Do we overstate the impact of coaching?

[Critical13]

If you go to the boards of all the teams that are not playing well or up to expectations, there is one constant. Every single one is inundated with posts about how stupid the coach is, and how they are ready for a change.

My personal thought is that we too often give players a pass and that coaches impact on the results are overstated.

There are a few examples where an extremely different result happened due to a coaching change, and there is definitely something to be said about a fresh outlook and game plan, but often it’s the players who need to shoulder more of the blame.

Click to read more...

 

[King'sPawn]

I think some people blame the coaches too easily, sure. But there are definitely times when coaching is an issue.

For the Kings, I think it's a combination of both.

I'm pretty sure you don't want to turn this into a discussion of "why I think my coach is bad" so I'll leave it at that.

 

[easton117]

You’re probably right. But teams can’t gas 20 players.

That said, some coaches ie Housley are seemingly in way over their heads. Having a man with a (good) plan can go a long way!

 

[crackdown44]

Well I think often times the problem is that if your team is bad, you should be giving young players more opportunities. But then coaches will do the opposite in order to try and save their jobs and it hurts the team in the long run

 

[member 157595]

I'm pretty sure Oilers fans are still traumatized from the Dallas Eakins Era Of Awesome Swarm Defense.

 

[LamorielloAndSon]

Coaching is everything

 

[KingsFan7824]

Well I think often times the problem is that if your team is bad, you should be giving young players more opportunities. But then coaches will do the opposite in order to try and save their jobs and it hurts the team in the long run

Same with GM's. Guarantee coaches and GM's a job for at least X number of years, regardless of what the on ice results are, and you'd probably see more long term thinking.

 

[A91]

No, coaching is huge. Very important.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

Nope. I think coaching gets underestimated in the impact it has.
People only look at the roster when they make an assessment of the team before hand. The roster means nothing without the right fit for a coach controlling it. The "right fit" is what's important, it's not about the name.
You can go spinning your wheels for years if you don't find the right coach to fit your roster, no matter how long the roster has been together, how "stacked" it is, how much potential it has, how many times you've changed over the roster, etc. etc.

 

[Saltcreek]

A coach has the ability to inspire and build confidence in a team/player or he can do the exact opposite. The impact of coaching is probably under rated more times than not.

 

[trick9]

Barry Trotz took control of a team that missed the Playoffs in 2014 and turned them into a team that won 2 Presidents trophies and 1 Stanley Cup in 4 years, and had another 100+ point finish. Coaching is obviously is not the only thing that matters but it can have a huge impact.

 

[ijuka]

The impact of coaching is understated, not overstated.

 

[Midnight Judges]

My personal thought is that we too often give players a pass and that coaches impact on the results are overstated.

No doubt we do that a lot and the #1 example is "What if the powerplay was good, then McDavid's points would be way higher!"

It's as if people think McDavid's contribution to the PP was a non-factor - like he couldn't possibly improve in this area.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Barry Trotz took control of a team that missed the Playoffs in 2014 and turned them into a team that won 2 Presidents trophies and 1 Stanley Cup in 4 years, and had another 100+ point finish. Coaching is obviously is not the only thing that matters but it can have a huge impact.

Agree with that too.

Of course the flip side is Bruce Boudreau can be amazing in the regular season and then poop his pants every playoffs.

It is what he does. If I were the GM I'd fire him every March and try to bring him back in October.

 

[Bank Shot]

Paul Maclean. Wins Jack Adams in 12/13. Team misses playoffs the following year.
Patrick Roy. Wins Jack Adams in 13/14. Team misses playoffs the following year.
Bob Hartley. Wins Jack Adams in 14/15. Team misses playoffs the following year.

I think blind luck has as big an impact as coaching does at times.

I think there are definitely a cut above and a notch below, but most NHL coaches are pretty even across the board.

It's hard to gauge just how big an impact they can have. I would maybe gauge their contribution around 10% or so. I think roster is about 75% of success.

 

[Bank Shot]

Agree with that too.

Of course the flip side is Bruce Boudreau can be amazing in the regular season and then poop his pants every playoffs.

It is what he does. If I were the GM I'd fire him every March and try to bring him back in October.

Yeah that's what they said about Barry Trotz too.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Yeah that's what they said about Barry Trotz too.

It might still be true. It's not entirely clear how much of the scheming was done by Trotz during their cup run. Some Caps fans think Todd Reirden was given more control - which is why the Caps didn't make much of an effort to retain Trotz.

 

[Bank Shot]

It might still be true. It's not entirely clear how much of the scheming was done by Trotz during their cup run. Some Caps fans think Todd Reirden was given more control - which is why the Caps didn't make much of an effort to retain Trotz.

Or it just shows that coaches don't make all that huge of an impact compared to the players.

Trotz didn't force guys like Eller and Smith-Pelley, and Wilson to provide major secondary scoring, which was the difference between Stanley Cup Caps and second round and out Caps.

 

[wintersej]

If you go to the boards of all the teams that are not playing well or up to expectations, there is one constant. Every single one is inundated with posts about how stupid the coach is, and how they are ready for a change.

My personal thought is that we too often give players a pass and that coaches impact on the results are overstated.

There are a few examples where an extremely different result happened due to a coaching change, and there is definitely something to be said about a fresh outlook and game plan, but often it’s the players who need to shoulder more of the blame.

The Bruins changing their system under Julien to being more aggressive under Cassidy certainly has made a big difference.

Of course, adding McAvoy in that time period helped, too.

 

[Critical13]

The Bruins changing their system under Julien to being more aggressive under Cassidy certainly has made a big difference.

Of course, adding McAvoy in that time period helped, too.

McAvoy, emergence of Pastrnak, Debrusk, additions of Heinen and Donato and the emergence of Grec are all perssonel changes which I think had a bigger impact. I don’t think a Julien coached Bruins with the same roster is a whole lot different than the current on ice product.

 

[Critical13]

Barry Trotz took control of a team that missed the Playoffs in 2014 and turned them into a team that won 2 Presidents trophies and 1 Stanley Cup in 4 years, and had another 100+ point finish. Coaching is obviously is not the only thing that matters but it can have a huge impact.

How much of that can be attributed to Trotz, though?

The emergence of Kuznetsov and the additions of Wilson, Oshie and the development of Carlson had a huge impact. Are we certain that a “lesser” coach wouldn’t have had the same success?

I still think perssonel played a big role in that case. I think Washington is just as likely to repeat without Trotz.

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

Ask the 2011–12 Kings and 2015–16 Penguins how overstated the impact of their mid-season coaching changes were.

 

[Munch89]

As many have said, I think coaching is very important. They get lambasted too often for making decisions that the fanbases don't agree with, but o veralltheir decisions have a major impact on the way a team plays.

Team defense and special teams in particular are heavily influenced by the coaches preferred system and many games are won or lost due to those categories.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

Barry Trotz took control of a team that missed the Playoffs in 2014 and turned them into a team that won 2 Presidents trophies and 1 Stanley Cup in 4 years, and had another 100+ point finish. Coaching is obviously is not the only thing that matters but it can have a huge impact.

The system that Trotz brought with him is the reason why the Caps turned into a defensive juggernaut. However, let's not forget the infusion of talent that Trotz was the beneficiary of: Niskanen was added in free agency, Brouwer turned into Oshie and most importantly, Kuznetsov broke out into a 1C.

I'm no Caps fan, but I have little doubt that they would have been very successful under a different coach and system with that overall talent level.

 

[oobga]

I like to think of coaching influence in terms of a 100 point scale. You have your baseline from the quality of your players, and then adjust what a coach influence can do. I think a coach can influence a team in a range of -50 to +10. So, if your team has a player quality of 80/100. If you get the best coach, he's taking you up to 90 by making the best use of all he has. If you have an idiot coach, he can drag that group down to 30 with horrible systems and poor leadership. If your team just has a 50/100 in terms of player quality, even a great coach is only taking that group to 60/100, you can only do so much with a poor lineup. Can't expect miracles if the horses are just not there. Give an Eakins a 50/100 team though, and he can set new futility records dragging that sucker down to 0.