#DFG: Canceling the Noise

Is there any level of suspension that you would advise Tom to accept?

  • Total voters
    208
koufax32

koufax32

He'll cry if he wants to...
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2006
9,111
Duval
yep said:
They did, but the way they did it was... how to say this... they are playing a game called stupid or liar, where it doesn't matter what the outcome is, because either way, they win. 
 
Their models are needlessly complicated, but are complicated in ways that maximize the importance of over-simplified input assumptions, while forcing the results to err on the side of minimum pressure difference due to ambient conditions. This might be the result of an engineer or scientist with exactly the right expertise, who is deliberately trying to obfuscate and/or to arrive at particular conclusions, but my guess is that it is actually the handiwork of a fairly common approach used in sales engineering, which is to have a generically very smart person, but who only sorta knows what they are doing on this particular question, run a bunch of different models based on guesswork and vague knowledge of related things, and then cherry-pick the approaches that seem to produce the best combination of: 
 
1. Arriving at the desired conclusion, and;
2. Giving the appearance of rigorous and objective analytics.
 
For example, if you wanted to measure, say, a particular part of your body, and wanted for the measurement to produce the biggest result possible... I bet you could think of a whole bunch of different ways to use the exact same length of string or measuring tape, and genuinely come up with different measurements. If you were really good at expert witnessing in litigation, you could probably even write up a very technical-sounding report, describing several different measurement methods, while only actually including the ones that gave results on the favorable spectrum of outcomes. Your inclusion of a spectrum of results by different methodologies enhances the impression that your report is a disinterested technical assessment of the facts, rather than a biased piece of fact-based spin. 
 
I am reluctant to weigh in with my own analysis, partly because I am not really qualified to do so, and partly because bickering engineers with different results is not really the way you do this stuff. But just for the sake of illustration, here's a pretty good example of a much simpler, but arguably more rigorous modelling approach:
 

 
Edit: the approach in the video is not perfect, either, and I don't mean to endorse its conclusions. Getting really good, precise answers to very specific real-world questions can be a complex, expensive, and time-consuming process, even when the underlying science is well-established. But there are ways to answer these questions, and solving these problems is certainly within the scope of budget and time that the Wells report had. For whatever reason, instead of hiring a genuinely independent 3rd-party firm with expertise in thermodynamics-type engineering to decisively and competently answer the question, they hired a team of litigation consultants to bumble their way through a spectrum of scenarios that all point towards a particular conclusion, while hand-waving a lot of variables, and using mealy-mouthed metrics such as "wet" balls but not "saturated" and talking about keeping them "fairly dry", when the shortest path is simply to look at things like differences in wet-bulb vs dry-bulb temperature of the playing field vs the test rooms, and so on...  they make things that should be straightforward complicated and vague, while relying on stipulated input assumptions for things that are or should actually be knowable. 
 
It is possible that the testing actually did everything right, but that the people who wrote the report just didn't know the correct terminology, the right words to use. But that's why, in scientific circles, you describe the methodology, instead of just summarizing your results. Spraying a dry 50-degree football with 70-degree water will produce a different change in pressure than submerging a room-temperature football in 50-degree water, even though both might theoretically produce a wet 60-degree football in a 70-degree room. 
 
The methodology, to the degree it's described in the report, is not how honest and competent engineers would attempt to answer this question. Which doesn't mean that the conclusions in the report are wrong, just that they are making a case, rather than proving the essential facts.
Click to expand...
These last sentences are the faint smell coming from this report. It seems like they started with the smoke of the texts and then tested to see if science would corroborate the suspicions they raised. Through a skeptical view of all of the variables they seemed to fond what they were looking for. But that is part of the problem. The investigation was looking for something specific. That all variable scenarios were seemingly not included in the report is what frustrates me most, not as a Patriots fan but as someone who wants logical thought to rule the day.
 
NortheasternPJ

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,389
CaptainLaddie said:
So will you guys be updating us on what gets said?
Click to expand...
 
Salem State is the best around. All that so far. Plus a shout out to Dennis Drinkwater.
 
Edit: FYI, Media is being kicked out after 10 minutes.
 
JimBoSox9

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,677
Mid-surburbia
bosox188 said:
 
I didn't even think of that, but I love it.
Click to expand...
 
The NFLN anchor is buying all the way on this.  He's already hoped this turns into a 'confessional', and been pimping Jim Gray's bona fides as a hard-hitter the last ten minutes
 
hbk72777

hbk72777

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,945
I can't imagine him saying anything. Why incriminate yourself with a possible suspension looming?
 
Leather

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
aksoxfan said:
Yup. Madam President relishing the spotlight.
Click to expand...
In fairness, the board of regents or trustees or whomever would have her ass if she didn't milk as much exposure for herself and the school as possible.
 
ifmanis5

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
64,035
Rotten Apple
Gray: we are going to keep the evening to what it was supposed to be. However there is an elephant in the room.
Tom: Where?
Gray: The Wells report...
Tom: Jim's known for hard hitting Q's
Gray: What's your reaction to the report?
Tom: I don't have a reaction, when I digest it fully, I'll let you know about it.
 
hbk72777

hbk72777

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,945
Gray learned how his career went after the Rose thing, I doubt he'll press too hard here
 
ifmanis5

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
64,035
Rotten Apple
Gray: When will you comment?
Tom: Hopefully soon. There's a process going on, I want to be comfortable with it.
Gray: Bothering you?
Tom: I've dealt with a lot of stuff over my life and there's people who support me... life is ups and downs and I accept my role as a public figure. I have a lot of support from family and teammates.
Gray: Has this detracted from the SB victory?
Tom: ABSOLUTELY NOT
 
ifmanis5

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
64,035
Rotten Apple
Gray: SB tainted?
Tom: What do you think? ... No, absolutely not.
Gray: Do you care what others think:
Tom: I care what those close to me think. Not everyone's gonna like you. I'm okay with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom