If there were a coaches wing in the HHOF...

[Mayor Bee]

Thinking about the current discussions over Pat Burns, I thought I'd open the floor to see who exactly would go in if the HHOF were to create a coaches wing.

In order to trigger a little bit of discussion, I went ahead and did this. I took all the coaches in NHL history with at least 10 full seasons (there have only been 45) and set up a similar system to Bill James' Fibonacci Win Scores. For those unfamiliar, his method was to basically look a bit past the W-L of baseball pitchers and sort based on dominance rather than raw wins; this allows those who had 300 wins because they played 25 years to be separates from those who had 250 wins but were much more dominant in a shorter career.

His setup was this: [(Wins * win %) + (games over .500)]

(NOTE: I am not claiming credit or ownership of this. I simply set it up and ran the numbers, and I'm fairly certain someone else has done this or a similar enough method.)

My setup for the Fibonacci Coach Score, as I'll refer to it in this post, was as such: [(wins * point %) + (wins over .500)]

Of the 45 who have at least 10 seasons behind the bench (or as a player-coach), here is how they score.

1) Scotty Bowman (1487.8)
2) Al Arbour (645.9)
3) Toe Blake (562.0)
4) Dick Irvin (550.4)
5) Pat Quinn (535.9)
6) Joel Quenneville (523.0)
7) Mike Keenan (511.2)
8) Bryan Murray (503.8)
9) Ken Hitchcock (496.3)
10) Glen Sather (489.2)
11) Jacques Lemaire (470.4)
12) Billy Reay (466.6)
13) Pat Burns (434.9)
14) Jacques Martin (422.9)
15) Fred Shero (403.8)
16) Ron Wilson (391.8)
17) Marc Crawford (390.7)
18) Lindy Ruff (389.7)
19) Terry Murray (338.7)
20) Emile Francis (337.7)
21) Roger Neilson (330.9)
22) Darryl Sutter (314.7)
23) Punch Imlach (280.7)
24) Art Ross (268.5)
25) Brian Sutter (267.0)
26) Barry Trotz (250.1)
27) Jack Adams (234.4)
28) Andy Murray (233.9)
29) Bob Berry (227.5)
30) Bob Pulford (221.7)
31) Lester Patrick (220.6)
32) Paul Maurice (201.6)
33) Hap Day (195.1)
34) John Tortorella (166.5)
35) Michel Bergeron (154.4)
36) Jim Schoenfeld (140.2)
37) Sid Abel (137.1)
38) Jacques Demers (133.5)
39) John Muckler (127.1)
40) Red Kelly (77.3)
41) Eddie Gerard (72.5)
42) Lynn Patrick (45.7)
43) Newsy Lalonde (44.1)
44) Frank Boucher (-5.6)
45) Milt Schmidt (-42.4)

Click to read more...

 

[BigFatCat999]

Here's my question, does the value of having Stanley Cups diminish with the expansion of the league? Look at Barry Trotz, he's 7 wins away from passing Jack Adams in the all time wins catagory which will put him 20th in the league, per Wiki. He's played all of his NHL seasons with the Preds and a large chunk of those games were during the expansion years.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Here's my question, does the value of having Stanley Cups diminish with the expansion of the league? Look at Barry Trotz, he's 7 wins away from passing Jack Adams in the all time wins catagory which will put him 20th in the league, per Wiki. He's played all of his NHL seasons with the Preds and a large chunk of those games were during the expansion years.

I'd like to get more information and more metrics out there to assess coaches more accurately, mostly because I think there's so little heed that's actually paid to coaching in the NHL.

In an ideal world, a coach could be scored according to various things. Let's say it would look something like this, with each set of questions being asked on a season by season basis.

1) Did the team finish .500 or higher?
2) Did the team finish .600 or higher?
3) Did the team finish .700 or higher?
4) Did the team win the regular season title (pre-1967) or regular season conference title (post-1967)?
5) Did the team make it to the Stanley Cup Final?
6) Did the team win the Stanley Cup?

In theory, a "perfect season" would be one in which a score of 6 would be awarded. There's a very small number of 6-point seasons out there; they are:
1938-39 Boston
1971-72 Boston
1988-89 Calgary
2000-01 Colorado
1951-52 Detroit
2001-02 Detroit
2007-08 Detroit
1983-84 Edmonton
1943-44 Montreal
1976-77 Montreal
1977-78 Montreal
1972-73 Montreal
1955-56 Montreal
1981-82 New York Islanders
1974-75 Philadelphia* (three-way tie for regular season)

Obviously, that's a pretty short list that happens to encompass what are generally regarded as the best single-season teams in history. We could do something like this and start to create a greater picture of coaching success.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

I'd like to get more information and more metrics out there to assess coaches more accurately, mostly because I think there's so little heed that's actually paid to coaching in the NHL.

In an ideal world, a coach could be scored according to various things. Let's say it would look something like this, with each set of questions being asked on a season by season basis.

1) Did the team finish .500 or higher?
2) Did the team finish .600 or higher?
3) Did the team finish .700 or higher?
4) Did the team win the regular season title (pre-1967) or regular season conference title (post-1967)?
5) Did the team make it to the Stanley Cup Final?
6) Did the team win the Stanley Cup?

In theory, a "perfect season" would be one in which a score of 6 would be awarded. There's a very small number of 6-point seasons out there; they are:
1938-39 Boston
1971-72 Boston
1988-89 Calgary
2000-01 Colorado
1951-52 Detroit
2001-02 Detroit
2007-08 Detroit
1983-84 Edmonton
1943-44 Montreal
1976-77 Montreal
1977-78 Montreal
1972-73 Montreal
1955-56 Montreal
1981-82 New York Islanders
1974-75 Philadelphia* (three-way tie for regular season)

Obviously, that's a pretty short list that happens to encompass what are generally regarded as the best single-season teams in history. We could do something like this and start to create a greater picture of coaching success.

75-76 Habs?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here's my question, does the value of having Stanley Cups diminish with the expansion of the league? Look at Barry Trotz, he's 7 wins away from passing Jack Adams in the all time wins catagory which will put him 20th in the league, per Wiki. He's played all of his NHL seasons with the Preds and a large chunk of those games were during the expansion years.

Not as much as playing 82 games per year helps modern coaches accumulate more wins.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There's already someone in the process of ranking coaches mathematically.

http://www.insidehockey.com/columns/5716

It takes postseason success into account.

2 problems with this method still remain:

1) A heavy bias towards modern coaches who played in 82 game seasons.

2) Coaches like Tommy Ivan who had spectacular per-season numbers have lower career numbers because they moved up into the GM position. I don't think it makes someone a worse coach to move on to becoming a GM.

To expand upon point 2, Scottie Bowman wouldn't have nearly as many coaching wins if he hadn't been a total failure as a GM.

 

[adsfan]

I am surprised how high Mike Keenan and Barry Trotz are rated (7 and 26 respectively). Keenan dismantled the Blackhawks in his tenure. Trotz has never won a playoff series that I can remember, and I am an Admirals/Preds fan.

Punch, Emile and maybe Billy Reay should be higher. How about Jack Adams in 27th place? Other people have pointed out flaws in this system. They must be correct because there is no way that Trotz is anywhere near as good a coach as the four I named.

The formula needs to correct for the average number of regular season games played. You have an advantage in an 82 versus a 70 game season. If you coached a .500 team, you get credit for 6 more wins in a season, about 12% more. You get another advantage from 3 point games in the recent era boosting your win percentage. You need to subtract some for OT/SO wins which would have been ties in the old days. Adams would probably pass Trotz using the first correction alone.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting Thread

I'd like to get more information and more metrics out there to assess coaches more accurately, mostly because I think there's so little heed that's actually paid to coaching in the NHL.

In an ideal world, a coach could be scored according to various things. Let's say it would look something like this, with each set of questions being asked on a season by season basis.

1) Did the team finish .500 or higher?
2) Did the team finish .600 or higher?
3) Did the team finish .700 or higher?
4) Did the team win the regular season title (pre-1967) or regular season conference title (post-1967)?
5) Did the team make it to the Stanley Cup Final?
6) Did the team win the Stanley Cup?

In theory, a "perfect season" would be one in which a score of 6 would be awarded. There's a very small number of 6-point seasons out there; they are:
1938-39 Boston
1971-72 Boston
1988-89 Calgary
2000-01 Colorado
1951-52 Detroit
2001-02 Detroit
2007-08 Detroit
1983-84 Edmonton
1943-44 Montreal
1976-77 Montreal
1977-78 Montreal
1972-73 Montreal
1955-56 Montreal
1981-82 New York Islanders
1974-75 Philadelphia* (three-way tie for regular season)

Obviously, that's a pretty short list that happens to encompass what are generally regarded as the best single-season teams in history. We could do something like this and start to create a greater picture of coaching success.

Interesting thread. Previously you referred to Bill James:

http://members.cox.net/sroneysabr/JamesIndex/ManagersBook.html

He took an approach by decade. This would have merit in hockey as it would reflect the significant rule changes that occurred most decades.

Baseball is somewhat richer in data and has the advantage of being a static sport where situations repeat - lefty / righty match-ups have not changed for generations, sacrifice bunt,intentional walk, etc. Boxscores allow for a reasonable reconstruction, which is not the case in hockey.

The six criteria listed above are solid but should be augmented by other considerations.

1.) Did the team repeat?Winning once is an achievement but repeating is very difficult.

2.) Length of tenure with a team and performance during the tenure​

Some start strong but lose a team after 2-3 seasons. Others - Lindy Ruff are solid season after season.

3.)Upsets.​

How are upsets viewed? Big difference between being sloppy and making bad decisions that "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" - Tom Johnson 1971, and out coaching the opposition.

4.)Out-Performing.​

Getting a consensus non play-off team into the playoffs deserves greater consideration then coasting to consensus.

Even a few steps discussing some of these points will provide a greater understanding of coaching.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I am surprised how high Mike Keenan and Barry Trotz are rated (7 and 26 respectively). Keenan dismantled the Blackhawks in his tenure. Trotz has never won a playoff series that I can remember, and I am an Admirals/Preds fan.

I'd love to hear your rationale about how Keenan destroyed the Blackhawks.

In Keenan's 4 years as coach of the Hawks they lost in the Western Conf. Finals twice, and lost in teh Stanley Cup Finals another time. That's the best 4 year stretch Chicago has had in decades.

 

[Big Phil]

Well there is kind of a coaches wing in the HHOF. It is the builders wing. But obviously it is not exclusive to just coaching so I guess you could say I have a couple coaches who I think should be in there.

Fred Shero - You may not even like the Flyers, and for that I can appreciate. But the man did transform a style of play that proved to be effective.

Mike Keenan - The game has passed him by no doubt but he's had as good - if not a better - of a coaching resume as Pat Quinn. Iron Mike wasn't always popular with everyone but eventually you have to give credit to a guy who won two Canada Cups (one vs. the '87 Russians), one Stanley Cup, and reached the final three other times each time his team playing either a prime Gretzky or Lemieux.

And on another note..............since I brought up the builders wing, when will Cherry get in there? I am not sure what more the guy has to do for the game to be honest. His face has been a symbol for the NHL and Canadian hockey for 30 years and this doesn't include when he was coaching the Bruins. We all know politics plays a part in the HHOF but honestly, Bill Wirtz and Harold Ballard but not Cherry? Wow.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Don Cherry

Well there is kind of a coaches wing in the HHOF. It is the builders wing. But obviously it is not exclusive to just coaching so I guess you could say I have a couple coaches who I think should be in there.

Fred Shero - You may not even like the Flyers, and for that I can appreciate. But the man did transform a style of play that proved to be effective.

Mike Keenan - The game has passed him by no doubt but he's had as good - if not a better - of a coaching resume as Pat Quinn. Iron Mike wasn't always popular with everyone but eventually you have to give credit to a guy who won two Canada Cups (one vs. the '87 Russians), one Stanley Cup, and reached the final three other times each time his team playing either a prime Gretzky or Lemieux.

And on another note..............since I brought up the builders wing, when will Cherry get in there? I am not sure what more the guy has to do for the game to be honest. His face has been a symbol for the NHL and Canadian hockey for 30 years and this doesn't include when he was coaching the Bruins. We all know politics plays a part in the HHOF but honestly, Bill Wirtz and Harold Ballard but not Cherry? Wow.

Don Cherry is a media personality, qualifications as a builder are rather weak - coaching short career, gm, owner not quite.

Media would seem to be the proper niche.

 

[Big Phil]

Don Cherry is a media personality, qualifications as a builder are rather weak - coaching short career, gm, owner not quite.

Media would seem to be the proper niche.

I was looking for the impact and influence he has had on the game. This is what the HHOF is supposed to be about

 

[Blades of Glory]

Fred Shero. He was a little eccentric, to say the least, but he's one of the best, maybe the best, coach that is not in the HHOF.

 

[adsfan]

I'd love to hear your rationale about how Keenan destroyed the Blackhawks.

In Keenan's 4 years as coach of the Hawks they lost in the Western Conf. Finals twice, and lost in teh Stanley Cup Finals another time. That's the best 4 year stretch Chicago has had in decades.

Keenan is the Billy Martin of hockey. He lifts up a bad team initially with his strong personality and then they crash after 3 or 4 years when they get tired of his act. Example: He called up three minor league LWs at once. The first year Chicago somehow made the playoffs with 66 points and made it to the third round. Two years later they had 106 points and were knocked out in the first round. He chewed through 3 or 4 goalies a season, not including Belfour. At the end he had Belfour and Hasek in goal, I think that helped a little. Darryl Sutter comes in after him and makes the playoffs but can't get out of the first round. Was Sutter a bad coach or did he inherit a sinking ship that Keenan had shot a hole through the bottom?

Since Keenan was so successful in Chicago, why did he leave?

 

[Canadiens Fan]

Since Keenan was so successful in Chicago, why did he leave?

Let's just say that Keenan was eased out of his job in Chicago by the duo of owner Bill Wirtz and jack-of-all trades, master of none Bob Pulford.

After the Hawks successful run to the finals in 1992, a few NHL teams were courting Darryl Sutter, then Chicago's assistant coach, and a former Black Hawks player for potential head coaching jobs. Fearful of losing Sutter, Wirtz and Pulford, gave him the head coaching job, and had Keenan focus exclusively on his G.M. duties. This planted the seed of conflict between Pulford and Keenan which led to Keenan leaving the Hawks at the conclusion on the 1993 season.

Ironically, the following year Keenan went on to win the Cup in his first and only season as the Rangers head coach.

The Blackhawks haven't been back to the finals since.

 

[seventieslord]

Off the top of my head:

Anatoly Tarasov
Scotty Bowman
Toe Blake
Al Arbour
Fred Shero
Lester Patrick
Dick Irvin
Tommy Gorman
Cecil Hart
Arkady Chernyshev
Tommy Ivan
Hap Day
Punch Imlach
Jack Adams
Pat Burns

also, Bun Cook should probably be recognized for his AHL success.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Off the top of my head:

Anatoly Tarasov
Scotty Bowman
Toe Blake
Al Arbour
Fred Shero
Lester Patrick
Dick Irvin
Tommy Gorman
Cecil Hart
Arkady Chernyshev
Tommy Ivan
Hap Day
Punch Imlach
Jack Adams
Pat Burns

also, Bun Cook should probably be recognized for his AHL success.

If you're putting Pat Burns on the list, I think Keenan and Hitchcock should be there as well.

 

[seventieslord]

If you're putting Pat Burns on the list, I think Keenan and Hitchcock should be there as well.

Hitchcock - Maybe.

Keenan - Really?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Off the top of my head:

Anatoly Tarasov
Scotty Bowman
Toe Blake
Al Arbour
Fred Shero
Lester Patrick
Dick Irvin
Tommy Gorman
Cecil Hart
Arkady Chernyshev
Tommy Ivan
Hap Day
Punch Imlach
Jack Adams
Pat Burns

also, Bun Cook should probably be recognized for his AHL success.

Add Bob Johnson (for US Hockey more than the NHL, though he was a great NHL coach).

If we're inducting Soviet coaches, I would also lean towards inducting Jaroslav Pitner of the Czechs.

Would you add Jacques Lemaire? I think he's very overrated as a coach (what did he really do outside of 93-94 and 94-95?), but it's hard to deny that he had a huge impact on the game.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Hitchcock - Maybe.

Keenan - Really?

Keenan vs. Burns

Pat Burns

1 Stanley Cup
1 Lost in Stanley Cup Finals
2 Lost in Conference Finals
4 Lost in the 2nd round
2 Lost in the first round
2 fired in mid-season
1 did not qualify for the playoffs

3 division championships

1 QMJHL Championship
3 Jack Adams Awards

Mike Keenan

1 Stanley Cup
3 Lost in Stanley Cup Finals
2 Lost in Conference Finals
1 Lost in 2nd round
6 lost in the first round
3 fired in mid-season
4 missed playoffs

6 division championships

Two Jr. B. championships
AHL championship
CIAU championship
2 Canada Cup championships
1 Jack Adams

 

[Canadiens1958]

also, Bun Cook should probably be recognized for his AHL success.

Bun Cook is recognized for his AHL success as a coach by the AHL HOF.

http://ahlhalloffame.com/honored-members-p139007

The HHOF recognizes him for his success as a player.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Beyond the Cup Counting

Keenan vs. Burns

Pat Burns

1 Stanley Cup
1 Lost in Stanley Cup Finals
2 Lost in Conference Finals
4 Lost in the 2nd round
2 Lost in the first round
2 fired in mid-season
1 did not qualify for the playoffs

3 division championships

1 QMJHL Championship
3 Jack Adams Awards

Mike Keenan

1 Stanley Cup
3 Lost in Stanley Cup Finals
2 Lost in Conference Finals
1 Lost in 2nd round
6 lost in the first round
3 fired in mid-season
4 missed playoffs

6 division championships

Two Jr. B. championships
AHL championship
CIAU championship
2 Canada Cup championships
1 Jack Adams

Beyond the cup-counting, there are other qualities that should be looked at. Limiting the scope to Burns, Keenan, Lemaire.

1.) Did the coach leave the franchise in better condition than it was when he arrived?

Lemaire, inevitably did. After replacing Bob Berry in Montreal he engineered a turnaround that produced a SC under Jean Perron with Jacques Lemaire in the background. The foundation remained in place for the Burns and Demers tenure. With New Jersey he set the coaching foundation for their first SC and then went to Minnesota where he established a foundation very quickly for an expansion franchise.Returning to NJ he stepped in to continue the heritage.

Mike Keenan. Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, St. Louis, Vancouver, Florida, Calgary all disasters after he left. Early in his career it would be a quick fix but the future of the franchise would be mortaged. Later it became a race to the quick meltdown.

Pat Burns. Basically a one trick pony - disciplinarian. Close to getting fired in Montreal at the 20-25 game mark in Montreal during the 1989-90 season but survived thanks to a veteran team. Made the SC finals but lost. Slowly lost the team. Replaced by Demers who won the SC by stroking the key players. Toronto, Boston, - started well, team needed a disciplinarian, but basically the players tuned him out after about 100 games.Produced upward performance spikes initially but........... Won the SC in NJ with a veteran team.
Other than being a disciplinarian no special contributions. Below average with rookies. Left teams in viable shape.

2.) Could the coach teach hockey?

Jacques Lemaire - most definitely. Seeing the changes with Kovalchuk is the latest testimony. Mike Keenan originally but after the first two seasons in Philly took the veteran approach and did not bother. Pat Burns, somewhat if he had no choice.

 

[seventieslord]

Bun Cook is recognized for his AHL success as a coach by the AHL HOF.

http://ahlhalloffame.com/honored-members-p139007

The HHOF recognizes him for his success as a player.

Yes, but IF there was a coaches' wing specifically regarding accomplishments as a coach, I would consider inducting Bun Cook.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Brian Kilrea

Yes, but IF there was a coaches' wing specifically regarding accomplishments as a coach, I would consider inducting Bun Cook.

Brian Kilrea comes to mind as a HHOF member strictly based on non-NHL coaching merit. Anatoli Tarasov would be a combination international coach/founder. Others - Brooks, Johnson,etc are in based on various coaching experiences.

Not sure where the line should be drawn. Differentiating between NHL and non-NHL coaches. Sense that the Cook and Kilrea situations will not repeat in the foreseeable future.

 

[seventieslord]

Brian Kilrea comes to mind as a HHOF member strictly based on non-NHL coaching merit. Anatoli Tarasov would be a combination international coach/founder. Others - Brooks, Johnson,etc are in based on various coaching experiences.

Not sure where the line should be drawn. Differentiating between NHL and non-NHL coaches. Sense that the Cook and Kilrea situations will not repeat in the foreseeable future.

Johnson I meant to include in my original list.

Brooks and Kilrea were oversights, but I should have mentioned them too.

The line between an AHL or junior star and an NHL star is not the same as the line between an excellent coach at the NHL level and any other level. The coach at the other level could be just as good. The lower-level player rarely is.