Something You'll Never See In Cincinnati...EVER!

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-02-2016, 07:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The study I was going to quote was about college football, but here is what I found about NFL cooaching changes.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/theres-not-much-evidence-a-new-coach-will-help-the-jets-49ers-or-falcons/

This phenomena is essentially what the research on NFL coaching changes has found. Although the average team to change coaches since 1994 has seen its winning percentage improve from .383 to .428 the next season, that’s mostly regression to the mean at work. In fact, once we account for the teams’ previous Elo ratings and the inexorable pull that a .500 record exerts on NFL teams from year to year, there’s little evidence that changing coaches helps teams at all.


The aforementioned sample of teams had an average Elo rating of 1437 at the end of the regular season with their old coach, which tends to translate to a .463 winning percentage the following year whether a team changes coaches or not. But the season after making the change, those teams averaged a .428 winning percentage — about 35 points lower than we’d have expected based on their previous Elo ratings. This may speak to broader institutional issues that are correlated with coaching changes but beyond the influence of the coach himself, such as dysfunctional ownership, a poor general manager or players who consistently win less than point-differential-based metrics would predict.


These types of findings lend credence to the theory that NFL coaching changes offer franchises little more than the illusion of control over their future. While it may feel satisfying to fans and owners to fire a coach after a disappointing season, it’s tough to quantify the real benefits of such a move — if any even exist.

So basically what you're trying to tell me is you said... "In fact most times teams do worse after a coaching change."

And to back up your argument that most teams do worse, you link an article that says "their winnings percentages DO rise, but not enough according to our made up number that we introduced a year ago."

I didn't know we were arguing on if they improved enough to suit a made up number from a system less than 18 months old. You said *most times teams do worse*, but they don't. Case closed?