Would an extra year from Cherry have helped the Bruins in 1980?

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

So the story as we all know it has Don Cherry taking over the head coaching position with the Boston Bruins for the start of the 1974-75 season and coaching them until the end of the 1979 playoffs when the infamous game 7 loss in Montreal happened. During this period the Bruins were one of the better teams in the league, posting regular season numbers that would have made them absolute locks to win the cup in the current era, but by the standards of the late 70s, they were probably somewhere between good and great; much better than the rest of the pack in the NHL, on par with teams like the Sabres, Flyers and growing Islanders, and a definite cut below the Canadiens, who were ahead of the rest of the NHL to a degree never seen before or since.

In simplest terms, I think you could summarize what happened in 1979 as a very good team (the Bruins) facing an even better team (the Canadiens) that played a bit below what it was capable of. That combined with a hot goaltender for Boston put the teams on roughly even footing up to game 7 where Cherry made a fatal mistake while protecting the lead. While Id argue that blame for the too many men penalty should end up on Cherry, its a pretty forgivable mistake given that it was caused by using a shadow (Marcotte IIRC?) on Lafleur, who jumped back onto the ice when Lafleur came back to the bench and Bowman sent him right back out on the next shift (Lafleur was apparently a physical freak in terms of fitness as shown by heart rate tests and similar things, so Bowman sometimes double and triple shifted Lafleur when he wanted an advantage. Not many players in the world are able to do that)

In the offseason Cherry was fired pretty quickly by Sinden, who apparently didnt really like Grapes, and vice versa. Sinden goes and hires Fred Creighton from the Flames for 79-80. As far as I can tell, Creighton does a reasonably good job, but Sinden takes some sort of issue with him, fires him just before the playoffs and steps in himself to coach the Bruins into the 80 playoffs.

In the 80 playoffs the Bruins have a bit of a hiccup against the Pens in the preliminary round but manage to right the ship and move on to face the Islanders. And this is where it gets interesting.

According to the Islanders players, the New York-Boston series in 1980 was pivotal from a team standpoint, as the narrative (as they tell it anyways) had their players stepping up physically and fighting the Bruins. Im not sure Ive ever heard the Bruins side of the story, but given that the Isles won, the implication was that the Bruins were beaten at their own game, outfought, outhit, outgrit, etc.

One thing Ive never heard discussed before is whether Cherry being kept on for the 1980 season with the Bruins changes anything and maybe gets his team to the finals in the Islanders place. If the Bruins win that series, their path to the finals would have been Buffalo -> Philly, both of which are very winnable matchups, although the Bruins odds against the Flyers might have been a bit dicey given how well the Flyers had played that year. What do you think, does one more year of Cherry behind the bench (coaching his team that had been pretty much built the way he wanted it), get the Bruins over the hurdle and to the Cup?

Click to read more...

 

[Merya]

No. Don Cherry was never a good coach. His teamsuccess is entirely despite him. At best Cherry could've been a good tournament coach. He's always been almost as screwloose as Raimo Summanen. It's kinda sad, that because of his some kind of iconic presence noone has the courage in Canada to say how crap he was, and still is.
e: He had Gretzky or Oates like talent in his hands and totally screwed it up.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

Thats a fair enough opinion Merya, Ive always suspected Don Cherry gets overrated as a coach about as much as anyone would be if they got to rant their opinions on national TV to the nation on a weekly basis with no serious cross-examination. At the same time though, I find it hard to believe that Cherry wasnt at least average for an NHL coach at the time. The way I see it:

-He was at least seen as competent enough by his peers to be named as an assistant coach at the 76 Canada Cup & head coach for a WC.
-Comparing WOWY stats for his teams before and after his coaching tenures, he doesnt appear to be dragging the team down. In fact you might be able to make a case that he was a slight improvement to the team as the Bruins stayed at roughly the same level of play after he left in spite of adding Ray Bourque to the team, and the Rockies actually improved slightly between 78-79 and 79-80 (although the change was only from very bad to just bad)
-He has reasonable playoff success with 2 finals and another deep run in 79.

Also, when did he ever have Oates/Gretzky like talent...?

 

[kruezer]

I can’t agree with that post Merya. I don’t think Cherry is an all time great coach but he did take a team that lost Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito to the third round or the finals for four straight years. By all means he still had some great players but he was a solid coach.

As for whether he would have made a difference I am not sure, in many ways the bruins were still kinda Cherry’s team in 80, it’s not like the roster was overhauled so I am skepitcal it would have made a huge difference, though I don’t believe Sinden was a good a bench manager as Cherry, so perhaps that could have made a difference.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not at all. Name a team that an extra year of Mike Keenan would have helped?

First time that a bad in game bench decision would have been made the the room would have been lost.

 

[Iron Mike Sharpe]

It's hard for me to imagine an alternate universe scenario in which the Isles don't take it in 1980. I know there were other strong teams who were as highly or more highly touted that year, like the Flyers, Habs & Sabres... but looking back, they really had all the pieces. Bill Torrey had designed a strong team built around Denis Potvin & had one of the best coaches in the league in Al Arbour. Arguably, Potvin & Bryan Trottier were the two best players in the NHL at the time, really just hitting the peak of their abilities, & Mike Bossy was working on rounding out his game while potting 50 goals. The young uns these days who may not remember Potvin, think of an even more skilled, nastier yet more disciplined version of Chris Pronger, or a determined, intimidating alpha dog captain like Mark Messier: I just can't see Potvin letting anybody else win the Cup that year. Isles only lose that year if he doesn't come back from his injury. Potvin must've felt deeply humiliated being bounced in the playoffs the previous year: if he wasn't going to do it in 80, when was it going to happen? I think the Isles had a deeper hunger for it than the other teams, plus most of them were really hitting their primes as players. And as far as toughness & intimidation, along with Potvin, they had Clark Gillies, Bob Nystrom, Billy Smith, Garry Howatt, Gordie Lane, Dave Langevin, Duane Sutter - they weren't going to let teams like the Flyers & Bruins push them around.

I just don't see the Bruins as being strong enough to go the distance in 80 with Cherry. As noted above, I don't think Cherry was that great of a strategist when it came to coaching. And I don't think the Bruins had the talent to take out a team like the Islanders. Rick Middleton was an elite player & they had a rookie Raymond Bourque, but they were an aging team with guys like Jean Ratelle, Gerry Cheevers & the injury plagued Brad Park, Wayne Cashman & Don Marcotte... in total they dressed 9 regulars over 30 that season, easily making them the oldest team in the league. They were strong defensively & played hard but had a lot of injuries. Terry O'Reilly had been Cherry's favorite so he was a first line player for a few years, but he really wasn't an elite guy & was more truly a second line player. Line for line, Islanders edge Bruins at every position.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

First time that a bad in game bench decision would have been made the the room would have been lost.

Can you elaborate on that? Did Cherry have a history of making bench mistakes like the too many men?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Can you elaborate on that? Did Cherry have a history of making bench mistakes like the too many men?

Making mistakes like the too many men precludes being a coach long enough to build a portfolio of comparable mistakes. Counting is a major pre-requisite for the job as is the movement of players on and off the bench.

 

[The Panther]

I think it was an interesting OP, and yes, I have wondered before if Sinden didn't let emotion get the best of him when firing Cherry in '79.

Don Cherry was obviously a "big personality" coach that the media loved, and that never saw a microphone he didn't enjoy talking to. After a few years in a row of "close-but-not-good-enough", I can understand why Sinden would have got fed up with it.

Still... Cherry had a .658 coaching record with Boston over five seasons, and was coming off his fourth consecutive 1st place finish when he was fired. I mean, other than de-throning Montreal, what more could he have done?

I think it's just a situation where three or four years of frustrating losses to Montreal meant the Bruins' brain-trust needed a scapegoat for a franchise catharsis.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I think it was an interesting OP, and yes, I have wondered before if Sinden didn't let emotion get the best of him when firing Cherry in '79.

Don Cherry was obviously a "big personality" coach that the media loved, and that never saw a microphone he didn't enjoy talking to. After a few years in a row of "close-but-not-good-enough", I can understand why Sinden would have got fed up with it.

Still... Cherry had a .658 coaching record with Boston over five seasons, and was coming off his fourth consecutive 1st place finish when he was fired. I mean, other than de-throning Montreal, what more could he have done?

I think it's just a situation where three or four years of frustrating losses to Montreal meant the Bruins' brain-trust needed a scapegoat for a franchise catharsis.

Yet no team other than Colorado hired him where he proceeded to manhandle a player -Mike McEwen and clash with GM Ray Miron.

 

[The Panther]

Yet no team other than Colorado hired him where he proceeded to manhandle a player -Mike McEwen and clash with GM Ray Miron.

You're suggesting he'd be a better coach if multiple teams had hired him in 1979? One isn't enough?

 

[Canadiens1958]

You're suggesting he'd be a better coach if multiple teams had hired him in 1979? One isn't enough?

Stating the simple fact that no one else wanted Don Cherry as head coach other than Colorado.

 

[Tarantula]

Cherry was not the great coach that some bestow upon him, but probably around average or so for the times. I don't see how another year of him on the job would change the Bruins fortunes that year, not against the Isles.

I always thought that the main reason he was not more sought out was due to his bombastic personality. What GM needs that noise, the exception being Colorado as they needed a shot in the arm for publicity and ticket sales.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

Don Cherry was obviously a "big personality" coach that the media loved, and that never saw a microphone he didn't enjoy talking to. After a few years in a row of "close-but-not-good-enough", I can understand why Sinden would have got fed up with it.

Still... Cherry had a .658 coaching record with Boston over five seasons, and was coming off his fourth consecutive 1st place finish when he was fired. I mean, other than de-throning Montreal, what more could he have done?

I think it's just a situation where three or four years of frustrating losses to Montreal meant the Bruins' brain-trust needed a scapegoat for a franchise catharsis.

Cherry was not the great coach that some bestow upon him, but probably around average or so for the times. I don't see how another year of him on the job would change the Bruins fortunes that year, not against the Isles.

I always thought that the main reason he was not more sought out was due to his bombastic personality. What GM needs that noise, the exception being Colorado as they needed a shot in the arm for publicity and ticket sales.

Ya, Cherry in his coaching days kinda reminds me of the end of Brian Burkes time in Toronto. Clearly had some talent for the job description he was supposed to be doing, but he just didnt know when to keep his mouth shut and offer no comment. If hed been willing to smile and offer the appropriate lies to the camera, he probably could have lasted longer as an NHL coach, but that wasnt Grapes.

Case in point on that was the aftermath of the 76 playoffs against the Flyers. The Flyers beat the Bruins in 5 to go to the finals, and after the series ended Don was in the papers going "Oh yeah, we came in expecting lots of fights, but Freddy Shero surprised me and went with a totally different game plan so here we are golfing now". Most coaches would be smart enough not to draw attention to the fact that they just lost a winnable series, but Cherry went and practically pointed out that they lost because he was outcoached...


But anyways, back to the original topic, the key difference I wonder about is whether Don being there makes the team play better out of familiarity than they would have with Sinden. Bearing in mind Sinden had just canned the previous head coach for reasons that are unclear to me, so maybe the GM suddenly showing up behind the bench gave the impression that management was unhappy with the teams results, would have felt like they had the boss breathing down their necks.

Cherry as a coach reminds me of a earlier sort of Bruce Boudreau (who Id compare to Cito Gaston in other sports), a coach with a reputation as relatively light on the details, and wants to play good cop with the players where most coaches play bad cop (or sometimes extreme bad cop) and their assistants play good cop. (ie Cherry helping half of his team hit bonuses one season by juggling ice time so most of his forwards hit 20 goals) At the very least, that would probably make the team a lot looser, more relaxed than usual, but maybe they were starting to tune him out by 79.

The flip side of this is how you beat the Islanders that year, I think the book on that being you defensively lock it down as much as you can like the 78 Leafs and 79 Rangers did. That falls right in line with the Bruins strengths, but I still dont think they had the talent to take that series unless the Islanders made some serious mistakes.

Its possible that the core of the playoff breakdowns for the Isles in 78 & 79 were just that a really great defensive team could smother their scorers and frustrate them, but adding Goring to that forward group added one too many heads to the monster, and nobody could effectively check them after that (if you check Bossys line, the next line burns you, or the next one, and so on)

 

[Killion]

Stating the simple fact that no one else wanted Don Cherry as head coach other than Colorado.

Edit to add; oh geez... upon review... Sorry for the wall of text, long post..... great topic, carried away...

Actually Ballard did in Toronto as is recounted in Cherrys' book & the 2010 TV Mini Series "Keep Your Head Up Kid; The Don Cherry Story". As you may recall Cherry had a handshake deal with Ray Miron in Denver, and before he actually signed the contract an offer came in to his agent Alan Eagleson from Ballard however.... as he'd already agree'd to go to Colorado, given his word, turned down the Leafs offer against Eaglesons advice and to his dismay. 06 Team. Toronto where Cherry was extremely popular. Don's favorite team as a kid & so on.

On the one hand you have to respect his (Cherry's) sense of honor. That he'd given his word, handshake a Mans bond & so on. On the other from a strictly subjective perspective here he had an opportunity to join the team he'd always admired, an organization he wanted to play for as a kid growing up albeit one that by the late 70's & early 80's little resembled that of its's Glory Years of his childhood & young adult years but still. As an old school & fierce Upper Canadian Empire Loyalists, Monarchist & Militarist, an opportunity to fulfill a lifelong dream, ambition. That he turned the offer down speaks to character, of honor, having already given his word to Miron & Colorado.

Its hard to tell what might have happened had he signed with the Leafs, calls for a considerable amount of speculation but I suspect it wouldnt have worked, failure to launch, turn things around, kickstart the franchise, wouldnt have ended well. No one was ever going to eclipse Harold Ballard as the face of the team. He & he alone was to be the biggest star off the ice, not a Manager, not a Coach. Harold's egoism so far off the charts he even had problems with players receiving adulation, love & respect be it from the fans or the media.

What he wanted ultimately were sycophants behind the bench, in the management suite, to do his bidding follow his orders, do what they were told & to like it or shutup. No room for dissent or questioning. Disagreed or failed to comply, he'd make life miserable resulting in resignations or just fire whomever. Harold Ballard was the GM, Harold the Coach, second guessing every move from his Bunker at the Gardens or on the road as he & King Clancy, the rest of his Posse' got up to nonsense across the continent.

Cherry, a Players Coach with a sense of honor, well, I reckon war would've broken out pretty damn quick between he & Ballard which when combined with 2 rather outsized ego's wouldve been epic, hysterical actually, and I'm pretty sure Don Cherry knew it. That it was a recipe' for disaster, just a matter of time before he'd be fired. That there was no going home to Southern Ontario & fulfilling his dream on that front as Ballard had pretty much plucked all the wings off the one time extensive butterfly collection that Conn Smythe, Hap Day, Frank Selke Sr & others had spent decades building from ground zero.

I'm sure Cherry wrestled with his conscience over this offer & situation, dilemma. He could act dishonorably & renege on his agreement however he could & would be forgiven for that, Miron understanding. However compounding matters he would be joining not the honorable organization of his youth & the past, but one that had had all of that sucked out of it by Harold E. Ballard. Loose canon. Incendiary individual. Simply would not work, be tenable. That dream turning into a nightmare rather rapidly. Walking into one actually.

Don Cherry as far as I'm concerned was a good coach, just not "great". No Scotty Bowman. Toe Blake. Art Ross or Lester Patrick. He was outcoached & outclassed during his really rather short tenure with the Bruins despite having the roster that he did have. After Cheevers defection to the WHA, others of course, Sanderson etc, Orr's absence from the lineup for extended periods, playing on one leg & so on, nothing in the wings depth wise, Cherry while earnest & as combative as all get out.... between his limitations as a Coach and the lack of horses just no way they were going to seal the deal, win more Cups. He'd played out his hand. Another year, 2-3, wasnt gonna happen.

Cherry who supposedly a "Closer" couldnt close. Also wasnt much in the way of a Coach with a whole lot of patience in developing players, youth, so on a rebuild thats not the kind of Coach youd want. About the same sort of disposition as a John Brophy & we saw how that worked in Toronto and I dare say Brophy had more patience & a lot more experience behind a bench than did Don Cherry. Cherry only Coached in Rochester for like 2yrs before getting the call from Sinden. He was really just an average Coach. Nothing spectacular. One NHL game played in an 18yr minor pro career for something like 9 different teams. Blue collar which was/is endearing, to be respected but this was no "Genius Strain" here, nor was Sinden for that matter... something I would attribute to Milt Schmidt who was handicapped for much of his career as a Coach/GM, lack of resources, $$$.

I know youve got lots of time for Don Cherry C58. He knows his hockey & players. But I think you'd agree with me that as a Coach he was "average" at best. Not an empty suit by any stretch of the imagination but absolutely at times overarching. Opinionated. Hockey is full of guys like that & I for one think the game far better for it. I have lots of time for guys like Don Cherry. Salt of the earth. If I owned an NHL Franchise however or was a GM would I have hired him as a Coach? No. Sorry.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

Stating the simple fact that no one else wanted Don Cherry as head coach other than Colorado.

Were there vacancies at the time?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Were there vacancies at the time?

Montreal and Buffalo for starters. Always vacancies for a great coachbut as others have stated the qualifier great did not apply to Don Cherry.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Not adjusting for exact timing and other circumstances...the following teams had a different coach at the start of the 1979-80 season than they did at the end of the 1978-79 season (to the best of my ability):

(Boston)
(Colorado)
Atlanta
Chicago
Buffalo
Toronto
Montreal
Quebec

So 7 of 16 that became 8 of 21...


Cherry seems more like a cheerleader to me, from distance, not really a tactician or anything...he seems like a guy that just tries to keep the work moving without getting too in the way...when it comes down to what they should do in a crunch spot, I imagine he hands the board over to an Orr or an Esposito...naturally, they were gone at the end, but my idea remains...

 

[Killion]

Montreal and Buffalo for starters. Always vacancies for a great coachbut as others have stated the qualifier great did not apply to Don Cherry.

Right. And that only Ballard & Toronto came knocking beyond the Rockies who like the Leafs were only calling I believe in large part due to Cherrys' "celebrity status" ... Colorado needed the help of his drawing power & natural PR & promotional gifts in as much as they needed a Coach... while Ballard in Toronto... well, who the Hell knows what he was thinking or that that would ever workout... I guess a few reasons as to why he tabled an offer...

Cherrys' success in Boston, commanded some respect around the NHL as a brook no nonsense tough as nails guy behind the bench & the Leafs were getting pushed around a lot.... certainly hiring him wouldve been popular with the fans... several other reasons.... But that Don didnt actually sit down with Harold and "interview" (at least not to my knowledge), get into the nitty-gritty, I dont think Ballard understood or appreciated what it was he was dealing with and that it wouldnt work. Cherry an Alpha Ego and a Players Coach, wouldnt think twice about complaining to the media of his disagreements with management, ownership, wouldnt be a "yes man", sycophantic. That wouldve gone over with Ballard like a lead balloon. Hired much as he was in Denver in Toronto as a PR move & hired to be fired if Ballard even had a clue which he may well have. So Don there, total setup.

 

[double5son10]

I'd say not having Jean Ratelle for that series had a greater impact than not having Cherry. Cherry couldn't have prevented Ratelle being injured, couldn't have prevented O'Reilly's boneheaded turnover in OT in game 2 nor Cheevers 3rd period meltdown in the decisive gm.5. It was the Isles time.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Right. And that only Ballard & Toronto came knocking beyond the Rockies who like the Leafs were only calling I believe in large part due to Cherrys' "celebrity status" ... Colorado needed the help of his drawing power & natural PR & promotional gifts in as much as they needed a Coach... while Ballard in Toronto... well, who the Hell knows what he was thinking or that that would ever workout... I guess a few reasons as to why he tabled an offer...

Cherrys' success in Boston, commanded some respect around the NHL as a brook no nonsense tough as nails guy behind the bench & the Leafs were getting pushed around a lot.... certainly hiring him wouldve been popular with the fans... several other reasons.... But that Don didnt actually sit down with Harold and "interview" (at least not to my knowledge), get into the nitty-gritty, I dont think Ballard understood or appreciated what it was he was dealing with and that it wouldnt work. Cherry an Alpha Ego and a Players Coach, wouldnt think twice about complaining to the media of his disagreements with management, ownership, wouldnt be a "yes man", sycophantic. That wouldve gone over with Ballard like a lead balloon. Hired much as he was in Denver in Toronto as a PR move & hired to be fired if Ballard even had a clue which he may well have. So Don there, total setup.

Fact remains only Colorado hired him and no one came knocking after Colorado got rid of Don Cherry.

World is full of GMs who would have drafted Larry Robinson 3rd overall after Lafleur and Dionnein 1971 instead of Jocelyn Guevremont. Comic book artists who curse destiny because their creation Caterpillarman was rejected in favour of Spiderman or those who misnamed their American Hero G.I Alfred E. instead of Joe.

 

[Killion]

Fact remains only Colorado hired him and no one came knocking after Colorado got rid of Don Cherry.

World is full of GMs who would have drafted Larry Robinson 3rd overall after Lafleur and Dionnein 1971 instead of Jocelyn Guevremont. Comic book artists who curse destiny because their creation Caterpillarman was rejected in favour of Spiderman or those who misnamed their American Hero G.I Alfred E. instead of Joe.

.... pretty much, ya.... and of course Don himself very much a sort of cartoon character, parody or personification of the very sorts of stereotypes he'd espouse himself. Some good, some bad, some ugly.... probably have a hit on your hands in the collectibles market with a "dress-up" Don Cherry Doll like Barbies Ken, GI Joe, Johnny West or whomever... collectible wardrobes... some people, I mean grown men, adults... actually making outfits for their GI Joes & so on.

Selling, trading these little outfits theyve made themselves from scratch & by hand, entering shows & so on. Unreal. Who knew? Be ideal for Cherry combining cartoonism, self parody with hockey & fashion.... little late now though... shoulda thought of that 30yrs ago. Talkin millions C58... just in patterns & fabric swatches for the mini sportcoats alone.... identical to the ones he wears of course.... Rochester Americans gear included... Jacques Cousteau scuba suit or was it Saran Wrap that he wore up in the attic that one summer in 120 degree heat getting back into shape for his comeback as a player.... oh, the joy... fun you could have with that.

 

[Tarantula]

Not too mention his side show OHL career at the Mississauga Hershey Centre.
BTW, the crane is coming soon, maybe even winding its way down Matheson Blvd now, with the intent to take down the bright red hershey signs perched upon the roof. Another large truck has the new sign to be placed in liu, courtesy of Paramount, Middle Eastern Cuisine.

Cherry was probably better then I remember him, in part of the somewhat cartoon of himself he has become now at times.

 

[Merya]

Matti Hagman is the player I was refering to. Shame on you for not getting it. :/

 

[kruezer]

Not adjusting for exact timing and other circumstances...the following teams had a different coach at the start of the 1979-80 season than they did at the end of the 1978-79 season (to the best of my ability):

(Boston)
(Colorado)
Atlanta
Chicago
Buffalo
Toronto
Montreal
Quebec

So 7 of 16 that became 8 of 21...


Cherry seems more like a cheerleader to me, from distance, not really a tactician or anything...he seems like a guy that just tries to keep the work moving without getting too in the way...when it comes down to what they should do in a crunch spot, I imagine he hands the board over to an Orr or an Esposito...naturally, they were gone at the end, but my idea remains...

I feel like because of Cherry's love for Orr people forget that he coached the Bruins for 5 years and had Orr and Espo for 1 full season and about 15 games the next. If any players should be associated with Cherry's tenure it should be Ratelle & Park. Great players themselves but still, he didn't get his career zoomed by coaching Orr the whole time.

I think there are a lot of issues keeping us from having a rational discussion about Cherry. I personally don't care for the guy but he is at worst an average coach. Saying he can't count 'cause of a famous too many men on the ice call (not that you said that Mark) is clearly bias talking or every other coach ever would fail by this pre-requisite. We also know he did get work again and potentially could have had the Toronto job. The Montreal job was basically a no-go as well realistically so saying he really his options were Colorado, Atlanta, Chicago, Buffalo, Toronto and Quebec and it had interest from at least 2 outta 6. Then after he left Colorado he went straight into the media (and I mean straight, he didn't hang around long at all, he was immediately part time for the playoffs in 1980 and was full time in 1981). I don't see his future lack of coaching as hugely related to his coaching abilities.

I think really we are left with this, he had likely the second best team of the era (with arguments from others of course) and they were the second most successful team of their era (behind a team many argue was the best of all time). That is basically the definition of average.