Official Packers vs. Vikings II Discussion Thread

[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.

[smuggler]

it looks as if Floyd and Khalil are both questionable for the game on Sunday. I expect they'll probably try to trot them both out there but both missed practice yesterday with knees. Not a good sign for Minny.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Loss of bowel control must be one of the worst parts about aging.

Without a doubt. I have evacuation routes mapped out from all rooms in my house to the nearest bathroom.

[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.

[smuggler]

What does the graph have to do with the Purple Queens?

[pbmax]

What does the graph have to do with the Purple Queens?

Packers are great, Vikings are better than the Saints and Falcons over the long haul.

[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.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Without a doubt. I have evacuation routes mapped out from all rooms in my house to the nearest bathroom.

I was thinking of that picturesque phrase, "I evacuated my bowels."

[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.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I was thinking of that picturesque phrase, "I evacuated my bowels."

So was I.

[hoosier]

The two threads within the thread collide: House was out with an illness. It may have been a GI bug and not the flu.

[smuggler]

Harlan, are you trying to say that the graph is flawed because it compares seasons with 10, 12, and 14 games alongside seasons with 16? You may have a point.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, are you trying to say that the graph is flawed because it compares seasons with 10, 12, and 14 games alongside seasons with 16? You may have a point.

I'm saying the graph is strange and hard to interpret because it is not giving year-by-year information at all. What it shows in any year is a measure of the total historical performance up until that time. To the extent that there is anything interesting, it would just be the final, total value for each team. It tells you that Packers and Bears have had the most total success. But since they've been around so long compared to other franchises, it doesn't even say they have been particularly good teams.

(They did integration of a meaningful plot of data. Do first derivative to get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged.)

The graph is stupid. By implication pbmax is stupid. I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

[gbgary]

if we don't fall into the classic trap game (coming off a big win and looking past a poor opponent to another big game) we might hang fifty on them. they have to remember records mean nothing in rivalry games.

[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.

[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