Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise

They would still be in the Superbowl with John Fox running the team. Honestly this shows how overrated a coach can be. It's all about how good your players are.

(02-02-2016, 06:35 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: [ -> ]Teams who hired a coach in 2015...

Broncos: 12-4 (1st round loss) to 12-4 (SB TBD) *Improved*
Bears: 5-11 to 6-10 *Improved*
49ers: 8-8 to 5-11
Raiders: 3-13 to 7-9 *Improved*
Jets: 4-12 to 10-6 *Improved*
Bills: 9-7 to 8-8

- - - - -
Teams who hired a coach in 2014...

Texans: 2-14 to 9-7 to 9-7 (Playoff Appearance) *Improved*
Lions: 7-9 to 11-5 to 7-9 (Playoff Appearance) *Sorta Improved?*
Vikings: 5-11 to 7-9 to 11-5 (Playoff Appearance, Div Title) *Improved*
Redskins: 3-13 to 4-12 to 9-7 (Playoff Appearance, Div Title) *Improved*
Titans: 7-9 to 2-14 to 1-6 (Fired Midseason)


Most times, eh?    

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.

(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?

(02-02-2016, 07:09 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: [ -> ]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?

Yeah, right, the statistical principle of "regression to the mean" has only been in existence for two years.    There are two links in that story to other research on the same issue.

BTW why didn't you list the Browns and Buccaneers in your original post?

You have to be the WORST head coach I've ever heard of!!
But you HAVE heard of me!

(02-02-2016, 07:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, right, the statistical principle of "regression to the mean" has only been in existence for two years.    There are two links in that story to other research on the same issue.

BTW why didn't you list the Browns and Buccaneers in your original post?

Except there is no mean in football. Otherwise the Patriots wouldn't have 13 straight double digit win seasons and the Browns having 8 straight losing seasons. Good teams will be good, bad teams will be bad. If you don't change the situation, nothing will change. No magical "reverting to the mean".


I didn't list the Browns and Buccaneers, because I honestly forgot about them. I wasn't working off a list or anything, just my memory of who hired a coach recently. Thanks for reminding me, I will edit my post accordingly.

I see where people are alluding to the talent, coaches being overrated, etc. So....if the Bengals are widely considered to be the best 53 in the league....then who's to blame here? If those 53 aren't very good or overrated themselves....and we're at a consensus on here that Marv has a lot of control of the drafts..... then who's to blame for taking these "shitty" players? You can't have it both ways.

(02-02-2016, 07:39 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: [ -> ]Except there is no mean in football. Otherwise the Patriots wouldn't have 13 straight double digit win seasons and the Browns having 8 straight losing seasons. Good teams will be good, bad teams will be bad. If you don't change the situation, nothing will change. No magical "reverting to the mean".

Actually there is clear statistical evidence that teams regress to the mean.  You just don't understand the concept.

You mentioned the Browns.  Over the last 20 years the Browns have won 4 or fewer games 7 times, and you know what happened the next year EVERY SINGLE TIME?  They had a better record.  They have only won 6 or more games 6 times and you know what happened the next year in 5 of those six seasons?  They had a worse record.

It may seem like magic to you, but it is actually just statistics.

(02-02-2016, 08:05 PM)Wyche Wrote: [ -> ]So....if the Bengals are widely considered to be the best 53 in the league....then who's to blame here? 

I have never seen any proof to back that up.

Fans vote on the Pro Bowl and they don't think so.

Media votes on the All-Pro teams and they don't think so

Players vote on the Top 100 players each year and they don't think so.

In fact, the first time i heard this claim it came from Colin Cowheard and he was just trying to come up with a way to make Andy Dalton look bad.  It waas actually kind of funny.  It was after the 2013 season when the Bengals finished 28th in the league in rushing yards per attempt, and Colin was claiming that Dalton had an "great running game behind him".

(02-02-2016, 08:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: [ -> ]Actually there is clear statistical evidence that teams regress to the mean.  You just don't understand the concept.

You mentioned the Browns.  Over the last 20 years the Browns have won 4 or fewer games 7 times, and you know what happened the next year EVERY SINGLE TIME?  They had a better record.  They have only won 6 or more games 6 times and you know what happened the next year in 5 of those six seasons?  They had a worse record.

It may seem like magic to you, but it is actually just statistics.

First off, nice job abandoning your initial point of "In fact most times teams do worse after a coaching change. " when it went up in a blaze and turning it into an argument of statistics and means. Classic Fred tactic.

Except that would mean you think all teams will eventually revert to 5 win teams if under 4 means a better season and under 6 means a worse season. If you want it to be widely applied as an accepted thing, it needs to be able to be applied to all teams, not just the Browns who are the Browns.

The Patriots have won 12 games in four straight seasons.
The Buccaneers won 4 games in 2013, and then 2 in 2014.
The Vikings won 7 games in 2014 and then 9 in 2015.
The Panthers won 7 games in 2014, and then 15 in 2015.
And countless other examples that would blow your "evidence" out of the water.

All you did was look at the Browns, find a pattern, and then pretend it applies to every single team in the NFL, like some kind of mathematical law.

Must just be you're so much smarter and I just don't understand the concept.

(02-02-2016, 07:39 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: [ -> ]Except there is no mean in football. Otherwise the Patriots wouldn't have 13 straight double digit win seasons and the Browns having 8 straight losing seasons. Good teams will be good, bad teams will be bad. If you don't change the situation, nothing will change. No magical "reverting to the mean".

no no no no no. There is a mean, and the draft is set up in a way so that good teams regress towards the mean and bad teams improve to get towards the mean.

That is the theory behind it, but theories are theories and it doesn't always work that way.

If there was no free agency, the system may actually work as intended, but free agency opens the door for disasterous signings and finding golden nuggets players that skew the whole system.

The Patriots have done a great job in free agency, as well as making the most of their draft picks, so they haven't regressed.
The Browns have bombed in their drafts and haven't helped themselves with any great FA pickups, so they haven't improved.

Take a Team like the Panthers though. They draft Cam Newton and Luke Keuchly, improving the team drastically. They continue to draft well and also bring in workable vets like cotchery, ginn, davis and other starters on defense. They progressed all the way to the top!

(02-02-2016, 08:26 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: [ -> ]no no no no no. There is a mean, and the draft is set up in a way so that good teams regress towards the mean and bad teams improve to get towards the mean.

That is the theory behind it, but theories are theories and it doesn't always work that way.

If there was no free agency, the system may actually work as intended, but free agency opens the door for disasterous signings and finding golden nuggets players that skew the whole system.

The Patriots have done a great job in free agency, as well as making the most of their draft picks, so they haven't regressed.
The Browns have bombed in their drafts and haven't helped themselves with any great FA pickups, so they haven't improved.

Take a Team like the Panthers though. They draft Cam Newton and Luke Keuchly, improving the team drastically. They continue to draft well and also bring in workable vets like cotchery, ginn, davis and other starters on defense. They progressed all the way to the top!

Sure, in theory... but as long as there's FA, you'll have FA like DeMarcus Ware taking less money to play for a Super Bowl contender. As long as you have the draft, you'll have the occasional Tom Brady or Peyton Manning, who screws up all sorts of balance for the next decade and a half.

Every team Peyton Manning has been on and made at least 1 start each year, has gone a total of 191-81. So as long as Manning makes 1 start, the team has averaged slightly better than 11-5. That's a SEVENTEEN year sample. The theory of mean gets blown right out of the window when reality hits.

(02-02-2016, 08:26 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: [ -> ]no no no no no. There is a mean, and the draft is set up in a way so that good teams regress towards the mean and bad teams improve to get towards the mean.

That is the theory behind it, but theories are theories and it doesn't always work that way.

If there was no free agency, the system may actually work as intended, but free agency opens the door for disasterous signings and finding golden nuggets players that skew the whole system.

The Patriots have done a great job in free agency, as well as making the most of their draft picks, so they haven't regressed.
The Browns have bombed in their drafts and haven't helped themselves with any great FA pickups, so they haven't improved.

Take a Team like the Panthers though. They draft Cam Newton and Luke Keuchly, improving the team drastically. They continue to draft well and also bring in workable vets like cotchery, ginn, davis and other starters on defense. They progressed all the way to the top!

You didn't like Dwayne Bowe for 9 mil this past year?

(02-02-2016, 08:05 PM)Wyche Wrote: [ -> ]I see where people are alluding to the talent, coaches being overrated, etc.  So....if the Bengals are widely considered to be the best 53 in the league....then who's to blame here?  If those 53 aren't very good or overrated themselves....and we're at a consensus on here that Marv has a lot of control of the drafts..... then who's to blame for taking these "shitty" players?  You can't have it both ways.

I bring this up now and again and there is usually no answer for it.  Sometimes we hear the media blather about our talent levels, but mostly the "MOST TALENTED TEAM IN THE NFL" talk comes from the same guys around here who spend the off-seasons saying guys like Armon Binns, Jerome Simpson, and Denarius Moore are going to give opposing DC's NIGHTMARES.

(02-02-2016, 03:36 PM)GodFather Wrote: [ -> ]http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/02/john-elway-on-replacing-john-fox-this-is-why-we-made-the-decision/


Just going to the Super Bowl and winning some playoff games weren't enough in Denver but in the Bengals front office John Fox would have a permanent head coaching job. Funny how different some front offices view a successful season going forward into the next season.

It did happen in Cincinnati.... His name was sam wyche..... And it failed us miserably 

(02-02-2016, 08:26 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: [ -> ]First off, nice job abandoning your initial point of "In fact most times teams do worse after a coaching change. " when it went up in a blaze and turning it into an argument of statistics and means. Classic Fred tactic.

Except that would mean you think all teams will eventually revert to 5 win teams if under 4 means a better season and under 6 means a worse season. If you want it to be widely applied as an accepted thing, it needs to be able to be applied to all teams, not just the Browns who are the Browns.

The Patriots have won 12 games in four straight seasons.
The Buccaneers won 4 games in 2013, and then 2 in 2014.
The Vikings won 7 games in 2014 and then 9 in 2015.
The Panthers won 7 games in 2014, and then 15 in 2015.
And countless other examples that would blow your "evidence" out of the water.

All you did was look at the Browns, find a pattern, and then pretend it applies to every single team in the NFL, like some kind of mathematical law.

Must just be you're so much smarter and I just don't understand the concept.

Listen Leonard, it is one thing to call me stupid.  It another thing altogether to call an entire field of mathematics stupid.

You just don't understand it.  If a team, even the Patriots, has a really extraordinary year then the odds are they will not be as good next year.  The Pats have made it to the Super Bowl six times under Belichick and Brady, and 5 of the 6 years they were not as successful the next year.  They have only won fewer than 12 games six times in that same time, and 5 of the 6 years they were more successful the next year. Same for any team that has a really bad year.  This is not a silly Fredtoast theory.  This is a proven mathematical probability. I just made a post that contained three different stories about it from educated mathematicians.  Since it usually takes an extraordinary bad season to get a coach there is a good chance that the team will be more successful the next year.


So did mike Zimmer really turn around a bad Vikings team, or did a lot of bad luck get Frazier fired?  in 2 seasons Zimmer has 18 wins and a playoff loss.  But in Fraziers last two seasons the Vikings won 15 games and also lost a playoff game.

Same with Gruden and the Redskins.  In 2 seasons he has 13 wins and a playoff loss.  In Shanahans last two seasons the Redskins had 13 wins and a playoff loss.

(02-02-2016, 08:26 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: [ -> ]The Panthers won 7 games in 2014, and then 15 in 2015.


And countless other examples that would blow your "evidence" out of the water.

The Panthers have been in existence for 21 years.  They have had a .500 or better record 9 times and EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY HAVE HAD A WORSE RECORD THE NEXT SEASON.

Of the 12 times they have won fewer than 8 games they have had a better record the next season 10 times.

I probably could not have found a better team to prove my point.  Thanks for bringing them up to show how "stupid" this theory is.

(02-03-2016, 12:51 AM)fredtoast Wrote: [ -> ]Listen Leonard, it is one thing to call me stupid.  It another thing altogether to call an entire field of mathematics stupid.

You just don't understand it.  If a team, even the Patriots, has a really extraordinary year then the odds are they will not be as good next year.  The Pats have made it to the Super Bowl six times under Belichick and Brady, and 5 of the 6 years they were not as successful the next year.  They have only won fewer than 12 games six times in that same time, and 5 of the 6 years they were more successful the next year. Same for any team that has a really bad year.  This is not a silly Fredtoast theory.  This is a proven mathematical probability. I just made a post that contained three different stories about it from educated mathematicians.  Since it usually takes an extraordinary bad season to get a coach there is a good chance that the team will be more successful the next year.


So did mike Zimmer really turn around a bad Vikings team, or did a lot of bad luck get Frazier fired?  in 2 seasons Zimmer has 18 wins and a playoff loss.  But in Fraziers last two seasons the Vikings won 15 games and also lost a playoff game.

Same with Gruden and the Redskins.  In 2 seasons he has 13 wins and a playoff loss.  In Shanahans last two seasons the Redskins had 13 wins and a playoff loss.

Believe Zimmer would have more than just 3 extra wins if AP did not have to sit out first season. 

But 3 extra wins is still good. Took a team that averaged 7.5 wins previous 2 years and upped it to 9 while replacing QB with rookie and having the franchise RB suspended for 50% of this litmus test.  

Know this detoured the argument momentarily, but had to take up for Zimmer. Also Gruden replaced franchise QB as well now that I think of it. 

If both were known up front ? Rookie QB and no AP for a year, or Cousins for RGIII everybody would have said both teams would most likely regress.  

It's the "we replaced John Fox bowl." I wonder if this has ever happened before where two teams that fired the same guy played each other in the Super Bowl.

I think we can all agree that Mike Brown has a vastly different definition of the word "success" than many of the other owners. Yes, Marvin deserves a lot of credit for turning the franchise around, but it is almost unbelievable to think he is going into his 14th year and has not won a single playoff game. The reasons, the theories, the "it'll become the 90's again if we get rid of Marvin" have all been debated ad nauseam on this board and the previous one, but it is still hard to fathom.