JR's Wins until 33.3333%

[the phantom menace]

I didn't answer it because you've fabricated a fact. His win rate was much higher than 25% after five years.

Ah, my maths (or sausage fingers on the calculator) might have been out.

BA's win rate in his fifth season 2018 was 25%... and 56 wins from 122 games over five years (50%) rather than 221 games (25%).

Team	Season	Games	W	L	D	Win %
Parramatta	2014 NRL Telstra Premiership	24	12	12	0	50.00%
Parramatta	2015 NRL Telstra Premiership	24	9	15	0	37.50%
Parramatta	2016 NRL Telstra Premiership	24	13	11	0	54.17%
Parramatta	2017 NRL Telstra Premiership	26	16	10	0	61.54%
Parramatta	2018 NRL Telstra Premiership	24	6	18	0	25.00%

Still pretty poor performance after a 5 year sample, you'd have to agree?

Why would you make something like that up unless you were trying to set me up?

Set you up? As far as I know you're happily married... but I have some recently divorced single friends who might be up for some fun if you're interested?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Still pretty poor performance after a 5 year sample, you'd have to agree?

It depends on the club. 45% would be poor at the Storm or the Roosters, but at Parramatta it was fine, especially given the club's win rate in the preceding five years (34%). And then as Arthur's number of games rose each year (an increasingly reliable sample), so did his win rate (now 52%), proving he was indeed a solid NRL coach. There's not many of those in the world.

 

[the phantom menace]

I think a lot of NRL coaches have turned out to be solid or close to average...

The expected bell curve of win percentages would suggest that the majority of people who've attempted NRL coaching would end up between 45-55% win percentage over all time (the largest sample size).

50% is poor if your club is interested in ending a large sample size of years without a premiership.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The expected bell curve of win percentages would suggest that the majority of people who've attempted NRL coaching would end up between 45-55% win percentage over all time (the largest sample size).

No because plenty of coaches come in, fail quickly, and then 'retire' with a very negative record. This is what allows the greats to have career records over 60%. A coach who can hover around 50% is going to have a long career; Stuart, Hasler, Maguire, Flanagan, even Cleary before his current stint at Penrith. This is why Arthur is the front runner for the new franchise. A coach who has proven he can win half his games is a much safer option than one who hasn't proven anything.

 

[emjaycee]

Phantom making shit up again...

View attachment 102292

He didn't make shit up mate, he may have been drunk and in a club setting, and not paying heaps of attention for a few years though.

 

[the phantom menace]

No because plenty of coaches come in, fail quickly, and then 'retire' with a very negative record. This is what allows the greats to have career records over 60%. A coach who can hover around 50% is going to have a long career; Stuart, Hasler, Maguire, Flanagan, even Cleary before his current stint at Penrith. This is why Arthur is the front runner for the new franchise. A coach who has proven he can win half his games is a much safer option than one who hasn't proven anything.

By definition, because NRL games can only be won or lost (or drawn, on rare occasions now) the distribution of all coaches' win percentages will average out at 50%.

Therefore achieving 50% (after 11 f**king years) is nothing to write home about - and poor in terms of the targets of a club who has a disproportionately long time (over double the probability timing) since tasting "success", as defined by winning the competition in which we compete - not some arbitrary other mediocre definition of success as scraping into 8th spot in the finals and being uncompetitive.

But keep on Pou-ing up the forum, you're doing a great job of "educating", lol!

 

[the phantom menace]

He didn't make shit up mate, he may have been drunk and in a club setting, and not paying heaps of attention for a few years though.

You forgot the fat fingers on typing in the numbers of games played, ffs.

 

[Suitman]

The fact @emjaycee got the rest of it correct was enough.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

By definition, because NRL games can only be won or lost (or drawn, on rare occasions now) the distribution of all coaches' win percentages will average out at 50%.

Therefore achieving 50% (after 11 f**king years) is nothing to write home about - and poor in terms of the targets of a club who has a disproportionately long time (over double the probability timing) since tasting "success", as defined by winning the competition in which we compete - not some arbitrary other mediocre definition of success as scraping into 8th spot in the finals and being uncompetitive.

But keep on Pou-ing up the forum, you're doing a great job of "educating", lol!

You are missing the point. As usual, and probably on purpose. But I am a pedagog, and I am not just here to teach you. I am here for every merkin.

The fact Craig Bellamy (for example) has won 409 games doesn't mean there is another coach out there with 409 losses. Those 409 losses are far more evenly distributed, as losses generally are when it comes to NRL coaches. Bellamy has a 100% win rate against 20 different NRL coaches, ranging from Ryles, Carr, Hornby, Lamb, Lenihan, Millward, Shepherd and Stacey Jones (one win against each) to his 12 from 12 record against Anthony Griffin.

The wins are more concentrated, and for this reason a minority of coaches win half their games. Anyone who achieves this is better than most coaches.

 

[the phantom menace]

You are missing the point. As usual, and probably on purpose.

No.. I think I made the point... so that only leaves another party that can miss it.

The wins are more concentrated, and for this reason a minority of coaches win half their games. Anyone who achieves this is better than most coaches.

But after 11 f**king years, still a poor result for our club that is looking to break a disproportionate drought - and seeking more than what 50% (or 52.5%) win rate will get them.

That's pretty much the point (again), if you wish to "get" it instead of troll...

 

[Poupou Escobar]

No.. I think I made the point... so that only leaves another party that can miss it.

But after 11 f**king years, still a poor result for our club that is looking to break a disproportionate drought - and seeking more than what 50% (or 52.5%) win rate will get them.

That's pretty much the point (again), if you wish to "get" it instead of troll...

Well our record was worse in the preceding 11 years, so Brad Arthur probably wasn't the problem, was he?

 

[the phantom menace]

Well our record was worse in the preceding 11 years, so Brad Arthur probably wasn't the problem, was he?

Wtf are you trying to troll about now, Willis...?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I'm sorry, I thought you were blaming Brad Arthur for the decline of our mighty (in 2013) club.

 

[the phantom menace]

I'm sorry, I thought you were blaming Brad Arthur for the decline of our mighty (in 2013) club.

No troll, apology not accepted. I was making the same point that you deceptively attempt to still not get.

Point being (again) that a 50% win rate for a coach after 11 years at our club is poor - given that we have a disproportionately longer than usual gap (39 seasons and counting) between tasting success, as measured by actually winning the competition that we are competing in.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

No, a 50% win rate is average, over any time period. Whether it requires a scapegoat is a separate and subjective matter. However when judging coaches, a 50% win rate puts them ahead of the majority of coaches to have plied their trade. That holds true no matter how long our club (or any other) has waited for a premiership.

 

[Gary Gutful]

No because plenty of coaches come in, fail quickly, and then 'retire' with a very negative record. This is what allows the greats to have career records over 60%. A coach who can hover around 50% is going to have a long career; Stuart, Hasler, Maguire, Flanagan, even Cleary before his current stint at Penrith. This is why Arthur is the front runner for the new franchise. A coach who has proven he can win half his games is a much safer option than one who hasn't proven anything.

This.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Agreed.