Official Packers vs. Vikings II Discussion Thread

[Harlan Huckleby]

That means the accumulated margin of victory (if you are willing to live with negative margin of victory for losses).

yes, not the margin of victory.

To both look at the historical record and consider eras, you would need a differential between a teams yearly margin of victory and total scoring or standard deviation.

Huh? No, just a plot of margin of victory totaled for each year and plotted by year. Good enough.

I had the idea of applying a smoothing filter just to see era trends easier, but not necessary. And maybe bad idea.

[pbmax]

yes, not the margin of victory.


Huh? No, just a plot of margin of victory totaled for each year and plotted by year. Good enough.

I had the idea of applying a smoothing filter just to see era trends easier, but not necessary. And maybe bad idea.

The original point of the graph (and the sub-article) was that the Packers had, after a long climb, passed the Bears in total margin of victory. It gave the rest of the teams info for historical comparison.

If you want a graph to show you who has been good/better/best in an era, then get your little wet nose over to Pro Football Reference and pull the data.

Here is the link, though PFR only goes back to 1940: http://goo.gl/WIB2Wp