Interesting read - Moneyball approach to hiring Coaches

[Crazy4thecanes]

Can a new data tool help ADs make better coach hiring decisions?

 

[ghost2]

good stuff - this part especially:

"Prather knows Harbaugh's name will come up as evidence that an alumnus can improve a program, but Prather prefers to look at Harbaugh's more recent data. "They didn't hire Jim Harbaugh because he went to Michigan," Prather says. "They hired him because he's a good football coach."

Sometimes, ADs make their choice too complicated. They worry about whether a coach will be a good public face of the program. They worry about whether he can help raise money. They worry about his institutional fit. They worry about winning the press conference. "You can go 1–0 in the press conference. That's all you can ever do," Prather says. "The second you kick off, all of that stuff is worthless." Prather doesn't understand why some ADs can't see that coaches who win games are most likely to make fans happy and help raise money. When considered that way, the criteria are fairly simple to determine."

Please send this to every decision-maker we have.

 

[Crazy4thecanes]

The part I found interesting is that it was what Rhoades used to hire Herman @ Huston and what he will now use to replace Pinkel @ Mizzou
Edited to add : this method might also effectively remove someone like Mario from serious consideration. I tweeted it to Blake James cause you just never know.....

 

[User-4525]

A lot of people need to hear this.

Rhoades has already examined the data carefully, so he knows how many myths it can bust. But Prather hopes other ADs will soon learn the same thing. During a recent demonstration for the tool, Prather offered to test the well-worn trope that a coach who attended a particular school is better equipped to succeed at that school than a coach who matriculated somewhere else. "They understand the culture," boosters and fans will say. But does that help them win more? Prather asked the tool to show all of the coaches hired between 2001-14 who played for or graduated from the schools that hired them. There were 15. Only four (Ralph Friedgen at Maryland, Mike Gundy at Oklahoma State, Pat Fitzgerald at Northwestern and David Shaw at Stanford) registered better winning percentages than the programs had posted in the previous five years. Prather then pointed out something else. Gundy, Fitzgerald and Shaw had something in common. They were internal hires. Gundy was promoted after Les Miles went to LSU. Fitzgerald was promoted after Randy Walker died. Shaw was promoted after Jim Harbaugh went to the San Francisco 49ers. They had all taken over programs that were already reasonably successful. So, did these coaches win because they were good fits who understood the culture of the school back to their undergraduate days? Or did they win because they were good coaches inheriting good staffs and good players who understood the (more recent) culture of success by virtue of already working for these teams?

 

[Cane2]

Rhoades has already examined the data carefully, so he knows how many myths it can bust. But Prather hopes other ADs will soon learn the same thing. During a recent demonstration for the tool, Prather offered to test the well-worn trope that a coach who attended a particular school is better equipped to succeed at that school than a coach who matriculated somewhere else. "They understand the culture," boosters and fans will say. But does that help them win more? Prather asked the tool to show all of the coaches hired between 2001-14 who played for or graduated from the schools that hired them. There were 15. Only four (Ralph Friedgen at Maryland, Mike Gundy at Oklahoma State, Pat Fitzgerald at Northwestern and David Shaw at Stanford) registered better winning percentages than the programs had posted in the previous five years. Prather then pointed out something else. Gundy, Fitzgerald and Shaw had something in common. They were internal hires. Gundy was promoted after Les Miles went to LSU. Fitzgerald was promoted after Randy Walker died. Shaw was promoted after Jim Harbaugh went to the San Francisco 49ers. They had all taken over programs that were already reasonably successful. So, did these coaches win because they were good fits who understood the culture of the school back to their undergraduate days? Or did they win because they were good coaches inheriting good staffs and good players who understood the (more recent) culture of success by virtue of already working for these teams?

A lot of people need to hear this.

That may well be true. Yet, I have one concern in its assessment metrics that it doesn't factor in a Head Coach ability to put together a great staff. Even still, utilizing this is likely great since one could just input "amassing a great staff ability" as one's additional factor X into the equation in your ultimate criterion.

I think with the data tool as is, Butch Davis would be hired before Thanksgiving, for sure.

But with my revised metrics factoring in the ability to amass a great staff into this data tool, Butch Davis would blow it right out of the waters and be hired by the end of business day tomorrow.

 

[Gapere]

We're talking about Blake James here people. Blake.James.

 

[JimmyJohnsonsHair]

A lot of people need to hear this.

Rhoades has already examined the data carefully, so he knows how many myths it can bust. But Prather hopes other ADs will soon learn the same thing. During a recent demonstration for the tool, Prather offered to test the well-worn trope that a coach who attended a particular school is better equipped to succeed at that school than a coach who matriculated somewhere else. "They understand the culture," boosters and fans will say. But does that help them win more? Prather asked the tool to show all of the coaches hired between 2001-14 who played for or graduated from the schools that hired them. There were 15. Only four (Ralph Friedgen at Maryland, Mike Gundy at Oklahoma State, Pat Fitzgerald at Northwestern and David Shaw at Stanford) registered better winning percentages than the programs had posted in the previous five years. Prather then pointed out something else. Gundy, Fitzgerald and Shaw had something in common. They were internal hires. Gundy was promoted after Les Miles went to LSU. Fitzgerald was promoted after Randy Walker died. Shaw was promoted after Jim Harbaugh went to the San Francisco 49ers. They had all taken over programs that were already reasonably successful. So, did these coaches win because they were good fits who understood the culture of the school back to their undergraduate days? Or did they win because they were good coaches inheriting good staffs and good players who understood the (more recent) culture of success by virtue of already working for these teams?

Randy Shannon.

 

[Cane2]

A lot of people need to hear this.

Rhoades has already examined the data carefully, so he knows how many myths it can bust. But Prather hopes other ADs will soon learn the same thing. During a recent demonstration for the tool, Prather offered to test the well-worn trope that a coach who attended a particular school is better equipped to succeed at that school than a coach who matriculated somewhere else. "They understand the culture," boosters and fans will say. But does that help them win more? Prather asked the tool to show all of the coaches hired between 2001-14 who played for or graduated from the schools that hired them. There were 15. Only four (Ralph Friedgen at Maryland, Mike Gundy at Oklahoma State, Pat Fitzgerald at Northwestern and David Shaw at Stanford) registered better winning percentages than the programs had posted in the previous five years. Prather then pointed out something else. Gundy, Fitzgerald and Shaw had something in common. They were internal hires. Gundy was promoted after Les Miles went to LSU. Fitzgerald was promoted after Randy Walker died. Shaw was promoted after Jim Harbaugh went to the San Francisco 49ers. They had all taken over programs that were already reasonably successful. So, did these coaches win because they were good fits who understood the culture of the school back to their undergraduate days? Or did they win because they were good coaches inheriting good staffs and good players who understood the (more recent) culture of success by virtue of already working for these teams?

Randy Shannon.

,

 

[Jmhcane]

A lot of people need to hear this.

Rhoades has already examined the data carefully, so he knows how many myths it can bust. But Prather hopes other ADs will soon learn the same thing. During a recent demonstration for the tool, Prather offered to test the well-worn trope that a coach who attended a particular school is better equipped to succeed at that school than a coach who matriculated somewhere else. "They understand the culture," boosters and fans will say. But does that help them win more? Prather asked the tool to show all of the coaches hired between 2001-14 who played for or graduated from the schools that hired them. There were 15. Only four (Ralph Friedgen at Maryland, Mike Gundy at Oklahoma State, Pat Fitzgerald at Northwestern and David Shaw at Stanford) registered better winning percentages than the programs had posted in the previous five years. Prather then pointed out something else. Gundy, Fitzgerald and Shaw had something in common. They were internal hires. Gundy was promoted after Les Miles went to LSU. Fitzgerald was promoted after Randy Walker died. Shaw was promoted after Jim Harbaugh went to the San Francisco 49ers. They had all taken over programs that were already reasonably successful. So, did these coaches win because they were good fits who understood the culture of the school back to their undergraduate days? Or did they win because they were good coaches inheriting good staffs and good players who understood the (more recent) culture of success by virtue of already working for these teams?

Randy Shannon.

not what Coker left

 

[252cane]

Rhoades has already examined the data carefully, so he knows how many myths it can bust. But Prather hopes other ADs will soon learn the same thing. During a recent demonstration for the tool, Prather offered to test the well-worn trope that a coach who attended a particular school is better equipped to succeed at that school than a coach who matriculated somewhere else. "They understand the culture," boosters and fans will say. But does that help them win more? Prather asked the tool to show all of the coaches hired between 2001-14 who played for or graduated from the schools that hired them. There were 15. Only four (Ralph Friedgen at Maryland, Mike Gundy at Oklahoma State, Pat Fitzgerald at Northwestern and David Shaw at Stanford) registered better winning percentages than the programs had posted in the previous five years. Prather then pointed out something else. Gundy, Fitzgerald and Shaw had something in common. They were internal hires. Gundy was promoted after Les Miles went to LSU. Fitzgerald was promoted after Randy Walker died. Shaw was promoted after Jim Harbaugh went to the San Francisco 49ers. They had all taken over programs that were already reasonably successful. So, did these coaches win because they were good fits who understood the culture of the school back to their undergraduate days? Or did they win because they were good coaches inheriting good staffs and good players who understood the (more recent) culture of success by virtue of already working for these teams?

A lot of people need to hear this.

That may well be true. Yet, I have one concern in its assessment metrics that it doesn't factor in a Head Coach ability to put together a great staff. Even still, utilizing this is likely great since one could just input "amassing a great staff ability" as one's additional factor X into the equation in your ultimate criterion.

I think with the data tool as is, Butch Davis would be hired before Thanksgiving, for sure.

But with my revised metrics factoring in the ability to amass a great staff into this data tool, Butch Davis would blow it right out of the waters and be hired by the end of business day tomorrow.

I don't think there has ever been a good hc who has not been able to hire a good staff. There is a reason the good coaches win.

 

[PhenomCane]

good stuff - this part especially:

"Prather knows Harbaugh's name will come up as evidence that an alumnus can improve a program, but Prather prefers to look at Harbaugh's more recent data. "They didn't hire Jim Harbaugh because he went to Michigan," Prather says. "They hired him because he's a good football coach."

Sometimes, ADs make their choice too complicated. They worry about whether a coach will be a good public face of the program. They worry about whether he can help raise money. They worry about his institutional fit. They worry about winning the press conference. "You can go 1–0 in the press conference. That's all you can ever do," Prather says. "The second you kick off, all of that stuff is worthless." Prather doesn't understand why some ADs can't see that coaches who win games are most likely to make fans happy and help raise money. When considered that way, the criteria are fairly simple to determine."

Please send this to every decision-maker we have.

Sounds a real AD. Golden went 1-0 in the press conference. Didn't turn out well for him.