Einstein

Do what exactly? Are you asking to go back 50-60 years instead of just 40?

All valid questions that can form a hypothesis.

Because we are trying to identify when coaches are most ready to make a Super Bowl run. To be honest, I don’t think the results will be much different when looking at Super Bowl wins, but I can run the analysis for you if you’d like. A studies data simply provides the answer. This is followed by individuals proposing various hypotheses to explain the phenomenon. For instance, one hypothesis might suggest that as coaches extend their tenure in the NFL, teams decode their strategies and understand their gameplay, thus causing a decrease in their effectiveness over time. However, this is just one possible explanation and may not necessarily be the correct one.

When an expert engages in conversations with laypeople, it is not uncommon for the latter to feel confident in their own correctness and perceive the experts as being mistaken. I have grown accustomed to this dynamic.

Too many variables. Can’t predict.

Haha didn’t intend to make you feel bad. Most people do not understand probabilities and odds. The evidence of which is glaring throughout this thread.

The fact that there are so many different variables and yet the data is still so consistent is what makes it so remarkable and notable.

If that dice landed on the same number 35 times you may be on to something with that dice being weighted toward a certain outcome.

Understood, but It is 40 years of data and it is not n=1. When those 50~ results come from a pool of over several hundred coaches, it has some meaning as it shows who out of that pool of several hundred (the real sample) was able to make it. But I do understand that there will always be *some* reason for results we do not like to be discredited. I blame lab error for my cholesterol numbers.

This is true. We just have to hope that McDermott is an outlier.

Sorry but your math is wrong. Odds (for example, the ones you listed at 10 to 1, 5 to 1, 4 to 1) do not translate directly into percentages (10%, 20%, 25%). Odds and probabilities are related, but they're not the same thing. Odds are a ratio of the probability of an event happening to the probability of it not happening, while probability is a ratio of the probability of an event happening to all possible outcomes. In other words, 10 to 1 odds correspond to a probability of 1/11 (9.09%), 5 to 1 odds correspond to a probability of 1/6 (16.67%) and 4 to 1 odds correspond to a probability of 1/5 (20%). So we have 0.9091 * 0.8333 * 0.8 = 0.604 then 1 - 0.604 = 0.396 (39.6%) The probability of making the Super Bowl one time in the past 3 years (given Vegas odds) are 39.6% .

I disagree with the counter point but I can understand it and I think there is some validity to it.. Every person can do with the data what they wish (including ignoring it).

Bingo. That’s how (almost) literally every forecasting or grading calculation in sports works. It’s all past data. The people getting upset simply don’t like the conclusion, so they grasp at straws to find ways to discredit it. I’m starting to realize that people on this forum simply don’t understand how probabilities work. We find probabilities from PAST EVENTS. That is literally how it works! We don’t have a magic fortune teller ball. We use past data! - Financial analysts use historical stock data, market trends, and other indicators to estimate the probabilities of future stock price movements or market trends. - Transportation planners use historical traffic data, road conditions, and other variables to estimate the probabilities of traffic congestion in different areas and at specific times. - Seismologists, meteorologists, and other scientists use historical data linked to monitoring systems to assess the probabilities of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters occurring in specific regions. Probabilities require strong data unless you have a very simple set (such as a 50:50 coin), If you prefer, you can substitute “probability” with “forecasted probability”.

Indeed, that's why information such as this thread can prove valuable. We've seen from historical data that only five coaches have reached their inaugural Super Bowl after their seventh year of coaching in the past four decades. It's hard to anticipate the trajectory of a career, but if McDermott ends up making it to the Super Bowl, he would (after this year) be an anomaly within a vast data set.

You’re confusing variables and suggestions. The data absolutely suggests what I wrote, but you’re correct that there are other variables that go into it. That being said, the fact that there are so many variables and the results remain so consistent over 40 years is what makes it remarkable. Five Thirty Eight (the polling website) did a similar study that concluded nearly the exact conclusion that I did. They showed that HC/QB combos have 5 years maximum to win their first SB.

Feel free to point out a single instance of statistical wrongness.

A rather solid argument could be made that Kelly would not be a top 5 QB in todays NFL.

Have to admit, I laughed at how pathetic that is.

Thus why I said (in my first response to you) that my opinion on Anarumo is not based on statistics, but my gut feeling watching him. No, this did not happen. I can only give you the information. I can not make you understand it.

Apologies for getting 2 letters in his name wrong lol.

It’s really not a hard concept. Reid got more of a leash because he got much closer to the ultimate goal, numerous times, than other coaches have. Very simple. I can only give you the information. I can not make you understand it.

He was attempting to be deceptive. ”Well, KC kept Reid despite not going to the championship game… ignore the FIVE championship games he was in before. They weren’t “afc” championship game”. And then Augie liked the post lol. If you’re getting that close to the ultimate goal, that many times, teams tend to give more leeway than if, say, keep getting bounced in the divisional round and struggle against 3rd string QB’s. .

Mahomes vs playoff teams without Anuromo: 33.1ppg Mahomes vs playoff teams WITH Anuromo: 23.5ppg That is a MASSIVE difference. Visit the Chiefs forum and you will see a fan base that shudders at the mention of Anuromo’s name. They fear him like we feared Belichick for 2 decades.

NFL teams hire mathematicians and data analysts to run their analysis and statistics. Football professionals (like coaches, GM’s, scouts) know jack squat about data analytics. The Bills data analyst for example, Malcolm Charles, came straight to the team out of college (Clemson and Marquette). Evan Weiss, the teams football analyst, came from PFF (who also has no peer reviewed equations) and before working at PFF was a marketing intern. You seem to have this idea that NFL teams employ “football experts” for data analytics but in reality they are just mathematically inclined data engineers, sometimes straight out of college, that know about as much about football as the people on this forum. Great data analysts can seamlessly move between sectors - from technology, to oil, to manufacturing - because, it doesn’t matter! They don’t need to be an expert to interpret data.