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, 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.Originally Posted by smuggler
(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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote