Using The WAR Statistic To Measure Coaching Success At WVU
by The 25314 on Aug 9, 2011 1:00 PM EDT
in Mountaineer Football
Email
PrintIf you boiled down human existence into three simple sentences, I think it would look something like this:
A girl is judged by her looks. A guy is judged by his girl’s looks. And a college football coach is judged by his success.
But how do we define looks? There two main areas by which a girl is ogled, er...judged are 1) Her face; 2) her body. The body is broken down into two sub-parts: a) boobs and 2) butt. I have heard fantastical tales of judging a girl by her "brains" or "personality," but I pass that off as mythical yarns akin to unicorns and Huggins recruiting a shooting guard.
But how do we define a coach’s success? Much has been made in the last couple months, before and after Ol’ Billy Stewart jammed one too many feet into his mouth and was shown the door, about what defines a "successful" coach. Most coaches will tell you that they judge success by the personal relationships they develop with their players and the differences they make in their player’s lives. They would, of course, prefer to make a difference in the life of a kid that has poise in the pocket and pinpoint accuracy.
Oliver Luck said he judged success based upon the bottom line of a balance sheet and national championships. I think the appearance of success can be determined by stealing and significantly simplifying baseball’s WAR stat (WAR stands for "wins above replacement" and is meant to quantify a player’s overall value compared to a fictitious average AAA player). My formula looks like this: Good Wins – Bad Losses = Coach’s WAR. I realize Charley did a similar analysis last year, but bear with me.
The formula is based on the premise that an average football coach would beat all inferior teams on his schedule based on talent and average coaching, lose to all superior teams and lose all the tossup games. For instance, Joe Schmo-0 WAR-football coach, could coach WVU in 2011 and defeat Norfolk St., lose to LSU, and lose to South Florida. If Joe Schmo lost to Norfolk St., he would be -1 WAR. If he beat LSU he would be 1 WAR. The overall attitude of fans towards Rich Rodriguez and Bill Stewart since 2002, is almost directly related to the WAR formula.
To wit, the following is a breakdown of WVU’s good wins vs. bad losses since 2002. This is a qualitative decision, but I think you would generally agree with my good wins and bad loss decisions:
2002
Good Wins - @ Virginia Tech, @ Pitt
Bad Loss - None
2003
Good Wins - Virginia Tech, Pitt
Bad Loss - Cincinnati
2004
Good Win - Maryland*
Bad Losses - BC, @ Pitt
2005
Good Wins - Louisville, Georgia
Bad Loss - None
2006
Good Win - None
Bad Loss - USF
2007
Good Win - Oklahoma
Bad Loss - Pitt
2008
Good Win - None
Bad Losses - @ East Carolina, @ Colorado2009
Good Win - Pitt
Bad Losses - @ USF, Florida State2010
Good Win - None
Bad Losses - Syracuse, @ UConn
2002 – 2007: 8 – 5 = 3 WAR
2008 – 2010: 1 – 5 = -4 WAR*Obviously, the win against Maryland in 2004 turned out to be a victory over a team with a losing record, but a win has to be viewed as it was at the time. That win was huge for support of Rich Rod.
There are some obvious problems with the formula. The difficulty in determining the WAR of a coach with this formula is that with the increased success of a program, what once was considered a toss-up game becomes considered a “gimme” and a game-we-should-lose because a tossup, making gains in WAR more difficult. See Bob Stoops.
Thus, coaching a bad team gives you more opportunities for WAR than coaching a good team. On the other hand, coaching a good team is easier than coaching a bad team.
The 2006 team that finished 11-2, defeated all but one inferior opponent and was generally a joy to watch finished with a -1 WAR, while the 2003 team which started the season 1-4, finished with a 1 WAR. I think we would all prefer the 2006 team, but it’s a matter of expectations. A team with Pat White and Steve Slaton is easier to win with than Rasheed Marshall and Kay Jay Harris. Perhaps it is unfair, but that is the nature of success.
The formula should be tweaked to possibly add a higher increase and decrease in WAR for big wins such as Georgia and terrible losses such as Colorado, but I’m trying to keep it as simple as possible here.
It might also help to factor in margin of victory, as a 48-7 win over Marshall increases coaching capital more so than a 24-21 3OT win.
Despite the weaknesses of the formula, the idea that each unexpected victory brings coaching capital and each unexpected loss, decreases coaching capital is sound. You can see how Rich Rod slowly built his coaching capital and Bill Stewart quickly lost it and dissension has grown the last three years.
Dana Holgorsen now faces the same high expectations that Bill Stewart faced. The talent in the program and watered down Big East means that the schedule only provides one game – LSU – to gain an automatic boost in WAR this year. Perhaps another team could develop during the season, a la Cincinnati in 2008, and provide an unexpected opportunity for a big victory, but as it stands now, absent ridiculous blowouts wins, it will be difficult for Dana Holgorsen to increase his WAR.
13 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree with most of what you wrote.
I think I’d call 2006 Rutgers a good win. They were what, 10-1 and ranked in the top 15 when we played them? And that was without Pat White.
2007 @ Cincinnati is on the cusp of being a good win, but I still think that’s a game WVU should win, so you’re probably right to leave it out.
What about 2007 @ USF being a bad loss? They were ranked at the time, but ended up falling off the face of the earth toward the end of the year. We were ranked in the top 10. Another close call.
www.smokingmusket.com
Everything from 2007
should be marked with an asterisk… like, every single team’s history for that one season, because it was batshit crazy…
At one point, the Top 5 looked something like Ohio State, Boston College, USF, South Carolina, and Arizona State…
I didn’t include the Rutgers game because I was trying to judge RR more harshly than Stew, because of my obvious bias. Also, we’ve beaten Rutgers 16 times in a row. Hard to imagine a scenario where I don’t expect to beat them.
As for the USF game in ‘07, I didn’t include that because they had just won at Auburn and were ranked in the top 20, and generally weren’t of the same Colorado/Syracuse type bad. On a side note, that’s probably the loudest I’ve ever heard a stadium.
But like I said, it’s all opinion and I’m willing to adjust the formula.
2006 Rutgers is the only one I'd really lobby for.
That was actually a pretty good team, with Ray Rice, Brian Leonard, and Kenny Britt, plus a pretty good defense. They had beaten Louisville earlier in the year, and again, no Pat White. Should we expect to beat them all the time? Probably, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good win.
www.smokingmusket.com
by Country Roads on Aug 9, 2011 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Job Well Done
This is similar to what I did (during Stewart era) when I would say that our record should be 4-1 or 4-2….If you are decent in college football, 6-7 of your games are downright gimmes (unless you play in SEC). In the Big East’s case, we play 5 OOC and 7 in conference games. All but 1-2 of the OOC games are gimmes. 3-4 of the Big East games are gimmes. Those games have nothing to do w/ coach vs coach or players vs players….They are program vs. program….Of course Marshall, VMI, etc. aren’t going to beat us (although it nearly happened last year) due to the significant disparity in overall level of the programs due to recent and past history.
I think this version of a “WAR” is a reasonable way of looking at the overall performance of college football coaches.
Stop! You had me at T&A
One glaring problem in an otherwise interesting article:
Oklahoma is listed under the wrong coach!
This is essentially the argument I used to have against Don Nehlen. Yes, he took us to new heights, but 1998 was at least -3 WAR
I don’t think FanGraphs is going to ask you to start up a page on their website devoted to college football.
On an unrelated note, while out earlier, I was talking to a friend of a friend that is from Michigan. When I told him I love Rich Rodriguez, while hating John Beilein, he looked at me kind of funny. So instead of going with conventional wisdom, I proceeded to lash out against the gimmick basketball Beilein employs. Always feels good to get that off my chest once every six months or so.
Beilein's system
is more of a gimmick than Rich Rod’s?!?!
oklahoma game and beilein's system
Rich Rod may not have given the pre game speech, but everything about that game was the product of his tenure. The coaches were his coaches. The system was his system. The practice schedule was what he installed before bolting.
The passing and movement employed by Beilein’s system is a joy to watch. I know Stiles enjoys the one-on-one of the NBA and the physicality of michigan state, but Beilein trumps both those easily.
by Simple Jack on Aug 10, 2011 9:17 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Yeah, passing the ball around then jacking up a three late in the shot clock is the beautiful game. Not not mention his disdain for rebounding, or playing hard nose defense.
You sum those up and his style is an afront to me as a basketball fan.
by Stiles on Aug 10, 2011 1:15 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Ineresting Stuff...
But I would think you might be able to get a solid number just using opening line designations. I would think that any game where a team is favored by 4 or more on the road, and 7 or more at home is beyond a mere toss-up with regard to WAR – it is a game the favored team should reasonably expect to win, and losses in those type of games certainly decrease coaching capital.
Now is the time boys to make a big noise.
No matter what the people say,
For there is naught to fear, the gang's all here,
So hail West Virginia, hail.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Smoking Musket
Related FanShots on The Smoking Musket
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
