Worst Coach Rankings

I'm only saying that it is fine to do this type of thing, but understand it is a difficult task. B/c for every Chan Gailey at Samford/Tommy Bowden at Tulane, there is an Urban Meyer at Florida/Utah, or a RR at West Virginia. There is a huge difference b/w Samford/Tulane and WV/Florida/Utah. It creates a situation where you know there is a difference b/w winning at Samford and Florida, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify.
 
carober18 said:
I'm only saying that it is fine to do this type of thing, but understand it is a difficult task. B/c for every Chan Gailey at Samford/Tommy Bowden at Tulane, there is an Urban Meyer at Florida/Utah, or a RR at West Virginia. There is a huge difference b/w Samford/Tulane and WV/Florida/Utah. It creates a situation where you know there is a difference b/w winning at Samford and Florida, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify.
Click to expand...

But also, you think Urban Meyer is a great coach. How many other coaches in the country would have done what he did? How many other coaches would have also won NCs with type of athletes Florida has? Probably more than a few. Keep in mind that under the old poll system that Spurrier worked under, UF probably would have only won maybe one title.
 
GTKyle said:
But also, you think Urban Meyer is a great coach. How many other coaches in the country would have done what he did? How many other coaches would have also won NCs with type of athletes Florida has? Probably more than a few. Keep in mind that under the old poll system that Spurrier worked under, UF probably would have only won maybe one title.
Click to expand...


You're an idiot
 
The whole damn theory is stupid. This is what's wrong with Sports today. Some braniac creates a formulat that evaluates which teams stay or go, which coach is good or bad

You're not only helping create a problem...you are part of it dumbass
 
THWG_Nuff Said said:
The whole damn theory is stupid. This is what's wrong with Sports today. Some braniac creates a formulat that evaluates which teams stay or go, which coach is good or bad

You're not only helping create a problem...you are part of it dumbass
Click to expand...

Uh...what sport relies on computers for anything, besides that they are 1/3 of the BCS formula(which has never come into play since they changed it to only be 1/3)?
 
What's troubling about this thread, Kyle, is how unwilling you are to accept any criticism at all about your model. No offense man, but your model doesn't need tweaking - it needs to be put out on the curb.
 
ncjacket said:
Baseball doesn't rely on sabermetrics for anything Kyle. It's simply something that geeks play with to try to explain whatever questions they have about the game. It really doesn't mean anything.
Click to expand...

Thank you. DUDE, I realize I'm not well liked on here for speaking my mind

But you're a freaking Dork. This is the most irrevelant #$^* I've ever seen. Not to mention it's a complete waste of time on your end.

It's so for off it's insane you turd.....just shut up up about it.

Don't re-edit...destroy and then deny deny deny responsibility for it
 
00Burdell said:
What's troubling about this thread, Kyle, is how unwilling you are to accept any criticism at all about your model. No offense man, but your model doesn't need tweaking - it needs to be put out on the curb.
Click to expand...

Hardly any of the criticism was constructive. Most of it was "your model sucks, go kill yourself" or crying because their favorite coach wasn't in the top 10.
 
ncjacket said:
Baseball doesn't rely on sabermetrics for anything Kyle. It's simply something that geeks play with to try to explain whatever questions they have about the game. It really doesn't mean anything.
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't read moneyball then.
 
THWG_Nuff Said said:
Thank you. DUDE, I realize I'm not well liked on here for speaking my mind

But you're a freaking Dork. This is the most irrevelant #$^* I've ever seen. Not to mention it's a complete waste of time on your end.

It's so for off it's insane you turd.....just shut up up about it.

Don't re-edit...destroy and then deny deny deny responsibility for it
Click to expand...
What the HELL are you talking about? gth made a comment asking what sport relies on computers, Kyle replied with sabremetrics. I simply said baseball doesn't rely on them, it's just a way some people measure things. Kyle then referred to Moneyball, which is a point, but only Oakland really pays that much attention to it. I don't know what you have to do with any of this.

Oh, and find one instance of me editing a post to change the meaning....just one.
 
GTKyle said:
You obviously haven't read moneyball then.
Click to expand...
Actually I have and while it's interesting, it's not anywhere near universally accepted. The biggest proponent is still Billy Bean and the A's and it hasn't done them much good in quite a while.
 
ncjacket said:
Actually I have and while it's interesting, it's not anywhere near universally accepted. The biggest proponent is still Billy Bean and the A's and it hasn't done them much good in quite a while.
Click to expand...

The book was written in 2004 I believe, so a lot has changed. Off the top of my head other teams using it are the Blue Jays and the Red Sox. There are probably more, but those are the only other ones I know for sure using it. Maybe the reason the A's aren't doing as well lately is because everyone else is using sabermetrics as well so the playing field has been leveled.

Also, OPS is a sabermetric stat used to evaluate hitters today.
 
GTKyle said:
The book was written in 2004 I believe, so a lot has changed. Off the top of my head other teams using it are the Blue Jays and the Red Sox. There are probably more, but those are the only other ones I know for sure using it.
Click to expand...
But using it really means as another method of evaluating players. The Dodgers use it a little as well, but it's not how they make their decisions like it is with the As.
 
ncjacket said:
What the HELL are you talking about? gth made a comment asking what sport relies on computers, Kyle replied with sabremetrics. I simply said baseball doesn't rely on them, it's just a way some people measure things. Kyle then referred to Moneyball, which is a point, but only Oakland really pays that much attention to it. I don't know what you have to do with any of this.

Oh, and find one instance of me editing a post to change the meaning....just one.
Click to expand...
I think he was actually talking to Kyle, although he did quote your post to say "thank you." But I could be wrong.
 
ncjacket said:
But using it really means as another method of evaluating players. The Dodgers use it a little as well, but it's not how they make their decisions like it is with the As.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's a choice of certain teams, not a prerequisite of the sport that is the word of God, as THWG seemed to be complaining about. No one's forcing anyone to use sabermetrics, and I'm sure no one relies ONLY on it.

But the Red Sox do rely on it about as much as the As(they actually tried to get Billy Beane and he said no.) And they've done pretty well, so my guess is that many teams are already coming along and it will only get more prevalent.
 
GTKyle said:
http://apollo.podzone.net/~kyle/cfb/coaches/rankings

These were automatically compiled based off a formula I developed. Enjoy.
Click to expand...

It looks like the formula you developed is to take the previous winning percentage (at the school, I guess) and compare the coach's winning percentage to that number, then multiple by 100. Is that right?

If so, I wouldn't really call it a model, I'd just call it a comparison. I guess you can call it a model, but I think of models as being predictive rather than backward-looking.

My first thought was that Bill Lewis would've looked great in your rankings, which kind of invalidate the ranking system. I wouldn't call the list "worst coaches", because a coach is usually evaluated on a body of work. Maybe "recent coaching success rates" or something like that.

By the way, the A's don't use all of the evaluation analytics like they used to, because once the book was published they lost any edge that they gained by doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top