SenorGato Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 From 538: Two excellent analyses of the year-after effect of sacking an NFL head coach dropped Wednesday, one from FiveThirtyEight contributor Michael Lopez and the other from ESPN’s Brian Burke. As one hopes when looking at independent analyses tackling a similar problem, their findings were consistent. Each found that teams that sacked their coach tended to do worse the next season than similar teams that did not fire their coach; Lopez estimated that teams that fired their coach saw their wins drop by about 0.6 the next season, and Burke found that the effect seemed to last, with teams that held on to their coach performing about 6 percent better two years on than those that fired them. Anyway, moral of the story is: best of luck, Rams and Bills. [ESPN, StatsByLopez] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFJF Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 So they think there's a chance the Jets will win almost six games next season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointman Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Drop by .6 over a monster 5 wins???? OMG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangerous Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 1 hour ago, SenorGato said: From 538: so, when the 4-12 jets sacked rex they went 10-6. and when the 8-8 jets sacked mangini they went 9-7. and when the 4-12 jets sacked herm they went 10-6. seems like they are going against the norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesr Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 5 minutes ago, rangerous said: so, when the 4-12 jets sacked rex they went 10-6. and when the 8-8 jets sacked mangini they went 9-7. and when the 4-12 jets sacked herm they went 10-6. seems like they are going against the norm. I wonder though if there's a longer term effect on this ... looking specifically at the last three years, we went 4-12, 10-6, 5-11. If the 10-6 was more of an anomaly based on new coach / cupcake schedule / once-in-a-lifetime QB performance, then we've "improved" from being a 4-12 team to a 5-11 team. Right now I'd actually take it as a good sign if we made it to 6-10 next year, especially with our QB situation being up in the air once again. I get the feeling that teams that make a sudden jump from one year to the next tend to have a sudden drop sooner or later, but teams that improve slowly but steadily do better longer term. It's just very frustrating waiting for that to pay off with post season play if it takes 4-5 years to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCP63 Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Five Thirty Eight also said Trump had no chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangerous Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 5 minutes ago, jamesr said: I wonder though if there's a longer term effect on this ... looking specifically at the last three years, we went 4-12, 10-6, 5-11. If the 10-6 was more of an anomaly based on new coach / cupcake schedule / once-in-a-lifetime QB performance, then we've "improved" from being a 4-12 team to a 5-11 team. Right now I'd actually take it as a good sign if we made it to 6-10 next year, especially with our QB situation being up in the air once again. I get the feeling that teams that make a sudden jump from one year to the next tend to have a sudden drop sooner or later, but teams that improve slowly but steadily do better longer term. It's just very frustrating waiting for that to pay off with post season play if it takes 4-5 years to get there. what i think is the jet players try their best for the new sheriff in town. once they figure out what they can get away with they revert back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH THE PAIN Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 1 hour ago, SenorGato said: From 538: Are you one of those WAR nerds ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJetsFan Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 27 minutes ago, OH THE PAIN said: Are you one of those WAR nerds ? WAR! What is it good for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 7:12 AM, rangerous said: so, when the 4-12 jets sacked rex they went 10-6. and when the 8-8 jets sacked mangini they went 9-7. and when the 4-12 jets sacked herm they went 10-6. seems like they are going against the norm. LOL They must mean everyone except the Jets. And Tampa, who won a superbowl after firing Dungy. And when Denver fired Fox, these stats consider the next superbowl-winning season to be zero improvement from 2014. Or the Giants who just jumped from 6-10 to 11-5. Or the Chiefs, jumping from 2 wins to 11. Even with those successes averaged in, the stat is likely suffering from some circular logic for that first year. So many such teams purposely undergo a housecleaning of the prior regime when such changes are made; not the least of which involves starting a rookie QB they just drafted with their high pick. They do this even with the knowledge there may be an initial step backwards before getting better, and in doing so, they influence a setback season for which they know they'll be granted a mulligan. Let's see them run these numbers for team that fired their head coaches after winning only 1-5 games the prior year (or zero, in Detroit's case once). Teams that fire a HC after going 9-7 (or even 14-2) weren't remotely in the same boat as teams that were coming off a dumpster fire season. They're not apples and apples, yet they're lumped together as though they're all the same. What a dumb stat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 1 hour ago, jamesr said: I wonder though if there's a longer term effect on this ... looking specifically at the last three years, we went 4-12, 10-6, 5-11. If the 10-6 was more of an anomaly based on new coach / cupcake schedule / once-in-a-lifetime QB performance, then we've "improved" from being a 4-12 team to a 5-11 team. Right now I'd actually take it as a good sign if we made it to 6-10 next year, especially with our QB situation being up in the air once again. I get the feeling that teams that make a sudden jump from one year to the next tend to have a sudden drop sooner or later, but teams that improve slowly but steadily do better longer term. It's just very frustrating waiting for that to pay off with post season play if it takes 4-5 years to get there. IMO, the jump from 4-12 to 10-6 was due to having the easiest schedule in the league during the 10-6 year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Regardless of what any independent research says, the Jets are pretty established in the pattern of sucking every other year. Sure, there have been some anomalies, but mostly we're due for an uptick next year simply because: Jets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 1 hour ago, PCP63 said: Five Thirty Eight also said Trump had no chance. Actually, 538 gave him the highest chances (around 25%) of just about any political prognosticator out there. Silver took a ton of heat for it, with people claiming he was hedging at best, and click-baiting at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedWhofans Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 1 hour ago, PCP63 said: Five Thirty Eight also said Trump had no chance. No they didn't. They gave him more of a chance than other predictors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Clouds Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I appreciate the OP trying to find an optimistic angle. Having read the stats, I personally feel about 6% better now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-Rex Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 56 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said: IMO, the jump from 4-12 to 10-6 was due to having the easiest schedule in the league during the 10-6 year. "Easy schedule" is a misnomer - there is no such thing. What made the Jets jump to 10-6 was the QB, two WR's and the RB all had career years. Fitz, Marshall, Decker and Ivory all had the best seasons of their lives and the Jets won. This year they collectively stunk, stunk were injured and were signed away and stunk so the Jets went 5-11 and bickered all the way home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCP63 Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 49 minutes ago, gEYno said: Actually, 538 gave him the highest chances (around 25%) of just about any political prognosticator out there. Silver took a ton of heat for it, with people claiming he was hedging at best, and click-baiting at worst. The chance was always much higher than 25%. FTE was just another site that couldn't accept reality. Either way, not a big fan of FTE, both their political and sports articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 2 hours ago, PCP63 said: The chance was always much higher than 25%. FTE was just another site that couldn't accept reality. Either way, not a big fan of FTE, both their political and sports articles. Well, I suppose you could make the argument that the chance was and always is 50/50. But the irony is, your take on this topic, exchanging reality, facts, and data for your personal narrative (538 said "no chance," when in fact they gave him a pretty good chance considering the polls), is a pretty good explanation for why that 25% hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH THE PAIN Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 7 hours ago, FloridaJetsFan said: WAR! What is it good for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurnleyJet Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Really it's not Rocket science. Teams with an actual Quarterback Win almost ever year. Teams without one don't. We are a team that hasn't had a real QB for a very long time. I look at my times watching the Jets, and the original AFC EAST:- Bills Jim Kelly. Colts Payton Manning. Fins Dan Marino. Pats Tom Brady. Everyone's had a HOF QB. The Jets a couple of good years from Ken O'Brien, and Chad Pennington? Even a middle of the road guy would be good. We need a QB if we are to Win consistently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted January 7, 2017 Author Share Posted January 7, 2017 20 hours ago, PCP63 said: Five Thirty Eight also said Trump had no chance. No they didn't lol EY covered it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long Island Leprechaun Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 8:32 AM, Sperm Edwards said: LOL They must mean everyone except the Jets. And Tampa, who won a superbowl after firing Dungy. And when Denver fired Fox, these stats consider the next superbowl-winning season to be zero improvement from 2014. Or the Giants who just jumped from 6-10 to 11-5. Or the Chiefs, jumping from 2 wins to 11. Even with those successes averaged in, the stat is likely suffering from some circular logic for that first year. So many such teams purposely undergo a housecleaning of the prior regime when such changes are made; not the least of which involves starting a rookie QB they just drafted with their high pick. They do this even with the knowledge there may be an initial step backwards before getting better. Let's see them run these numbers for team that fired their head coaches after winning only 1-5 games the prior year (or zero, in Detroit's case once). Teams that fire a HC after going 9-7 (or even 14-2) weren't remotely in the same boat as teams that were coming off a dumpster fire season. They're not apples and apples, yet they're lumped together as though they're all the same. What a dumb stat. Nice analysis. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.