Interesting ESPN article on coaches in Year 2


Dude, you usually have a better outlook than this. It’s fun to beat highly thought of teams.
 

Dude, you usually have a better outlook than this. It’s fun to beat highly thought of teams.

Here's what caught my eye:

"There is a broader statistical angle to this effect, as well: If a head coach is going to see a leap, it's probably going to happen pretty quickly after his hire. Over the past 10 seasons, 23 teams have seen their S&P+ rating improve by 18 points per game in a single season. Eighteen of those teams were led by a head coach in either his first, second or third season at the helm. And among that range, the second year is the most likely chance at improvement.

In a coach's first year, his team's average change in S&P+ rating is minus-1.03, with a minus-0.12 average change in win total. By Year 2, the average change is plus-2.59 (plus-0.87 win total). In Year 3, the average change in S&P+ rating is plus-1.44 (plus-0.26 win total).

Over those 10 years, 70% of second-year coaches enjoyed a win total at or above that of their first year and 63% saw their S&P+ rating improve (46% by at least three adjusted points per game, 17% by at least 10)."
 

This whole notion of having endless patience, and of not expecting too much too soon, is apparently blown out of the water by these stats.
 

This whole notion of having endless patience, and of not expecting too much too soon, is apparently blown out of the water by these stats.

Careful now.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Here's what caught my eye:

"There is a broader statistical angle to this effect, as well: If a head coach is going to see a leap, it's probably going to happen pretty quickly after his hire. Over the past 10 seasons, 23 teams have seen their S&P+ rating improve by 18 points per game in a single season. Eighteen of those teams were led by a head coach in either his first, second or third season at the helm. And among that range, the second year is the most likely chance at improvement.

In a coach's first year, his team's average change in S&P+ rating is minus-1.03, with a minus-0.12 average change in win total. By Year 2, the average change is plus-2.59 (plus-0.87 win total). In Year 3, the average change in S&P+ rating is plus-1.44 (plus-0.26 win total).

Over those 10 years, 70% of second-year coaches enjoyed a win total at or above that of their first year and 63% saw their S&P+ rating improve (46% by at least three adjusted points per game, 17% by at least 10)."

It is easier to improve 18 spots when your earlier ranking is dog crap.
What I’m saying is, of course teams with new coaches see the most improvement because 80% of the time if you have a new coach it means you were dog crap that got a coach fired 1-3 years earlier.

New coaches replacing retiring coaches this probably is less common.
 

It is easier to improve 18 spots when your earlier ranking is dog crap.
What I’m saying is, of course teams with new coaches see the most improvement because 80% of the time if you have a new coach it means you were dog crap that got a coach fired 1-3 years earlier.

New coaches replacing retiring coaches this probably is less common.

Agreed. Correlation not causation. Hard to improve your wins from 8, 9, and 10 win seasons
 


I think 8 wins is about right for Nebraska and I think for this year anyway, most Husker fans will be happy with that.

Will be really interesting to watch Nebraska’s

The advanced stats essentially say all their games except for one or two are tossups.

10-2 wouldn’t be THAT surprising but neither would 5-7
 



Will be really interesting to watch Nebraska’s

The advanced stats essentially say all their games except for one or two are tossups.

10-2 wouldn’t be THAT surprising but neither would 5-7

In tossup games, I'm thinking QB play is even more crucial.

Martinez looked really good last year.

Please talk me down off this ledge!
 

It is easier to improve 18 spots when your earlier ranking is dog crap.
What I’m saying is, of course teams with new coaches see the most improvement because 80% of the time if you have a new coach it means you were dog crap that got a coach fired 1-3 years earlier.

New coaches replacing retiring coaches this probably is less common.

They address that (to some degree) in the article.
 

Nebraska's defense is not going to be able to stop anyone this year. Sure Martinez is very good but he will need to put up 30+ points to keep them in games. Sounds like WanDale Robinson is tearing up the defense. He is a true freshman and not very big either but electric. Still, he is just out of high school and the point is; they can't stop him.
 




In tossup games, I'm thinking QB play is even more crucial.

Martinez looked really good last year.

Please talk me down off this ledge!

Everything is more important in close games.
Martinez could win them a game. Last year they lost the Colorado game because he got dinged up.
I think he will get at least minor dings this year based on the style he plays.

As another poster said, DEFENSE.


Here is a stat that people won’t believe:

In one score games last year Nebraska was 0-5 in one score games played in the 20s and 30s
In one score games where neither team scored 20 they were 1-0

As good as Martinez was, the games they won were the ones the defense showed up in. Martinez wasn’t able to outscore anyone in close games.
 

How did the article take year zero's into account?
 





Top Bottom