How long does it take an NFL head coach to reach his 1st Super Bowl?

[90sBills]

30 minutes ago, Chaos said:

Allen is mid-career.  He has put up record numbers in many regards.  His PRODUCTION has been top 3 for a couple of years.  The maturation has happened.  Bills fans should hope for an be happy if he maintains the current level of production.  Many many championships have been won with QBs producing far below Allen's level.  The burden is squarely on the coaches to figure out how to close the deal.  If the teams championship hopes are limited to Allen being more productive, then our chances are slim and none. 

I think there’s still room for Allen to improve. One of which is turnovers this past season. Take the playoff game against Mia. Bills jumped out to an early lead and should’ve cruised to a runaway victory. Then Allen got careless with the ball and started turning it over. People keep saying Skylar Thompson almost beat the Bills. But that was only possible because of all Allen’s poor decisions. That was not on coaching. Then that led to the game against Cincy where Allen was so tentative he didn’t seem like himself at all. He didn’t want to turn over the ball and that took away all his usual playmaking ability. Great players like Allen should step up on the biggest of stages. He has done that but not consistently. So I think there is still room for maturity and reflection on past performances. If you think this is the best Allen can be then the Bills really are in trouble. 

[Chaos]

8 minutes ago, 90sBills said:

I think there’s still room for Allen to improve.

the amount of room for improvement is miniscule. He could meaningully regress and be a top 5 QB.  As I said before if the only way the team can win a championship is for Allen to be the very best quarterback in the leauge, then our chances are slim. 

[PBF81]

1 hour ago, 90sBills said:

Coaching absolutely has an impact on those situations. Especially since they were playoff games. To me McDermott coaches too tight in the playoffs. Especially in crunch time and trying to close out games. He coaches not to lose so to speak. This has to permeate to the players. So they play tight trying to not make mistakes which inevitably will lead to mistakes. Since he’ll be the head coach for the foreseeable future I can only hope that he learns from past failures to succeed going forward.

 

Obviously players also have tremendous impact on outcome of games. Especially the QB. As Allen matures he’ll have a reservoir past experiences to draw from that will help him. Tough situations that he could hopefully overcome where his previous versions couldn’t. 

 

Yes, good stuff there.  

 

In thinking this entire extension through, I've been trying to figure it out.  Yesterday it hit me, Pegula's doing the exact same thing with the new stadium & PSLs/Ticket-Sales.  I think that's why he did this, he seems to think that if there's a change then it could impact ticket sales and enthusiasm going into the new stadium in 2026, which IMO is going to be 2027, which is why he made it only two years and 'til then.  I could be wrong, but that's the only logical explanation I can think of. 

 

But here's the rub, exactly what you said.  In trying to achieve "stability" and "continuity," if McD has another two seasons, maybe even just one, of playoff futility and egregiously bad coaching, there's going to be a monster shift in the narrative surrounding McD and quite possibly even Beane, that could end up being worse.  And what if they cannot harness Allen and he suffers a bad injury, that will send them packing as well.  

 

We'll see, just my theory.  As everyone says, it makes no sense on the surface and Pegs has come out and made reference to it having to do with the grand opening.  

 

 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Not sure if they know it yet but this thread could easily be about Josh Allen.

 

The odds are against him.

[90sBills]

43 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Yes, good stuff there.  

 

In thinking this entire extension through, I've been trying to figure it out.  Yesterday it hit me, Pegula's doing the exact same thing with the new stadium & PSLs/Ticket-Sales.  I think that's why he did this, he seems to think that if there's a change then it could impact ticket sales and enthusiasm going into the new stadium in 2026, which IMO is going to be 2027, which is why he made it only two years and 'til then.  I could be wrong, but that's the only logical explanation I can think of. 

 

But here's the rub, exactly what you said.  In trying to achieve "stability" and "continuity," if McD has another two seasons, maybe even just one, of playoff futility and egregiously bad coaching, there's going to be a monster shift in the narrative surrounding McD and quite possibly even Beane, that could end up being worse.  And what if they cannot harness Allen and he suffers a bad injury, that will send them packing as well.  

 

We'll see, just my theory.  As everyone says, it makes no sense on the surface and Pegs has come out and made reference to it having to do with the grand opening.  

 

 

Completely agree with you here. There really isn’t any reason for the extension except good business from Pegula’s pov. 

[WotAGuy]

12 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

Actually, that’s exactly what i’m doing (on a simple level). Do you not understand how probability works? I’ll teach you. It’s simple math. For example, the probability of landing a heads or a tails on a two sided coin in 50%. Because there are two faces and 1/2 = 0.5. Or how about the probability of rolling a 6 on a six-sided die? The total number of outcomes is 6 (the die can land on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6). The number of favorable outcomes is 1. So the probability is P = 1 / 6 ≈ 0.1667.  

 Hey @Einstein:

I’m an abacus-based math person, but based on the above, isn’t the probability of McDermott winning the Super Bowl this year 1/32 or about 3%?   The single outcome is McDermott being the coach that wins the Super Bowl, and the possible outcomes are that 32 coaches have a chance to win the Super Bowl. 
 

Just like rolling dice, I don’t see how past events factor into the probability of a future event. Can you explain so I can understand how the past factors into a probability calculation like rolling dice, or winning a Super Bowl?

[Thurman#1]

On 6/25/2023 at 5:21 AM, Einstein said:

The tenure of Sean McDermott as head coach and the appropriate "leash" to allow him to lead this team to the Super Bowl has been a topic of considerable debate on this forum. While there's a consensus that he deserves additional time, the crux of the argument lies in determining the precise length of this leash.

 

To shed light on this, I conducted a simple data study, examining the trajectory of every NFL head coach who has led their team to the Super Bowl (not necessarily winning, just reaching the final game) over the past 40 NFL seasons.

 

Here is what the data revealed:

 

• On average, it takes a head coach 4.2 seasons to reach his first Super Bowl.

 

• Only 5 coaches in the past 40 years have made their inaugural Super Bowl appearance after 7 seasons of head coaching. This is particularly relevant as Sean McDermott is about to enter his seventh season as head coach

 

• The most frequent timeline for a coach's first Super Bowl appearance is two years, closely followed by five years. This trend suggests that many coaches are capable of assembling a Super Bowl-worthy team within the first 5 years of their tenure (77% of these coaches managed to make the Super Bowl within their first 5 seasons)

 

NOTE: The data is across the coaches entire NFL career. For example, if a coach spent 5 years on his first team, and 4 years on his second team (before making a Super Bowl) the data tallies 9 total seasons prior to his inaugural Super Bowl appearance.

 

NOTE 2: The Sean McDermott line is where McDermott will be after this upcoming season.

 

the chart cuts off some of the names because the list is so long, but the data is there.

 

 

First, the data is not there. There might be enough data at this point to be meaningful in terms of yes/no questions. But not enough for nuance.

 

Second, your extrapolations from the data don't particularly make sense.

 

You say that the fact that the most frequent timeline is two years, followed by five years, "suggests that many coaches are capable of assembling a Super Bowl worthy team within the first five years of their tenure."

 

And that's not what the data suggests. You are putting all of the responsibility for getting there on the coaches. Which is just dumb. What that actually suggests is something much much closer to "There just isn't enough data here to think that any of these trends mean much of anything. But if we analyze the data and pretend there's enough, what it says is that sometimes coaches win early and sometimes they win late. The fact that some win early shows it's possible, and the fact that some don't win till late shows that some guys who are perfectly capable of winning SBs don't get the right situation till late. Meaning for why some win late and some win early can't begin to be determined from the data. Situation, luck of playoff and Super Bowl opponent and how the matchups work, injuries, talent of lineup, talent and maturity of lineup in the year the coach takes over, whether the coach comes in with a GM doing a rebuild or a reload, and many many more factors play in. And coach is certainly one of those factors. That's about all that one can reasonably say."

 

Something along those lines.

 

If you assume, as you did, that this is all on the coaches, you're simply avoiding looking at the world as it is, you're giving in to confirmation bias.

 

Some coaches come in in good situations where it's more possible to have big success early. Some don't. Some have terrible luck in opponents who they don't match up well with in playoff battles. Some don't. Coaches who are implementing a rebuild are going to have a harder time early and if it's a good rebuild, an easier time later, which is the raison d'etre of a rebuild.

 

You've got a million factors affecting things, and only a bit under 60 data points, with results which are widely spread out. There's not enough here for data significance in the question you're asking. 

 

You can get good data on average time before Super Bowl appearance. That will have some predictive value on the same number in the future. But none of this affects the question of how long a leash should be. There's no way to know the reason why a coach took so long to get there. Were most of the factors beyond his control? No way to know.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by Thurman#1

[Einstein]

11 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

And that's not what the data suggests. You are putting all of the responsibility for getting there on the coaches.

 

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.

[WotAGuy]

11 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

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.

Your conclusion is related to what has happened in the past. How does that bear on a future event probability-wise?  It doesn’t.  You seem to be taking a statistical calculation of what has happened in the past and projecting it into the future. True probability for a future event does not factor in past results. Just like flipping heads 10 times in a row does not change the probability that a future flip result will be 50% that heads occurs. 

[Freddie's Dead]

10 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

It is actually a very difficult calculation. I have spent the last 2 hours trying to calculate it and there are many bottlenecks but I believe that I am almost there.

 

Here is where I am right now, and I am still refining it:

 

H denotes head coach
L denotes Playoffs
B denotes Super Bowl
S denotes more than 7 years of coaching

𝑛(𝐿) = 14

𝑛(𝐻) = 32

𝑛(𝐵) = 2

 

 

Probability of having more than 7 years coaching and making a super bowl is given by:

 

Since the probability of having more than 7 years of coaching experience is 1 (because we are considering only the case of having more than 7 years’ experience), in temporary conclusion we have:

 

 

But there is a flaw and that is the duplicates. They need to be accounted for and that will drive the number up.

 

.

 

Nobody told me there'd be math....

[WotAGuy]

18 minutes ago, Freddie's Dead said:

 

Nobody told me there'd be math....

……or it’s misuse. 

[LABILLBACKER]

2 hours ago, 90sBills said:

I think there’s still room for Allen to improve. One of which is turnovers this past season. Take the playoff game against Mia. Bills jumped out to an early lead and should’ve cruised to a runaway victory. Then Allen got careless with the ball and started turning it over. People keep saying Skylar Thompson almost beat the Bills. But that was only possible because of all Allen’s poor decisions. That was not on coaching. Then that led to the game against Cincy where Allen was so tentative he didn’t seem like himself at all. He didn’t want to turn over the ball and that took away all his usual playmaking ability. Great players like Allen should step up on the biggest of stages. He has done that but not consistently. So I think there is still room for maturity and reflection on past performances. If you think this is the best Allen can be then the Bills really are in trouble. 

No Josh has not peaked yet and there is room for improvement.  The turnovers must come down. Josh MUST realize the advantages of checkdowns in certain situations.  The OL absolutely MUST play better and keep him in that pocket. This will reduce the hero ball and increase good decisions.  And finally it will be up to Dorsey to put Josh in good situations. 

[GoBills808]

54 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Your conclusion is related to what has happened in the past. How does that bear on a future event probability-wise?  It doesn’t.  You seem to be taking a statistical calculation of what has happened in the past and projecting it into the future. True probability for a future event does not factor in past results. Just like flipping heads 10 times in a row does not change the probability that a future flip result will be 50% that heads occurs. 

That's how a majority of advanced stats that rely on EV/EPA are calculated, they're an aggregation of almost the entirety of previous NFL history on a play by play basis to determine a given value for a particular down. 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by GoBills808
Typo

[Mike in Horseheads]

29 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

That's how a majority of advanced stats that rely on EV/EPA are calculated, they're an aggregation of almost the entirety of previous NFL history on a play by play basis to determine a given value for a particular down. 

 

 

Don't bring analytics and stats on here sir!

[WotAGuy]

43 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

That's how a majority of advanced stats that rely on EV/EPA are calculated, they're an aggregation of almost the entirety of previous NFL history on a play by play basis to determine a given value for a particular down. 

 

 

But they are not presenting those as probabilities of future events. At least not according to Einstein’s example of what a probability is. 
 

The problem is Einstein is generating statistics from past events and using that to calculate the probability of a future event. That’s not what a probability is. I think he is meaning to generate odds of a future event, which is different from probability. 

[GoBills808]

20 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

But they are not presenting those as probabilities of future events. At least not according to Einstein’s example of what a probability is. 
 

The problem is Einstein is generating statistics from past events and using that to calculate the probability of a future event. That’s not what a probability is. I think he is meaning to generate odds of a future event, which is different from probability. 

I mean yes the terms mean slightly different things but they're still both representations of what one could reasonably expect to happen. The difference between probabilities and odds is just in how they're expressed, they're both estimating the likelihood of an event.

[WotAGuy]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

I mean yes the terms mean slightly different things but they're still both representations of what one could reasonably expect to happen. The difference between probabilities and odds is just in how they're expressed, they're both estimating the likelihood of an event.

Correct, and none of that has anything to do with past events.  Einstein basically calculated some statistics from past events and then made it into some kind of probability statement about future events. 

[GoBills808]

20 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Correct, and none of that has anything to do with past events.  Einstein basically calculated some statistics from past events and then made it into some kind of probability statement about future events. 

Ok but that happens all the time in these areas

 

I've repeated this example before but calculating the EV of a PAT vs 2pt try is using past events to determine future outcomes in present decision making

[Doc Brown]

39 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Correct, and none of that has anything to do with past events.  Einstein basically calculated some statistics from past events and then made it into some kind of probability statement about future events. 

I like to go by Vegas odds. 

 

We were 10 to 1 in 2020 (10% chance of making the Super Bowl), 5 to 1 in 2021 (20%), and 4 to 1 (25%) last year.  The odds of us making the Super Bowl over the last three seasons at least once based off that was 46%.

 

Now we're back to 5 to 1 (20%).  The odds of us making the Super Bowl is 20% this year.  However, if you factor in the last three seasons the odds of us making the Super Bowl once in these four years is approximately 57%.  That's what I'm going with this year and am going to choose to ignore Einstein's chart. 

Edited June 26, 2023 by Doc Brown

[GoBills808]

27 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I like to go by Vegas odds. 

 

We were 10 to 1 in 2020 (10% chance of making the Super Bowl), 5 to 1 in 2021 (20%), and 4 to 1 (25%) last year.  The odds of us making the Super Bowl over the last three seasons at least once based off that was 46%.

 

Now we're back to 5 to 1 (20%).  The odds of us making the Super Bowl is 20% this year.  However, if you factor in the last three seasons the odds of us making the Super Bowl once in these four years is approximately 57%.  That's what I'm going with this year and am going to choose to ignore Einstein's chart. 

I actually get 44% for the first three seasons and 138/250 for the last 4 years on those odds given for 55.2% of the making the SB at least once in the last 4 years counting this upcoming season

[Richard Noggin]

On 6/24/2023 at 4:37 PM, Einstein said:

Exactly. That's why teams should always be searching for one who can.

 

 

The thing about the word "can" is that it's either a matter of subjective prediction or a matter of objective past results. Neither of which are reliably predictive with respect to coaching failure/success. There will be a few well-known outliers (Cowher and Belichick and Reid and who knows who else to come) and there will be many more obscure supporting examples. But we don't know in advance, due to TOO many variables. 

 

It's a Schrödinger's thing: until someone's career is over, we don't know which way it went. It's fine to have ideas and hypotheses and whatnot about what could/should happen, but it's folly to think we ever actually know. It's ego. And that's only illuminating for the dimmest of bulbs. 

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

I actually get 44% for the first three seasons and 138/250 for the last 4 years on those odds given for 55.2% of the making the SB at least once in the last 4 years counting this upcoming season

I'm 99% sure my math is correct and it's 46% and approximately 57% (56.8% to be exact).

[Chaos]

3 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I'm 99% sure my math is correct and it's 46% and approximately 57% (56.8% to be exact).

How does one argue math with a disgraced nuclear physicist 

[teef]

15 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

I had 3 Italian sausages last night.  

are you still eating mcds 8 times a week?

[Royale with Cheese]

12 minutes ago, teef said:

are you still eating mcds 8 times a week?

 

Yes it's why my libido has increased.

[machine gun kelly]

On 6/24/2023 at 4:39 PM, machine gun kelly said:

McD has a .639% winning % as a Bills HC.  That’s #1 in Bills history eclipsing Saban and Levy.

 

Cut the McD passive aggressive crap Einstein.  It’s as transparent as the rest of you’re posts.

 

All you ever do is try and poke holes in anything that instills confidence in this fan base towards the team they love.

 

I’ll enjoy and remind you when we win the Lombardi.  It will happen one day and the Pegulas made a regal decision extending the dream team.

 

Well deserved!

 

Or do you want to go back to the drought for 17 years as I know those years painfully well.  We were a hot mess with poor decisions at all levels for decades.  It is the same second guessing decisions and quick ridiculous decisions that were short sighted that kept us in the Mohave Desert.

 

I never want to back to that HELL!

Thanks for the replies.  I believe I was simply verbalizing what I’ve read from many of you.  I honestly don’t care most of the time as I ignore more than not people who just try and drag this fanbase down and plant seeds of doubt on a nonstop basis.  After awhile, it’s just stop.  
 

I have still some question marks on the team, but nothing will be answered until camp starts.  I’m hopeful on some of these new additions at WR, the G’s look like a real upgrade which was sorely needed, everyone was excited about the 12 personnel option now, but measured excitement., etc..

 

On defense I like the idea of more speed at MLB and one area I have no doubt is the return from 1st and 2nd team All Pros in Tre, Hyde, and Poyer.

 

I keep going back to WR.  This is why I’m hopeful at the 11th hour I still hope we push the chips in and get D Hop to believe the Bills is the best option for him.  It’s possible he’s negotiating from a position of weakness as I don’t see any contender throwing $15 mil at him as Baltimore did for OBJ.  That to me was a one off as it was partially done to make Lamar happy and sign his WB extension.

 

For D Hop to think he’s getting the same is sillly.  A starting line up of Diggs, D Hop and a healthy Davis with no ankle problems is now on par with the Cincy trio, and even superior if you consider the dynamic 12 option of DK2 works out.

 

I guess to sum up its cautious optimism, with a little bit of butterflies.  I can live with that gut feeling.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by machine gun kelly

[teef]

5 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Yes it's why my libido has increased.

if i have a heart attack before you i'm going to be so pissed.

[Einstein]

6 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

It's a Schrödinger's thing: until someone's career is over, we don't know which way it went. 

 

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.

[Einstein]

8 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

That's how a majority of advanced stats that rely on EV/EPA are calculated, they're an aggregation of almost the entirety of previous NFL history on a play by play basis to determine a given value for a particular down. 

 

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. 

 

7 hours ago, WotAGuy said:

Correct, and none of that has anything to do with past events.  Einstein basically calculated some statistics from past events and then made it into some kind of probability statement about future events. 

 

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),

9 hours ago, WotAGuy said:

 True probability for a future event does not factor in past results. 

 

If you prefer, you can substitute “probability” with “forecasted probability”. 

 

[Royale with Cheese]

31 minutes ago, teef said:

if i have a heart attack before you i'm going to be so pissed.

 

Eat more McDonalds then.

[Tanoros]

13 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

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.

It seems like the counter point being made here is that as in all things footballs there are just too many variables for you prediction to mean a whole lot. There are coaches who made it under the 5 year mark who I wouldn’t want anywhere near the Bills. Each situation really is unique to itself. Comparing obviously has to be done, but I wouldn’t be enough weight in the comparison to suggest it’s time to move on from McDermott. Other reasons down the road perhaps, but not that. It’s also very clear that’s the feeling of ownership too. I’m sure they don’t make a decision to resign a coach without looking at a healthy amount of data analysis. His winning percentage to me, is a big positive. Just look at year 1 as proof of what he can do with an inferior squad. 
Playoffs are the last thing he needs to improve upon and if not, that’s what will cost him his job. Not some analysis saying he is an outlier to make the superbowl at this point in his career. 

[Einstein]

2 minutes ago, Tanoros said:

It seems like the counter point being made here is that as in all things footballs there are just too many variables for you prediction to mean a whole lot. 

 

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).

[WotAGuy]

18 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

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”. 

 

It’s not our fault you don’t know what you’re talking about and don’t use the correct terms or examples in making your disjointed points. LOL

[eball]

There are so many variables involved in reaching/winning a Super Bowl: talent, coaching, injuries, and plain old luck.  A good/great coach is one who has his team perennially in the mix to compete for a championship.  The "how many years to reach a Super Bowl" analysis is ridiculous.  By any measure McD is a good/great coach.

 

As an NFL fan, all you can realistically hope for is that your team is consistently "in the mix" to compete for a championship.  We have that.

 

I don't know what @Einstein's purpose is other than to be a self-aggrandizing blowhard on a fan football forum.

 

[Einstein]

7 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

We were 10 to 1 in 2020 (10% chance of making the Super Bowl), 5 to 1 in 2021 (20%), and 4 to 1 (25%) last year.  The odds of us making the Super Bowl over the last three seasons at least once based off that was 46%.

5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I'm 99% sure my math is correct and it's 46% and approximately 57% (56.8% to be exact).

 

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%

 

.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Einstein

[Royale with Cheese]

20 minutes ago, Tanoros said:

It seems like the counter point being made here is that as in all things footballs there are just too many variables for you prediction to mean a whole lot. There are coaches who made it under the 5 year mark who I wouldn’t want anywhere near the Bills. Each situation really is unique to itself. Comparing obviously has to be done, but I wouldn’t be enough weight in the comparison to suggest it’s time to move on from McDermott. Other reasons down the road perhaps, but not that. It’s also very clear that’s the feeling of ownership too. I’m sure they don’t make a decision to resign a coach without looking at a healthy amount of data analysis. His winning percentage to me, is a big positive. Just look at year 1 as proof of what he can do with an inferior squad. 
Playoffs are the last thing he needs to improve upon and if not, that’s what will cost him his job. Not some analysis saying he is an outlier to make the superbowl at this point in his career. 

 

Exactly.   

[SoCal Deek]

To keep things in perspective, every single year someone sets a new record, or a new statistical factoid is uncovered in Major League Baseball....a sport that's been keeping records for over a century, and that plays literally TEN TIMES as many regular season games as professional football. Ya never know what will happen until it happens.

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

To keep things in perspective, every single year someone sets a new record, or a new statistical factoid is uncovered in Major League Baseball....a sport that's been keeping records for over a century, and that plays literally TEN TIMES as many regular season games as professional football. Ya never know what will happen until it happens.

 

This is true.

 

We just have to hope that McDermott is an outlier.

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Einstein said:

 

This is true.

 

We just have to hope that McDermott is an outlier.

In a statistical sample that only includes a little over 50 results, I'm not sure I would call much of anything an Outlier. Especially considering that a few franchises/coaches have repeated so many of those results.

[Einstein]

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

In a statistical sample that only includes a little over 50 results, I'm not sure I would call much of anything an Outlier. Especially considering that a few franchises/coaches have repeated so many of those results.

 

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.