An analysis of franchise momentum: The Chiefs' Dow Jones Average.

[RJ]

I think I'll keep throwing good money after bad until the day I die.

*Sigh*......I'll never be able to retire at this rate.

[Mile High Mania]

Ok... I downloaded your spreadsheet, I'm going to need an hour or so for nothing but copy/paste... I'll do what I can to get this one (Denver) to you by Monday.

[StcChief]

The Dungver,Faiders,Sandyeggo spreadsheet would be interesting

[Hydrae]

Originally Posted by StcChief

The Dungver,Faiders,Sandyeggo spreadsheet would be interesting

I would be interested also to see the Patriots. They were so bad for so long it will be interesting how far up the last decade pushed them on these charts.

[TigerPig]

Originally Posted by Hydrae

I would be interested also to see the Patriots. They were so bad for so long it will be interesting how far up the last decade pushed them on these charts.

I bet Indy is higher than NE right now...

[cdcox]

Update! Update!

[bowener]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Update! Update!

Where?

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by bowener

Where?

Just keep applauding till Rain Man comes out for an encore.

Update! Update!

[bowener]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Just keep applauding till Rain Man comes out for an encore.

Update! Update!

Where?

[Rain Man]

You asked for it, you got it. The funny thing is, I was just thinking about this a week or so ago and hoping I could find the file.

The Chiefs' stock index currently stands at -17.26. This is a notable increase from -22.42 at the end of 2009, which was one loss from being in the bottom ten indexes in Chiefs history (all of which had occurred between Week 9 of 1988 and Week 10 of 1989).

When Todd Haley took over the team, the index was at -16.60, so Todd is currently still negative for his career, but that'll happen when you go 4-12 your first year. In looking at the graph, you can see that we have apparently hit a floor in the market, so I would recommend buying Chiefs stock as a long-term buy.

Here's a graph of how the various Chiefs coaches have fared. We can see that only three coaches have produced a positive change in the index: Schottenheimer with an enormous gain, Stram with a strong gain, and Mackovic eked out a minor gain.

Herm presided over the largest drop in franchise history, at almost 22 points. Wiggin was somewhat equivalent, dropping 18 points in fewer games. (Bettis is an outlier considering he coached only 7 games.) Interestingly, though, Wiggin (and Bettis) took over a team that was already in free fall - Stram's teams had dropped 14 points between the Christmas 1971 game and Stram's departure. Wiggin and Bettis merely continued that trend until Levy began pulling out of the dive and Mackovic got the nose turned upward again. The Gansz thing was a failed experiment, producing equivalent results to Herm, more or less, before the Space Shuttle Schottenheimer launched.

As of this point, we can view coaches quite clearly in one of three camps:

Successes - Schottenheimer, Stram
Mediocres - Vermeil, Mackovic, Levy, Cunningham (though Cunningham is pushing the bottom edge)
Disasters - Wiggin, Bettis, Gansz, Edwards

Haley has proven (to date) that he's not in the first camp, and he's arcing upward.

	               Start	         Finish	        Games	PPG	Change
Stram  	               0	         16.4706	218	0.08	         16.5
Wiggin           	16.4706	      -1.4429	     35	         -0.51	        -17.9
Bettis	                 -1.4429	-7.2554	       7	-0.83	         -5.8
Levy	                 -7.2554	-13.9729	73	-0.09	         -6.7
Mackovic            	-13.9729	-13.1761	65	0.01	          0.8
Gansz	                -13.1761	-23.3491	31	-0.33 	          -10.2
Schottenheimer    	-23.3491	10.5904	    170	      0.20     	         33.9
Cunningham	         10.5904	5.4264	     32	         -0.16	         -5.2
Vermeil              	5.4264	       4.9787	     81	         -0.01	         -0.4
Edwards	               4.9787	    -16.5967	     49	        -0.44	        -21.6
Haley	              -16.5967	    -17.2639	     27	         -0.02	         -0.7

And you want to hear something else interesting? Haley has produced the second-best start to a coaching career in Chiefs' history when you consider index change. While he's still slightly negative, every coach except Marty was more negative, even Hank Stram.

Index Changes in First 27 Games

Schottenheimer = +8.5
Haley = -0.7
Mackovic = -2.0
Cunningham = -2.8
Stram = -3.0
Edwards = -3.2
Bettis = -5.8 (7 games only)
Vermeil = -6.3
Gansz = -8.0
Levy = -8.8
Wiggin = -12.8

[cdcox]

Thanks!

One more question. When we win the SB this season, will we still be in negative territory? I would hate to be all pumped about winning the SB, but have a negative Dow index put a big damper on everything.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Thanks!

One more question. When we win the SB this season, will we still be in negative territory? I would hate to be all pumped about winning the SB, but have a negative Dow index put a big damper on everything.

Winning the rest of our games, getting a first-round bye, and then winning the Super Bowl would still put us slightly negative at -1.3 points. However, winning the rest of our games, playing an extra first-round game, and then winning the Super Bowl would put us at a positive 1.7 points. Winning an extra playoff game is worth a lot. However, if we lose one regular season game and then win out (without a first-round bye) we'd still be at -0.2.

Nonetheless, that would be a pretty spectacular stock increase, so I'd be happy with it.

[Rain Man]

Here's another interesting analysis.

I looked at each coach's first 27 games and last 27 games, and how the index changed. (I used 27 games because that's how many games Todd has coached.)

If you compare a coach's first 27 games to those of his predecessor, you can tell if his regime represented a step up from the previous regime (setting aside some uncontrollable factors like retirements).

If you compare a coach's last 27 games to his first 27 games, you can see whether he had the team on the right track. A positive difference means he was on the right track, and a negative means he was dragging them down.

1st 27 games Last 27 games
Stram -2.99 -9.51
Wiggin -11.77 -16.74
Bettis x -15.63
Levy -8.79 -0.85
Mackovic -2.02 1.17
Gansz -9.25 -8.69
Schottenheimer 8.55 -0.90
Cunningham -2.82 -5.64
Vermeil -6.30 2.00
Edwards -3.24 -19.52
Haley -0.67 x

We can see that Hank Stram started out mediocre with a clean slate, but the team was in freefall in his final years. (Obviously he had some great years in the middle, though.)

Wiggin took a team in freefall and made it worse immediately (his 1st 27 were worse than Stram's last 27), and made it even worse as time went on. Wiggin was obviously unsuccessful, but not as bad as his record would indicate given what Stram had been doing at the bitter end.

Bettis didn't coach 27 games, but obviously the freefall continued.

Levy's immediate impact was to slow down the fall, indicating that he was a better coach than his predecessor(s) of Wiggin and Bettis. In fact, his last 27 games were almost at breakeven. He was pretty clearly moving the team in the right direction.

Mackovic was initially a minor step back from Levy, but his final 27 games were better than his first 27 games, so he was a positive.

Gansz then took a team that was trending positive and totally cratered it from start to finish. He was obviously a horrific hire. Arguments can be made for both him and Herm as the worst coaching hire in Chiefs history.

Marty then took a team that was in a meteoric nose dive and IMMEDIATELY turned them significantly positive. That was an amazing turnaround. But by the time he left they were trending slightly negative. His time had come.

Cunningham did worse with the talent than Marty did, and he was getting worse by the time he left. The team was sliding negative strongly.

Vermeil actually did worse than Cunningham starting out. However, his last 27 games were notably better than his first 27, and were back in the black.

Herm took a team that was trending positively and immediately turned it negative. He then proceeded to absolutely destroy the team in a manner not seen since Caligula named a horse to the Roman Senate.

Haley took over a team that was positively subterranean and, while still slightly negative, has immediately stopped the dive.

If you compare each coach's 1st 27 games to his predecessor's last 27 games, here are the changes you get:

Haley = +18.85
Schottenheimer = +17.24
Levy = +6.84
Vermeil = -0.66
Mackovic = -1.17
Cunningham = -1.92
Wiggin = -2.26
Stram = -2.99
Edwards = -5.24
Gansz = -10.42

I'm not sure if this means anything, other than whether a coach was better than the coach before him. While one can argue that Haley's turnaround is on par with Schottenheimer's turnaround in 1989, I think the real indication is that Schottenheimer and Haley are both good coaches who took over for horrendous coaches.

The more you look at it, the Schottenheimer and Haley situations are very, very similar. At this point, it looks like Haley may have just had a slower Year One but has otherwise done just what Marty did in the Great Miracle of 1989 and 1990.

Before Schottenheimer took over, the previous coach's last two seasons were 4-12 and 4-12. Schottenheimer immediately took the team to 8-8 his first year, and then 11-5 the second year. He did this with a new GM at the helm.

Before Haley took over, the previous coach's last two seasons were 4-12 and 2-14. Haley's first year was another 4-12, and right now he's on pace for a 10-6 or 11-5 second year. He did this with a new GM at the helm.

Kind of eerie, isn't it?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I'm not sure if this means anything, other than whether a coach was better than the coach before him. While one can argue that Haley's turnaround is on par with Schottenheimer's turnaround in 1989, I think the real indication is that Schottenheimer and Haley are both good coaches who took over for horrendous coaches.

The more you look at it, the Schottenheimer and Haley situations are very, very similar. At this point, it looks like Haley may have just had a slower Year One but has otherwise done just what Marty did in the Great Miracle of 1989 and 1990.

...

Before Haley took over, the previous coach's last two seasons were 4-12 and 2-14. Haley's first year was another 4-12, and right now he's on pace for a 10-6 or 11-5 second year. He did this with a new GM at the helm.

Kind of eerie, isn't it?

While your analyses are interesting, one thing they don't take into account is the personnel philosophy at the time (long-range-thinking versus mortgage-the-future thinking). Both Schottenheimer and Vermeil were benefitted in their last 27 games by a mortgage-the-future philosophy (especially Vermeil) while their predecessors had to deal with the smoldering ruins. Herm took it on both ends because after dealing with the declining talent left to him by Vermeil, he went radical-young his final year which hurt him but has ended up helping Haley.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by patteeu

While your analyses are interesting, one thing they don't take into account is the personnel philosophy at the time (long-range-thinking versus mortgage-the-future thinking). Both Schottenheimer and Vermeil were benefitted in their last 27 games by a mortgage-the-future philosophy (especially Vermeil) while their predecessors had to deal with the smoldering ruins. Herm took it on both ends because after dealing with the declining talent left to him by Vermeil, he went radical-young his final year which hurt him but has ended up helping Haley.

Yeah, that's a good point. And in the only words of defense I'll ever say for Herm, he and Tom Wiggin both inherited teams whose best players were either immediately retiring or had just retired. I think that made a difference for those two as well, shifting blame from Vermeil, Cunningham, and Stram (yes, Stram), who should have been replacing those players and didn't. While Stram is obviously golden, the decline in talent his last three years was precipitous, and he had more than enough time to reload before the whole thing collapsed.

I think Stram and Vermeil (and to a lesser extent Marty) were all milking the last reserves of their key veterans at the end, and then left as the ship went down.