The Rona has provided the rare opportunity to measure what effect a coach, and maybe the best coach, being out has in terms of changing expectations for how a game will play out.
Since Saban's presumably doing everything he ordinarily would during the week, just via zoom instead, the impact is primarily him not being there on game day. At least, that seems like all it would be to me. He won't be standing there on the sidelines, may not be able to offer up things he's seeing in real time, may not be able to make split decisions re: whether to kick / punt / go for it, and won't be able to offer in-person input on things at half. Of course, he also might be able to do some of these things remotely...
The line moved about 2 points on the news of Saban being out, from Bama -6.5 to Bama -4.5.
But I think a better way to look at this is how much Alabama’s implied win probability changed from the moneyline odds. It dropped roughly 2.5%.
So, the market believes Saban being there in person is worth about 2.5% win share equity. That is a massive move.
Do you think a HC being out on gameday should change the implied win probability at all? The most relevant question would seem to be whether or not the HC calls plays. Here, Saban doesn't.
If Bama -6.5 with Saban was the right number (I have no idea if it was or not, probably was...) then I am inclined to bet on Bama at this new number. I don't think Saban's presence on gameday is worth that much. And, even if it was, I think people are sort of underestimating how much he still will be able to do remotely.
Thinking about whether to bet on Bama & the impact of a non-play calling HC's actions on gameday lead me into another thought...
If I don't think a head coach's on-field presence is worth much, if anything, how overblown are post-game reactions from fans in terms of blaming losses on the head coaches' in-game decisions or adjustments? Assuming the market is right, and Saban is worth 2.5% win equity, your coach, whoever it may be, is probably not worth anything close to that. So by saying a HC (a non-play caller) single-handedly lost a game, in some ways aren't you making the assertion that the HC failed to add his +1% or so win probability in terms of game-day decisions/adjustments? And that the missing 1% edge is what decided the game?
Those seem like quantum leaps to make...
Since Saban's presumably doing everything he ordinarily would during the week, just via zoom instead, the impact is primarily him not being there on game day. At least, that seems like all it would be to me. He won't be standing there on the sidelines, may not be able to offer up things he's seeing in real time, may not be able to make split decisions re: whether to kick / punt / go for it, and won't be able to offer in-person input on things at half. Of course, he also might be able to do some of these things remotely...
The line moved about 2 points on the news of Saban being out, from Bama -6.5 to Bama -4.5.
But I think a better way to look at this is how much Alabama’s implied win probability changed from the moneyline odds. It dropped roughly 2.5%.
So, the market believes Saban being there in person is worth about 2.5% win share equity. That is a massive move.
Do you think a HC being out on gameday should change the implied win probability at all? The most relevant question would seem to be whether or not the HC calls plays. Here, Saban doesn't.
If Bama -6.5 with Saban was the right number (I have no idea if it was or not, probably was...) then I am inclined to bet on Bama at this new number. I don't think Saban's presence on gameday is worth that much. And, even if it was, I think people are sort of underestimating how much he still will be able to do remotely.
Thinking about whether to bet on Bama & the impact of a non-play calling HC's actions on gameday lead me into another thought...
If I don't think a head coach's on-field presence is worth much, if anything, how overblown are post-game reactions from fans in terms of blaming losses on the head coaches' in-game decisions or adjustments? Assuming the market is right, and Saban is worth 2.5% win equity, your coach, whoever it may be, is probably not worth anything close to that. So by saying a HC (a non-play caller) single-handedly lost a game, in some ways aren't you making the assertion that the HC failed to add his +1% or so win probability in terms of game-day decisions/adjustments? And that the missing 1% edge is what decided the game?
Those seem like quantum leaps to make...
