View Single Post
Old
01-29-2013, 10:53 PM
  #337
Lonny Bohonos
Kassian = P.A.G.A.N
 
Lonny Bohonos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United Nations
Posts: 8,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBlazer View Post
Be careful what you wish for. The Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't know, and other cliches like that. You might shoot yourself in the foot.

There'd be a chance that the Canucks struggle during an extended adjustment period, and then there's also a chance that the coach just sucks for your team altogether, even worse than AV, as well as the next coach, and the next. Look at Calgary and Washington for examples. After 5 years, only now has Calgary's coaching problems been resolved (hopefully). Top coaches don't grow on trees unfortunately.
Coaching change might do the nucks good. But ive been a fan long enough to say it hasnt ever really done much for them long term.

Theres also lots of info out there on that seems to show coaching changes dont really have the impact people hope for. I did some google research on this last year but heres a newer article on it from a month back:

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/12/...ly-the-answer/

Quote:
…we use matching techniques to compare the performance of football programs that replaced their head coach to those where the coach was retained. The analysis has two major innovations over existing literature. First, we consider how entry conditions moderate the effects of coaching replacements. Second, we examine team performance for several years following the replacement to assess its effects.

We find that for particularly poorly performing teams, coach replacements have little effect on team performance as measured against comparable teams that did not replace their coach. However, for teams with middling records—that is, teams where entry conditions for a new coach appear to be more favorable—replacing the head coach appears to result in worse performance over subsequent years than comparable teams who retained their coach.
Quote:
From our analysis, it emerges that coach replacement does not produce statistically significant effects on team performance. This result turns out both when we estimate the impact of coach change including among controls team fixed effects and when using a matching estimator, in which selection on the treatment depends on team performance in the latest rounds. This finding confirms results obtained by some recent studies (for example, Balduck & Buelens, 2007; Bruinshoofd & TerWeel, 2004)
Quote:
The effect of a change of coach on team performance in theNHL has been estimated in a parametric model, also based on match-level data. Ordered probit regression has been used to represent the discrete and hierarchical structure of the ‘win-tie-lose’ match-results-dependent variable. The use of lagged match results data provides a control for the phenomenon of mean-reversion in team performance. The empirical results suggest teams that changed their coach within-season tended to perform worse subsequently in the short term than those that did not. However, the detrimental effect appears to be short-lived, and over a longer time horizon the effect is almost neutral. In the broader context of the debate concerning the managerial influence on organizational performance, the results suggest that a change of management in the midst of a crisis is unlikely to improve performance by more than might have been expected through the natural tendency for mean-reversion after a spell of poor performance.

Lonny Bohonos is offline   Reply With Quote