Official Packers vs. Vikings II Discussion Thread

[Harlan Huckleby]

Here is the chart so you can see the team by putting the cursor over it (have to go to website as its interactive):


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...ry-of-the-nfl/

I'm not sure there is so much to learn there. The Packers and Bears are way ahead of everybody because they were really good before modern football. Why would you even compare their graphs with expansion teams? Is there anything interesting to learn in weighting margin of victory equally across a very long time frame, then adding the numbers up?

That graph suggests the Steelers are a mediocre franchise.

A graph of yearly jersey sales would tell you more.

[pbmax]

I'm not sure there is so much to learn there. The Packers and Bears are way ahead of everybody because they were really good before modern football. Why would you even compare their graphs with expansion teams? Is there anything interesting to learn in weighting margin of victory equally across a very long time frame, then adding the numbers up?

That graph suggests the Steelers are a mediocre franchise.

A graph of yearly jersey sales would tell you more.

I agree expansion makes the graph harder, though not impossible, to interpret because of expansion. But comparing the relative success of the Cowboys and Vikings to the Saints and Falcons struggles is right there. All the AFL totals are in there so the Patriots, Oilers and Chargers, etc. can be compared.

But it gives you a very good sense of who has sustained success (Bears and Packers) who has been mediocre for a LONG time (Bears then Giants-even with 5 Super Bowl wins between them) and the expansion teams who rise above all others, the Browns, and the single biggest era jump in the chart, Walsh's 49ers. Unless you want to give full credence to the AAFC, in which case I think the Browns increased their overall margin nearly by nearly 3,000 points in slightly less time than Walsh and the 49ers did.

[Harlan Huckleby]

But it gives you a very good sense of who has sustained success (Bears and Packers) who has been mediocre for a LONG time (Bears then Giants-even with 5 Super Bowl wins between them) and the expansion teams who rise above all others, the Browns, and the single biggest era jump in the chart, Walsh's 49ers. Unless you want to give full credence to the AAFC, in which case I think the Browns increased their overall margin nearly by nearly 3,000 points in slightly less time than Walsh and the 49ers did.

I'm afraid those graphs have got me very cranky indeed. I'm all for integration, but this is ridiculous. It is NOT useful for looking at eras. Slopes at left end of plot are less significant than changes at right. A more interesting graph would just show margin of victory, with maybe a smoothing filter (moving average) to show era trends clearer.

Very disturbing. I'm inconsolable - don't talk to me about this again.

[pbmax]

I'm afraid those graphs have got me very cranky indeed. I'm all for integration, but this is ridiculous. It is NOT useful for looking at eras. Slopes at left end of plot are less significant than changes at right. A more interesting graph would just show margin of victory, with maybe a smoothing filter (moving average) to show era trends clearer.

Very disturbing. I'm inconsolable - don't talk to me about this again.

This graph is exactly margin of victory.

[Harlan Huckleby]

This graph is exactly margin of victory.

Well, it is supposed to be "cumulative regular-season point differential since 1920"
I read that to be a running total of all game margins since 1920. Perhaps I misunderstand, but that's what it says.

edit: I just looked again: yes, that's exactly what it is, and it's a dumb ass graph.
I was making a calculus joke with "integration"
Now I'm upset all over again.

[pbmax]

Well, it is supposed to be "cumulative regular-season point differential since 1920"
I read that to be a running total of all game margins since 1920. Perhaps I misunderstand, but that's what it says.

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

If you went with an average for each team, that would exacerbate the problems with different eras.

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.

[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.

[Guiness]

Well, it is supposed to be "cumulative regular-season point differential since 1920"
I read that to be a running total of all game margins since 1920. Perhaps I misunderstand, but that's what it says.

edit: I just looked again: yes, that's exactly what it is, and it's a dumb ass graph.
I was making a calculus joke with "integration"
Now I'm upset all over again.

Bah, it's a neat graph to look at. A couple of thing surprised me, how historically bad the Steelers were, and that the Lions, until recently (post 2000) had kept they head above water - I wouldn't have guessed that.