http://www.insidenu.com/2016/7/18/121572...order-wins

Found this article on Northwestern's Pat Fitzgerald being one of the "Clutchest, most overachieving coaches in America" based on a study. He's ranked #7 in this regard, with Bailiff showing up at #8.

0 wins against the top 50 in 9 years. All that needs to be said. Not to mention the danger of extrapolating based on expectancy of wins.

here is the criteria

Quote:One of the statistics S&P+ generates is win expectancy — the likelihood, based on all the individual plays that a team ran in a given game, that one team will win... Win expectancies can then be used to calculate a season win expectancy, or second-order wins total. The second-order wins differential is simply the difference between a team's second-order wins total and its actual win total.

Clickbait bull****.

Here are the Top 20:

As a matter of fact, if we are expected to lose more based on the plays we run, doesn't that mean that our coaching is holding us back?

(07-19-2016 03:24 PM)Antarius Wrote:  As a matter of fact, if we are expected to lose more based on the plays we run, doesn't that mean that our coaching is holding us back?

It means our playcalling is poor but is overcome by recruiting/development/luck. I'm also not sure how this metric figures in defense, but we haven't exactly fielded an Iron Curtain under Bailiff.

You've got to wonder what's the basis for the win expectancy metric. It appears that much more than coaching skill/prowess is used to develop this, as both Ken Niumatalolo and Bill Snyder are at the top, two obviously good coaches. I wouldn't expect them to overachieve since I would expect them to perform quite well.

But it sure is weird to see DB in the Top 10 of this list. I don't think he is as bad of a coach as some posters on here, but I don't think he deserves to be up there with some of the other coaches listed.

(07-19-2016 03:24 PM)Antarius Wrote:  As a matter of fact, if we are expected to lose more based on the plays we run, doesn't that mean that our coaching is holding us back?

Well, the article that introduces the statistics that they used does start out:

Northwestern football, "luck," and the 8-2 record that perhaps shouldn't be - Inside NU

http://www.insidenu.com/2015/11/17/97480...expectancy Wrote:Stats can be deceptive. Stats can be cruelly misleading.

One of the charts we often followed listed recruiting rankings vs wins and essentially reached the same conclusion... but the problem was that we were so far to the left on the chart (being out-recruited according to the measures by almost everyone.. even some with similar restrictions) that the 'vertical' difference was essentially immaterial.

Said differently, we were at '20' on recruiting but Bailiff was a +3 which put us at 23. Alabama was +1 or 2, but that put them at 96. Navy was at 18 in recruiting but Niumatalolo was a +7, putting them above us at 25. Vandy was like 50, and coaching was -2, so 48. Still well above us.

oops! Thought I clicked in this thread: http://csnbbs.com/thread-723996.html My bad.