01-10-2016, 07:25 PM
(01-10-2016, 07:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No one has said that that is the ONLY possible. But history shows that most coaching changes don't improve the team, and that is even considering that most coaching changes come from losing teams.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.829181?journalCode=rael20
I examine the effects of coaching changes for National Football League (NFL) teams between the 1995 and 2012 seasons. A variety of factors contribute to an NFL team’s performance reverting towards league-average levels between seasons. Thus, a nominal improvement in team performance could be due to improved management or it could simply be mean reversion. I find that, after accounting for the highly significant mean reversion effect during this time period, firing a coach reduces a team’s expected performance during the next season and the team’s average performance over the next two seasons. This effect is present when wins are used to measure performance, but also when performance is measured by point differential and playoff appearances, two variables that avoid some shortcomings of using team wins as a measure of performance. I conclude that teams are firing coaches an inefficiently high percentage of the time.
In 13 seasons with Marvin, we have exactly zero playoff wins. So, you tell me when the time is correct to make a change. Is it after 15 seasons with no playoff wins? 20 seasons? How long of a leash should Marvin be given? I really want to know the answer to that question. Marvin himself stated that 'just getting there isn't enough', so when is the cutoff line, or is there even a line at all in your opinion?
What 'could happen' in the future is nothing but conjecture, good or bad. But, what's happened in the past is a fact. A fact that hasn't been altered in 13 years under Marvin's leadership. As I said in the OP, I respect the hell out of Marvin for a number of reasons, but at the end of the day...if all we're left with is excuses for why we fail in the postseason, instead of at least one victory, then how much more time should be invested in a HC that has proven he can't achieve the end result?
