PDA

View Full Version : A Statistical Look at Coaching Success



studbucket
03-24-2009, 05:08 PM
Given all of the coaching turnover this offseason (a record 11 new coaches), I wanted to see how coaching hires should be expected to fare with their teams. Are they successful, a failure, or somewhere in between? By looking at trends from the past, I hope to better understand how many coaches from this new batch of 11 we can expect to be successful.

For my data, I looked at every single new coaching hire since 1995. Why 1995? That was Mike Shanahan's and Jeff Fisher's first full season as head coach of the Broncos and the Titans/Oilers. With Mike Shanahan's firing, Fisher is now the longest-tenured coachin the NFL, so starting in 1995 ensures that every team in the league has made at least one hire in my dataset.

Methodology and Data
Using Pro-Football-Reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/), I gathered information on every coach hired since 1995, specifically name, team, years, wins, losses, and ties. Using this information, I calculated a winning percentage and then classified each coach as 'Successful', 'Moderately Successful', or 'Unsuccessful'. I used some basic guidelines for making these decisions, but there were some cases where I needed some subjectivity to make what I feel was the correct classification. For instance, Dick Vermeil only coached 3 years in St. Louis and had a winning % of .458, which is relatively lackluster. However, Vermeil brought the Rams their first Super Bowl trophy before he retired, and I am willing to bet that most people would consider his tenure in St. Louis to be a successful one.

In general, coaches with a tenure of three years or less are considered 'Unsuccessful' as well as four or five year terms with a winning % of .500 or below. Coaches with 6 or more years or of service with one team are often considered 'Moderately successful', unless they have experienced a relatively large amount of postseason success in their career. Coaches who have won Super Bowls or have long tenures with a team are considered 'Successful'. I am sure some discussion could be had on my ratings, but I believe that they effectively classify the coaches, and would be happy to discuss any of the ratings. Current head coaches also didn't follow these criteria strictly, as some 1-year head coaches, such as Atlanta's Mike Smith, would be considered successful at this point.

To see the table of coaching hires, classifications, and data, please follow this link (http://www.cover4blog.com/coaching_hires.html).

Results
There were 97 coaching hires between 1995 and 2008, an average of about seven new coaches per season. Of those 97 hires, 21 represent current NFL head coaches and 76 represent past head-coaching stints. As you can see in the table below, past head coaches were successful about 21% of the time and had a winning % of .567 and an average tenure of 7 seasons. That's a big difference compared to unsuccessful coaches, who last less than 3 seasons, had a winning % of .356, and comprise 64% of that group.

Past NFL Head Coaches (Hired 1995-2008)

Successful Moderate Unsuccessful
Win % .567 .540 .356
Amount 16 11 49
Avg. Seasons 7 3.64 2.88
Size (%) 0.21 0.14 0.64

Current NFL head coaches, as expected, have a much higher success rate than past coaches. Most of these coaches still have a job for a good reason, as 90% could be considered at least moderately successful, with only 10% being unsuccessful.

Current NFL Head Coaches

Successful Moderate Unsuccessful
Win % .620 .520 .469
Amount 12 7 2
Avg. Seasons 4.92 3.57 3
Size (%) 0.57 0.33 0.1

Those two datasets are interesting, and can give us some perspective when it comes to looking at current and past head coaches, but if we want to predict future success we will combine those two datasets so that we can have a composite set to work with. Below are the statistics for all 97 coaching hires:

All NFL Head Coaches (Hired 1995-2008)

Successful Moderate Unsuccessful
Win % .590 .532 .360
Amount 28 18 51
Avg. Seasons 6.11 3.61 2.88
Size (%) 0.29 0.19 0.53

Seeing this, we can expect a little more than one quarter of NFL head coaching hires to be successful, while a little over half are disappointments.

Analysis and Extrapolation
So how is this useful? How does it apply to 2009? From a strictly statistical approach, we can attempt to predict how many head coaches from this group will be successful, and how many will crash and burn. If we take the above percentages and multiply them by the number of new coaching hires (11), we get some rough numbers: 3.19 successful coaches, 2.09 moderately successful coaches, and 5.83 unsuccessful coaches. Rounding those numbers, we get 3, 2, and 6, which is the approximate number of coaches who will fall into each category if we were to categorize them 10-15 years from now.

It can be argued that the success rate should be expected to be even lower, considering that the teams hiring new head coaches have been relatively unsuccessful in general, and that's due to problems with the organization and talent on the team. While that is true, I feel these ratios are reasonable and that some of the coaches that are currently considered successful may not be coaching in a few years. Examples of this may be Wade Phillips, John Harbaugh, or Ken Whisenhunt. If three such coaches drop from 'Successful' to 'Moderately Successful' or 'Unsuccessful', that will drop the success rate to 43% from 57%, something that should be expected.

Prediction
So knowing how many coaches to expect to succeed, how would I classify the new coaching hires? See below:

Successful

Raheem Morris, TB
Rex Ryan, NYJ
Mike Singletary, SF

Moderately Successful

Josh McDaniels, DEN
Tom Cable, OAK

Unsuccessful

Todd Haley, KC
Jim Mora Jr., SEA
Steve Spagnuolo, STL
Jim Caldwell, IND
Eric Mangini, CLE
Jim Schwartz, DET

How about you? Who are your 3 successful, 2 moderately, and 6 unsuccessful coaches from this new batch of 11?

tubby
03-24-2009, 05:14 PM
Nice thread stud. I would switch Rex Ryan(Dog-butt Jets) and McDaniels.

Shazam!
03-24-2009, 05:18 PM
This is kind of deceiving in a number of ways.

Like you have Caldwell as Unsuccessful, yet he is taking over with a HoF QB and chances are the Colts will be in the Playoffs next season.

Shanahan came in with a HoF QB and has only won one Playoff game and one Division title without him.

Existing personnel is bigger than Stats. Stats are not the be all end all. I think Schwartz will make a good HC, better than Ryan.

oobehr
03-24-2009, 05:19 PM
Successful
Jim Mora Jr., SEA
Josh McDaniels, DEN
Mike Singletary, SF

Moderately Successful
Jim Caldwell, IND
Rex Ryan, NYJ

Unsuccessful
Raheem Morris, TB
Todd Haley, KC
Tom Cable, OAK
Steve Spagnuolo, STL
Eric Mangini, CLE
Jim Schwartz, DET

studbucket
03-24-2009, 05:26 PM
This is kind of deceiving in a number of ways.

Like you have Caldwell as Unsuccessful, yet he is taking over with a HoF QB and chances are the Colts will be in the Playoffs next season.

Shanahan came in with a HoF QB and has only won one Playoff game and one Division title without him.

Existing personnel is bigger than Stats. Stats are not the be all end all. I think Schwartz will make a good HC, better than Ryan.

I'm not sure how my prediction could be deceiving. It can be wrong, which I can see, but not sure how it's deceiving.

Shazam!
03-24-2009, 05:41 PM
I didn't mean your prediciton I should've been clearer. I meant the method or any method. There are so many intangibles involved that stats will not accoutn for.

studbucket
03-24-2009, 05:49 PM
I didn't mean your prediciton I should've been clearer. I meant the method or any method. There are so many intangibles involved that stats will not accoutn for.

Totally. I was hoping to somewhat account for that by using a 15-year period, ensuring every team has had good and bad seasons and been through at least 1 coach and several QB changes.

I'm simply trying to see what the expected success rate should be.

WARHORSE
03-24-2009, 06:39 PM
If Cutler and McD are buddy buddy..........McD moves to the top of the list.

omac
03-24-2009, 08:53 PM
Wow, great thread idea, and really great work on the research! :salute:


Successful (4 - had to change it, sorry :D )

1. Jim Caldwell, IND - smooth transition to the same winning stuff; no changes
2. Rex Ryan, NYJ - the pieces are set, strong D, solid rushing
3. Steve Spagnuolo, STL - talent on both sides, strong D, solid rushing
4. Jim Schwartz, DET - excellent DC; will follow in Fischer's no-nonsense approach. They should do their best to get either Cutler, or the loser of the QB competition in Cleveland, which will most likely be DA.


Moderately Successful (2)

5. Eric Mangini, CLE - good football mind; poor people skills
6. Josh McDaniels, DEN - same


Unsuccessful (5)

7. Jim Mora Jr., SEA - rebuilding soon
8. Raheem Morris, TB - scrapped everything
9. Mike Singletary, SF - too green
10. Todd Haley, KC - wrong approach, should've gone heavy rushing instead
11. Tom Cable, OAK - not while Al's around

Shazam!
03-24-2009, 09:08 PM
I love the bias against McDaniels how he can only be moderately successful. Friggin' hilarious. Poor people skills? Bill Bellichick anyone? C'mon.

omac
03-24-2009, 09:59 PM
I love the bias against McDaniels how he can only be moderately successful. Friggin' hilarious. Poor people skills? Bill Bellichick anyone? C'mon.

Actually, I was pretty high on McDaniels because of his obvious talent with offenses. I also liked his choice of DC in Nolan. (check my old posts) Unfortunately for us, everyone around the league believes he really botched up in the way he handled the situation with Cutler. Some don't fault him for wanting his former QB, while others do, but everyone believes he did a terrible job in containing the situation. He's allowed it to escalate, and no seasoned HC would let it come to that. It was just naivety and inexperience.

His people skills further come into question when it was reported that he first lost some players in the locker room when he made it a priority to sign his long snapper for big money (for long snappers, hehe), and basically alienate Mike Leach, who has been a solid long snapper and very much a team player. All the seasons of very solid work by Leach for an average salary didn't account for anything. The message wasn't just about a long snapper; no matter how well you perform, I can obtain or release any player I want.

You can be a dictator as long as your teams are winning; when Bellichick was with the Browns and he did this similar crap with Kosar, he was run out of town when they couldn't win. Tom Coughlin softened his approach to player relations, and it got him a tight team that won a superbowl.

McDaniels is riding on his reputation as an excellent OC, and a full belief in the system he inherited from Bellichick. Other NE coordinators did the same, and failed. Well, I guess at least now, he's put more pressure on himself to win immediately.

I just think that if he had better people (and management) skills, he could've easily avoided this situation. That's part of being the head coach.

frauschieze
03-24-2009, 10:46 PM
I love the bias against McDaniels how he can only be moderately successful. Friggin' hilarious. Poor people skills? Bill Bellichick anyone? C'mon.

Meh. As to which coaches would be considered successful or moderately successful or unsuccessful, it's all just a matter of opinion. And you know what opinions are like. ;)

So his reasoning doesn't match up with yours. No biggie. It's just a guess anyway. :D

Krugan
03-25-2009, 08:57 AM
I love the bias against McDaniels how he can only be moderately successful. Friggin' hilarious. Poor people skills? Bill Bellichick anyone? C'mon.

How can we assume he will be anything other. He took over a team that wasnt lights out. And the additions of more 30 somethings, over payed long snappers, 2nd hand running backs, wr's, pettersons, NO true NT, (not enough quality additions to argue with myself) wont cause the cream to rise.

Also lets add in the recent success of coaches who have left the patriots over the last few years. I think that alone could cast a pretty solid shadow of doubt over his possible failures or successes.

Its not bias so much for Mcd, but a pretty safe assumption that he wont set the world afire. Of course I would love to eat these words, I want to be able to watch the second half of games with a hope that we can pull out a win, not watch someone pump another 20+ to salt the wound.

claymore
03-25-2009, 09:07 AM
I love the bias against McDaniels how he can only be moderately successful. Friggin' hilarious. Poor people skills? Bill Bellichick anyone? C'mon.Weve also heard of Mangini, Cremel, and Weis.

omac
03-25-2009, 09:50 AM
Anyway, back on topic to studbucket's original premise, where do you see each of those 11 coaches, with regards to successful(3), moderately successful(2), and unsuccessful(6)? :beer: