A coach's record is mostly his roster. The engine rates what is left.
It rates the coach on the development, the in-game decisions, and the record with the roster and regime separated out, never moving a player's number.
Point the engine inward, separate the coach from what he was handed.
Two composite coaches at the identical .620 record. The engine points inward, the same doctrine that grades a player, and separates the coach from what he was handed. The two are not the same bet.
Two coaches at the same win rate are different bets once the roster is separated out, and the engine will not credit a coach with a number the Team KR says the roster produced. The archetype and identity triggers place the coach the way the front-office reads place a general manager, and the career-versus-current split carries both the long arc and the current regime. Developing players and acquiring them are different skills, and a staff is often strong at one and weak at the other.
Illustrative on the real coach-rating framework (the inward turn, the pillar roll-up to a KR-scale rating read against a legend, the career-versus-current split, the regime-and-roster separation, the develop-versus-acquire split, the archetype). Composite coaches, demonstration figures.
Not whether his players are good. Whether they beat their curves.
A composite staff, its players tracked from the day they arrived. The development pillar is not whether the players are good. It is whether they got better than the curves they were projected for on entry.
The lift is largest at the technique-heavy, slow-developing positions, the residual is confidence-gated on the sample of players and years (a two-season read is a lead, a decade is a fact), and it is separated from talent acquisition. It adjusts the trajectory and its confidence, never a current KR.
Illustrative on the real coaching-development residual (realized versus projected across a sample, the upward re-pricing of acquired prospects, the position-specific magnitude, the confidence gating, the never-touches-a-current-KR rule). Composite staff, demonstration figures.
A good staff makes better decisions with the roster.
A good staff does not make the roster better. It makes better decisions with it, and those decisions move the outcome at the margins that decide close games.
The three bets are kept separate and each priced, because conflating them is how a coach gets credit for a roster or a player gets blamed for a landing spot. The coach is the load-bearing input to the third bet, and counterfactuals are a separate, explicitly labeled query. The coach is the third bet of three, not the first.
Illustrative on the real in-game and institutional layers (the coaching actor's decisions on the expected-points and win-probability differential, the quality scaling and the coaching-change confidence event, the adjustment-outcome tracking, the three-bet doctrine with the coach as the institutional term). Composite coach and situation, demonstration figures.
Rate the coach on his residual, keep the roster's share with the roster, and the sideline stops laundering reputations into facts.
Separate the coach from the roster. Rate what is left.
Head Coach Intelligence points the engine inward, measures a coach as the residual of his players' development, his in-game decisions, and his record against the roster, and prices him as the institutional bet, never touching a player's own number.