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.
Last edited by Harlan Huckleby; 11-22-2014 at 07:02 PM.
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.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Last edited by Harlan Huckleby; 11-22-2014 at 07:20 PM.
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
Last edited by pbmax; 11-23-2014 at 09:09 AM.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
--
Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...