<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Game Scripts, Part II: Analyzing team seasons	</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.footballperspective.com/game-scripts-part-ii-analyzing-team-seasons/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.footballperspective.com/game-scripts-part-ii-analyzing-team-seasons/</link>
	<description>NFL History and Stats</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 13:42:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Chase Stuart		</title>
		<link>http://www.footballperspective.com/game-scripts-part-ii-analyzing-team-seasons/#comment-19134</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chase Stuart]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 13:42:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.footballperspective.com/?p=4605#comment-19134</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.footballperspective.com/game-scripts-part-ii-analyzing-team-seasons/#comment-19133&quot;&gt;Tim Truemper&lt;/a&gt;.

There is no smoothing of the data.  

The standard deviation is not 15; it&#039;s the opposite.  I&#039;m making 1 standard deviation equal to 15 points.  I could say that the Patriots were 2.2 standard deviations above average, but I think converting that to 133 makes more sense as a number people can understand.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="http://www.footballperspective.com/game-scripts-part-ii-analyzing-team-seasons/#comment-19133">Tim Truemper</a>.</p>
<p>There is no smoothing of the data.  </p>
<p>The standard deviation is not 15; it&#8217;s the opposite.  I&#8217;m making 1 standard deviation equal to 15 points.  I could say that the Patriots were 2.2 standard deviations above average, but I think converting that to 133 makes more sense as a number people can understand.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Tim Truemper		</title>
		<link>http://www.footballperspective.com/game-scripts-part-ii-analyzing-team-seasons/#comment-19133</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim Truemper]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 13:27:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.footballperspective.com/?p=4605#comment-19133</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Was wondering if you had to &quot;smooth out the data_ to get a normal distirbution, or that the calculation for standard deviation did not take into account this statistical step.  (Sory, Chase, I don&#039;t do this math so much since grad school).  I am figuring that with the standard deviation being 15 and the +1.0 and -1.0 SD is 115 and 85 respectively, that the mean is 100 and that the overall data pool is somewhat evenly distributed (like IQ scores).  Also, noticed that only two teams from the 1970&#039;s had high pass identity scores-- and both were late 70&#039;s after the initial pass friendly rule changes.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Was wondering if you had to &#8220;smooth out the data_ to get a normal distirbution, or that the calculation for standard deviation did not take into account this statistical step.  (Sory, Chase, I don&#8217;t do this math so much since grad school).  I am figuring that with the standard deviation being 15 and the +1.0 and -1.0 SD is 115 and 85 respectively, that the mean is 100 and that the overall data pool is somewhat evenly distributed (like IQ scores).  Also, noticed that only two teams from the 1970&#8217;s had high pass identity scores&#8211; and both were late 70&#8217;s after the initial pass friendly rule changes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
