Does firing coaches work?

[-X-]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2vWcz_zWAI[/youtube]

By Stephen J. Dubner
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nfl.com/features/freakonomics/episode-8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nfl.com/features/freakonomics/episode-8</a>

'Tis the season -- for the firing of head coaches, that is. In the space of two weeks, three teams -- the Jaguars, Chiefs, and Dolphins -- canned their top man.

Allow me to make two seemingly contradictory points:

» An NFL head coach is probably the most influential, hands-on coach in the major sports, but ...

» Firing the head coach of a bad team probably does a lot less to improve that team than most of us think.

Our latest "Football Freakonomics" segment asks whether firing a head coach really does much to improve a team's chances -- or if it's simply the standard move for losing organizations, meant to appease critics in the media, the stands, and even the locker room.

First, let's look at some numbers: Between 2000 and 2010, there have been 17 coaches fired during the season. Teams that went 47-105 (.309) before the firing went 43-77 (.358) with a new guy. That's a pretty significant improvement, no? Indeed, last week, the 4-9 Dolphins won their first game under interim coach Todd Bowles while the 5-8 Chiefs, under interim coach Romeo Crennel, beat previously undefeated Green Bay.

But: Whoa. There are at least three reasons to think that coaching changes have significantly less impact than teams would like to think.

1. Regression to the mean: Teams that have done very badly for a long time are more likely to win a bit more in the future, whether they get a new coach or not. Sadly, the opposite is also true for winning teams.

2. As Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times points out in our video, most former NFL Coaches of the Year are eventually fired. Did they suddenly forget how to coach? Did their brilliant strategies evaporate? Or, more likely, was their former winning a consequence of a lot of factors that went well beyond coaching?

3. It is hard in general to satisfactorily measure leadership -- whether we're talking about a football coach, a CEO, or the president of the United States -- but a variety of empirical research shows that an institution's top man or woman is seldom as influential as we think. It's a natural inclination to pin a lot of blame (or, occasionally, glory) on the figurehead. But just as the president doesn't actually have much control over the economy, a football coach has limited control over his team's outcome.

That's not to say there aren't a lot of vital duties performed by a coach; of course, there are. And some coaches are plainly much better than others. But a losing team that blindly fires its head coach without looking for the real reasons behind its stinky record is a bit like someone with a high fever tossing the thermometer in the trash.

That's not a small sample size (the underlined, emboldened highlight). What I mean by that is 43-77 (120 games) divided by 17 in season coaching changes equals an average of 7 games remaining for each switch. Which means the fired coaches averaged 9 games coached during that forelorn season. What does it mean? That means the fired coach would have won 4.8 games over a 16 game season or roughly 8-9 in two seasons. The coach who replaced him would have won 5.7 over a 16 game season or roughly 11-12 over two years. Not a huge difference as neither is an impressive record. Which basically follows the premise the writer is trying to convey. It's usually not the head coach but a multitude of factors surrounding the team. So what "other factors" are at play with the St. Louis Rams?

Of course that doesn't mean don't change coaches when you're losing but rather, don't expect immediate success when you do. So take that a bit further. The Lions averaged 5.2 wins from 1997 through 2008, under 4 different head coaches (including 2 interim coaches with a record of 5-7 during that time). Even if the Lions win out this year and get to 11 wins, they will have averaged 6.3 wins under Jim Schwartz the last 3 years. Does that mean they shouldn't have changed head coaches? Absolutely not. But should the Lions go 6-10 next year what then?

In Miami starting with the 4-12 year in 2004 that got Wannestadt fired, the Dolphins went 20-44 over 4 years. Under Sparano, they went 28-31. Many thought that was a "turnaround team" but it seems it really wasn't. It was better than that .313 winning percentage but still sub .500. I think Sparano had them on the right track; he did have a .475 winning percentage after 4 years of .313. Did they give up on Sparano too soon? What happens if the guy they hire goes 7-9 and 6-10 (.406)?

There are plenty examples of good changes. Harbaugh immediately this year in SF. Few can foresee that changing. It looks like SF has one helluva head coach after years of trying to find one. But the same was thought of Sparano in Miami. Truth is you just don't know. Truth is sometimes it takes a long time to "turn around" a team around that's been bad for so long. And sometimes it's not an inexperienced coach who has a problem doing that. Shanahan won two Superbowls in Denver and got the axe after a 7-9 season in 2007 followed by a 8-8 season in 2008. He had won 32 games the three years previous to that. What's he done in Washington? 6-10 last year and 5 wins so far this year. They averaged 8 wins a year the 4 years previous to Shanahan taking over.

So the question is, do you keep changing gears every 3 years or do you give a guy a bit longer to get it right? I guess it depends on what the ownership sees "on the inside" of the organization. But for Spags to hang around with his record, Kroenke is going to have to see an awful lot of things that aren't visible to the fanbase. The Rams averaged a bit more than 5 wins per year the 5 years previous to Spagnuolo gutting the team (5.4). He's going to average only 3.3 wins per year after this year or two less than those previous 5.