Einstein

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).

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”.

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.

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.

Feel free to point out a single instance of statistical wrongness.

A rather solid argument could be made that Kelly would not be a top 5 QB in todays NFL.

Have to admit, I laughed at how pathetic that is.

Thus why I said (in my first response to you) that my opinion on Anarumo is not based on statistics, but my gut feeling watching him. No, this did not happen. I can only give you the information. I can not make you understand it.

Apologies for getting 2 letters in his name wrong lol.

It’s really not a hard concept. Reid got more of a leash because he got much closer to the ultimate goal, numerous times, than other coaches have. Very simple. I can only give you the information. I can not make you understand it.

He was attempting to be deceptive. ”Well, KC kept Reid despite not going to the championship game… ignore the FIVE championship games he was in before. They weren’t “afc” championship game”. And then Augie liked the post lol. If you’re getting that close to the ultimate goal, that many times, teams tend to give more leeway than if, say, keep getting bounced in the divisional round and struggle against 3rd string QB’s. .

Mahomes vs playoff teams without Anuromo: 33.1ppg Mahomes vs playoff teams WITH Anuromo: 23.5ppg That is a MASSIVE difference. Visit the Chiefs forum and you will see a fan base that shudders at the mention of Anuromo’s name. They fear him like we feared Belichick for 2 decades.

NFL teams hire mathematicians and data analysts to run their analysis and statistics. Football professionals (like coaches, GM’s, scouts) know jack squat about data analytics. The Bills data analyst for example, Malcolm Charles, came straight to the team out of college (Clemson and Marquette). Evan Weiss, the teams football analyst, came from PFF (who also has no peer reviewed equations) and before working at PFF was a marketing intern. You seem to have this idea that NFL teams employ “football experts” for data analytics but in reality they are just mathematically inclined data engineers, sometimes straight out of college, that know about as much about football as the people on this forum. Great data analysts can seamlessly move between sectors - from technology, to oil, to manufacturing - because, it doesn’t matter! They don’t need to be an expert to interpret data.

Sometimes you just have to laugh at a post. That was one of them. He wants basic calculus to be peer reviewed because he doesn’t like the results 😂

My desire (with no calculation provided just gut feeling) is Lou Anorumo. 1) I believe it helps the Bills. Anorumo has stopped the Chiefs offense twice in the playoffs. Something we have never done. 2) It hurts the Chiefs. 3) It hurts the Bengals (they lose their best coordinator). It is a win/win/win. Ps, I believe the percentage to be higher than 1% once the replacements get added back in and you look at it on a year by year basis.

Calculus and maths are me treating it like science? Oofta. This is college-level calculus. Not calculating the wave length of light passing into a black hole. You don’t like the results and you are attempting to discredit them by acting as if (mostly) basic math needs to be peer reviewed. It’s hilariously stupid. What has the world come to. We are so stupid that we think the presence of maths needs SME validation. I have applied common, age-old formulas and rules to a data set.

This is a thread on a football forum. Attempting to discredit it because it’s not relevant for a dissertation is just silly. But sure, feel free to send my equations to your math professor friend and ask him if i’m wrong. As for developing a measurement tool and assuring its validity - what you’re describing is the peer-review process. To say that some difficult calculus needs SME’s to peer review the work is literally laughable lol. I wonder how anyone makes it out of college math nowadays. .

Yes we were very lucky in that game. Mostly because Frank Reich is not a great head coach. His decision to go for 4th and goal cost them the game.

It depends on how you define success. The only goal of the NFL is to win a Super Bowl. There is no trophy for making the playoffs or winning the division.

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. .

Lol so you were purposefully being deceptive by talking about when Reid made his first afc championship game on his second team? So… not his first championship game? And completely irrelevant to our discussions in this thread. He had been in FIVE CHAMPIONSHIP games prior to that second team. While we are at, it took Tom Brady over 20 years to make his first NFC Championship game! That totally proves that QB’s should be given 20 years to prove their worth! Makes sense. This is embarrassing for both you and @Augie

I will be honest and say that I worded my response to you very poorly. That’s not your fault. I have since edited it to make it more

But but but… you’re cherry picking stats. But but but… there are other variables. (Just warming you up to the upcoming excuses. Completely invalid excuses but excuses nonetheless). McDermott is also the longest tenured coach without a Super Bowl appearance. Because in the modern era, teams typically fire coaches who haven’t made a Super Bowl by this point in their career (especially with a franchise QB). Not exactly how it works. McDermott does not have a 10% chance. That’s the historical percentage among the 48 coaches. But some made it 1 time and others made it numerous times. .

In my opinion Allen became a franchise QB in year 2, when he had 29 TD’s. But keep in mind (since I sense that this is where you’re going) that the data reflects total years. Not years since a coach gets a franchise QB. My Belichick comment was simply explaining the variable.

It’s sad that math is so elusive nowadays that it’s seen as foreign and copied. We know the historical percentage of coaches who made it past year 7. My post above spelled this out for you already, but given that only 5 coaches in the last 40 years have made it to the SB past year 7 of their coaching career, the simple probability historically = (Number of coaches past year 7 who made a Super Bowl) / (Number of Super Bowl coaches). 5 / 48 or approximately 0.1042 (10.42%). but this doesn’t take into account some coaches made it several times, and other coaches made it one time and there are more than 48 opportunities but because of the duplicate coaching data it doesn’t take that into account.