Jun 12 2008
9:49PM
EDT
Do Star Players Make Good Head Coaches?
In the N.B.A. they do, say Lawrence Kahn of Cornell, and Amanda Goodall and Andrew Oswald of Cornell and Warwick University:

Is the same result true for other sports? A simple look at the best managers in the history of baseball makes me think it's not. The average OPS+, a good measure of offensive ability, for managers that managed at least 1,000 games and where offensive players during their careers is 94. A number above 100 means better than average, and below 100 means worse than average. So, the average best manager was less-than-average during his playing days. The same metric for all players in MLB history who had at least 3,000 at-bats is 104.
(Hat tip: Andrew Leigh)
We measure the success of National Basketball Association (NBA) teams between 1996 and 2004, and then attempt to work back to the underlying causes. We have information on 15,040 regular season games for 219 coach-season observations, for which we compute winning percentages; in addition, we study post-season playoff success for these coaches. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a main explanatory factor is the quality of the group of players. But, less predictably, there seem also to be clear effects from the nature of a teams coach. Teams perform substantially better if led by a coach who was, in his day, an outstanding player. This correlation is, to our knowledge, unknown even to experts in basketball (perhaps because, without statistical methods, it is hard to glean from even detailed day-to-day observation of the sport).

Is the same result true for other sports? A simple look at the best managers in the history of baseball makes me think it's not. The average OPS+, a good measure of offensive ability, for managers that managed at least 1,000 games and where offensive players during their careers is 94. A number above 100 means better than average, and below 100 means worse than average. So, the average best manager was less-than-average during his playing days. The same metric for all players in MLB history who had at least 3,000 at-bats is 104.
(Hat tip: Andrew Leigh)
See more in
Recent Blog Posts
- Alan Greenspan's Nightmare?
- Sep 5 2008 2:28PM EDT
- Labor Pains
- Sep 5 2008 1:11PM EDT
- Fact-Checking Huckabee
- Sep 3 2008 11:11PM EDT
- Who in U.S. Gets Hurt Most by Food-Price Inflation?
- Sep 3 2008 5:19PM EDT
- More on Palin and Intrade
- Sep 3 2008 10:47AM EDT
- The Abstract: Restricting Access to Books on the Web
- Sep 2 2008 7:19PM EDT
- Chart of the Day: Ownership Society
- Sep 2 2008 4:50PM EDT
- Betting on Palin
- Sep 2 2008 3:37PM EDT
- Chart of the Day: Stimulus Tracker
- Aug 29 2008 11:48AM EDT
- The Abstract: The Morning After ... an Inflation Target
- Aug 28 2008 6:17PM EDT
- Chart of the Day: 2 Quarters of Negative Growth!
- Aug 28 2008 4:18PM EDT
- GDP vs. GDI
- Aug 28 2008 11:26AM EDT
- An Unusually Strong GDP Number
- Aug 28 2008 9:38AM EDT
- Not All I.T. Offshoring Is Equal
- Aug 27 2008 4:30PM EDT
- Price Discrimination and Baseball Tickets
- Aug 27 2008 2:13PM EDT
Categories
Links
- Email me

- Geary Behaviour Centre

- NBER Working Papers

- Social Science Statistics Blog

- Decision Science News

- Freakonomics

- New York Federal Reserve Research

- Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

- Marginal Revolution

- EconTalk

- MoneyScience

- VoxEU

- Unconventional Wisdom

- Journal of Interest

- Bluematter

- Economist's View

- Research Recap

- Social Science Research Network

- Institute for the Study of Labor

- EconPapers










