Official Packers vs. Vikings II Discussion Thread

[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