Does a coach make THAT much difference?

[Buzzbee]

Since Bob Hartley took over the reins, the Atlanta Thrashers (17-26-3/ 41 Pts.) are 5-1-1.

NY Rangers ( 21-26-6/ Pts.) W 4-1
Ottawa Senators (32-12-6/ 71 Pts.) T = 3-3
St. Louis Blues (27-15-6/ 64 Pts.) W 8-4
NY Islanders (23-20-5/53 Pts.) L= 1-4
Boston Bruins (26-18-5/ 58Pts.) W = 3-1
Montreal Canadiens (21-19-7/ 54 Pts.) W = 1-0

The Thrashers are climbing out of the cellar (Buffalo - 40 Pts.) I'm not a huge hockey fan so I'm curious how much a coach impacts the game. I'm thinking that there are probably several factors, but wanted some feedback from some more familiar with the game than I am.

My thoughts:

1) Having a Stanley Cup winning coach will certainly boost confidence and probably lead to more inspired play, at least short term.

2) Change will do you good. The simple change of coaches probably brought a breath of fresh air to the team.

3) The Thrashers have talent and were underperforming anyway.

4) It isn't like they hit a soft spot in the schedule and started beating weaker teams. They tied Ottawa (which beat them 8-1 not too long ago) and trounced the Blues.

So, DOES a coach in the NHL make that much difference? And what about other sports? Football, defintely. Baseball? Basketball? How much impact do coaches have?

[Bonegavel]

Being that I'm in the middle of a Requirements Doc for my own football sim, this question is forefront in my mind. I think this is an improtant aspect for any sport.

Obviously, we can't replay real life seasons to see if a different coach would have had similar results, and injuries can make even the best team fall far short of their potential. Take the Bucs this year. Would this have been Tony D's outcome? When Jordan and company ruled the basketball world back in the 90's, could they have had Curious George as a coach and still dominated?

I have mulled this around in my head and have come to one conclusion: 95% of the time, the coach is the difference. I say 95%, because there has to be a chance that a team has such players that the coach is irrelevant, but, for the most part, a coach is the glue that binds a team together, recruits talent to fit his scheme and teaches the players to be better.

One coach that comes to mind, for me, is Bill Parcels. He has consistently proved that when he comes onboard, the team gets better. I won't go into his stats, as this has been covered elsewhere, but his track record is there. Andy Reid came into Philadelphia and, with mediocre talent, has put together a team that has competed (albeit lost) in 2 consecutive NFC championship titles in his short stay. And, the Eagles are favored by many to go all the way next year.

On the other side of the spectrum, look at Buddy Ryan (another Eagle reference). He is arguably one of the greatest defensive coaches ever. When he took over the Eagles, they dominated on defense. But, they lacked offense, or, better yet, an offensive coach. Same thing can be said for Dallas' Campo. Good defense, crappy offense. And who can forget Jimmy Johnson at Dallas; 1-15 to back-to-back superbowl champs. Marty Schottenheimer may not be well liked, but he obviously knows how to bring together a good team.

This can be argued either way, but this is my opinion. I think the coach should be a huge part of any equation regarding team performance, especially when thinking in terms of a text sim.

[rkmsuf]

In the NHL coaching doesn't mean a whole lot. You'll see teams win a few in a row after a change and then revert back to what they are.

Football is huge since schemes, gameplans and many times emotion play a large part in determining the winner.

[Bonegavel]

i will admit that i don't know a whole lot about the NHL (i've seen a few games in person and enjoyed it), so this very well may be the case.

This is a very interesting topic and I hope more people chime in with their POVs.

[bbor]

I strongly beleive that coach does matter for some players....Some players can motivate themselves...some players need motivation...some players just need to be left alone.

A coach does matter as long as he knows which players fit in which catagory.Scotty Bowman would be an excellentr example...every team he coached had a different make-up and he adjusted to each teams individual identity.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by rkmsuf
In the NHL coaching doesn't mean a whole lot. You'll see teams win a few in a row after a change and then revert back to what they are.

Football is huge since schemes, gameplans and many times emotion play a large part in determining the winner.

I agree on both fronts. It's often the case in the NHL that players tune out a coach, get in a rut, a new coach is hired, the players respond positively and then slip into a new, or the old, rut. Also, I think that in football, more than all other sports, coaching is the most important and demanding. I do.

That being said, coaching does mean something in the NHL. You can't tell me there is no difference between Scotty Bowman and Craig Hartsburg. You just can't. Coaches can make a huge impact on a team and how they play (see: Ken Hitchcock, any of the Sutters, etc.).

[Marmel]

This is just personal opinion, of course, but I see a coach giving a team that something extra (or something less, on the other end of the spectrum).

To use the most obvious example, Tampa was a very good team for the last few years, and Gruden gave them that extra edge to win it all.

Another great example is Phil Jackson and the Lakers.

Another example, is the Rams. When Martz took over, they still won a lot of games, but could not win the championship, despite being favored for 3 years...I think he brought them down just a notch.

As for guys like Parcells, he takes a team with NFL players (who are in the NFL for a reason), and turns the Jets and Patriots into winning teams.....he doesn't stay long enough to turn them into champs anymore, but it would have been interesting to see what he did with the Jets for another couple of seasons.

I am not sure a coach can take a losing team and turn them into a champion overnight, but I think if you take the same exact team, a coach, by himself, is good for 2-4 wins or 2-4 losses, which turns a 6-10 team into a playoff team, but turns a 10-6 team into a potential champion.

There are so many other factors involved though, either way, this is just my opinion.

[rkmsuf]

I guess I don't know the finer points of hockey but it seems like they are constantly changing coaches.

I think a great example in basketball is Jim O'Brien. Once he took over for Pitino it was and continues to be stunning how hard the Celtics play and the passion they put into being a winner. Part of it is Pierce and Walker but a large part is O'Brien.

[Daimyo]

I think a coach can definately have a negative effect on the team (Pitinio comes to mind), but I really think talent is king.

Jackson gets credit for taking the Lakers from also-rans to three time champs, but it also coincided with Kobe developing from a 6th man with unlimited potential to one of the most complete players in basketball. Parcels took New England from worst to the Superbowl, but that also coincided with acquiring Bledsoe, Curtis Martin and Terry Glenn I believe.

Gruden might have given the Bucs a little push, but Dungy built that team and might have done just as well with all the offensive additions the Bucs had and a renewed Brad Johnson. (of course maybe Johnson played so much better because of coaching?)

[bbor]

Originally posted by rkmsuf
I guess I don't know the finer points of hockey but it seems like they are constantly changing coaches.

The saying is in hockey....2 year act 5 year contract....Several hockey coaches have such a styl;e that the team tunes them out after 2 or 3 years.IE:Keenan...Burns....Hitchcock..the styles these guys use are more of a shock value than anything else...eventually this shock value runs thin.

[Buzzbee]

It seems that pretty much everyone agrees that in football, a coach can make a huge difference. The coach is the tactician/motivator/disciplinarian/teacher.

I'm not so sure I agree that the coach makes a difference in basketball. As a motivator/babysitter perhaps, but all I see an NBA coach do is call timeouts when the game is getting out of hand, fuss at referees, and draw up the play at the end of the game for the game winning shot. Yeah, Phil Jackson has a tremendous record, but if you had Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, Shaq, and Kobe on the teams you coached, you'd probably have a pretty good record too. I think the biggest thing that Phil Jackson brings to the table is his ability to manage personalities. Getting ANYONE to get along with Rodman is quite an accomplisment. Shaq and Kobe's egos caused some friction, but Jackson was able to manage it rather than let it blow up.

Baseball is also a sport where I think the manager makes a difference, but only on a small scale. For one particular game the manager can make an impact (when to pull a pitcher, hit and run or not, positioning of players in the field) but over the course of the season, I think it is largely out of his hands.