Do we overstate the impact of coaching?

[These Are The Days]

Coaching is massive, absolutely massive. We have had two and a half good coaches in Ottawa: Jacques Martin, Paul MacLean and Guy Boucher (.5) and you can see the difference.
At its best, hockey is soccer on ice, with very little room to do anything and positioning and counterattack at their most important. A coach like Trotz, Laviolette, Babcock can just fix so many small issues.
Get a good coach, he'll fix a lot of stuff and make you look better than what you are.

No love for Murray? Like at all? Wow

 

[GOilers88]

Gerard Gallant and the Vegas Golden Knights will tell you all you need to know about the impact good coaching has on a team.

Short answer: It's not overstated.

 

[Dustin]

Not just coaching but a cohesive management group that includes the Team President, GM, Coach, Assistant Coaches, Trainers, Scouts and Analytics staff. Having them all on the same page with the same goals is really the difference in a lot of cases from a playoff team and non playoff team.

In terms of on ice, a great coach can absolutely have an impact on a game result. I certainly think we may give too much credit at times to coaches with elite talent but there have been lots of teams with elite talent that couldn't get it done and some of that blame should definitely be on the coach.

 

[Rich Nixon]

I think the Penguins are the beginning and end of this conversation. Look at their playoff outcomes from 2010 until 2015 under Bylsma and Johnston. Then look at their playoff outcomes since, under Sullivan. Slight roster variations each year, but the same incredible core, very different results.

 

[newfy]

Its a bit overstated and doesnt have the impact that a coach in football would have but I think theres a certain level of coach that can get the job done.

An example of how its overstated. Jeff Blashill is considered one of the worst coaches in the league and people consider Babcock one of the best in the league. In Babcocks last 2 seasons in Detroit he saw them finish with 93 points and 100 points. Blashills first season saw them finish with 93 points. Thats with Datsyuk, Zetterberg and especially Kronwall really slowing down. Kronwall slowing down REALLY hurt the wings D. He still finished pretty close as a first year coach to what many consider the best (or one of) in the league.

Now that the wings are bad Blashill is considered one of the worst and Babcock one of the best although when they had comparable talent they were comparable. I think the best coaches are more products of circumstance than actually making a big difference. Going with the Babcock example, he got to have Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Lidstrom in their relaitive primes for his time coaching there. It would be hard to f*** that up. That allowed him to coach Canada, another gig thats hard to f*** up and he wins and gets viewed as one of the best.

Quennvilles probably the other one that gets considered one of the best. His resume is filled with losers until he got to coach Toews, Kane, Keith and Seabrook.

I bet theres kind of a group of solid NHL level coaches that would all have a similar impact if given similar talent. Theres some guys who are in over their heads though and it is a negative to the team but I really dont think any NHL coaches have the Belichek effect on their teams

 

[Dessert Nights]

So when there will enough parity, will the coaching team be the deciding factor?

 

[bigbuffalo313]

In 2016, under Johnston, Crosby was on pace for about 30 points. Under Sullivan, he was on pace for about 120.

Maybe we overrate decent to good coaches, but we should not underestimate the impact of a bad coach

 

[Mick Riddleton]

As for Julien coaching the current Bruin team same way, lol that is way off. He would have not had Bjork and all the rookies in the lineup, this year or last. He would had made them sign, Stempniak and Winnik and maybe bring up Blidh. He is a play it safe guy, no way they attack or carry the puck this much or force in the neutral zone, he was all trap and back up.

It has been night and day the difference in the teams make up and direction. I for one am so happy to see them actually forcing the play rather then sit back. Anytime a rookie or young guy made a mistake he would bench them in favour of a Chris Kelly type.

They played much better in the 3rd periods last 2 years versus sitting back and trying to protect a lead. Cassidy changed how they practiced, before it was a slower pace. Cassidy wanted a up tempo and it paid off late in games. Coaching was huge, 2 different coaches and 2 different outlooks, it is a big difference.

 

[Bank Shot]

In 2016, under Johnston, Crosby was on pace for about 30 points. Under Sullivan, he was on pace for about 120.

Maybe we overrate decent to good coaches, but we should not underestimate the impact of a bad coach

Crosby's full season under Johnston doesn't look too different from his last two seasons under Sullivan.

 

[oilers4life]

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

i think were always traumatized with how always bad our mangment and coaches are

 

[member 157595]

i think were always traumatized with how always bad our mangment and coaches are

What was most astonishing about Eakins was his unbelievable arrogance. He had proven absolutely nothing at the NHL level prior to his hire so I don't know where the ego came from. I remember being really disappointed that the Leafs lost him at the time.

One of the most spectacular coaching failures I've ever seen. Did an absolutely putrid job and talked down to everyone around him along the way.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

Crosby's full season under Johnston doesn't look too different from his last two seasons under Sullivan.

89 points in 75 games and 89 points in 82 games isn't too different from a pace of 30 points in 82 games?

 

[Bank Shot]

89 points in 75 games and 89 points in 82 games isn't too different from a pace of 30 points in 82 games?

84 in 77 in his only full season under Johnston. Not crazy different.

Certainly not the wide discrepancy that some are trying to sell.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

84 in 77 in his only full season under Johnston. Not crazy different.

Certainly not the wide discrepancy that some are trying to sell.

That doesn't change what happened the next year where he went from terrible to amazing after a fire

 

[oilers4life]

What was most astonishing about Eakins was his unbelievable arrogance. He had proven absolutely nothing at the NHL level prior to his hire so I don't know where the ego came from. I remember being really disappointed that the Leafs lost him at the time.

One of the most spectacular coaching failures I've ever seen. Did an absolutely putrid job and talked down to everyone around him along the way.

best part was we fired ralph kurger over skype for the guy with kruger we gotten better and improved always 1 step forward two steps back for the oilers

 

[Bank Shot]

That doesn't change what happened the next year where he went from terrible to amazing after a fire

Crosby had 10 points in the 10 games before Johnston was fired. Maybe he just had a slump to start the season.

 

[MadLuke]

That a domain were confirmation bias, small sample size, etc... will really alter our result, many team will have a new coach one season, one of them will improve, 3 will not and we will still remember the one that improved and the importance of coaching.

It is apparently quite hard math/stat wise to see an significant coaching impact in basketball (outside Popovich) and hockey team result:

Do NBA Coaches Actually Make an Impact?
Do NBA Coaches Matter?

How Much Difference Do NHL Coaches Make? - NHL Numbers
All told, there were 41 total coaching transitions in the six seasons covered by my analysis. Five teams experienced no coaching turnover in this analysis, while fourteen had two or more coaching changes that met the criteria above.
In aggregate, the change in coaches had no clear impact on teams’ performance.


The Data Science of Firing Your Hockey Coach
Show a significant while not crazy impact on winning rate if you change coach mid season, but previous NHL success and experience has no positive impact on it (even better not to have experience or previously won a cup)

It is a bit hard because you never have the chance to compare the same team coached by different coach and that even thought terrible coaching would probably have terrible result versus good coaching, how many bad coach would you have in the best paid league in the world with only 31 teams.

Has an Habs fan, we had really good season with some of the worst coach ever like Carbonneau, it was not easy to see where Therrien success come from either and Julien had a much worst season.

 

[Critical13]

best part was we fired ralph kurger over skype for the guy with kruger we gotten better and improved always 1 step forward two steps back for the oilers

I think you are being disingenuous. I checked his stats before and after and I don’t see a huge difference in rate. You presented them in a way that was deceiving.

I still haven’t seen a great argument other than the one Pens change and a few other changes that were less dramatic.

I still think that when our teams do bad, far too often we place blame on coaching than on players. Coaching does impact the game but it has become an easy out for struggling teams to vent on.

 

[Critical13]

Gerard Gallant and the Vegas Golden Knights will tell you all you need to know about the impact good coaching has on a team.

Short answer: It's not overstated.

Gallant is a top coach. Far from the norm.

The question is mainly aimed at the majority of the league, no the exceptions on either end.

 

[Bank Shot]

How Much Difference Do NHL Coaches Make? - NHL Numbers
All told, there were 41 total coaching transitions in the six seasons covered by my analysis. Five teams experienced no coaching turnover in this analysis, while fourteen had two or more coaching changes that met the criteria above.
In aggregate, the change in coaches had no clear impact on teams’ performance.


The Data Science of Firing Your Hockey Coach
Show a significant while not crazy impact on winning rate if you change coach mid season, but previous NHL success and experience has no positive impact on it (even better not to have experience or previously won a cup)

This intuitively makes sense when you see coaches take over a bad team, have a good season, win the Coach of the Year award then have the team immediately go back to being bad the next season.

 

[MadLuke]

2013-14	Detroit Red Wings	NHL	Atlantic	82	39	28	0	6	9	93	0.567	222	230	725	22150	Mike Babcock	Lost in round 1
2014-15	Detroit Red Wings	NHL	Atlantic	82	43	25	0	4	10	100	0.610	235	221	0	20027	Mike Babcock	Lost in round 1
2015-16	Detroit Red Wings	NHL	Atlantic	82	41	30	0	6	5	93	0.567	211	224	0	20027	Jeff Blashill	Lost in round 1

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

When the Wings lost Babcock, they won exactly their average number of game of the last 2 year, with olders and less productive Datsyuk/Zetterberg.

A bit similar to loosing Bowman, hard to see a difference:

1999-00	Detroit Red Wings	NHL	Central	82	48	22	10	2	0	108	0.659	278	210	1014	19983	William "Scotty" Bowman	Lost in round 2
2000-01	Detroit Red Wings	NHL	Central	82	49	20	9	4	0	111	0.677	253	202	1082	19995	William "Scotty" Bowman	Lost in round 1
2001-02	Detroit Red Wings	NHL	Central	82	51	17	10	4	0	116	0.707	251	187	1053	20058	William "Scotty" Bowman	Won Championship
2002-03	Detroit Red Wings	NHL	Central	82	48	20	10	4	0	110	0.671	269	203	1214	20058	Dave Lewis	Lost in round 1
2003-04	Detroit Red Wings	NHL	Central	82	48	21	11	2	0	109	0.665	255	189	966	20066	Dave Lewis	Lost in round 2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Evincar]

Coaching is really overrated in hockey. It doesnt have as much of an impact as say the NFL.

Talent is what ultimately matters most, always has.

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

Gerard Gallant and the Vegas Golden Knights will tell you all you need to know about the impact good coaching has on a team.

Short answer: It's not overstated.

At the same time, Gallant doesn't do anything fancy. He just preaches work ethic all the time and lets the players play. Doesn't even bother to match lines that much.

Personally i think the importance of coaching itself is overblown as far as coaches "outcoaching" other coaches and that being the biggest reason why team wins, but the negative impact a coach can have certainly isn't.

When you have a guy behind the bench who is so focused on that one vision he has for his hockey team and wants to see that executed even if it doesn't work then i'd imagine it becomes very frustrating.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Coaches definitely matter. I don't expect a coach to turn water into wine, or to have annual overachieving seasons. But teams can seriously underachieve if the coach doesn't "get" it.

I always laugh when Tampa fans hate on Jon Cooper for example. Here's a guy who brings structure to a team, plays kids when they deserve it, has a clear vision, and IMO it's no coincidence that goalies always overperform for him. Is he the best coach in the world IDK I'm sure he makes idiotic decisions that must drive people nuts but on a macro level he puts a team, half of whose skaters have had their barriers into NHL entry (Johnson, Palat, Point, Gourde, Marchessault, Sergachev - all guys who could easily have been blindly written off as "too young" or "AAAA-talents" by other coaches) and put them into positions to succeed.

 

[sabremike]

Gallant is a top coach. Far from the norm.

The question is mainly aimed at the majority of the league, no the exceptions on either end.

But aren't you saying (if I understand what you just said) that an average coach has no more impact than an average coach? Or are you arguing coaches have no impact? Because if you are a good coach taking over for a bad one definitely has an impact. If you want to see how important coaching can be just watch any Islanders game from last season or the Housley coached Sabres. Coaching matters.