Coaching and Choking in the Playoffs (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

As some of you know, Drinen lets me blog on his site sometimes. Here's a link to today's article:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?p=258

Over a week ago, the San Diego Chargers became the first team to fire a head coach following a a fourteen-win season. Marty Schottenheimer’s team lost its first playoff game, which seems less punishable when you remember what happened the previous two years. In 2004, a 15-1 Steelers team was a Doug Brien field goal away from losing its first playoff game, and got blown out the next week at home; the following year, Bill Cowher brought the city of Pittsburgh its fifth Super Bowl Championship. In 2005, a 14-2 Colts team lost its first playoff game; the following year, Tony Dungy brought the city of Indianapolis its first professional sports title ever (discounting the three ABA titles won in the early 1970s).

Marty Schottenheimer won’t get a chance to bring the city of San Diego its first professional sports title (discounting the AFL title in 1963), and you’ll hear lots of reasons why. If Schottenheimer was Bill Belichick, we know he wouldn’t have been fired. But Belichick has a past history of post-season success, and Schottenheimer has a horrible history of playoff failure. Almost assuredly, if Schottenheimer did not have a poor career record in the playoffs, he would have been retained. While the loss of both assistant coaches was significant, it is my opinion that the overriding factor was the thought that “Marty won’t win in the playoffs.” This can only make sense if past post-season success is indicative of future post-season success. To make my bias clear, before I conducted this study I believed that statement to be false. Let’s see what happens. (Note: I don’t care to turn this into a debate on the reasons Schottenheimer was fired. There’s currently an 847 post thread on that at our other site.)

From 1970-2005, there were 346 playoff games played in the NFL. To figure out if past playoff prowess is correlated with future post-season success, we need to isolate two factors: regular season record and home field advantage. Because regular season record is highly correlated with home field advantage (the team with the better record has usually been the home team), we’re going to leave HFA out for now to make this a bit more palatable.

I hate having to write keys for charts, because that usually means the data isn’t presented in its simplest format. But this was the best I could do. Every playoff game has a “clutch” coach and a “choke” coach. The clutch coach is simply the coach with the better career post-season record prior to that game (”better” will be explained in a bit).

RWD = Regular Season Win Differential

N = Number of times two teams met in the playoffs with that differential

Cl Win% = Winning percentage of the “clutch” coaches when they were X games better in the regular season than the opponent.

Ch Win% = Winning percentage of the “choke” coaches when they were X games better in the regular season than the opponent.

Cl Gm = Number of times the “clutch” coach had the better record

Ch Gm = Number of times the “choke” coach had the better record

Ev Gm = The number of times teams with that RWD met and the two coaches had “equivalent” prior post-season records. Equivalent here means both coaches were the same number of games above, at, or below .500. This is only to be complete, since we won’t care about these games.

RWD N Cl Win% Ch Win% Cl Gm Ch Gm Ev Gm6 2 1.000 1.000 1 1 05 9 0.667 1.000 3 5 14 20 1.000 0.625 9 8 33.5 3 1.000 1.000 1 1 13 35 0.900 0.833 20 12 32.5 4 1.000 0.500 1 2 12 74 0.857 0.657 28 35 111.5 12 0.600 1.000 5 3 41 112 0.682 0.623 44 53 150.5 15 0.429 0.500 7 2 60 120 0.538 0.462 52 52 16First, a quick example. When the 1998 (15-1) Vikings played the 1998 (9-7) Cardinals in the playoffs, Dennis Green had a career 1-4 post-season record and Vince Tobin was 1-0 in the playoffs. Green’s Vikings won, so that game is filed under RWD as 6, under Ch Gm as 1 (this was the only time the “choke” coach ever had six more regular season wins than his opponent) and under Ch Wins (not presented above) as 1. Then I divided Ch Wins by Ch Gm to get the Ch Win%, which is presented above. Whew.Let’s summarize the table. When two teams face off in the post-season where one team has won five or six more games than the other, the team with the better record (regardless of coaching history) is 11-1. The one loss was when Jerry Burns (1-0) beat mighty Bill Walsh (7-3) in the playoffs, so that’s a “clutch” loss.

At four wins better than the opponent, “clutch” coaches are 9-0 but “choke” coaches are only 5-3. Tom Coughlin’s upset of Mike Shanahan (1996), Ted Marchibroda’s upset of Marty Schottenheimer (1995) and Chuck Noll’s upset of Dan Reeves (1984) were the three surprises. All three were by seven points or less. Note that Shanahan (0-0) was considered the “choke” coach and Coughlin (1-0) the “clutch” coach by only the thinnest of margins. We’ll address this later today and more thoroughly tomorrow.

At 3/3.5 games better, clutch coaches are 19-2 (John Robinson over Tom Landry in 1984, Chuck Knox over Don Shula in 1983), while choke coaches are 11-2 (Bill Cowher over Tony Dungy, 2005, and Bill Belichick over Mike Martz in SBXXXVI). This illustrates one of the drawbacks of such an approach. Robinson and Knox were both six games behind Landry and Shula (in terms of career post-season records) when they faced, and were clearly big underdogs with respect to playoff success. Martz and Dungy were only one and two games behind Belichick and Cowher at the time, so they had nearly identical playoff records when they faced. So the two clutch losses were much more extreme than the two choke losses.

A wide gap emerges, however, at 2/2.5 games better. Clutch coaches are 25-4, a very respectable winning percentage. Choke coaches are 24-13, which is decidedly more average. Interestingly, in the most extreme discrepancies in games where the choke coach was on a team with two more regular season wins, the choke coach followed history and lost. Dennis Green lost his post-season debut to Joe Gibbs, whose 15-4 record in the playoffs may have mattered more than his team’s 9-7 regular season record in 1992. Additionally, Bill Belichick (10-1) beat Jack Del Rio in his post-season debut, but then again, that game was in Foxboro.

The two sets of data converge again when the two regular season teams were within 1.5 games of each other. Both the clutch coach (36-20) and the choke coach (37-21) won 64% of their games when they coached a team with a slightly better regular season record.

When two teams have the same regular season record, clutch coaches have a slight edge, winning 28 of the 52 games. If we had no other data to analyze, this would be what I’d be most curious to see. When the teams are even, who wins? There could be several factors affecting this, so 28/52 isn’t conclusive of much.

When coaching a much stronger team, measured by regular season record, both clutch and choke coaches dominate in the post-season. When coaching teams that are a significant but not large amount better, clutch coaches have been noticeably more successful. When coaching teams that are slightly better, clutch and choke coaches appear identical.

As hinted at earlier, we may not be comparing apples to apples. If Coach A has a 1-0 post-season record, and he faces Coach B who owns a 0-1 post-season record, Coach A will be labeled clutch and Coach B will be labeled choke. If Coach A is 10-0 and Coach B is 0-10, the same labels — clutch and choke — will apply. But presumably we’d want to focus more heavily on games where there is a large difference in the post-season records. Otherwise, it would be like writing the difference between a 15-1 team and 9-7 team is the same as the difference between a 10-6 team and 9-7 team. Labeling them “good” and “bad” isn’t very precise.

We just looked at how the “good” team in every post-season game did (good meaning has X many more regular season wins than the opponent) depending on whether the coach was previously clutch or a choker. Now we’re going to look at “clutch” coaches in every post-season game, and see how they fare depending on whether they’re coaching a “good” team or a “bad” team. This is susceptible to the same problems, of course, but gives us another way to look at the data. The only reason we talk about clutch coaches in the sense of prior post-season success is because we assume that a clutch coach can beat a choke coach with a bad team. When a good team beats a bad team, we aren’t surprised. But how often do “clutch” coaches lead inferior teams to post-season success, and vice versa, how often do “choke” coaches hamper superior teams?

In this chart, we’ll need a third column — even games. Before we dismissed even games because we were analyzing clutch coaching, and if neither coach is clutch, we don’t care about the game. Now we might care most about the even games, because that features two teams with the same records.

CF = Clutchness Factor. How many more career post-season wins above .500 the clutch coach had.

N = Number of games where the CF differential was X.

G Win % = Winning percentage by the clutch coach when he had the “good” team (better regular season record)

E Win% = Winning percentage by the clutch coach when the two teams were “even” (same regular season record)

L Win % = Winning percentage by the clutch coach when he had the “bad” team (worse regular season record)

G Gm = Number of games where the clutch coach was on the good team

E Gm = Number of games where the two teams were even

B Gm = Number of games where the clutch coach was on the bad team

CF N G Win% E Win% B Win% G Gm Ev Gm B Gm10+ 4 — 0.500 0.500 0 2 29 5 — — 0.400 0 0 58 6 1.000 1.000 0.500 3 1 27 4 1.000 — 0.500 2 0 26 22 0.857 0.333 0.083 7 3 125 39 0.588 0.600 0.176 17 5 174 24 0.615 0.500 0.400 13 6 53 50 0.788 0.600 0.250 33 5 122 61 0.900 0.786 0.370 20 14 271 79 0.792 0.313 0.385 24 16 39Once again, let’s go through a quick explanation and a summary. I’m measuring a coach’s record by how many games over .500 he is. If you’re 10-5, you’re at 5 games over. If you’re at 6-13, you’re at 8 games under. If those two coaches met, I’d record the difference as +12. This formula works well enough, and the most important thing is that we all know what the formula is, rather than finding the perfect formula.When Mike Holmgren (9-8) met Joe Gibbs (17-5) in the second round of the 2005 NFC playoffs, Gibbs would be the clutch coach and filed under 10+ wins (since he’s actually at +11). Gibbs lost, and he was on the “bad” team since Seattle had won three more games than Washington that year. But when Joe Gibbs (15-4) beat Dennis Green (0-0) thirteen years earlier, he also coached the worse team. Those are the only two times a coach with a 10+ advantage over his opponent coached the team with the worse record in the playoffs (and such a coach has never coached the better team).

On to the summary. When a playoff game features a clutch coach with a large advantage (7 games or more), the clutch coach is 5-0 when coaching the better team and 2-1 when the teams are even. When coaching the worse team, the clutch coach is 5-6. These numbers are more significant than you might initially realize; this means the choke coach is 0-5 when coaching the worse team (compared to 5-6 when the clutch coach has the worse team) and just 6-5 (vs. 5-0) when coaching the better team. Curiously, though, in the most extreme example, the choke coach won. Don Coryell (2-5) met Chuck Noll (14-4) in the playoffs in Pittsburgh, and both teams had gone 6-3 in the regular season. But Coryell’s Chargers edged Noll’s Steelers, 31-28.

The evidence goes the other way, however, when we look at times when the clutch coach had a 5 or 6 game edge on his opponent. When coaching good teams, he was 16-8; when coaching the worse team he was just 4-25. The converse means while coaching bad teams the choke coach still won 33% of his games, and the “choke” coach won nearly all of the games when he had the better team. The four losses? Chuck Noll (7-2) over Ted Marchibroda (0-1), in 1976; Dan Reeves (9-7) over Dennis Green (2-5) in the 1998 NFC Championship Game, Mike Shanahan (1-1) over Marty Schottenheimer (5-10) in 1997, and Herm Edwards (1-2) over Schottenheimer (5-11) in 2004. Outside of those games, the evidence strongly points to clutch coaches doing worse than choke coaches for this stretch. There are many more games like Bill Parcells losing to John Fox than Herm Edwards beating Schottenheimer.

When we look at coaches with 3 or 4 game advantages, we see a very small edge going to the “clutch” coaches. In those games clutch coaches are 6-5 against choke coaches when both teams have the same regular season record. When the clutch coach is on the good team, his record is 34-12 (74%), and when the clutch coach is on the bad team, his record is 5-12 (29%). Conversely, choke coaches win 71% of the time and 26% of the time when on the good, and bad teams, respectively.

This effect is magnified even more when we look at coaches with just slight advantages, a one or two game lead. I’m not sure this is conclusive of anything, because if there is something to this clutch ability, it shouldn’t increase as we get to the least clutch coaches. Anyway, clutch coaches are 37-7 when they coach the good team, while choke coaches are just 41-25 when they’re on the good team. Clutch coaches are also 16-14 against the chokers when the teams are even.

So where does that leave us? None of the above methods are perfect, since there are some drawbacks to those tools. In both examples, we made team strength (good/bad) and coaching history (clutch/choke) into binary categories, when of course they are not. As a result, some effects could be hidden. The best way to solve this is to use a regression analysis. I didn’t do that today because regression analysis is useless to people who don’t understand regression. The tables presented at least bring the numbers to life. Tomorrow, though, we’ll sacrifice simplicity for precision, and the results are pretty interesting.

 

[cobalt_27]

As some of you know, Drinen lets me blog on his site sometimes. Here's a link to today's article:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?p=258

The concept of "choking" is so overblown and so overused, I'm glad this is being addressed quantitatively.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Here's today's post:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?p=259

Yesterday, we looked at lots of combinations of playoff games featuring a mix of regular season records and prior post-season coaching records. Today we’re going to get a bit more precise as we conclude the study, and take a quick look at what happened in 2006.

I think its important to be especially clear on what our goal is. This blog has noted the distinction between retrodictive and predictive systems a few times, and in this comment, PFR reader Jim A provided a very useful link. The basic difference is that retrodictive systems answer the question “which team or coach has accomplished the most in the past” while predictive systems answer the question “which team or coach is most likely to win in the future?” What we’re trying to create is a predictive system. There’s no denying that Bill Belichick (13-3 playoff record) and Joe Gibbs (17-6 career playoff record) have been much more successful than Marty Schottenheimer (5-13) or Jim Mora Sr. (0-6). But that’s as obvious as it is uninteresting. Any retrodictive system would have to place Gibbs and Belichick at the top, and Marty and Mora at the bottom.

But when we’re talking about whether Schottenheimer should have been fired, we want to know whether he’ll win in the future. We want to know the predictive ability of our system. If we find out that a coach’s past post-season record is a useless indicator of his future post-season success, it doesn’t mean that Schottenheimer is as accomplished as Belichick; it just means that going forward, we have no reason to expect Belichick to be better than Schottenheimer. Those two statements are very different, and that difference is essential to understanding where we’re going with this.

Yesterday, I gave a preview of what we’re going to look at today — multiple regression analysis. For each of the 346 playoff games from 1970-2005, I recorded three input variables and one output variables. The output variable is win/loss; the input variables are: 1) each team’s head coach’s prior playoff record, 2) the difference in winning percentage of the two teams in the regular season, and 3) where the game was played (home, away or neutral (the Super Bowl)).

Before looking at the variables together, let’s look at them individually. Home field advantage is strongly correlated with winning — the Pearson correlation was 0.362 and the correlation was significant. The difference in regular season winning percentage was even more correlated, 0.442, and significant. As for our third variable, past playoff record? The correlation was just 0.03, and was not significant (0.386 on a 2-tailed test). In other words, there is no historical relationship between a coach’s prior post-season record and his future post-season performance in a playoff game.

When you run a least squares multiple regression analysis, the following formula is created:

0.436 + 0.13*HFA + 1.32*RegSeaWin%Diff + 0.01 * PastPlayoffWinDiff

So we might say that a team at home (HFA = 1) that won 2 more games than its opponent (RegSeaWin%Diff = 0.125) and with even head coaches, should be expected to get 0.73 wins (or if the game is played 100 times, should win it 73 times). Notice how small the coefficient for past playoff record is -- the differential among the coaches is going to have minimal predictive power. Further, the P-value for past playoff win differential was 0.15, making it not statistically significant.

So what do you say to your friends who won’t believe you when you say a coach’s past post-season record is irrelevant to predicting his future post-season success? For starters, they’ll probably cite some examples. Maybe the Patriots over the Chargers (2006), the Patriots over the Colts (2003, 2004) or Joe Gibbs’ Redskins over lots of teams. But if they try and name several examples, remind them that over 350 playoff games have been played since 1970, so individual examples aren’t going to prove much. Then throw out these five examples going the other way:

1) In 1982, Chuck Noll had a 14-4 career post-season record and 4 Super Bowl titles to his resume, while Don Coryell was a choke artist that had gone 2-5 in the playoffs. Coryell’s team won in Pittsburgh, 31-28.

2) Tom Flores was coaching the defending SB Champions, had won 2 Super Bowls, and owned a sparkling 8-1 career playoff record. His 11-5 team lost in Seattle (12-4) to Chuck Knox, who had been 6-8 in the playoffs prior to that game.

3) The Great Tom Landry, owner of two SB rings and a 20-14 career post-season record, was coaching another great Cowboys team that went 12-4 in 1983. Hosting the 9-7 Rams, John Robinson in his playoff debut went into Dallas and won, 24-17.

4) Bill Walsh was 7-1 in the playoffs and had won two Super Bowls. His defending champion 49ers team played a Giants team with the same 10-6 record, and a coach in Bill Parcells that had a 1-1 career playoff record. But Parcells’ Giants won in 1985, 17-3. (And before you start thinking Parcells shouldn’t count as a choke coach because “he’s Bill Parcells”, note that Parcells lost all three times he had a five game advantage over his opponent. In 1994 (8-3 career playoff record at the time) he lost to Bill Belichick in his first post-season game, in 2003, Parcells (11-6) lost to John Fox in his first playoff game, and in 1989 Parcells (5-2) lost at home to John Robinson, who had an ugly 3-5 playoff record before that game.

5) Don Shula, who had coached in four Super Bowls and won two of them at the time, hosted a New England team in 1985 that was coached by Raymond Berry. Raymond Berry’s first full season as a head coach was that year. But Berry’s team went into Miami and won, 31-14.

The results are clear: the correlation between past playoff success and future playoff success is extremely small and not statistically significant. But let’s take it one step further, as I think you should with almost any study that looks at the post-merger NFL: what’s going on lately?

I eliminated all playoff games from before 1993, and ran the same numbers. Now we have a look at the modern, post-free agency era. The Pearson Correlation of past playoff records and winning the next game was 0.000, and of course, not significant. Home field was slightly more correlated than before (0.381) and significant, and regular season record was slightly less correlated (0.417) and significant. Running the least squares multiple regression, we get:

0.500 + 0.00*HFA + 1.32*RegSeaWin%Diff + 0.01 * PastPlayoffWinDiff

Once again, past playoff performance is practically irrelevant, and any effect is not significant statistically (0.21 p-value). What’s most curious is how home field advantage has been zeroed out. Perhaps one of our readers can help me out, but the big problem I see is that home field advantage is very closely tied to regular season records: there have been only five games out of 130 where the home team had a worse record than the road team. So I believe what the regression is telling us is that once we know the regular season win differential between the two teams, knowing which team is home isn’t very useful. Running the regression with only two variables (removing the HFA variable) does not make past playoff record any more useful.

All the statistical tests I’ve performed make it clear that in terms of a predictive system, knowing a coach’s past post-season record is useless to predicting how he will do in a future playoff game. But for fun I thought I’d look at the 2006 playoff results now.

Here’s how the first row in the table can be read. When Bill Belichick played Marty Schottenheimer, Belichick (coach 1) had a +17 playoff win differential (Belichick was 10 games over .500 at 12-2, while Schottenheimer was 7 games under .500 at 5-12), a -2 regular season win differential (New England went 12-4 this year, San Diego went 14-2), was on the road (0 = road, 1 = home) and won (0 = loss, 1 = win).

Coach1 Coach2 PWD RWD HFA W/LBeliBi0 SchoMa0 17 -2 0 1BeliBi0 DungTo0 12 0 0 0BeliBi0 MangEr0 9 2 1 1BillBr0 DungTo0 5 1 1 0HolmMi0 SmitLo0 4 -4 0 0ReidAn0 CougTo0 3 2 1 1ReidAn0 PaytSe0 3 0 0 0ParcBi0 HolmMi0 2 0 0 0EdwaHe0 DungTo0 2 -3 0 0SmitLo0 DungTo0 1 1 0.5 0PaytSe0 SmitLo0 1 -3 0 0Of the 11 games this year, only three times did the coach with the better playoff record win the game: Belichick over Schottenheimer and Mangini, and Reid over Coughlin. It’s not much of a stretch to say those latter two games weren’t surprising; the Eagles and Patriots were more than a notch above the Giants and Jets this year. The Schottenheimer/Belichick game will forever give ammunition to those who believe that past playoff performance is a strong predictor of future playoff performance — after all, the most clutch coach ever took a worse team on the road and beat the least clutch coach ever. But let’s remember that it was still just one game, and one game that could have very easily gone the other way. Belichick lost to Dungy, Billick lost to Dungy at home, and youngsters Sean Payton and Lovie Smith beat successful playoff coaches Andy Reid and Mike Holmgren.I thought I’d close things today with just a little bit of anecdotal evidence. For all the Marty-bashing that goes on, his 5-13 record could easily be a lot better. The first five games I think of that he’s lost in the playoffs all turned on a single play. If John Elway doesn’t have The Drive (thanks to a 3rd and 18 completion), if Byner doesn’t commit The Fumble, if Lin Elliot doesn’t miss 3 field goals (KC loses 10-7), if Nate Kaeding hits a 40-yard FG in overtime, or if Marlon McCree falls down, Schottenheimer would have been 10-8 instead of 5-13. In terms of retrodictive analysis, that stuff’s pretty irrelevant: it happened, and Schottenheimer lost. In terms of predictive analysis, I don’t know if Marty would have had to have been any better a coach to have a career winning record in the playoffs.

Schottenheimer also lost a 14-10 game, a 17-16 game, a 24-23 game, and a 24-21 game. He’s been in lots of close playoff games, but hasn’t come out victorious in many. But considering he’s got 200 career wins, and an extensive empirical study shows no correlation between past playoff success and the predictability of future playoff success, I have no doubt that Schottenheimer would have had an excellent chance to win a Super Bowl with the Chargers this year.

 

[Q-Bert]

Here's today's post:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?p=259

...

But considering he’s got 200 career wins, and an extensive empirical study shows no correlation between past playoff success and the predictability of future playoff success, I have no doubt that Schottenheimer would have had an excellent chance to win a Super Bowl with the Chargers this year.

Loved the articles.

 

[Keys Myaths]

So, basically, the law of small sample sizes holds.

It's amazing that people throw millions of dollars away because of the "clutch" mystique.

 

[Despyzer]

So, basically, the law of small sample sizes holds.It's amazing that people throw millions of dollars away because of the "clutch" mystique.

Schottenheimer wasn't fired because he's a choker in the playoffs. He was fired because the owner and GM felt he was operating in a manner detrimental to the franchise.

 

[Keys Myaths]

So, basically, the law of small sample sizes holds.It's amazing that people throw millions of dollars away because of the "clutch" mystique.

Schottenheimer wasn't fired because he's a choker in the playoffs. He was fired because the owner and GM felt he was operating in a manner detrimental to the franchise.

No, but if he went to the SB, would he have been fired?

 

[Despyzer]

No, but if he went to the SB, would he have been fired?

He didn't, so we'll never know. I would suspect not because it would be more difficult to say that he was detrimental to the team that close to such a success.

 

[Jason Wood]

Chase, I applaud the effort, I really do...but that was a long-winded way of trying to explain away something that just IS. Those who think Schotty is a choker aren't going to be convinced by the numbers, and those who don't think Schotty is a choker didn't need the numbers to be convinced.

I'm on record as saying "choking" is largely overrated...but with Schottenheimer, if there ever was a choker, it's him.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Chase, I applaud the effort, I really do...but that was a long-winded way of trying to explain away something that just IS.

Thanks for the applause, J. But I don't really know what that second part means. What do you mean there is something that just IS?

 

[Tau837]

Chase, I may have missed this if you presented it... but can you remind me how many coaches went 13 years as a head coach without a playoff win and then subsequently had playoff success?

Or, if you prefer, how many lost 6 playoff games in a row and went on to have playoff success?

TIA

 

[Chase Stuart]

Chase, I may have missed this if you presented it... but can you remind me how many coaches went 13 years as a head coach without a playoff win and then subsequently had playoff success?

Or, if you prefer, how many lost 6 playoff games in a row and went on to have playoff success?

TIA

The great Paul Brown went 4-8 in the playoffs, and did not win a playoff game in his last fifteen seasons of coaching.As for your question, the sample size of coaches that have lost 6 straight playoff games is really, really small. For example, I could flip that question around on you: how many coaches have lost 6 straight playoff games and then were not successful the next time they were on the playoffs?

But if we extend our scope a bit, Mike Holmgren lost five straight playoff games before taking his team to the Super Bowl.

 

[Tau837]

Chase, I may have missed this if you presented it... but can you remind me how many coaches went 13 years as a head coach without a playoff win and then subsequently had playoff success?

Or, if you prefer, how many lost 6 playoff games in a row and went on to have playoff success?

TIA

The great Paul Brown went 4-8 in the playoffs, and did not win a playoff game in his last fifteen seasons of coaching.As for your question, the sample size of coaches that have lost 6 straight playoff games is really, really small. For example, I could flip that question around on you: how many coaches have lost 6 straight playoff games and then were not successful the next time they were on the playoffs?

But if we extend our scope a bit, Mike Holmgren lost five straight playoff games before taking his team to the Super Bowl.

So, as far as you know, no one has ever done what Marty has done (6 straight losses and/or 13 years without a playoff win) and then been successful. That's what I thought.What if he had lost 10 straight? 15 straight? 20? How many would it take to be a trend, even if he maintained good regular season records? It takes a whole season to get to every playoff loss. For a team like San Diego, this upcoming season would be wasted without a playoff win, and that would be another year of their Super Bowl window gone. Yes, he could win, but so could any other coach. And the others don't have his ugly postseason trends. So IMO it is too costly not to take his postseason trends into account.

And all that said, the Chargers didn't even fire Marty for losing the playoff game, like I would have done.

 

[Slider]

Since the great D's seem to make it each year it would probably be best to look at the QB's performance for the losing team. I see more QB's choke in the big game then coaches.

 

[cobalt_27]

Chase, I may have missed this if you presented it... but can you remind me how many coaches went 13 years as a head coach without a playoff win and then subsequently had playoff success?

Or, if you prefer, how many lost 6 playoff games in a row and went on to have playoff success?

TIA

The great Paul Brown went 4-8 in the playoffs, and did not win a playoff game in his last fifteen seasons of coaching.As for your question, the sample size of coaches that have lost 6 straight playoff games is really, really small. For example, I could flip that question around on you: how many coaches have lost 6 straight playoff games and then were not successful the next time they were on the playoffs?

But if we extend our scope a bit, Mike Holmgren lost five straight playoff games before taking his team to the Super Bowl.

So, as far as you know, no one has ever done what Marty has done (6 straight losses and/or 13 years without a playoff win) and then been successful. That's what I thought.What if he had lost 10 straight? 15 straight? 20? How many would it take to be a trend, even if he maintained good regular season records? It takes a whole season to get to every playoff loss. For a team like San Diego, this upcoming season would be wasted without a playoff win, and that would be another year of their Super Bowl window gone. Yes, he could win, but so could any other coach. And the others don't have his ugly postseason trends. So IMO it is too costly not to take his postseason trends into account.

And all that said, the Chargers didn't even fire Marty for losing the playoff game, like I would have done.

It's just a difficult argument for you to substantiate by inferring a causative relationship between the concept (choker) and the result (Marty losing in the playoffs). Appears pretty clear from the data that many other factors are in play and the phenomenon as it applies to head coaches is just out-and-out la-la-land bull####.

 

[Tau837]

Chase, I may have missed this if you presented it... but can you remind me how many coaches went 13 years as a head coach without a playoff win and then subsequently had playoff success?

Or, if you prefer, how many lost 6 playoff games in a row and went on to have playoff success?

TIA

The great Paul Brown went 4-8 in the playoffs, and did not win a playoff game in his last fifteen seasons of coaching.As for your question, the sample size of coaches that have lost 6 straight playoff games is really, really small. For example, I could flip that question around on you: how many coaches have lost 6 straight playoff games and then were not successful the next time they were on the playoffs?

But if we extend our scope a bit, Mike Holmgren lost five straight playoff games before taking his team to the Super Bowl.

So, as far as you know, no one has ever done what Marty has done (6 straight losses and/or 13 years without a playoff win) and then been successful. That's what I thought.What if he had lost 10 straight? 15 straight? 20? How many would it take to be a trend, even if he maintained good regular season records? It takes a whole season to get to every playoff loss. For a team like San Diego, this upcoming season would be wasted without a playoff win, and that would be another year of their Super Bowl window gone. Yes, he could win, but so could any other coach. And the others don't have his ugly postseason trends. So IMO it is too costly not to take his postseason trends into account.

And all that said, the Chargers didn't even fire Marty for losing the playoff game, like I would have done.

It's just a difficult argument for you to substantiate by inferring a causative relationship between the concept (choker) and the result (Marty losing in the playoffs). Appears pretty clear from the data that many other factors are in play and the phenomenon as it applies to head coaches is just out-and-out la-la-land bull####.

I'm not saying it is causative. I'm saying that sample sizes of playoff games will almost always be small for any coach who does not have much playoff success. And thus we will never be able to definitively prove for a given coach whether or not it is "his fault" he hasn't had more success. So we have to make a judgment. IMO it is foolish to ignore trends like 6 straight playoff losses over 13 years and say it isn't the coach's fault. Is that possible? Of course. Just as it is possible to flip a coin 6 straight times and get heads each time. Is either of those things probable? And another thing. Because the sample size is small for a given coach, we can actually look beyond the numbers at specific situations. Like for Marty, how he Martyballed it two years ago, assuming he had the FG... and lost. Like for Marty, how he made the foolish challenge and foolish 4th & 13 decisions this year. Like for Marty, how his Chargers teams lacked discipline in both of their losses under him. Etc.

Or to turn it around: looking at the situations of Marty's losses, can we say that he actually coached those games well? Or is the best that we can say about his coaching performances something to the effect of "not his fault Parker dropped the ball" and "not his fault his players lost control and got stupid penalties"? If so, that is hardly making a case that he has done a good job, as all it really says is that it may not have been his fault. But he didn't overcome those things with good coaching... why not? And as HC, he is ultimately responsible for the team's performance even if it was the players' fault. If they lack discipline or fail to execute, that is at least partly on him, for not having them better prepared, disciplined, and/or motivated.

And one final thought. You say I cannot substantiate my position. I can, and I just did. I believe what you really mean is that I cannot quantifiably substantiate it. That may be true. But not everything in life can be quantifiably substantiated. If they could, we wouldn't need managers to make decisions, we'd only need computers. This is an example of something that cannot be proven and requires judgment. My judgment is that Marty is a coach whose strength is producing solid teams that (eventually) get good regular season records, but whose weakness is obviously winning in the playoffs. Whether that is because he makes different decisions, has had bad luck, or whatever else doesn't necessarily matter, unless in my judgment the reason is likely to change. There is no reason to think it will change. None. Unless you simply attribute his lack of success to chance, and thus think by chance he may win next time. But even that view suggests that it isn't Marty anyway, so it would be just as reasonable to think another coach may win by chance.

In the Chargers' case, they now have a very good team. They don't need Marty to make them a good regular season team at this point--they are one. But they do need to win now in the postseason, while their window is open. There is no reason to think that Marty will suddenly become a successful postseason coach next season or at any point in the future. Thus, he deserved to be fired.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Chase, I applaud the effort, I really do...but that was a long-winded way of trying to explain away something that just IS. Those who think Schotty is a choker aren't going to be convinced by the numbers, and those who don't think Schotty is a choker didn't need the numbers to be convinced.

That's the category I fall into, but the numbers are great to have anyway. So I join your applause.That said, I don't think this has anything to do with Marty's firing.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Also, while these results do not lend support to the idea that some coaches are chokers, neither do they refute that idea. Even if some coaches coach twice as well during the playoffs as they normally do, and others coach only half as well as they normally do, that effect might be lost in the overall data if head coaches can increase or decrease their team's probability of winning a particular game by only a very slight amount (e.g., "coaching twice as well" = increasing chance of winning by four percent).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So, basically, the law of small sample sizes holds.It's amazing that people throw millions of dollars away because of the "clutch" mystique.

Schottenheimer wasn't fired because he's a choker in the playoffs. He was fired because the owner and GM felt he was operating in a manner detrimental to the franchise.

No, but if he went to the SB, would he have been fired?

Very possibly, if the post-Super Bowl stuff played out the same way -- letting position coaches leave without getting a right of first refusal, wanting to make Kurt S. the defensive coordinator [without getting permission from Green Bay], and so on . . . .

 

[Family Matters]

Seeing has how this discussion is about coaches (Marty) that have not had succeess in the playoffs and that affects the Chargers going forward, I want to inject a theory that might have been overlooked in evaluating why Marty and the Chargers lost in the first round of the playoffs.

If Brees had remained the Chargers QB, would they have won in the playoffs? Past performance tells us that first year starting QB's do not win in the playoffs very often and rarely win the Super Bowl. There are a few exceptions but they are not the norm.

Now before the bashers start on me you have to ask the question:

What would of happened if Brees had been the starter instead of a first year QB?

This isn't to knock to anyone but to point to this as possible cause as to why the Chargers didn't have better success. It's a stretch to think that the Chargers were a serious threat to win the SB with a first year QB. How many times as that happened? Warner and Brady are 2 recent examples but no one thought they would win the SB. They surprised everyone with their perfromance and leadership. You have to go back to the 1980 SB and Plunkett to find the next example.

So over the last 26 years there have been 3 first year starting QB's that have won Super Bowls. That's 1 in every 8+ years. Outside of Billichek, those other coaches have not had much success since those improbable seasons. Vermeil made it back but to the SB but after getting lucky with Warner he subsequently lost to the next lucky first year guy in Brady. Brady has turned out to be the only one that has ever repeated this performance justifying he wasn't just in great 1 year situation but he has proven to the one of hte best ever.

So for those that were expecting the Chargers to be a threat in this past Super Bowl, that was dreaming because it's just a rare event. Based on past history, Brees might have put this team in a better situation to challenge for a title.

The reason I ask this question is that why wasn't Brees the starting QB and why did the Chargers have a first year starter? Marty wanted Brees. Smith wanted Rivers. This was one of the dysfunctional scenarios that had a wedge between Marty and AJ. Smith got what he wanted and Marty was left to head into the season and playoffs with a gun that wasn't fully loaded. While there was tremendous success in the regualr season, clearly he wasn't able to overcome that in the playoffs. Rivers played decently and his performance wasn't the reason that they lost, but he wasn't the leader of this team. Teams that do not have a leader at QB usually do not fare well in the playoffs. As for those that will point tho the Saints loss in the NFC championship game, well remember that everyone knows the Chargers had way more talent then the Saints and they did win their first round game against Philly.

Now that Marty is gone you have to ask yourself another question:

How many coaches have won a Super Bowl in their first year as that team's head coach? How many have won in their 2nd year? It could be a while before they win one if history proves itself again.

 

[Tau837]

If Brees had remained the Chargers QB, would they have won in the playoffs? Past performance tells us that first year starting QB's do not win in the playoffs very often and rarely win the Super Bowl. There are a few exceptions but they are not the norm.

Anything is possible, but there is no reason to think the result would have been different. It wasn't Rivers who dropped passes, failed to get his foot in bounds on a TD catch, muffed a punt, got stupid penalties, decided to go for it on 4th & 13, etc. And Brees lost his only playoff game with the Chargers under Marty.And if they kept Brees, you don't know how things would have played out differently. They would have had much less cap space. What impact would that have had on the season and playoffs?

If they kept Brees and Rivers, a QB controversy may have developed. How would have affected the season and playoffs?

Rivers had a great season, and played well enough in their playoff game to win.

Now before the bashers start on me you have to ask the question:

What would of happened if Brees had been the starter instead of a first year QB?

This isn't to knock to anyone but to point to this as possible cause as to why the Chargers didn't have better success. It's a stretch to think that the Chargers were a serious threat to win the SB with a first year QB. How many times as that happened? Warner and Brady are 2 recent examples but no one thought they would win the SB. They surprised everyone with their perfromance and leadership. You have to go back to the 1980 SB and Plunkett to find the next example.

So over the last 26 years there have been 3 first year starting QB's that have won Super Bowls. That's 1 in every 8+ years. Outside of Billichek, those other coaches have not had much success since those improbable seasons. Vermeil made it back but to the SB but after getting lucky with Warner he subsequently lost to the next lucky first year guy in Brady. Brady has turned out to be the only one that has ever repeated this performance justifying he wasn't just in great 1 year situation but he has proven to the one of hte best ever.

So for those that were expecting the Chargers to be a threat in this past Super Bowl, that was dreaming because it's just a rare event. Based on past history, Brees might have put this team in a better situation to challenge for a title.

The reason I ask this question is that why wasn't Brees the starting QB and why did the Chargers have a first year starter? Marty wanted Brees. Smith wanted Rivers. This was one of the dysfunctional scenarios that had a wedge between Marty and AJ. Smith got what he wanted and Marty was left to head into the season and playoffs with a gun that wasn't fully loaded. While there was tremendous success in the regualr season, clearly he wasn't able to overcome that in the playoffs. Rivers played decently and his performance wasn't the reason that they lost, but he wasn't the leader of this team. Teams that do not have a leader at QB usually do not fare well in the playoffs. As for those that will point tho the Saints loss in the NFC championship game, well remember that everyone knows the Chargers had way more talent then the Saints and they did win their first round game against Philly.

This is flawed thinking. Not many first year QBs start for teams that are good enough to make the playoffs. Figure out how many that is, and calculate the ratio of those that won the Super Bowl. Then do the same with second year, etc. The ratios are likely to be similar.Ultimately, the valid comparable sample size is small enough that it comes down to evaluating the situations, not just historical numbers. Rivers is very good, had a great season, and played well enough for them to win their playoff game. Since we are looking back in retrospect, there is absolutely no reason to say the Chargers were wrong to believe he could be successful enough to let an injured Brees go to another team that would pay him bigger money.

 

[Chase Stuart]

It's pretty funny JWB how you can argue logically to defend Rivers but throw logic out the window when dealing with Schottenheimer. Your arguments directly contradict your earlier ones.

(I like both Rivers and Schottenheimer).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm saying that sample sizes of playoff games will almost always be small for any coach who does not have much playoff success. And thus we will never be able to definitively prove for a given coach whether or not it is "his fault" he hasn't had more success. So we have to make a judgment.

Right. The W-L record will be insufficient draw any solid conclusions from, so we will have to make a judgment based on other things (if we are to make a valid judgment at all).

IMO it is foolish to ignore trends like 6 straight playoff losses over 13 years and say it isn't the coach's fault.

Well, that's a judgment based on the insufficient W-L data, not a judgment based on other things.I think it may be a valid opinion to believe that many of Schottenheimer's teams underperformed in the playoffs because he overworked them in the regular season and tired them out. (I don't have an opinion one way or the other on that, but some people do hold that opinion and it may be justified.) The W-L record can then be used to bolster this opinion.

But the W-L record on its own does not really justify the contention that Marty is a choker since the data are insufficient to reject the null hypothesis that he's not a choker with any reasonable degree of confidence.

 

[Tau837]

It's pretty funny JWB how you can argue logically to defend Rivers but throw logic out the window when dealing with Schottenheimer. Your arguments directly contradict your earlier ones.(I like both Rivers and Schottenheimer).

Since I'm not seeing it, please elaborate on my contradictions, and I'll explain.

 

[Family Matters]

I'm saying that sample sizes of playoff games will almost always be small for any coach who does not have much playoff success. And thus we will never be able to definitively prove for a given coach whether or not it is "his fault" he hasn't had more success. So we have to make a judgment.

Right. The W-L record will be insufficient draw any solid conclusions from, so we will have to make a judgment based on other things (if we are to make a valid judgment at all).

IMO it is foolish to ignore trends like 6 straight playoff losses over 13 years and say it isn't the coach's fault.

Well, that's a judgment based on the insufficient W-L data, not a judgment based on other things.I think it may be a valid opinion to believe that many of Schottenheimer's teams underperformed in the playoffs because he overworked them in the regular season and tired them out. (I don't have an opinion one way or the other on that, but some people do hold that opinion and it may be justified.) The W-L record can then be used to bolster this opinion.

But the W-L record on its own does not really justify the contention that Marty is a choker since the data are insufficient to reject the null hypothesis that he's not a choker with any reasonable degree of confidence.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the train has left the station. I have no idea what you just said but it sure was funny.

 

[BoltBacker]

I sure wish the Chargers would have had Brees in the '04 playoffs vs the Jets. There's no telling how far they might have gone. And if SD would have had Brees in '05 they'd have been a LOCK to make the playoffs.

 

[Chase Stuart]

So, as far as you know, no one has ever done what Marty has done (6 straight losses and/or 13 years without a playoff win) and then been successful. That's what I thought.

This is a good example of using statistics to back-up your argument, not making your argument based on statistics. As far as you know, no one has ever done what Marty has done (6 straight losses and/or 13 years without a playoff win) and not the Super Bowl right after that, either. It's like before I flip a coin saying "it hasn't landed on heads" without recognizing that it hasn't landed on tails, either.

What if he had lost 10 straight? 15 straight? 20? How many would it take to be a trend, even if he maintained good regular season records? It takes a whole season to get to every playoff loss. For a team like San Diego, this upcoming season would be wasted without a playoff win, and that would be another year of their Super Bowl window gone. Yes, he could win, but so could any other coach. And the others don't have his ugly postseason trends. So IMO it is too costly not to take his postseason trends into account.

It's not costly not to take something into account if it's irrelevant. We need to prove that something is relevant before considering it. No coach has ever won a SB with a name that rhymes with "party", either. That doesn't mean you should fire him because of that, just like you shouldn't fire Lovie Smith because no coach with the initials LS has ever won the Super Bowl. You might think "well that's silly, a coach's initials has no bearing on whether he'll win a Super Bowl in the future." But the data presented show that a coach's past post-season record has almost no bearing on whether he'll win a Super Bowl in the future, either.

I'm not saying it is causative. I'm saying that sample sizes of playoff games will almost always be small for any coach who does not have much playoff success. And thus we will never be able to definitively prove for a given coach whether or not it is "his fault" he hasn't had more success.

But this is data in the aggregate, not for a given coach. We don't have small sample size problems, here. And the data show that knowing a coach's past post-season record won't help you predict whether he'll win his next game.

So we have to make a judgment. IMO it is foolish to ignore trends like 6 straight playoff losses over 13 years and say it isn't the coach's fault. Is that possible? Of course. Just as it is possible to flip a coin 6 straight times and get heads each time. Is either of those things probable?

Right analogy, wrong conclusion. If you flipped a coin 6 straight times and got heads each time, would you think that the next coin flip is more likely than not going to be heads? If you do, that would be a bad thought. The question you want to ask isn't "is it likely for a fair coin to land 6 straight times on heads?" What you want to know is "knowing that it landed 6 straight times on heads, what do you think will happen the next time?" By your argument, you would say it's foolish to ignore trends like 6 straight heads and then say it's a fair coin. The ironic part is that given the large sample size of NFL history (32 teams, 36 years, hundreds of playoff games), assuming that head coaching ability is exactly the same in the regular and post-season, and there is no difference in the ability of a head coach in the regular and post-season, you would actually expect a coach by pure chance to lose six straight games. You wouldn't expect one particular coach to do it, of course, but you'd expect some coach to do it. Just like you can expect a 90-yard TD by someone in the NFL next year, even if you wouldn't expect any one player to do it.

And another thing. Because the sample size is small for a given coach, we can actually look beyond the numbers at specific situations. Like for Marty, how he Martyballed it two years ago, assuming he had the FG... and lost. Like for Marty, how he made the foolish challenge and foolish 4th & 13 decisions this year. Like for Marty, how his Chargers teams lacked discipline in both of their losses under him. Etc.

This is classic second guessing. For example, take a look at the end of the Giants-Eagles wildcard matchup in 2006, in the pouring rain:

1-10-NYG19 (1:48) B.Westbrook right guard to NYG 20 for -1 yards (O.Umenyiora).

2-11-NYG20 (1:05) B.Westbrook right tackle to NYG 20 for no gain (M.Kiwanuka).

3-11-NYG20 20) J.Garcia up the middle to NYG 20 for no gain (B.Cofield).

4-11-NYG20 03) D.Akers 38 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-J.Dorenbos, Holder-K.Detmer.

Now the Jets-Chargers wildcard matchup in 2004:

1-10-NYJ22 (6:26) L.Tomlinson right tackle to NYJ 23 for -1 yards (S.Ellis).

2-11-NYJ23 (5:43) L.Tomlinson up the middle to NYJ 23 for no gain (J.Ferguson, J.Vilma).

3-11-NYJ23 (4:59) L.Tomlinson right end to NYJ 22 for 1 yard (R.Tongue).

4-10-NYJ22 (4:23) N.Kaeding 40 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Right, Center-D.Binn, Holder-M.Scifres.

Both games were tied at the time. Akers hits his FG, and there's not a word about what Reid does. Kaeding misses his, and you blame the loss on Schottenheimer.As for the "lack of discipline" comment, I don't recall anyone claiming the Chargers lacked discipline the whole year. Did you? I don't follow the Chargers much, but I never heard any of this. Did Schottenheimer forget to give his weekly lecture that week on discipline? I'm not really sure what you wanted him to do differently, other than have his players throw a punch and not get caught by the refs (as Bill Belichick's player did; but you probably don't think Belichick's team is undisciplined, even though on what I believe to be the biggest play of the entire NFL season, Belichick's team came out with 12 men on the field following a timeout.)

My judgment is that Marty is a coach whose strength is producing solid teams that (eventually) get good regular season records, but whose weakness is obviously winning in the playoffs. Whether that is because he makes different decisions, has had bad luck, or whatever else doesn't necessarily matter, unless in my judgment the reason is likely to change. There is no reason to think it will change. None. Unless you simply attribute his lack of success to chance, and thus think by chance he may win next time. But even that view suggests that it isn't Marty anyway, so it would be just as reasonable to think another coach may win by chance.

This is silly. If you think he's been unlucky, you would expect that to change. I don't think he makes different decisions, and I do think he's been unlucky. He's a good coach. This is like saying if Albert Pujols goes 10 games without a home run, you might as well get a new player. If I say no, he's just been unlucky for 10 games, would you respond with "well then if it's about luck, Pujols isn't good anyway, so it would be just as reasonable to think another player will hit a HR."BTW: Did you think Tony Dungy and Bill Cowher were coaches whose strength is producing solid teams that get good regular seasons but whose obvious weaknesses are winning in the playoffs?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Anything is possible, but there is no reason to think the result would have been different. It wasn't Rivers who dropped passes, failed to get his foot in bounds on a TD catch, muffed a punt, got stupid penalties, decided to go for it on 4th & 13, etc. And Brees lost his only playoff game with the Chargers under Marty.Rivers had a great season, and played well enough in their playoff game to win.

Compare that with:

Or to turn it around: looking at the situations of Marty's losses, can we say that he actually coached those games well? Or is the best that we can say about his coaching performances something to the effect of "not his fault Parker dropped the ball" and "not his fault his players lost control and got stupid penalties"? If so, that is hardly making a case that he has done a good job, as all it really says is that it may not have been his fault. But he didn't overcome those things with good coaching... why not? And as HC, he is ultimately responsible for the team's performance even if it was the players' fault. If they lack discipline or fail to execute, that is at least partly on him, for not having them better prepared, disciplined, and/or motivated.

Additionally, compare "Not many first year QBs start for teams that are good enough to make the playoffs. Figure out how many that is, and calculate the ratio of those that won the Super Bowl. Then do the same with second year, etc. The ratios are likely to be similar." with your earlier quote on how "no coach with XXX has ever been successful in the playoffs after that."

 

[cobalt_27]

So, as far as you know, no one has ever done what Marty has done (6 straight losses and/or 13 years without a playoff win) and then been successful. That's what I thought.

This is a good example of using statistics to back-up your argument, not making your argument based on statistics. As far as you know, no one has ever done what Marty has done (6 straight losses and/or 13 years without a playoff win) and not the Super Bowl right after that, either. It's like before I flip a coin saying "it hasn't landed on heads" without recognizing that it hasn't landed on tails, either.

What if he had lost 10 straight? 15 straight? 20? How many would it take to be a trend, even if he maintained good regular season records? It takes a whole season to get to every playoff loss. For a team like San Diego, this upcoming season would be wasted without a playoff win, and that would be another year of their Super Bowl window gone. Yes, he could win, but so could any other coach. And the others don't have his ugly postseason trends. So IMO it is too costly not to take his postseason trends into account.

It's not costly not to take something into account if it's irrelevant. We need to prove that something is relevant before considering it. No coach has ever won a SB with a name that rhymes with "party", either. That doesn't mean you should fire him because of that, just like you shouldn't fire Lovie Smith because no coach with the initials LS has ever won the Super Bowl. You might think "well that's silly, a coach's initials has no bearing on whether he'll win a Super Bowl in the future." But the data presented show that a coach's past post-season record has almost no bearing on whether he'll win a Super Bowl in the future, either.

I'm not saying it is causative. I'm saying that sample sizes of playoff games will almost always be small for any coach who does not have much playoff success. And thus we will never be able to definitively prove for a given coach whether or not it is "his fault" he hasn't had more success.

But this is data in the aggregate, not for a given coach. We don't have small sample size problems, here. And the data show that knowing a coach's past post-season record won't help you predict whether he'll win his next game.

So we have to make a judgment. IMO it is foolish to ignore trends like 6 straight playoff losses over 13 years and say it isn't the coach's fault. Is that possible? Of course. Just as it is possible to flip a coin 6 straight times and get heads each time. Is either of those things probable?

Right analogy, wrong conclusion. If you flipped a coin 6 straight times and got heads each time, would you think that the next coin flip is more likely than not going to be heads? If you do, that would be a bad thought. The question you want to ask isn't "is it likely for a fair coin to land 6 straight times on heads?" What you want to know is "knowing that it landed 6 straight times on heads, what do you think will happen the next time?" By your argument, you would say it's foolish to ignore trends like 6 straight heads and then say it's a fair coin. The ironic part is that given the large sample size of NFL history (32 teams, 36 years, hundreds of playoff games), assuming that head coaching ability is exactly the same in the regular and post-season, and there is no difference in the ability of a head coach in the regular and post-season, you would actually expect a coach by pure chance to lose six straight games. You wouldn't expect one particular coach to do it, of course, but you'd expect some coach to do it. Just like you can expect a 90-yard TD by someone in the NFL next year, even if you wouldn't expect any one player to do it.

And another thing. Because the sample size is small for a given coach, we can actually look beyond the numbers at specific situations. Like for Marty, how he Martyballed it two years ago, assuming he had the FG... and lost. Like for Marty, how he made the foolish challenge and foolish 4th & 13 decisions this year. Like for Marty, how his Chargers teams lacked discipline in both of their losses under him. Etc.

This is classic second guessing. For example, take a look at the end of the Giants-Eagles wildcard matchup in 2006, in the pouring rain:

1-10-NYG19 (1:48) B.Westbrook right guard to NYG 20 for -1 yards (O.Umenyiora).

2-11-NYG20 (1:05) B.Westbrook right tackle to NYG 20 for no gain (M.Kiwanuka).

3-11-NYG20 20) J.Garcia up the middle to NYG 20 for no gain (B.Cofield).

4-11-NYG20 03) D.Akers 38 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-J.Dorenbos, Holder-K.Detmer.

Now the Jets-Chargers wildcard matchup in 2004:

1-10-NYJ22 (6:26) L.Tomlinson right tackle to NYJ 23 for -1 yards (S.Ellis).

2-11-NYJ23 (5:43) L.Tomlinson up the middle to NYJ 23 for no gain (J.Ferguson, J.Vilma).

3-11-NYJ23 (4:59) L.Tomlinson right end to NYJ 22 for 1 yard (R.Tongue).

4-10-NYJ22 (4:23) N.Kaeding 40 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Right, Center-D.Binn, Holder-M.Scifres.

Both games were tied at the time. Akers hits his FG, and there's not a word about what Reid does. Kaeding misses his, and you blame the loss on Schottenheimer.As for the "lack of discipline" comment, I don't recall anyone claiming the Chargers lacked discipline the whole year. Did you? I don't follow the Chargers much, but I never heard any of this. Did Schottenheimer forget to give his weekly lecture that week on discipline? I'm not really sure what you wanted him to do differently, other than have his players throw a punch and not get caught by the refs (as Bill Belichick's player did; but you probably don't think Belichick's team is undisciplined, even though on what I believe to be the biggest play of the entire NFL season, Belichick's team came out with 12 men on the field following a timeout.)

My judgment is that Marty is a coach whose strength is producing solid teams that (eventually) get good regular season records, but whose weakness is obviously winning in the playoffs. Whether that is because he makes different decisions, has had bad luck, or whatever else doesn't necessarily matter, unless in my judgment the reason is likely to change. There is no reason to think it will change. None. Unless you simply attribute his lack of success to chance, and thus think by chance he may win next time. But even that view suggests that it isn't Marty anyway, so it would be just as reasonable to think another coach may win by chance.

This is silly. If you think he's been unlucky, you would expect that to change. I don't think he makes different decisions, and I do think he's been unlucky. He's a good coach. This is like saying if Albert Pujols goes 10 games without a home run, you might as well get a new player. If I say no, he's just been unlucky for 10 games, would you respond with "well then if it's about luck, Pujols isn't good anyway, so it would be just as reasonable to think another player will hit a HR."BTW: Did you think Tony Dungy and Bill Cowher were coaches whose strength is producing solid teams that get good regular seasons but whose obvious weaknesses are winning in the playoffs?

This pretty-much goes in the " Hall of Fame." Simply devastating what logic and data do to mythology.

 

[Tau837]

So, as far as you know, no one has ever done what Marty has done (6 straight losses and/or 13 years without a playoff win) and then been successful. That's what I thought.

This is a good example of using statistics to back-up your argument, not making your argument based on statistics. As far as you know, no one has ever done what Marty has done (6 straight losses and/or 13 years without a playoff win) and not the Super Bowl right after that, either. It's like before I flip a coin saying "it hasn't landed on heads" without recognizing that it hasn't landed on tails, either.

What if he had lost 10 straight? 15 straight? 20? How many would it take to be a trend, even if he maintained good regular season records? It takes a whole season to get to every playoff loss. For a team like San Diego, this upcoming season would be wasted without a playoff win, and that would be another year of their Super Bowl window gone. Yes, he could win, but so could any other coach. And the others don't have his ugly postseason trends. So IMO it is too costly not to take his postseason trends into account.

It's not costly not to take something into account if it's irrelevant. We need to prove that something is relevant before considering it. No coach has ever won a SB with a name that rhymes with "party", either. That doesn't mean you should fire him because of that, just like you shouldn't fire Lovie Smith because no coach with the initials LS has ever won the Super Bowl. You might think "well that's silly, a coach's initials has no bearing on whether he'll win a Super Bowl in the future." But the data presented show that a coach's past post-season record has almost no bearing on whether he'll win a Super Bowl in the future, either.

I'm not saying it is causative. I'm saying that sample sizes of playoff games will almost always be small for any coach who does not have much playoff success. And thus we will never be able to definitively prove for a given coach whether or not it is "his fault" he hasn't had more success.

But this is data in the aggregate, not for a given coach. We don't have small sample size problems, here. And the data show that knowing a coach's past post-season record won't help you predict whether he'll win his next game.

So we have to make a judgment. IMO it is foolish to ignore trends like 6 straight playoff losses over 13 years and say it isn't the coach's fault. Is that possible? Of course. Just as it is possible to flip a coin 6 straight times and get heads each time. Is either of those things probable?

Right analogy, wrong conclusion. If you flipped a coin 6 straight times and got heads each time, would you think that the next coin flip is more likely than not going to be heads? If you do, that would be a bad thought. The question you want to ask isn't "is it likely for a fair coin to land 6 straight times on heads?" What you want to know is "knowing that it landed 6 straight times on heads, what do you think will happen the next time?" By your argument, you would say it's foolish to ignore trends like 6 straight heads and then say it's a fair coin. The ironic part is that given the large sample size of NFL history (32 teams, 36 years, hundreds of playoff games), assuming that head coaching ability is exactly the same in the regular and post-season, and there is no difference in the ability of a head coach in the regular and post-season, you would actually expect a coach by pure chance to lose six straight games. You wouldn't expect one particular coach to do it, of course, but you'd expect some coach to do it. Just like you can expect a 90-yard TD by someone in the NFL next year, even if you wouldn't expect any one player to do it.

And another thing. Because the sample size is small for a given coach, we can actually look beyond the numbers at specific situations. Like for Marty, how he Martyballed it two years ago, assuming he had the FG... and lost. Like for Marty, how he made the foolish challenge and foolish 4th & 13 decisions this year. Like for Marty, how his Chargers teams lacked discipline in both of their losses under him. Etc.

This is classic second guessing. For example, take a look at the end of the Giants-Eagles wildcard matchup in 2006, in the pouring rain:

1-10-NYG19 (1:48) B.Westbrook right guard to NYG 20 for -1 yards (O.Umenyiora).

2-11-NYG20 (1:05) B.Westbrook right tackle to NYG 20 for no gain (M.Kiwanuka).

3-11-NYG20 20) J.Garcia up the middle to NYG 20 for no gain (B.Cofield).

4-11-NYG20 03) D.Akers 38 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-J.Dorenbos, Holder-K.Detmer.

Now the Jets-Chargers wildcard matchup in 2004:

1-10-NYJ22 (6:26) L.Tomlinson right tackle to NYJ 23 for -1 yards (S.Ellis).

2-11-NYJ23 (5:43) L.Tomlinson up the middle to NYJ 23 for no gain (J.Ferguson, J.Vilma).

3-11-NYJ23 (4:59) L.Tomlinson right end to NYJ 22 for 1 yard (R.Tongue).

4-10-NYJ22 (4:23) N.Kaeding 40 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Right, Center-D.Binn, Holder-M.Scifres.

Both games were tied at the time. Akers hits his FG, and there's not a word about what Reid does. Kaeding misses his, and you blame the loss on Schottenheimer.As for the "lack of discipline" comment, I don't recall anyone claiming the Chargers lacked discipline the whole year. Did you? I don't follow the Chargers much, but I never heard any of this. Did Schottenheimer forget to give his weekly lecture that week on discipline? I'm not really sure what you wanted him to do differently, other than have his players throw a punch and not get caught by the refs (as Bill Belichick's player did; but you probably don't think Belichick's team is undisciplined, even though on what I believe to be the biggest play of the entire NFL season, Belichick's team came out with 12 men on the field following a timeout.)

My judgment is that Marty is a coach whose strength is producing solid teams that (eventually) get good regular season records, but whose weakness is obviously winning in the playoffs. Whether that is because he makes different decisions, has had bad luck, or whatever else doesn't necessarily matter, unless in my judgment the reason is likely to change. There is no reason to think it will change. None. Unless you simply attribute his lack of success to chance, and thus think by chance he may win next time. But even that view suggests that it isn't Marty anyway, so it would be just as reasonable to think another coach may win by chance.

This is silly. If you think he's been unlucky, you would expect that to change. I don't think he makes different decisions, and I do think he's been unlucky. He's a good coach. This is like saying if Albert Pujols goes 10 games without a home run, you might as well get a new player. If I say no, he's just been unlucky for 10 games, would you respond with "well then if it's about luck, Pujols isn't good anyway, so it would be just as reasonable to think another player will hit a HR."BTW: Did you think Tony Dungy and Bill Cowher were coaches whose strength is producing solid teams that get good regular seasons but whose obvious weaknesses are winning in the playoffs?

Nice post. I'm not going to address it point by point, even though I don't agree with all of your arguments here.Here's the thing. Data in the aggregate can be very useful at times. But it is only part of the story when it comes to making a particular coaching decision, since that decision isn't an aggregate decision but rather a specific one. I have posted many times that I felt Marty should have been fired after this season and this aggregate data does not change my mind because I weigh the specific situation more heavily.

As for how I approached the Rivers and Marty arguments differently... it's apples and oranges. Marty is a veteran coach who has built a long track record. IMO we know what to expect from Marty, and, frankly, it isn't playoff success. Even though I think Rivers played well enough to win his playoff game this year, if he loses his next 5 playoff games, even if he continues performing well during the regular season, I wouldn't be surprised at all for the Chargers to let him go and find another QB. (Of course, I don't think that's going to happen.)

As for your question about Dungy and Cowher, again it's apples and oranges to compare them to Marty. Cowher was 8-9 in the playoffs prior to 2005, and had led his team to one Super Bowl, over a 13 year period. Compare that to Marty's 0-6 mark over the past 13 years and no Super Bowl appearances in his career.

Dungy was 5-8 over a 10 year period before this past season. Yes, that was borderline... but quite a bit better than 0-6 (or Marty's 5-13 career mark). Also, only 1 of Dungy's playoff losses was at home. Both of Marty's losses with San Diego were at home.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree... for now. When San Diego wins the Super Bowl next year, I'll remind you about this conversation.

 

[Tau837]

Anything is possible, but there is no reason to think the result would have been different. It wasn't Rivers who dropped passes, failed to get his foot in bounds on a TD catch, muffed a punt, got stupid penalties, decided to go for it on 4th & 13, etc. And Brees lost his only playoff game with the Chargers under Marty.Rivers had a great season, and played well enough in their playoff game to win.

Compare that with:

Or to turn it around: looking at the situations of Marty's losses, can we say that he actually coached those games well? Or is the best that we can say about his coaching performances something to the effect of "not his fault Parker dropped the ball" and "not his fault his players lost control and got stupid penalties"? If so, that is hardly making a case that he has done a good job, as all it really says is that it may not have been his fault. But he didn't overcome those things with good coaching... why not? And as HC, he is ultimately responsible for the team's performance even if it was the players' fault. If they lack discipline or fail to execute, that is at least partly on him, for not having them better prepared, disciplined, and/or motivated.

Additionally, compare "Not many first year QBs start for teams that are good enough to make the playoffs. Figure out how many that is, and calculate the ratio of those that won the Super Bowl. Then do the same with second year, etc. The ratios are likely to be similar." with your earlier quote on how "no coach with XXX has ever been successful in the playoffs after that."

I'm not completely sure what you're saying. I assume you are questioning why I say that Rivers didn't drop the passes, etc., absolving him of the loss, but ultimately hold Marty responsible.Here's why. The head coach position is ultimately responsible for gameday performance. If the team doesn't perform, there may be many reasons, but the head coach must be accountable for them. It may not be totally fair, but it's part of the job.It is also true that QBs get a disproportionate amount of credit for wins and blame for losses. However, a difference here is that Rivers was a first year starter, while Marty was a veteran head coach. If Rivers goes on to perform poorly in the postseason for years, he will deserve the same criticism Marty has received due to his teams' poor performances. But Rivers has not built up a track record yet, and deserves more time before judging him. Marty has been a head coach for 21 years. He has a track record, and this year's result was just more of the same.On your last point, I'm not sure what your point is. I was responding there to cobalt's point that only 3 first year QBs had ever won a Super Bowl, and thus the Chargers were dumb to think Rivers could do it. My point was to try to indicate that (aside from the fact that this would not be a basis for the Chargers' decision in the first place) they were not dumb, because the ratio isn't as bad as cobalt made it out to be.I don't know why you think that is comparable to my point that no coach has ever compiled a postseason run like Marty's 0-6 over 13 years and then gone on to postseason success. It has literally never happened. How are the two points similar? I suppose you're comparing small sample sizes or something...

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm not completely sure what you're saying. I assume you are questioning why I say that Rivers didn't drop the passes, etc., absolving him of the loss, but ultimately hold Marty responsible.Here's why. The head coach position is ultimately responsible for gameday performance. If the team doesn't perform, there may be many reasons, but the head coach must be accountable for them. It may not be totally fair, but it's part of the job.It is also true that QBs get a disproportionate amount of credit for wins and blame for losses.

Yes, coaches and quarterbacks both get too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses.Corey Dillon's W-L record before the Patriots signed him was 34-78 (.304). That doesn't mean he sucked. It means that the Bengals as a whole sucked while he was there.It's true that the Chargers as a whole sucked in their playoff game this year. But it was a true team effort involving sucky performances by many of the players and perhaps many of the coaches. Not just Marty. No single person is wholly responsible for a game's outcome -- not even the quarterback; and not even the head coach.Now if someone wants to criticize Marty for specific mistakes he's made that have contributed to his poor W-L record in the playoffs -- poor game-planning, poor clock management, poor decisions regarding which plays to challenge, and so on -- that's totally fair. But pointing simply to his W-L record in the playoffs doesn't move me very much, in part because a sample size of 18 games is fairly small, and in part because even with a sample size of 100+ games (like Corey Dillon in Cincinnati), Marty played a only limited role in the outcome in each game. He should be graded on how well he performed his own role, which may or may not be well reflected in the W-L record of the team as a whole. (A good coach should win more games than a bad coach, other things equal. But other things are never equal. In reality, a 4-12 team could be better coached than a 12-4 team.)I understand that fans will always judge coaches and quarterbacks largely by their W-L records. My contention is not that it doesn't happen -- just that it can be inaccurate.

 

[Family Matters]

Observing this thread I find that if you try hard enough you can refer to a previous outcome to make an argument seem plausable even from differing points of view. Not that we didn't know that before but it may have been demonstrated in here better than anywhere I've read.

The one debate that has merit form both sides (for and against) is that Marty seems to be a pretty good coach that has had little playoff success. Many have said that he has done a good job of resurrecting bad teams and I think that's a fair statement. Many have said his teams have exceeded expectations and I think that's fair. But how many teams has he had that were as good as the Chargers? Or for that matter that were truely playoff caliber? The Chiefs had some good records but not always very good teams. They had decent defenses with solid rushing attacks but were not so good at passing. That's not the best recipe for playoff victories in the modern era. Is it his fault that they weren't good passing teams or more balanced? 1990 was liely their most balanced team. But that team lost a point game to Miami. Should the team or Marty have made better picks or acquired better free agents to improve their team? Not sure where that lies. Maybe some Chiefs homers can shed some light on this. They did have 2 good years of passing but again I think 1990 was one their best teams in terms of balance. Steve Deberg played way above his level but he never did that again.

Cleveland may have been the best example of exceeding expectations. He had a reasonble amount of talent across the team but they were not what I would call a dominate team. They had numerous holes and no depth. They were a team that played close to the vest and found ways to win some games. Clearly they were not able to handle the HOF QB Elway. They didn't have the talent to stop him when it counted. The cold Cleveland weather may have helped as an wqualizer (think wind from Lake Erie) but better teams win playoff games. Not sure I think Cleveland was the better team most of the time. I think Marty got them into position but just didn't have ammo to pull it off. In 1987 his team had the #3 ranked offese in pts scored and #2 defense in points scored and had a 10-5 record. But he had to go to Denver and face Elway and lost 38-33 in a game that could have gone the other way.

Now the Chargers are a different story. They are extremely talented and should have gone further than one and done. But I think some underestimate the ability of a first year QB to get the job done. I'm not knocking Rivers so please don't think that. It's not the only reason but teams expect QB's to play at different level in the playoffs than the regular season and it just didn't happen for the Chargers. They could have and should have won anyway. Most likely if they do not make that INT of Brady on 4th down (would be the dumbest decision if not for his fumble) they go on to win. This one play COULD have made the difference but it's always the body of work that has to be judged.

Consider what has happened to Marty through no fault of his own. These are just a few of the things I can remember:

1. Elway becomes one of the best clutch HOF QBs in the game and he has to face him in the playoffs.

2. Byner loses a fumble at the goalline in what would have likely been a game winner.

3. He loses Derrick Thomas to an accident that is a key memeber of his team physically and mentally.

4. He loses his preferred QB Brees in a power struggle wiht his GM.

5. He has the Patriots game in hand when his DB mysteriously decides to intercept the ball instead of knock it down. He then fumbles the ball away giving new life to the Patriots and Brady who then scores leaving the Chargers to come back with a first year QB and his back to the wall.

Not too many coaches have this to deal with and go on to win in spite of these adversities. Some of these things you can place on the coach but in the end they were out of his hands and he was left to deal with it.

All this leads me to wonder a few things:

1. If the Chargers had a more experienced QB, would they have gone further? No way to know but history suggests this might be the case.

2. If Marty had more chances to win in the playoffs with a good team like the Chargers, would he win a Super Bowl? High proability. Maybe more than 1.

3. If Byner doesn't fumble that ball does he go on to win the Super Bowl? Not sure but it's another win and a step closer.

4. If the Chargers knock the ball down instead of intercept it do they go on to win the Super Bowl? Maybe but again it's another win and a step closer.

5. If Elway misses 1 of those passes do the Brwons win another game and go on to the Super Bowl and win. They likely win and get a step closer but who knows.

6. If the Cheifs don't have the misfortune of losing the single most inspirational player on their team do they have more success? No way to know but his loss clearly affected them.

Of course we'll never know. But I have to think he has been snake bit some. He had no control of losing his experienced QB and starting over with a new one. He then lost his job just as they are peaking to contend. Having a year under River's belt could have been huge as Rivers is developing nicely and will undoubtedly become a playoff caliber QB IMO. But it takes time and more experience to ascend to that level.

It's not as though he has gotten his butt handed to him in many of these games. His teams were in position to win and sometimes that all a coach can do. Then it's up to the players to make plays.

It's not hard to imagine that the Chargers would have won the Super Bowl if they had kept Brees. It's not hard to impagine that the Chargers win the Super Bowl next year if they had kept Marty. But like so many other things, we'll never know. That's alot of "what ifs" to ponder.

 

[Tau837]

I'm not completely sure what you're saying. I assume you are questioning why I say that Rivers didn't drop the passes, etc., absolving him of the loss, but ultimately hold Marty responsible.

Here's why. The head coach position is ultimately responsible for gameday performance. If the team doesn't perform, there may be many reasons, but the head coach must be accountable for them. It may not be totally fair, but it's part of the job.

It is also true that QBs get a disproportionate amount of credit for wins and blame for losses.

Yes, coaches and quarterbacks both get too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses.Corey Dillon's W-L record before the Patriots signed him was 34-78 (.304). That doesn't mean he sucked. It means that the Bengals as a whole sucked while he was there.

It's true that the Chargers as a whole sucked in their playoff game this year. But it was a true team effort involving sucky performances by many of the players and perhaps many of the coaches. Not just Marty. No single person is wholly responsible for a game's outcome -- not even the quarterback; and not even the head coach.

Now if someone wants to criticize Marty for specific mistakes he's made that have contributed to his poor W-L record in the playoffs -- poor game-planning, poor clock management, poor decisions regarding which plays to challenge, and so on -- that's totally fair. But pointing simply to his W-L record in the playoffs doesn't move me very much, in part because a sample size of 18 games is fairly small, and in part because even with a sample size of 100+ games (like Corey Dillon in Cincinnati), Marty played a only limited role in the outcome in each game. He should be graded on how well he performed his own role, which may or may not be well reflected in the W-L record of the team as a whole. (A good coach should win more games than a bad coach, other things equal. But other things are never equal. In reality, a 4-12 team could be better coached than a 12-4 team.)

I understand that fans will always judge coaches and quarterbacks largely by their W-L records. My contention is not that it doesn't happen -- just that it can be inaccurate.

Do you agree or disagree that ultimately the head coach is accountable for performance on the field? I'm not necessarily talking responsibility, I'm talking accountability, although I also feel that in Marty's case he bears a good deal of responsibility.Like any organization, accountability ultimately falls to one person on a football team. Just like in a company that underperforms, you can't fire everyone... but in most organizational structures, there is someone who position is accountable... so you can fire him and install new leadership at the top, which can make a difference in the success of the organization. In this case, is that not Marty? If it isn't, who is it? I don't see how it can be A.J., who provided Marty with an outstanding roster... nothing more he can do there. (And FM, this is not a place to go on about the Brees decision. This has been explained to you repeatedly in many threads. They did the right thing with Brees.)

As for the bolded statement, yes, I think Marty has done a lousy job in his coaching in the playoffs, and his playoff record is a manifestation of that. I don't think it is merely an 0-6 record completely independent of his individual coaching performance. Is that what you guys believe? If you believe that, I guess I can see why you think he deserved to stay, and we can just agree to disagree.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Do you agree or disagree that ultimately the head coach is accountable for performance on the field? I'm not necessarily talking responsibility, I'm talking accountability, although I also feel that in Marty's case he bears a good deal of responsibility.

I think he should be accountable for the same stuff he's responsible for, and not for the stuff he's not responsible for.

Like any organization, accountability ultimately falls to one person on a football team. Just like in a company that underperforms, you can't fire everyone... but in most organizational structures, there is someone who position is accountable... so you can fire him and install new leadership at the top, which can make a difference in the success of the organization. In this case, is that not Marty? If it isn't, who is it?

I don't think accountability falls to one person. Every player, every coach, every scout, and everybody in the front office are accountable for the jobs they've done.

As for the bolded statement, yes, I think Marty has done a lousy job in his coaching in the playoffs, and his playoff record is a manifestation of that. I don't think it is merely an 0-6 record completely independent of his individual coaching performance. Is that what you guys believe? If you believe that, I guess I can see why you think he deserved to stay, and we can just agree to disagree.

I'm not saying he deserved to stay. I'm just saying that if he should have been fired, it's not because of his W-L record in the playoffs.