ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum   ColtFreaks.com Home Page

Go Back   ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum > Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum > Indianapolis Colts Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-22-2017, 10:46 PM
Dam8610 Dam8610 is online now
Post whore
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 5,995
Thanks: 102
Thanked 1,595 Times in 925 Posts
Default On the Effect of Coaching

http://archive.advancedfootballanaly...ching.html?m=1

Very interesting article that more or less articulates my position on coaching. In summation:

Quote:
[F]rom statistical analysis, we can measure the variance in team performance attributable to randomness (sample error due to a short 16-game season) and player impacts (the addition or subtraction of a player's impact on team production, player interaction effects). There is very little variance left that can be attributed to other causes, including coaching. In other words NFL outcomes are overwhelmingly driven by player talent and luck, and there's not much room left for coaching to make a big impact.
Essentially what I've been saying all along, that the roster hasn't been talented enough to win, and no amount of coaching will change that. Also, Andrew Luck is a phenomenally talented player.

Also, excellent points about the opposing view:

Quote:
I realize this is not a widely accepted view. People attribute group success and failure to leaders for many reasons. First, it's in our nature. The fundamental attribution error causes people to put blame for failures on others but claim to be the cause of success. So the coaches who happen to lead winning teams are the first to perpetuate the myth of great coaching. The second group to perpetuate the myth are GMs and owners who fire coaches who happen to have losing records. Everyone is fooled that changing coaches has a larger effect on team outcomes because of regression to the mean. A team that wins 4 games one season is bound to improve next season for all kinds of reasons not related to the coach. Firing and replacing a losing coach doesn't appear to have much effect beyond what regression tells us would happen anyway.

The second factor is the illusion of control, in which people overestimate their own ability to control outcomes in life, good and bad. We naturally project this overconfidence onto others, believing they have similar levels of control over events. But how much control did John Harbaugh have over Billy Cundiff's missed 32-yd FG in the 2011 season's AFC Championship Game? Or the now-legendary misplay by Denver safety Rahim Moore in the game-tying bomb in the playoffs last season?

Third, there is a philosophical and even ideological bias toward attributing outcomes to great leaders. The prevailing ideology in academia and the media sees history as a long line of great leaders whose personal vision and actions drive world events. Who is credited with freeing the slaves? Is it the millions of soldiers who fought for the Union in the Civil War? Is it the millions of people who participated in the emancipation movement? No, it's one guy--Abraham Lincoln. The other side of the philosophical debate sees events as caused more from the bottom up--societal trends drive history. And the other side of the debate sees events as more caused by the top down. And it's the top-down worldview that currently reigns.

This narrative is personified in Tony Dungy. Dungy is a beloved former coach and champion. I consider myself a fan of his. But remember the story when he took over the Colts and finally won a Super Bowl for Peyton Manning? The narrative was that the Colts had great players but couldn't get it done until they had a great leader like Dungy to put them over the top. But there was also the matter of Dungy's previous job in Tampa Bay. The Buccaneers won the Super Bowl the year after replacing Dungy. The narrative then was, 'Well, they did it with Dungy's players.' In one case, it's the players that makes the difference. In the other case, it's the coach that makes the difference. Both narratives are diametrically at odds, yet live on in the very same person.
The parts about fundamental attribution error, illusion of control, and bias toward attributing outcomes to leaders really speak to most of your viewpoints on coaching. You're all very quick to blame Pagano for any problem with the team, and seem to think he should have the ability to fix those problems, or that a better coach would.

So, there you have it. This is why I say that Pagano could win with the right talent, and that my only hesitation in the Colts replacing him is because of that. It takes a rare individual to be so good or so bad at coaching that they actually have an impact on team performance, and there is a nonzero chance that the Colts could end up with a coach on the negative side of that spectrum (*cough*JoshMcDaniels*cough*) if they fire Pagano.

Anyway, it's a fascinating read, I hope you'll take the time to look at it and share thoughts.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by omahacolt View Post
i was wrong.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dam8610 For This Useful Post:
apballin (11-23-2017)
  #2  
Old 11-22-2017, 11:17 PM
DrSpaceman DrSpaceman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 3,349
Thanks: 212
Thanked 674 Times in 311 Posts
Default

I don't care what the statistical analysis says, I don't believe that at all.

Coaching has more impact on football than any other major sport.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DrSpaceman For This Useful Post:
omahacolt (11-23-2017), Racehorse (11-23-2017), YDFL Commish (11-23-2017)
  #3  
Old 11-22-2017, 11:22 PM
DrSpaceman DrSpaceman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 3,349
Thanks: 212
Thanked 674 Times in 311 Posts
Default

And he is not really looking at individual teams in this and the impact of a coach, just at numbers in general and trying to argue a coach has little impact overall based on variance vs the norm. His reasoning is poor and not even logical.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DrSpaceman For This Useful Post:
omahacolt (11-22-2017), Racehorse (11-23-2017), YDFL Commish (11-23-2017)
  #4  
Old 11-22-2017, 11:35 PM
Luck4Reich's Avatar
Luck4Reich Luck4Reich is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Destin FL
Posts: 4,558
Thanks: 1,988
Thanked 3,108 Times in 1,639 Posts
Default

Worst thread ever!

FU Dam!
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Luck4Reich For This Useful Post:
Coltsfever (06-19-2019), FatDT (11-23-2017), omahacolt (11-22-2017), Racehorse (11-23-2017), YDFL Commish (11-23-2017)
  #5  
Old 11-22-2017, 11:35 PM
Dam8610 Dam8610 is online now
Post whore
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 5,995
Thanks: 102
Thanked 1,595 Times in 925 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrSpaceman View Post
And he is not really looking at individual teams in this and the impact of a coach, just at numbers in general and trying to argue a coach has little impact overall based on variance vs the norm. His reasoning is poor and not even logical.
The reasoning is logical even if you disagree with it. If players and random chance eat up most of the variance in results, then there isn't much left for coaching to have an impact. The argument is logically sound, even if you don't agree with one or more of the premises or the conclusion.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by omahacolt View Post
i was wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-22-2017, 11:43 PM
Dam8610 Dam8610 is online now
Post whore
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 5,995
Thanks: 102
Thanked 1,595 Times in 925 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoLuck4Chuck View Post
Worst thread ever!

FU Dam!
Way to keep an open mind and contribute to a discussion.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by omahacolt View Post
i was wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-23-2017, 03:52 AM
Brylok's Avatar
Brylok Brylok is offline
"Still at Work"
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 7,668
Thanks: 2,311
Thanked 3,036 Times in 1,865 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 View Post
The reasoning is logical even if you disagree with it. If players and random chance eat up most of the variance in results, then there isn't much left for coaching to have an impact. The argument is logically sound, even if you don't agree with one or more of the premises or the conclusion.
So the Patriots winning the super bowl 5 times in the last 15 years is just varience and random chance? It's their continuous acquisition of superstar players? It has nothing to do with Belichick? If it's just variance and random chance, why haven't the Browns, Titans, Texans, Jags, Falcons, Bills, Lions, etc ever won a super bowl? C'mon man! You're a lost cause at this point.
__________________
Soda's Picks Champion: 2014, 2016
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Brylok For This Useful Post:
ATrain (11-23-2017), sherck (11-24-2017)
  #8  
Old 11-23-2017, 03:57 AM
Dam8610 Dam8610 is online now
Post whore
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 5,995
Thanks: 102
Thanked 1,595 Times in 925 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brylok View Post
So the Patriots winning the super bowl 5 times in the last 15 years is just varience and random chance? It's their continuous acquisition of superstar players? It has nothing to do with Belichick? If it's just variance and random chance, why haven't the Browns, Titans, Texans, Jags, Falcons, Bills, Lions, etc ever won a super bowl? C'mon man! You're a lost cause at this point.
It's cheating, plain and simple. They were caught redhanded, they were never properly investigated, they never fired Ernie Adams, and they're probably still doing it. Variance, random chance, and talent level is why they don't have more.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by omahacolt View Post
i was wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-23-2017, 05:03 AM
Brylok's Avatar
Brylok Brylok is offline
"Still at Work"
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 7,668
Thanks: 2,311
Thanked 3,036 Times in 1,865 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 View Post
It's cheating, plain and simple. They were caught redhanded, they were never properly investigated, they never fired Ernie Adams, and they're probably still doing it. Variance, random chance, and talent level is why they don't have more.
LOL, really? What about those other teams I listed? You didn't even mention any of them. Not even Patriots hate will save you from this idiotic reply. Are you just trolling at this point? Keep dying on Pagano Hill. C'mon man!
__________________
Soda's Picks Champion: 2014, 2016
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-23-2017, 05:33 AM
rcubed's Avatar
rcubed rcubed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 4,132
Thanks: 933
Thanked 1,476 Times in 814 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 View Post
It's cheating, plain and simple. They were caught redhanded, they were never properly investigated, they never fired Ernie Adams, and they're probably still doing it. Variance, random chance, and talent level is why they don't have more.
Mcvay must be really cheating hard with the rams thus year.
Someone should investigate harbaugh who quickly turns around every program he goes to.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to rcubed For This Useful Post:
Racehorse (11-23-2017)
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
ColtFreaks.com is in no way affiliated with the Indianapolis Colts, the NFL, or any of their subsidiaries.