Official Packers vs. Vikings II Discussion Thread

[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.

[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

[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.