Reminds of how NFL coaches are so frequently fired when their teams do poorly. It makes for good press, but the teams usually do the same under the next coach.
> Teams that fired their coaches performed exactly the same on average in the following season as teams that kept their coaches. Notably, teams that were sub-.400 performed 20 percent better on average the following season regardless of whether they fired their coach or not. [...] Playoff performance is no better under new coaches. Non-playoff teams go an average of 0.5 playoff rounds the following season, whether they fire their coach or not.
Shouldn't team performance decrease the season after a coach change since the players have to learn a new system? This seems to say that the cost of firing a poor coach is zero because at worst you will do the same as before in the short term, with a great potential upside for longer time spans.
These teams have large coaching staffs that don't get fired and change more slowly. I would guess that a coach's impact is often more long term (in training, recruitment of players and staff).
If anything, it would be more fair to fire the GM. It's not uncommon elsewhere in the world for management to be fired if their team as a whole performs poorly. Being held responsible for the performance of the group as a whole incentivizes the right behavior, as long as management is empowered to do what it takes. Head coaches aren't really that empowered because they can't make personnel decisions.
