Coaching Perspectives

Coaching isn’t easy. It may look easy. Parts of the job of coaching are easy, but in reality coaching is very difficult. In my mind coaching boils down to two mantras that have been espoused by famous coaches.

The first attributed to Scotty Bowman is the belief that coaching is simply, “ the ability to have the right players on the ice at the right time.” Sounds easy doesn’t it. I mean in reality how hard it could it be? It is in fact extremely difficult. As a coach your success night in night out is hinged on your ability to be objective. Think about it you need to be objective game by game to effectively place the right people in the right situations.

However, hockey coaches rely to heavily on hunches or veteran status (and sometimes this is important). My colleague is absolutely correct, hockey needs better stats. However, stats are useless unless they are used proactively in game situations. And in my experience hockey coaches don’t do this. Or if they do they don’t do it well because it isn’t part of how they view the game. They feel they are throwing their impact on the game out the door because they are adhering to statistics outputs, not pure ‘knowledge’.

The second witticism by a coach, who I can’t remember, said “coaching is the art of treating everybody different and exactly the same, all at the same time.” Truer words about coaching have never been spoken. Athletes are a different bunch. 20 of them in a locker room is challenge.

Where coaches need to continue to explore the world of working with athletes is in the realm of the off-ice. When coaches watch their athletes walk out of the door after practice, in many ways they feel their responsibility ends. Far from it. In my experiences those coaches who went the extra mile to learn more about their athletes, understand their development objectives both at and away from the rink earned a greater degree of respect from their athletes. Coaches who were able to do this without appearing ‘buddy-buddy’ or as trying to ‘kiss ass’, were extremely successful.

I believe this was the case because the athletes felt that the coach was trying to understand where the athletes were coming from. Athletes were more willing to go the extra mile for the coach who appeared to care and understand their perspective of the demands he was making of this athletes.

This is why coaches need to understand the holistic aspect of working with athletes. The investment it takes to try to view and work with your athletes as multi-dimensional beings will pay significant dividends for you (as the coach), the athlete and by extension, your team as a whole.

Money Puck – Measuring the right things in hockey statistics

The book “Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game” by Michael Lewis (Click here to go to amazon for the book) describes how Oakland A’s GM and former major league ball player Billy Beane devised a successful strategy for competing as a small market team in MLB. One of the most interesting aspects of the book is the idea that even in a statistics obsessed sport like baseball, major league teams and their scouts and general managers use the wrong statistics to measure player worth. For example, he claims that an at bat appearance where you make the starting pitcher throw a lot of pitches is important as getting to a middle reliever in baseball greatly improves your odds of winning.

If I was a GM for a NHL team, I would follow the advice of Moneyball and have my scouts and player development folks also re-examine the statistics we use to evaluate and develop talent. A quick one – anyone who knows the game appreciates the value to a team of a defenseman who can make a good first pass out of his own end of the rink. Can you name the best guy in the NHL who does it? We probably could quickly on this blog come to consensus on the top guys but none of us would have the stats to support our guy.

Now imagine if I asked you to name the guys in the CHL or NCAA who have the best percentage of first passes in their own zone. Or how about point shots that make it to the net? Or how about hits that result in turnovers in the neutral zone. Or how about plus/minus when my checking line is out against the other teams scoring line? Or how about the percent of my PIMS taken 180 feet from my net? Or how about passes that resulted in scoring chances. This last one is a real hot button for me as I think we overlook talented players who are great at setting up guys but play on a line with guys with bricks for hands.

In any event, I could go on and on about the statistics that I think we need to measure that would change how we look at evaluating talented players. What do you think we should be measuring?

Specialization in Hockey – the next steps

The most successful league in team sports history is the NFL. The reasons are many but I want to point out just one – the ability to select, develop and utilize players in a very specialized way. Whether its outside linebackers versus long snapper for punts, or situational specific such as third and long versus goal line stand, the NFL uses its talent and hence develops it for specific functions.

Hockey can do the same. We have moved past just looking at the game as comprised of forwards, defencemen, and goalies to the recognition of power play, penalty killing, checking line, energy line, etc. assignments. The game needs to take the next step and begin drafting and developing talent based on those assignments. For example, why try to take the leading scorer in the Ontario League and convert him into a checking center on the third line? Wouldn’t it make more sense to draft the best checking center in the OHL to fill your need for that function? And, once you draft that checking center, establish a development system that enables him to learn and practice the skills that a checking center must perform. His ticket to the show isn’t going to be on points but rather on how well he shuts down the opponents and that is probably a function of both his skills in things like back-checking as well as his attitude such as a commitment to defense.

Specialization also needs to be added for other dimensions of the game. For example, why don’t teams have a scoring coach? Last time I checked, you win by scoring more goals than the other guy yet I don’t know of a single team that has an assistant coach for scoring. The current system of having a coach for forwards, one for defensemen and at most a part-time coach for goalies ignores many realities of the game. Using the NFL as a model, hockey would also have coaches for scoring, checking, passing, penalty killing, power play, etc. For example, the scoring coach would emphasize skills like a shooting accuracy, quick release, etc. as well as providing players with the options they need and the ability to recognize which option will likely work in specific situations.

Specialization in life and sport is a reality. The only question is when will a team realize that investing in this non-capped expense might provide them with the edge they need to win!