I'll just leave this here.

Why didn't you just link to the image?

Also, look closely at the x-axis in all these graphs. The bottom is always zero, but the top number varies by team. This gives a skewed look when you are trying to compare apples to apples, as this guy/gal is doing.

For example, the top of the huskers graph is 80% and the top of Ohio state is 120%. This makes Nebraska look better.

I don't think there is an agenda there, but just laziness. Excel automatically chooses the value range based on the data. You have to manually set the range to be the same on each graph.

Lazy and misrepresentative. Pretty, though.

 
V1SJXrO.jpg


 
Why didn't you just link to the image?

Also, look closely at the x-axis in all these graphs. The bottom is always zero, but the top number varies by team. This gives a skewed look when you are trying to compare apples to apples, as this guy/gal is doing.

For example, the top of the huskers graph is 80% and the top of Ohio state is 120%. This makes Nebraska look better.

I don't think there is an agenda there, but just laziness. Excel automatically chooses the value range based on the data. You have to manually set the range to be the same on each graph.

Lazy and misrepresentative. Pretty, though.
1.) copied the wrong link.2.) I was most intrigued by our line graph over the last few years. "This looks good." Was pretty far from my mind lol.

 
Back
Top