McDermott ranked 5th best coach in terms of decisions this year

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, matter2003 said:

 

No not necessarily. Just because you make the wrong decision by analytics doesn't mean it won't work in your favor when you do it. If analytics says there is a 56% you should go for it and you punt, it is the wrong decision but that doesn't mean it will lose you a game. It simply means that based on analytics it was the wrong decision.

 

Also, each coach decision is independent of other coach decisions. It's not like if McD makes a good call based on analytics in this instance that the other coach then has to make a bad call to make it balance out.

 

 

 

Which kinda makes the benchmark nonsensical IMO. 

[BearNorth]

I'm thrilled with McD.  But we had a shot at Reich when we hired Rex and were stupid.

[DaggersEOD]

If a coach’s decision results in a -.75 win, who gets the win?

 

Shouldn’t it all equal zero at the end with an average coach losing 0 as a result of his decisions, the lowest at -.75 and best at +.75?

 

I think what’s throwing everyone off is that average of -.75. That would mean something like the worst coaches -1.25 and the best winning coaches around +3 or +5 (don’t math back at me. All off the top of my head to give an estimated example). 
 

Something lopsided like that would have to be true for the -.75 to be the average. 
 

What I can say is that coaching has a TON to do with how a team performs. I always thought that it wasn’t the talent keeping us back/average for so long. It was the cheap coaches. 

 

 

[Don Otreply]

3 hours ago, matter2003 said:

 

No not necessarily. Just because you make the wrong decision by analytics doesn't mean it won't work in your favor when you do it. If analytics says there is a 56% you should go for it and you punt, it is the wrong decision but that doesn't mean it will lose you a game. It simply means that based on analytics it was the wrong decision.

 

Also, each coach decision is independent of other coach decisions. It's not like if McD makes a good call based on analytics in this instance that the other coach then has to make a bad call to make it balance out.

 

 

So, even when a coach makes a decision that doesn’t in effect hurt the team but analytics says it is wrong the coach gets dinged, very Pff like don’t ya think? 
 

Something negative either happened or it didn’t, there can be more than one way to achieve an intended end point, which is a win in this case. 

ie; the coach wants to punt, analytics says go for it on 4th down, and the defense stops you, analytics turns out to be wrong on this circumstance and puts a team in bad field position, turns out punting was the right decision, there are so many variables involved that second guessing has become its own end, it appears. 
 

Go Bills!!!
 

 

[klos63]

and Marrone at 32 still has a job.

[Big Turk]

19 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

So, even when a coach makes a decision that doesn’t in effect hurt the team but analytics says it is wrong the coach gets dinged, very Pff like don’t ya think? 
 

Something negative either happened or it didn’t, there can be more than one way to achieve an intended end point, which is a win in this case. 

ie; the coach wants to punt, analytics says go for it on 4th down, and the defense stops you, analytics turns out to be wrong on this circumstance and puts a team in bad field position, turns out punting was the right decision, there are so many variables involved that second guessing has become its own end, it appears. 
 

Go Bills!!!
 

 

 

No not really. Because percentage wise if he keeps making that decision it will hurt more than help over time. For an individual game they might not make much difference but when stacked on top of each other over multiple games and seasons the percentages always trend toward the baselines.

Edited December 19, 2020 by matter2003

[GunnerBill]

12 minutes ago, klos63 said:

and Marrone at 32 still has a job.

 

He is doing it very well. He hadn't bargained on the Jets.

[Don Otreply]

2 hours ago, matter2003 said:

 

No not really. Because percentage wise if he keeps making that decision it will hurt more than help over time.

Analytics does not operate in absolutes.  If Analytics says doing a given thing is successful on average fifty five percent of the time, it’s also saying they will likely be unsuccessful 45 percent of the time, ya can’t just rely on analytics alone, it is merely an extra bit of information to be considered when decision making. 

 

Go Bills!!!

Edited December 19, 2020 by Don Otreply

[hondo in seattle]

I'm sure this measures something. 

 

But I take analytical rankings of coaches with a grain of salt.  The number nerds don't have all the same data points that are available to a coach.  For example, a coach facing 4th-and-1 may know that his best short yardage RB just tweaked his knee.  He factors that into his decision making process while the analytic geeks don't.  

 

Also there are immeasurable intangibles in a game.  Momentum, for example.  The players feel it.  It's very real to them even if it doesn't show up on a stat sheet.   A coach who has it, wants to keep it.  A HC whose team has lost it may want to - very rationally - gamble to get it back.   

Edited December 19, 2020 by hondo in seattle

[hondo in seattle]

2 hours ago, DaggersEOD said:

If a coach’s decision results in a -.75 win, who gets the win?

 

Shouldn’t it all equal zero at the end with an average coach losing 0 as a result of his decisions, the lowest at -.75 and best at +.75?

 

I think what’s throwing everyone off is that average of -.75. That would mean something like the worst coaches -1.25 and the best winning coaches around +3 or +5 (don’t math back at me. All off the top of my head to give an estimated example). 
 

Something lopsided like that would have to be true for the -.75 to be the average. 
 

What I can say is that coaching has a TON to do with how a team performs. I always thought that it wasn’t the talent keeping us back/average for so long. It was the cheap coaches. 

 

 

 

Good question. 

 

I guess they're saying that if you took the average individual coach and had him make his key game time decisions based on their data and analyses, he'd win .75 games more.  

 

I'm not sure how much I buy this but certainly some coaches need to understand game data and probabilities better.  

[Mr. WEO]

8 hours ago, Billy Claude said:

 

I couldn't figure out what their baseline is.   If the baseline is a coach who makes every decision the same as what they feel is their optimal then all coaches would have an overall negative impact -- just that bad coaches would be more negative than good ones.

 

In any case, to a certain extend the baseline doesn't matter -- only how one coach compares to another matters.  Perhaps that is why they only release the rankings.

 

 

Bad decisions by HC's cost their team, on average, less than a win a year.

[Doc Brown]

8 hours ago, Billy Claude said:

Sarcasm I assume?    Definitely one has much more confidence in this kind of analysis in baseball or basketball but it is still fun to think about as long as you don't take it too seriously.

I actually like the model (for football where analytics has its limits) because it at least attempts to quantify the qualities of both the offense and defense in those situations.  It just doesn't assume team x on offense and team y on defense have the same proficiency.  

[MJS]

I thought Belichick was the standard and everyone else was supposed to align to him...

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

15 hours ago, SageAgainstTheMachine said:

I feel like the critique I hear most often about Reid is about his in-game decision making.  Either that's untrue or Mahomes' dominance corrects for even that.

He has historically been a horrible game day coach. But you wonder how much he has changed, or how much Mahomes makes you look good or changes how you coach. 
 

Overall, I think QB play probably Heavily influences how these stats bear out. It’s no surprise that three of the smartest QB’s (Mahomes, Rodgers, and Rivers) are in the top-3.