On the Effect of Coaching

[Dam8610]

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2013/10/on-effect-of-coaching.html?m=1

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

[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:

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.

[DrSpaceman]

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.

[DrSpaceman]

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.

[Luck4Reich]

Worst thread ever!

FU Dam!

[Dam8610]

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.

[Dam8610]

Worst thread ever!

FU Dam!

Way to keep an open mind and contribute to a discussion.

[Brylok]

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.

[Dam8610]

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.

[Brylok]

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!

[rcubed]

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.

[ChoppedWood]

Fire all coaches, everywhere, all levels. Pee wee baseball- gut em', college soccer- shut em' down, NFL - fucking let those dudes wearing the pads run the show!

Dude, it's Thanksgiving, and you are the turkey! Go away.

[Racehorse]

Mcvay must be really cheating hard with the rams thus year.
Someone should investigate harbaugh who quickly turns around every program he goes to.

Yeah, Dam. Explain the Rams change to us.

[njcoltfan]

Someone explain this then: D'Juan Smith and T.J.Green are 2 players that Pagano personally worked out and drafted, one is not on the team any more and the other one is no better today then he was the day they drafted him, what does that say about our defensive guru of a coach ???

[YDFL Commish]

Just because the logic applies to most of the teams in the NFL, doesn't mean that it applies to all teams.

There will always be outliers and special cases. At each end of this is the Patriots and the Colts. And believe me, Pagano is a special case.

[apballin]

Yeah, Dam. Explain the Rams change to us.

New coach new unpredictable play calling and philosophy

Chip Kelly had a successful 1st season, wheres he at now?

No matter how great the coach they can't do shit without special players

look at Mccarthy in Green Bay right now, look at Arians, the 3 constant successes of the NFL Patriots, Steelers, Seahawks have had Coach and QB hand in hand for years now

[Dam8610]

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!

Those listed teams haven't had the player talent or when they did, the breaks didn't go their way. Players and variance explain it all.

Mcvay must be really cheating hard with the rams thus year.
Someone should investigate harbaugh who quickly turns around every program he goes to.

If you'd read the article, you'd know regression to the mean is a thing. Also, Goff is a second year QB who clearly has made the second year jump, they put a lot of talent around him on the offense, and they already had a talented defense. Player talent and variance. Harbaugh's situation is similar, already talented team that finally got something out of the QB position and regressed to the mean based on player talent and variance.

That's not to say I don't think either of them are talented head coaches. They are, but if either one of them had the Browns roster this year, they wouldn't be much better than 0-10, maybe 1-9 or 2-8. Why? Because that roster is bad by NFL standards. The talent on the roster is much more determinant of the team's overall success than anything any coach can do except constantly and consistently cheat.

[Dam8610]

Yeah, Dam. Explain the Rams change to us.

We've never seen the growth of a second year QB and an infusion of offensive talent lead to a seismic record shift before (*cough*1999Colts*cough*).

[YDFL Commish]

Those listed teams haven't had the player talent or when they did, the breaks didn't go their way. Players and variance explain it all.



If you'd read the article, you'd know regression to the mean is a thing. Also, Goff is a second year QB who clearly has made the second year jump, they put a lot of talent around him on the offense, and they already had a talented defense. Player talent and variance. Harbaugh's situation is similar, already talented team that finally got something out of the QB position and regressed to the mean based on player talent and variance.

That's not to say I don't think either of them are talented head coaches. They are, but if either one of them had the Browns roster this year, they wouldn't be much better than 0-10, maybe 1-9 or 2-8. Why? Because that roster is bad by NFL standards. The talent on the roster is much more determinant of the team's overall success than anything any coach can do except constantly and consistently cheat.

Explain the Vikings then? Bradford, Bridgeport and Keenum have all had success. Many times, this was the case when there was very little talent around them.

The Vikings running game and O-Line were terrible last season. The previous two seasons, they had very little at talent at WR.

But somehow, Zimmer keeps winning. I guess that's not coaching though. It must just be luck.

[ChoppedWood]

Explain the Vikings then? Bradford, Bridgeport and Keenum have all had success. Many times, this was the case when there was very little talent around them.

The Vikings running game and O-Line were terrible last season. The previous two seasons, they had very little at talent at WR.

But somehow, Zimmer keeps winning. I guess that's not coaching though. It must just be luck.

Have you seen their practices- they flip a coin and if it's head's they get the rest of the week off. If it's tails they play the card game "in-between" all week. Their talent level is good, but their variance is unparalleled- no one has that same kind of variance. Have you seen their variance facilities- top shelf stuff, they spared no expense.

Chuck Pagano sucks. Yes he has a lot of crappy players we all get that, each week we sit here and rail on tons of them for being crap, his coaching, makes them more crappy instead of less crappy. It is really not that hard, it's not.

[Colts And Orioles]

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.




o


https://i.pinimg.com/736x/a5/ea/bd/a5eabd0e3d85bb0b56ff422ec7846ce1--bill-parcells-new-york-giants.jpg



https://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_r/Boston/2011-2020/2013/08/01/BostonGlobe.com/Sports/Images/PATS_PARCELLS-40265.jpg


https://thejetpress.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/30/files/2013/02/bill-parcells11.jpg



o

[ATrain]

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.



I've been lurking on the site and have been tempted to post for awhile now, especially when I read comments like these. But it's also these comments which have kept me from doing so, bc I know it's quick sand of illogic. People keep struggling and struggling to apply logic, but the more one struggles, the deeper one sinks into a bottomless pit. yet it is so hard to resist because the need to talk sense pulls one in despite the knowledge that it's a waste of so much time and energy.

But fuck it, here goes: your position is that coaching doesn't matter, it has virtually no impact. That the Patriots stumbled over themselves into five super bowls, like the proverbial monkeys in a room who accidentally type out war and peace. That the fact the saints went to pieces the year Payton was suspended was just a coincidence.

Let's say all that is true. Then why do you fight the proposal to fire this coach?? If coaching doesn't matter, you should be ambivalent towards the idea, shouldn't you? In fact, you should be pushing to get rid of all coaches on the Colts payroll and use that money to sign more talent!

If you said that, at least it would follow some semblance of logic. As it stands, you are backing yourself into a corner and saying things you can't possibly believe all because you just don't want to admit you got this one wrong.

No need to respond, I hate trying to get sand out of those nether regions...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dam8610]

I've been lurking on the site and have been tempted to post for awhile now, especially when I read comments like these. But it's also these comments which have kept me from doing so, bc I know it's quick sand of illogic. People keep struggling and struggling to apply logic, but the more one struggles, the deeper one sinks into a bottomless pit. yet it is so hard to resist because the need to talk sense pulls one in despite the knowledge that it's a waste of so much time and energy.

But fuck it, here goes: your position is that coaching doesn't matter, it has virtually no impact. That the Patriots stumbled over themselves into five super bowls, like the proverbial monkeys in a room who accidentally type out war and peace. That the fact the saints went to pieces the year Payton was suspended was just a coincidence.

Let's say all that is true. Then why do you fight the proposal to fire this coach?? If coaching doesn't matter, you should be ambivalent towards the idea, shouldn't you? In fact, you should be pushing to get rid of all coaches on the Colts payroll and use that money to sign more talent!

If you said that, at least it would follow some semblance of logic. As it stands, you are backing yourself into a corner and saying things you can't possibly believe all because you just don't want to admit you got this one wrong.

No need to respond, I hate trying to get sand out of those nether regions...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The mistake you're making is assuming I care about them firing Pagano beyond the chance that it creates to get one of the horribly bad head coaches that will actively hinder the team. I don't, as I've stated numerous times.

[Puck]

Hey Dam

https://youtu.be/6i7VKQwDS2s

[ATrain]

The mistake you're making is assuming I care about them firing Pagano beyond the chance that it creates to get one of the horribly bad head coaches that will actively hinder the team. I don't, as I've stated numerous times.



Lol so you want to keep a horribly bad coach to avoid the possibility that there's a chance the next one will also be bad?

That's like saying you'd rather keep the syphilis rather than get it cured bc then you'll risk having sex again and might get HIV.

Edit to add: you're contradicting yourself now. You just made a case that coaches don't make much of an impact. Players play, and talent wins out. that's what determines success or failure. So unless you mean that the next coach won't play a healthy Andrew luck and will only put the bare minimum players out on every play, a coach can't actively hinder a team based on your own argument in this thread.

Is that your concern? That a coach might do things like hurry up and run a play so as not to be able to challenge a call that his RB went out of bounds when the replay shows he scored? Or that he will run a play where there's only one person lined up on the line to block on a fake punt? Or he will bench good players for not focusing on special teams while trotting out the worst special teams units in the league? I know, these are all far fetched things that a coach would never do, so it's hard to hypothesize... [emoji849]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dam8610]

Lol so you want to keep a horribly bad coach to avoid the possibility that there's a chance the next one will also be bad?

That's like saying you'd rather keep the syphilis rather than get it cured bc then you'll risk having sex again and might get HIV.

Edit to add: you're contradicting yourself now. You just made a case that coaches don't make much of an impact. Players play, and talent wins out. that's what determines success or failure. So unless you mean that the next coach won't play a healthy Andrew luck and will only put the bare minimum players out on every play, a coach can't actively hinder a team based on your own argument in this thread.

Is that your concern? That a coach might do things like hurry up and run a play so as not to be able to challenge a call that his RB went out of bounds when the replay shows he scored? Or that he will run a play where there's only one person lined up on the line to block on a fake punt? Or he will bench good players for not focusing on special teams while trotting out the worst special teams units in the league? I know, these are all far fetched things that a coach would never do, so it's hard to hypothesize... [emoji849]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't agree with your premise that Pagano is a horrible head coach. Horrible head coaches have career records well below .500 and do things like make key players want to leave the team.

[ChoppedWood]

I don't agree with your premise that Pagano is a horrible head coach. Horrible head coaches have career records well below .500 and do things like make key players want to leave the team.

Horrible head coaches do what Puck showed you... re-posted for emphasis:

https://youtu.be/6i7VKQwDS2s

At the end of that it's very unfortunate that the camera pans away from Pags. I have talked to several guys present for that play and they said that as they were coming off the field he told them he was sorry, they were in the wrong variance and he didn't see it in time to get the TO. Fucking stupid variances, always fucking shit up!

I was thinking about asking for some golf clubs for Christmas, instead I think I will ask Santa for some new variances.

FU Dam!

[Racehorse]

The mistake you're making is assuming I care about them firing Pagano beyond the chance that it creates to get one of the horribly bad head coaches that will actively hinder the team. I don't, as I've stated numerous times.

If coaching doesn't matter, what would it matter who we replaced the Clap with?

[Racehorse]

I don't agree with your premise that Pagano is a horrible head coach. Horrible head coaches have career records well below .500 and do things like make key players want to leave the team.

He is trending that way.

[HoosierinFL]

Shit article.

1. The statistical analysis he links to is talking about luck, though he really means randomness, and it shows that 52% of wins can be attributed to random factors, and 48% are not accounted for by random factors.

But the article Dam linked mis-interprets the article and claims that the 48% is explained by player skill. The original author makes no such claim and in fact, there is no reported methodology in either article to explain how to statistically analyze team performance into player factors vs. coaching factors.

2. The fundamental attribution error occurs when we observe the behavior of others and over-estimate the role of dispositional traits to explain their behavior. Dispositional traits are things like personality, ability, etc. So if make a dispositional attribution toward a team, we would be claiming that their success (or failure) is due to internal factors like player skill OR coaching ability. If we instead made a situational attribution, we would attribute their success (or failure) to external factors like strength of schedule, officiating, etc.
This theory does not address leadership, AT ALL.

3. The illusion of control may apply but it really depends on context. Obv as the author from AFA suggests, it would be wrong to blame Harbaugh for Cundiff's missed FG. But at the same time, practice serves a purpose, it is meant to improve play and reduce mistakes. A team that makes many mistakes has either of two problems, 1) really bad players that don't get better with practice, or 2) really bad coaches who are ineffective at running a practice session.
So here, we can't eliminate bad players, but neither can we eliminate bad coaches, as explaining mistakes. In short, this becomes a non-point.

However, it might be possible to quantify team mistakes. It's difficult without knowing playcalls and assignments, but counting drops, missed blocks, abandoned gaps, miscommunication in the secondary. If this was possible to do in an objective way then coaches could be compared in terms of the number of mistakes their teams make, and this could then be used to compare coaching records.

He's also wrong about the Dungy narrative. The idea that he couldn't get it done in the post-season stuck with him after coming to Indy, and it still lingers because people say we should have won more than 1 Superbowl with Peyton Fucking Manning.

(and for the record, I actually have a PhD in experimental psychology which includes statistics)

[sherck]

Hoosier, well said!

You should post more often; raise the quality of the boatd by a ton!

Walk Worthy,

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[ATrain]

I don't agree with your premise that Pagano is a horrible head coach. Horrible head coaches have career records well below .500 and do things like make key players want to leave the team.



What about your premise that coaches don't matter? Your whole point in this thread is that coaching doesn't matter, talent and luck decide who wins.

Now in this comment you're saying coaching does matter and attributing the Colts record under pagano to pagano's ability to coach the team to wins.

Clearly you see how you're contradicting yourself... Right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Coltsalr]

Someone explain this then: D'Juan Smith and T.J.Green are 2 players that Pagano personally worked out and drafted, one is not on the team any more and the other one is no better today then he was the day they drafted him, what does that say about our defensive guru of a coach ???

Khaled Holmes was also a Pagano guy in the draft.

Clearly he’s got a real eye for talent. :rolleyes:

[Brylok]

I don't agree with your premise that Pagano is a horrible head coach. Horrible head coaches have career records well below .500 and do things like make key players want to leave the team.
Pat McAfee wanted to leave the team. Vontae Davis wanted to leave the team. There are probably more that we don't know about. I'm not going to look it up, but I'd venture a guess that Pagano has a sub .500 record in the games Luck didn't play in. His win/loss record is all Andrew Luck winning despite Chuck.

[rcubed]

Pat McAfee wanted to leave the team. Vontae Davis wanted to leave the team. There are probably more that we don't know about. I'm not going to look it up, but I'd venture a guess that Pagano has a sub .500 record in the games Luck didn't play in. His win/loss record is all Andrew Luck winning despite Chuck.
Most of his wins also came against the shitty afc south. His record outside our conference is not good, I don't remember the actual numbers.

[ChoppedWood]

Shit article.

1. The statistical analysis he links to is talking about luck, though he really means randomness, and it shows that 52% of wins can be attributed to random factors, and 48% are not accounted for by random factors.

But the article Dam linked mis-interprets the article and claims that the 48% is explained by player skill. The original author makes no such claim and in fact, there is no reported methodology in either article to explain how to statistically analyze team performance into player factors vs. coaching factors.

2. The fundamental attribution error occurs when we observe the behavior of others and over-estimate the role of dispositional traits to explain their behavior. Dispositional traits are things like personality, ability, etc. So if make a dispositional attribution toward a team, we would be claiming that their success (or failure) is due to internal factors like player skill OR coaching ability. If we instead made a situational attribution, we would attribute their success (or failure) to external factors like strength of schedule, officiating, etc.
This theory does not address leadership, AT ALL.

3. The illusion of control may apply but it really depends on context. Obv as the author from AFA suggests, it would be wrong to blame Harbaugh for Cundiff's missed FG. But at the same time, practice serves a purpose, it is meant to improve play and reduce mistakes. A team that makes many mistakes has either of two problems, 1) really bad players that don't get better with practice, or 2) really bad coaches who are ineffective at running a practice session.
So here, we can't eliminate bad players, but neither can we eliminate bad coaches, as explaining mistakes. In short, this becomes a non-point.

However, it might be possible to quantify team mistakes. It's difficult without knowing playcalls and assignments, but counting drops, missed blocks, abandoned gaps, miscommunication in the secondary. If this was possible to do in an objective way then coaches could be compared in terms of the number of mistakes their teams make, and this could then be used to compare coaching records.

He's also wrong about the Dungy narrative. The idea that he couldn't get it done in the post-season stuck with him after coming to Indy, and it still lingers because people say we should have won more than 1 Superbowl with Peyton Fucking Manning.

(and for the record, I actually have a PhD in experimental psychology which includes statistics)

Oh shit, someone call the fire department, I think there is a person over in the corner singed to a crisp...

Beautifully done!

[apballin]

Pat McAfee wanted to leave the team. Vontae Davis wanted to leave the team. There are probably more that we don't know about. I'm not going to look it up, but I'd venture a guess that Pagano has a sub .500 record in the games Luck didn't play in. His win/loss record is all Andrew Luck winning despite Chuck.

Bullshit and Bullshit, players were lined up in support for Pagano when everyone thought he was walking in Irsay's office to get fired that day

Say what you will about the guy but players want to play for him and they've got his back

[omahacolt]

Bullshit and Bullshit, players were lined up in support for Pagano when everyone thought he was walking in Irsay's office to get fired that day

Say what you will about the guy but players want to play for him and they've got his back

That was when he was lying to them about grigson.

[ChoppedWood]

That was when he was lying to them about grigson.

That's when he was lying to them that he understood the difference between a touchdown and a 3 pointer.

[Puck]

That's when he was lying to them that he understood the difference between a touchdown and a 3 pointer.

Or the Rams and the Chargers

[Racehorse]

Or the Rams and the Chargers

49ers

[Luck4Reich]

Bullshit and Bullshit


What a great name for a Law Firm for you and Dam if you were lawyers.
You both love to argue, lie and full of Bullshit

[apballin]

That was when he was lying to them about grigson.

Has nothing to do with what you "think" happened we all heard and seen the support for Pagano all the players we're coming to his defense if he sucked as a coach and players didn't believe in him that wouldn't have happened period.

[apballin]

What a great name for a Law Firm for you and Dam if you were lawyers.
You both love to argue, lie and full of Bullshit

Exactly what am I lying about?

Players had Paganos back that's a fact, look at the fight they put up in a meaningless game last year

[omahacolt]

Has nothing to do with what you "think" happened we all heard and seen the support for Pagano all the players we're coming to his defense if he sucked as a coach and players didn't believe in him that wouldn't have happened period.

He held nobody accountable. Of course players loved him

[Brylok]

He held nobody accountable. Of course players loved him
Except for Vontae, apparently. He held him accountable for being injured and non-productive. But he didn't have the balls to talk to him face to face before benching him indefinitely. He had Monachino do that dirty work for him.

[smitty46953]

Shit article.

1. The statistical analysis he links to is talking about luck, though he really means randomness, and it shows that 52% of wins can be attributed to random factors, and 48% are not accounted for by random factors.

But the article Dam linked mis-interprets the article and claims that the 48% is explained by player skill. The original author makes no such claim and in fact, there is no reported methodology in either article to explain how to statistically analyze team performance into player factors vs. coaching factors.

2. The fundamental attribution error occurs when we observe the behavior of others and over-estimate the role of dispositional traits to explain their behavior. Dispositional traits are things like personality, ability, etc. So if make a dispositional attribution toward a team, we would be claiming that their success (or failure) is due to internal factors like player skill OR coaching ability. If we instead made a situational attribution, we would attribute their success (or failure) to external factors like strength of schedule, officiating, etc.
This theory does not address leadership, AT ALL.

3. The illusion of control may apply but it really depends on context. Obv as the author from AFA suggests, it would be wrong to blame Harbaugh for Cundiff's missed FG. But at the same time, practice serves a purpose, it is meant to improve play and reduce mistakes. A team that makes many mistakes has either of two problems, 1) really bad players that don't get better with practice, or 2) really bad coaches who are ineffective at running a practice session.
So here, we can't eliminate bad players, but neither can we eliminate bad coaches, as explaining mistakes. In short, this becomes a non-point.

However, it might be possible to quantify team mistakes. It's difficult without knowing playcalls and assignments, but counting drops, missed blocks, abandoned gaps, miscommunication in the secondary. If this was possible to do in an objective way then coaches could be compared in terms of the number of mistakes their teams make, and this could then be used to compare coaching records.

He's also wrong about the Dungy narrative. The idea that he couldn't get it done in the post-season stuck with him after coming to Indy, and it still lingers because people say we should have won more than 1 Superbowl with Peyton Fucking Manning.

(and for the record, I actually have a PhD in experimental psychology which includes statistics)

This has to be our best post of the year !!! :cool: