Rookie Coaches

[Silkk the Shaka]

https://theathletic.com/677168/

Pomeroy has an article out on extrapolating coaches based on rookie year performance.

It's behind a paywall - for those with a subscription, any major conclusions?

[Windyplayer]

https://theathletic.com/677168/

Pomeroy has an article out on extrapolating coaches based on rookie year performance.

It's behind a paywall - for those with a subscription, any major conclusions?

There​ are 33 head​ coaches who​ are​ in their first​ year​ running​ a program at​ the Division​ I​ level. Through Sunday's​​ action, those coaches had gone a combined 77-127. That figure includes a 27-0 record against teams outside of D-I, so it's really 50-127 in games the NCAA basketball committee will care about come Selection Sunday. The results aren't surprising.

Last season, rookie coaches went 331-478. The year before, it was 412-602. It's a tough job being a rookie coach. Part of the reason is that the hire is at a program that isn't primed to win immediately. Only two of last season's tournament teams are under the direction of rookies this season: Xavier and Rhode Island. Contrast that with the 14 teams in the bottom 100 of my final ratings last season that have a rookie coach.

Evaluating coaches is a challenge, but evaluating rookie coaches is particularly perilous. Is there anything that can be learned from their first season on the job? In order to find out, I looked at all rookie coaches from the 2007 through 2015 seasons to see how they fared in the future based on their conference record during their first season.

I put each coach into one of three groups depending on his performance in Year One. Those in the bad group won no more than one-third of their conference games. Those in the good group won no fewer than two-thirds of their conference games. The average group includes everybody in between. Now let's look at how the winning percentages of each group evolved in future seasons.

Rookie season   Year 1   Year 2   Year 3   Year 4   Year before hire
Bad   .218   .317   .416   .438   .357
Average   .486   .481   .499   .539   .462
Good   .760   .618   .646   .613   .630
All   .424   .441   .492   .513   .447
All of the data is limited to coaches who stayed with their original team. However, it doesn't account for attrition. There are more coaches in the Year Two calculations than in Year Four. While this look at coaching merely scratches the surface of what would be needed for a serious analysis to predict future coaching success based on one's first season running a program, there are some interesting high-level takeaways from this.

First, the rookies won 42 percent of their conference games. I suspect this is more due to the group having to take over struggling programs than any statement on the coach's lack of experience, although that's surely a factor. The state of the program upon a coach's start can be summarized by its winning percentage the previous season. The year before the rookie coach was hired, those teams won 45 percent of their conference games, which confirms that these coaches are generally taking over below-average squads. The fact that the winning percentage dips slightly is also instructive. A coaching change is an investment in the future. One shouldn't expect immediate results, especially when hiring a rookie.

Our group of new coaches wins more games each season, going from 43 percent in their first season to 44 percent in Year Two and then 49 percent and 51 percent in their third and fourth seasons, respectively. Of course, there's a survivorship bias here. The guys making it to Year Four have done enough in their first three seasons to stay employed. We don't know what the coaches who got canned before Year Four would have done if given the opportunity.

The individual categories have some useful information as well. I'm particularly fascinated by the group that had a good rookie season, winning at least two-thirds of their conference games. Overall, this group won 76 percent of their league games, a substantial improvement on the 63 percent won by their teams the season before they were hired. But in their second season, the winning percentage dropped to 61 percent, worse than the season before they were hired.

There is luck all around us, affecting our circumstances and what not. And indeed, the coaches who have had a great first season are often benefiting from some things that might not be easily repeatable, whether it's inheriting great talent, getting some calls in close games or avoiding key injuries and suspensions. For some, like Brad Stevens and Tony Bennett, a great start was indicative of future coaching greatness. But the casual hoops fan has forgotten the names of Mo Cassara (Hofstra) and Ken McDonald (Western Kentucky), who couldn't make it past Year Three despite a very successful rookie season.

Maybe it's best to ignore the luck if you are successful. Keep that confidence up and all that. Regardless of how that rookie-year success happened, it's often a quick path to job security. Of the 44 coaches who had a good rookie season, 32 were still coaching with the same school in their fourth season. And of the other dozen, only three were not coaching at all four years later, the remaining nine having found a job at a higher-level program.

That's not to say that all of the coaches who survived were successful. Bill Grier lasted eight seasons at San Diego, but he had a losing conference record in each of the last seven years. Mike Brennan is in his sixth season at American, despite not having produced a winning Patriot League record since his breakthrough rookie campaign. Other cases are mixed, but it makes some sense that a great inaugural season buys a coach the freedom not to have to worry about his job in the near future. Whether that coach is truly deserving of that freedom based on his ability is beside the point. Perception is reality.

The coaches with bad first seasons are surely suffering from the same effect in the opposite direction, winning just 22 percent of their games after their teams won 36 percent the year before. That win rate goes up to 32 percent in the second year and 42 percent in Year Three. A bad first year doesn't necessarily equate to a brief career. Chris Holtmann, Fred Hoiberg and Cuonzo Martin all found success after rough starts.

But there's no doubt a poor first season makes it tougher to get the benefit of the doubt. Whether the athletic director, influential donors or recruiting targets are losing faith, it's tough to succeed when the outside world doesn't believe in you, even if their lack of faith may be misplaced.

There's a lot more that needs to be done to predict coaching success. But this at least provides some perspective of what's on the line for this season's rookie crop. If Sam Scholl (San Diego) and Justin Hutson (Fresno State) can parlay early success into high conference finishes, there's a better chance they'll be a head coach a few years from now.

And while Xavier fans will have patience with Travis Steele and Rhode Island fans are backing David Cox, that support will erode with each conference loss. That's fair to an extent. Ultimately, the best coaches should win games. But over the short term, a few breaks can make a difference in whether a new coach gets a little more leeway and the time to figure out how to succeed.