the period of 2001-2006 to 36 fumbles in 182 sacks during the period from 2007-2014. That’s a 64% improvement. > > Must have been Belicheck’s superior coaching around ball security! Or how he benches players who fumble. He could also have become better at ball security himself, and, with experience, gained better awareness of what was going on around him. The dramatic drop in his fumbles occurred between 2003 and 2004; his first three years he fumbled 12, 11, and 13 times respectively, then it dropped to 7 then 4. 2006 is the only year since 2003 that he has had more than 9 fumbles. There’s really not that dramatic a rate drop at 2007. Players getting better as they gain experience is fairly routine. He could have benefited from underinflated balls as well, but you can’t attribute the whole thing to one factor, especially given the marked improvement three years before the rule change… And this is something I honestly have no idea about; what was the inflation procedure before the 2007 rule change? Could teams still request a certain inflation? Or was the inflation decided by the refs or the home team? Was there a standard inflation level, or was it just a haphazard, game-time decision? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/312 "2015-06-15T18:20:54Z")
> [@fachverwirrt](#): > > He could also have become better at ball security himself, and, with experience, gained better awareness of what was going on around him. The dramatic drop in his fumbles occurred between 2003 and 2004; his first three years he fumbled 12, 11, and 13 times respectively, then it dropped to 7 then 4. 2006 is the only year since 2003 that he has had more than 9 fumbles. There’s really not that dramatic a rate drop at 2007. Players getting better as they gain experience is fairly routine. He could have benefited from underinflated balls as well, but you can’t attribute the whole thing to one factor, especially given the marked improvement three years before the rule change… Marked improvement before the rules change? He fumbled 12 times on 26 sacks in 2006 - his worst performance ever. How is that “improvement”? Further, you point to a drop in his raw numbers of fumbles as improvement. But between 2003 and 2004, he experienced about a 20% drop in his rate of being sacked. ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/313 "2015-06-15T19:15:52Z")
Sure, 2006 was a bad year, as I acknowledged. But his fumble rate per sack was almost 36% in 2001-2003 (36 fumbles in 104 sacks), and was 21% in 2004-2005 (11 fumbles in 52 sacks). I would call that marked improvement. 2006 was an outlier across the board; it was by far his worst season as far as fumbles (46%; his second worst was 2002 at 40%). Bad years happen; looking at years after the rule change, he went from 7.4% to 22% between 2012 and 2013. That’s not to say that inflation levels have nothing to do with it. But I don’t think you can assign the entire thing to one factor. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/314 "2015-06-15T20:52:57Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > I assume that from now on, when one of your political opponents trots out something from the American Enterprise Institute, you will give it full credence. > > You’re seriously grasping at straws. This is not a political discussion, is it? Their statistical methodology is completely described and is accurate. Wells’ is not, as has been discussed previously. Do you have something to offer, something based on something more than raw emotion, that differs from those conclusions? You haven’t presented any yet, here in this forum devoted to \*fighting \*ignorance. Basic stats is a simple subject, readily learned from a book or a community college course. It includes such subjects as evaluating data for consistency and completeness, determining the differences between data and noise, topics that rarely seem to appear in sports discussions and are rarely accurately presented when they are. This is no exception, now is it? Yes, I know - J-E-T-S ! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/315 "2015-06-15T20:54:31Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Marked improvement before the rules change? Asked before and not answered: Have you actually tried holding a ball inflated to 1 psi less than the one next to it? Can you tell the difference? Can you explain why nobody else has ever noticed one, either? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/316 "2015-06-15T21:04:16Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Wells’ is not, as has been discussed previously. Yeah, sure. > [@](#): > > Yes, I know - J-E-T-S ! Huh? ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/317 "2015-06-16T01:27:07Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Fun to see this old thread again. > > Here’s another data point: Tom Brady’s own fumble per sack rate: [Clemson vs. Virginia Tech Prediction: Against the Spread Best Bet, Week 11](http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/fact-or-fiction-analyzing-another-deflategate-article) > > It went from 59 fumbles in 182 sacks during the period of 2001-2006 to 36 fumbles in 182 sacks during the period from 2007-2014. That’s a 64% improvement. > > Must have been Belicheck’s superior coaching around ball security! Or how he benches players who fumble. I think the take-away here is, don’t question the guy who spent the time doing the analysis, especially since the B/R article (and others like it) have been pointed to by a certain faction of “true believers” who’s only real answer is the 8th grade level “haters gonna hate.” The truth is, no one spent the time crunching the numbers like Sharp did, and the people who did seemed to come up with the same damning results. Those that looked for a more favorable result for Tom Terrific did what they had to do, while betting on the fact that 99.9% of the mouth-breathers reading it and agreeing with their findings would never question their methodology. Bad news, though… The one guy who DID question it, was the one guy you didn’t want to dig through your data. Sharp. I never had the impression, either before his first analysis came out, or now, that he has an axe to grind against the New England Patriots football team, Brady or Belichick. If he does, I’d like to see a cite. But what this DOES make me wonder is what else might be coming. These guys are not finished with their number crunching and analysis. Sharp seems to have taken this B/R article as a personal attack on him, accusing him of cherry-picking data that helps his argument, but hurts Brady and Belichick’s legacy and Brady’s supporters. It also takes a swing at Sharp’s integrity. Not exactly the wisest thing to do… he just literally crunched the numbers, and nothing more. Want to bet he will be crunching even more numbers now? Tip of the iceberg, indeed. It is hard to look at those fumble numbers and not conclude two things: 1. the Patriots have been deflating footballs for years, and 2. those softer footballs made them much more likely to hold onto the ball. Fumbles were down by a statistically significant number, from 2007 onward. And ONLY for New England. If anyone who watches football doesn’t believe that turnovers play a significant role in the outcome of most games has not been watching. So the evidence, while circumstantial, is not only credible, but damning. Does anyone believe this will not change the way the league will look at Brady, Belichick or Kraft when they may come up for HOF voting? I would not be surprised if they are not voted in on the first ballot. They will get it, but there may be a backlash that people may be underestimating. I have to give Brady and Belichick some credit here, though. They came up with a plan to cheat, and it worked for a number of years to perfection. Hubris brought them down. People want to point to the Colts and the AFC Championship game, but this was happening long before that game was played. YEARS before. Systemic cheating, to gain an edge that was outside of the rules. Regardless of whether or not you believe it played a role, the statistics indicate that it did, and for a long while. Brady’s legacy will be tarnished by this. So will Belichick’s. Honestly, it couldn’t have happened to 2 more deserving people. I think in the months ahead, leading up to this appeal, more analysis will come to light. Brady may have a hard time now getting his 4 games down to 1 or 2. And what if someone no one knows about yet decides to talk, to get their 15 minutes, about something that right now most of us have no clue about. Could get interesting, especially if there is another disgruntled Eric Mangini-type out there that knows something more about the inner workings of the Patriots way. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/318 "2015-06-16T14:31:17Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > I never had the impression, either before his first analysis came out, or now, that he has an axe to grind against the New England Patriots football team, Brady or Belichick. […] Sharp seems to have taken this B/R article as a personal attack on him. I see. I guess. ? > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > accusing him of cherry-picking data that helps his argument[…]… he just literally crunched the numbers, and nothing more. Want to bet he will be crunching even more numbers now? One question, do you understand the point of [this comic](https://xkcd.com/882/)? If you do, then you’d know that one does not defend against a charge of cherry-picking by going back and crunching more numbers and more numbers until you find something that supports your original hypothesis. If you don , we’d be happy to explain it. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/319 "2015-06-16T14:51:06Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > I see. I guess. ? > One question, do you understand the point of [this comic](https://xkcd.com/882/)? > > If you do, then you’d know that one does not defend against a charge of cherry-picking by going back and crunching more numbers and more numbers until you find something that supports your original hypothesis. > > If you don , we’d be happy to explain it. It’s pretty easy to lay mindless charges of cherry picking. It’s pretty much the first line of defense of the desperate. The best line of defense against it is an independent analysis concluding: > [@](#): > > Now that it seems likely that the Patriots were violating the rules to gain an advantage, the fact that they also had an extremely low fumble rate makes it more likely that the relationship between inflation levels and fumbling is real – and more likely that the Patriots have materially benefited from their cheating. I would be happy to explain analyses using Poisson or negative binomial distributions or the use of Bayesian inference, if you don’t understand those things. ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401/320 "2015-06-16T19:24:32Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > I see. I guess. ? > One question, do you understand the point of [this comic](https://xkcd.com/882/)? > > If you do, then you’d know that one does not defend against a charge of cherry-picking by going back and crunching more numbers and more numbers until you find something that supports your original hypothesis. > > If you don , we’d be happy to explain it. When you say “we’d be happy to explain it.”, who are you including in the “we”? You can start by explaining your post. If you can, that is. Did you read the article linked to by **Hentor**? Because it is long. And it is detailed. And he points out the issues he had with the Bleacher Report response to his original article. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-deflategate/719401.md?page=17)