Does Coaching Win (Hockey) Championships?

This entry comes about from an article sent me by a really great Twitter friend.  In my estimation, the guy is a real “thinker”, which means nearly everything he sends my way causes me to think (sometimes ’til my brain hurts).

The real article was titled “Does Coaching Win Championships?”, which dealt mainly with pro level sports, and then ultimately with it’s featured team and coach in college lacrosse.  I’ve changed the subject heading here, because I’d like to share some thoughts as this all relates to hockey, and especially as I believe it applies to youth hockey.

PS:  Unfortunately, that article is now behind a pay-wall. However, if you subscribe — or wish to subscribe — to The New York Times, here’s one of the most thought-provoking pieces I’ve read in a long, long time…  Does Coaching Win Championships? By Dean Robinson

Dean Robinson begins his article suggesting that pro athletes tend to have more influence on a game’s outcome than the coach (think Dirk Nowitzki and LeBron James here, maybe a Michael Jordan in years past, the stars who comprised the 1927 New York Yankees, the Islanders and Oilers during different parts of the ’80′s).  This isn’t to say that coaches don’t influence outcomes.  But, as Robinson suggests, their contributions aren’t measurable — or there aren’t any stats we can go to for comparisons.  True enough?  I’d say so.

That established, I’d like to look at amateur hockey.  And, no, there isn’t any way to really measure a given coach’s impact on game results.  Sure, we all have our won/loss records, but it’s more than likely those numbers are hugely impacted by the players we had available for any given game or season.

Okay, so let’s take a look at a graph I’ve had in my head for a lot of years…

In other words, I’m strongly suggesting that the coach of a Mite team has far greater influence over his or her team’s record than the coach of a college team.

Oh, before you think I’m suggesting that most Division I college hockey coaches aren’t among the cream of the crop, I want you to know that that’s not what I’m saying at all.  However, I’ll bet most guys at that level will admit that recruiting has the greatest impact on their success.  All the guys and gals at that level know their X’s and O’s, and modern day DI coaches are also pretty adept at handling “people”.  What they need, however, is talent to make their X’s and O’s produce the right results.  And, that level’s most successful coaches have usually been top recruiters.

As an aside here, you might notice that I haven’t drawn any vertical lines to specifically separate the influence coaches hold over Mites, Squirts, Pee Wees, etc.  That’s because I believe there is a gray area from group to group.  Or, said another way, I’m only suggesting that there’s a slight — and hard to specify — difference from level to level.

You might also notice that I haven’t drawn anything as “all or nothing”.  In other words, maybe there will be a few players we can’t dramatically change among the youngest group.  And, for sure, the college level coach will be able to change some of his or her players, if only just a bit.

Now, here’s the premise upon which I base my thinking…

The youngest players are by far the most malleable.  I mean, they are wide-eyed and looking to learn, and their bodies are such that kids in that rough age group can be changed within a matter of weeks, and certainly within a matter of months.  That in mind, a really effective “teaching coach” can work near miracles.  And, I’d say that some of his or her game bench ploys can probably work a whole lot more than they would at higher levels

Sadly to say, humans are less changeable as they mature.  So, while I see this starting to become obvious in older Pee Wees and into Bantams, there’s a good chance that a high school and college coach pretty much gets what he or she gets.  If you get my drift here, I’m suggesting that older teens and players in their young 20′s have come pretty close to the players they’re always going to be.  I’m not saying that they can’t get stronger or better conditioned, for example.  But it is very unlikely that the slow, plodding player is suddenly going to become the top skilled guy on an older team.

Not that any coach at any level should stop trying to improve his or her roster, or individual players.  In fact, that’s where our tinkering with the X’s and O’s and working our players harder at the older levels might help us steal a point or two from teams of better skill.  Returning to my premise, though, all our efforts aren’t likely going to turn a less skilled team into the better skilled one.

Two final points…

Please don’t ever forget what I said in that last paragraph — in that we should never stop trying to help our players improve, and we should never stop trying to gain some sort of advantage over other teams.

What I especially want to emphasize here is the importance of those who oversee development for the youngest teams.  There is no time to relax in that job, because every chance you get with a young group is an opportunity to impact hugely on their future.  And don’t take your role as a “teaching coach” lightly.  Oh, I know there are some folks out there who think, “Ah, my players will get that at the next level.”  Please get that out of your mind, and — while being patient, plan to cram as much as you can into those young brains and little bodies.