I crack a smile every time I see Maurice behind the bench and doing so well. After all he had no idea what he was doing in Toronto....right?

Posted by Laker from kamloops on 05/20/09 at 12:52 AM ET

i havent read your column, and i don’t plan to, but i’m fairly sure i disagree with everything you’ve said

Posted by Pharazon from England on 05/20/09 at 04:20 AM ET

I’m slightly disappointed that your examination of the playoff coaching situation didn’t lend itself to a headline like: “No Elite Coaching Left in the 2009 Playoffs”.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 05/20/09 at 05:56 AM ET

It might have been fun to write that no elite coaching remains in the 2009 playoffs except that I don’t think that the statement is true.

Any meaningful way of analyzing coaching, where one looks at the track record of the coach and the adjustments he has made to teams he has coached (I would argue the method of picking the coach of the most improved team to win the Adams Trophy only sometimes qualifies) is difficult.  It is bound to have less agreement than for goalies.  That said, I think it is quite reasonable to call Mike Babcock and Joel Quenneville reasonable choices as members of the top five coaches in the league (which was the basic definition of what I called an elite goalie).  So we do have elite coaching - or at least guys who are possible to argue are elite.

The question is what is that worth?  Is a team much better with elite coaching than without?  In all but a few cases there is not a big difference in their results.  That makes coaching very much less important than goaltending.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/20/09 at 06:22 AM ET

Well, this post is approximtely as dumb as your one yesterday.

Scotty Bowman
Dave Lewis
Mike Babcock

Which of these is not like the other.  The end.

Posted by Chris Pronger Rosetta Stone from Verizon Center Section 404 on 05/20/09 at 07:45 AM ET

The answer you are looking for is that Dave Lewis didn’t win the Stanley Cup.  Of course that has many reasons, some of which may be merely bad luck.  I think the biggest reason Lewis didn’t win the Stanley Cup as a head coach is that he was unlucky to come after the primes of Yzerman, Shanahan and Fedorov but before the primes of Datsyuk and Zetterberg.  The Detroit offence was at a relatively weak point under Lewis.  His failure to win the the Stanley Cup as head coach was largely for funadmental reasons that had little to do with coaching.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/20/09 at 07:56 AM ET

There is no reason to fire Mike Babcock, given that he is a defending Stanley Cup champion, but there is also no reason to imagine that Detroit wouldn’t be in the semi-finals if he had been replaced by another competent coach.

-sigh-

I give up.  No Mas.  You win.

You’ve finally forced me to stop reading your posts.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 05/20/09 at 08:10 AM ET

I don’t know about Carolina or Chicago, but I’m not even sure Pittsburgh makes the playoffs without replacing Therrien.  While I don’t doubt they have the talent to win the cup, that team was lost and had given up on Therrien when they brought in Bylsma.  I’d say the Penguins made the SCF finals last year despite their coach. 

I know that the Therrien firing coincided with a few guys getting healthy in Pittsburgh, but the guy switched up his lines more often than any sane coach should do and constantly had the right people playing the wrong positions on the power play.  I think he simply lost Malkin, who’s the heart of the Penguins.  Once Malkin stopped believing in him, the rest of the team followed.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 05/20/09 at 08:12 AM ET

The answer you are looking for is that Dave Lewis didn’t win the Stanley Cup.  Of course that has many reasons, some of which may be merely bad luck.  I think the biggest reason Lewis didn’t win the Stanley Cup as a head coach is that he was unlucky to come after the primes of Yzerman, Shanahan and Fedorov but before the primes of Datsyuk and Zetterberg.  The Detroit offence was at a relatively weak point under Lewis.  His failure to win the the Stanley Cup as head coach was largely for funadmental reasons that had little to do with coaching.

no, no, no, no and no…

the 2002/03 team was easily the most talented team the wings have had this decade, and they got swept in the 1st round by anaheim....

lewis was a major major reason

with knowledge like yours you could write for ESPN

Posted by Pharazon from England on 05/20/09 at 08:12 AM ET

So the 2003 team, which was basically the same as 2002 cup team, with the exception of Cujo for Hasek got that much worse in a year?  They went from a Cup to a first round sweep in a year?

Sure, Scotty had nothing to do with their success.

Posted by Chris Pronger Rosetta Stone from Verizon Center Section 404 on 05/20/09 at 08:14 AM ET

I just got emailed a copy of tomorrow’s planned column, “The New York Islanders Are the Best Team in the NHL”

To be quickly followed by, “Why Stan Fischler is always right”

Posted by Chris Pronger Rosetta Stone from Verizon Center Section 404 on 05/20/09 at 08:17 AM ET

I am not arguing that Scotty Bowman had nothing to do with their success.  If you would like to argue against that guy you will have to find him.

The main problem with your argument is that you you are suffering from the post hoc ergo prompter hoc that I reference in the post.  You have convinced yourself that since the Red Wings changed their coach, the differnece in playoff results must be the cause of the coach.  A much more reasonable explanation is that hockey is not a fully predictable game.  The best team doesn’t always win.  This happens for complex and often unrepeatable reasons.  Detroit lost in the first round in 2001, won the Stanley Cup in 2002 and lost in the first round in 2003.  What do I conclude?  Detroit had a team that was good enough to win the Stanley Cup, but not a good enough team to be a dynasty and win it repeatedly.  With a little luck they could win the cup, with bad luck they could lose in the first round.

If you would like to learn about your logical fallacy, here is some information.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/20/09 at 08:33 AM ET

This is the second column of yours I have read. The first was the one where you basically said Osgood sucks because the team you are a fan of is no longer in the playoffs.

This article is pretty much the same in its hard hitting investigative journalism.

It reads like you had nothing really to write about but felt like you had to post SOMETHING.

How come you didn’t address the system a team plays? If a coach comes in and does nothing but stand behind the bench, then of course it doesn’t matter who he is.

But if he comes in an changes the system the team plays, and that ends in success, then the coach makes all the difference in the world.

Take this to heart: Its about Quality, not Quantity, when it comes to chosing topics to write about.

Posted by johnny 2 in kalamazoo on 05/20/09 at 08:38 AM ET

post hoc ergo prompter hoc

Funniest thing ever!

Posted by Navarath on 05/20/09 at 08:40 AM ET

post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. What?

I kid, I kid.

The answer you are looking for is that Dave Lewis didn’t win the Stanley Cup.  Of course that has many reasons, some of which may be merely bad luck.  I think the biggest reason Lewis didn’t win the Stanley Cup as a head coach is that he was unlucky to come after the primes of Yzerman, Shanahan and Fedorov but before the primes of Datsyuk and Zetterberg.  The Detroit offence was at a relatively weak point under Lewis.  His failure to win the the Stanley Cup as head coach was largely for funadmental reasons that had little to do with coaching.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. You are completely wrong. Which is fair—I don’t expect you to have watched 86 Wings games that seasons they got swept by the Ducks. Just like I can’t speak very well on the Rangers/Islanders/Devils—teams I’m assuming you watch a lot of?

Detroit had tons of success under Scotty Bowman—most definitely NOT a player’s coach. Mike Babcock is similar. Certainly, there was a great respect between the veteran players and Bowman during his time with the Wings, but there was never any doubt who the coach was, and who made the decisions. Look no further than the stories Aaron Ward tells about it. Now, I think the Wings have a similar setup—very good veteran core of players, with a coach they respect, even if they don’t always like him.

Dave Lewis’s cross to bear was that he was an assistant coach under Scotty Bowman. Is Dave Lewis a great X’s and O’s coach? Sure. Does he know how to evaluate talent and put it in a position to succeed? Absolutely.

The issue was that all those years under Bowman—a demanding, tough, sometimes mean coach to play for—who do you think was there to balance out Bowman’s hard persona? Dave Lewis and Barry Smith.

So, you transition a guy that had spent years and years working with the likes of Yzerman and Shanny on a more personal, friendly level, to a position that demands a more authoritative attitude, and how are the players going to react? All of a sudden, the guy that for all those years was there to cool you down after Scotty ripped you a new one, is the guy that’s supposed to discipline you? That’s not going to work well, especially not with a team with so many veterans. If the Wings had transitioned to a more youthful team after Bowman left, perhaps Lewis could’ve made the transition. But with all those veteran players that had built a relationship of a certain character with Lewis over a long period of time, I imagine it was tough for them to change their outlook and view him as “the boss,” when his previous role was more of teacher/tutor.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 05/20/09 at 08:42 AM ET

I disagree that bad luck had more to do with Dave Lewis not winning the cup.  We can agree that the Red Wings team he coached had enough talent to win it all, but I believe the reason they didn’t can be primarily attributed to exactly what Nathan said above.  Lewis is a smart and likable man, but he never got full control over the Red Wings and they got surprised that they weren’t able to win the Cup on talent alone.

Also, Lewis got outcoached by a superbly intelligent coach in Anaheim.  His name escapes me at the present, but man was that guy impressive.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 05/20/09 at 08:55 AM ET

That’s an awfully long rationalization to explain something that doesn’t need explanation.

Sure Bowman was a better coach than Lewis.  The Red Wings were a good team.  Good teams do not always win.  In fact the year before their cup win, the Red Wings lost in the first round under Bowman.  A first round loss for the Red Wings is a plasuible result if they are unlucky.  No more explanation needed.

Player’s coaches can win.  Tough coaches can win.  Players coaches who had been the assistant under a tough coach can win (see for example John Muckler winning the cup with the Oilers - and since it is a rare situation for a Stanley Cup calibre team to change coaches who have the apppopriate personalities and one had been a longtime assistant going back about 20 years is quite reasonable).  All of these coaches can lose too.

The idea that the reason Detroit did not win the Stanley Cup is 2003 was largely coaching and you need that long winded an explanation to explain it is much more likely explained as any number of things going wrong for the Wings.  They were unlucky.  They faced a really hot goalie.  The idea you are trying to force it to fit regarding coaching is largely a ratinalization after the fact.  The Wings changed coaches and that in your mind is the big difference between the teams so it must have caused any changes.  Its unnecessary and based in a large part on a logical fallacy.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/20/09 at 08:56 AM ET

Sure Bowman was a better coach than Lewis.  The Red Wings were a good team.  Good teams do not always win.  In fact the year before their cup win, the Red Wings lost in the first round under Bowman.  A first round loss for the Red Wings is a plasuible result if they are unlucky.  No more explanation needed.

that was a team without Hasek, Hull, Robataille and if i remember rightly Yzerman was injured for the majority of that series.

yet again you’re glossing over the facts looking for something to back up your worhtless point of view

Posted by Pharazon from England on 05/20/09 at 09:03 AM ET

Anybody else think it’s time for TPSH to turn off the computer and go outside for a walk (at least, take a break to clear the head)?

Posted by dash_pinched from Rumour Mill Bay on 05/20/09 at 09:13 AM ET

The point is this.  Hockey is a complex game.  It is great that it is.  If we could figure it all out in advance we wouldn’t bother discussing it.  That is why there aren’t any popular tic-tac-toe blogs on the internet.

The biggest thing you have to understand is that shit happens.  You have a game and either team can win.  One team is often more likely to win than they other - but sometimes nevertheless they lose.  We don’t need to waste our time manufacturing excuses for why the favored team lost.  Most of the time we will not be able to find any meaningful reason for it anyway.  That doesn’t stop us from trying.  We just put the result in the least rigorously understood parts of the game.  We dump it into things like coaching (in this case) or character players.  We often come up with long explanations to explain things.  Explanations which are completely at odds with the results seen by similar teams in similar situations - but as long as the explanation is complex enough and the situation is rare enough it is usually unfalsifiable.  It all gets thrown into the bullshit dump.

A large number of coaching changes explained for reasons like this.  A team at a low point fires their coach.  Since they are at a low point they start doing better.  That proves it was a good move to fire the coach.  Whatever change the coach made must have caused the improvement - which was easily predictable before the coaching change.  That same failed fired coach pops up on a different team in a year or two and he makes the magic moves to improve the team from their low point.  It usually doesn’t matter what moves he makes.  It usually doesn’t matter which style he coaches.  Our explanations for it all get piled on the bullshit dump.

Which is not to say one coach cannot be better than another, but most of the coaches in the NHL are competent are roughly interchangeable with one anotehr.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/20/09 at 09:17 AM ET

Scotty Bowman
Dave Lewis
Mike Babcock
Which of these is not like the other.  The end.

This post officially wins the thread.  Thanks for playing TPSH! 

This reminds me of a quote from orator Edward Everett, who gave the keynote address at Gettysburg, spoken to Abe Lincoln following Abe’s famous speech. 
“I should be glad if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes.”

Posted by MarkK from Maryland on 05/20/09 at 09:43 AM ET

i havent read your column, and i don’t plan to, but i’m fairly sure i disagree with everything you’ve said

Posted by Pharazon from England on 05/20/09 at 05:20 AM ET

or

I just got emailed a copy of tomorrow’s planned column, “The New York Islanders Are the Best Team in the NHL”

To be quickly followed by, “Why Stan Fischler is always right”

The 19 at work.  Impressive

Posted by AxeMaster9 on 05/20/09 at 10:07 AM ET

Hockey is a complex game

True.

We don’t need to waste our time manufacturing excuses for why the favored team lost.  Most of the time we will not be able to find any meaningful reason for it anyway.  That doesn’t stop us from trying.  We just put the result in the least rigorously understood parts of the game.

The idea that the reason Detroit did not win the Stanley Cup is 2003 was largely coaching and you need that long winded an explanation to explain it is much more likely explained as any number of things going wrong for the Wings.  They were unlucky.  They faced a really hot goalie.

So instead, we credit it to luck and a hot goaltender, two things that are perfectly understood parts of the game.  Also, much easier to explain than the idea that an incredibly talented team was outcoached and outhustled for four straight games.  Of course, we wouldn’t want to oversimplify such complexities.  It takes complex explanations to give reasons for anything happening in a complex sport.

The comments have gotten off-track while you continue to throw half-excuses for bad examples.  Basically, I disagree with the point that a coaching change has little effect over a team.  I think that line of thinking belittles what coaches do.  I do agree that there’s no way we see 50% coaching turnover in the course of a season, saying that all you need is a competent coach to not screw up a talented team is insulting to many great hockey minds behind the benches.  Changing coaches is a GM’s way of changing goalies, if you will.  It may not be that guy’s fault, but it wakes everybody else up.

Pittsburgh gets bounced by Boston in round 1 under Michel Therrien.  Chicago ends up a lower seed and has to play tougher opponents if Savard is still back there.  Admittedly, I still have no idea about anything relating to Carolina, so I won’t comment on how they would have done without a coaching change.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 05/20/09 at 10:33 AM ET

You’ve never played serious competitive hockey, which is obvious from other posts.  If you had, you know how important a good coach is.

Posted by moore00 from the Ohio State University on 05/20/09 at 11:00 AM ET

And I am a goalie, and with that I know that no matter how good I play, without a team that hustles around me, I can’t win a playoff series.

Posted by moore00 from the Ohio State University on 05/20/09 at 11:01 AM ET

But please, keep these posts coming, it is entertaining for all to see you get ripped to shreds in the comments.

Posted by moore00 from the Ohio State University on 05/20/09 at 11:02 AM ET

Huh? I don’t get it. Slagging the Author yet return to comment and read more?  If you don’t like it don’t read it. Pud the ego aside and ignore the comments and move on.

Posted by Laker from ROCKSTAR on 05/20/09 at 11:02 AM ET

So what is it? My explanation can’t be both too complex/long-winded, and the game of hockey also be a complex game.

If my previous post was too long-winded to be accurate, let me fix that:

Dave Lewis was a player’s coach that spent the better part of the previous 10 years being one of the “good guys” the players could turn to when Bowman was laying into ‘em. When he took over as coach, those same players were unable to find a way to respect him and listen to him the way a head coach must be respected and listened to.

Is that better? Less long-winded?

I’m not arguing coaching is THE reason the Wings lost that series to Anaheim. Simply that it was one of the reasons. There are multiple reasons for that series ending how it did:
- J.S. Giguere was dominant
- The Ducks’ scoring came through in the clutch
- Mike Babcock did a far better job motivating his players than Dave Lewis

Coaching is one of a few prominent reasons the Ducks won that season. I don’t aim to take anything away from the Ducks victory in that series. They were outstanding. A huge part of that was Mike Babcock. Another huge part was J.S. Giguere. Another huge part was timely veteran scoring. On the Wings side, the veteran forwards were unable to bury the puck in those tight, overtime situations. And Dave Lewis was unable to inspire his talent to give 100% effort.

If you want to talk fallacies, your argument is filled with them, just as much as the argument by Faux Rumors. You present the reader with a false dilemma—either coaching is the reason for the final four teams’ success, or it is irrelevant, and they would be here regardless. That’s like saying, “1+1 either equals 3 or 4, pick one.” Clearly, 1+1 is neither 3 nor 4. And clearly, empirical evidence tells us that coaching is far more important than irrelevant, and almost always far less important that the single-most important factor in a team’s success.

Perhaps the most important point to make here is that it’s difficult to construct arguments that are undeniably sound when talking about a sport like hockey. An argument rigidly based in stats with a good sample size—like face-off percentages for the centers that were in the top 10 for number of draws taken—can be sound. But arguments about the psychological, strategical, or tactical impact of a coach cannot be properly measured. So you can’t really rely on the soundness of those arguments. It’s hard enough to construct a truly valid argument about these sorts of continuous, non-discrete, difficult to measure factors.

All you can really go on is empirical evidence about the results of the wins and losses of a team. And that empirical evidence, even if it’s not a valid or sound argument in the true logical sense, tells us that these four teams do succeed—IN PART (not only)—based on their coaching.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 05/20/09 at 11:05 AM ET

The main problem with your argument is that you you are suffering from the post hoc ergo prompter hoc that I reference in the post.  You have convinced yourself that since the Red Wings changed their coach, the differnece in playoff results must be the cause of the coach.

if it’s a logical fallacy to assume that switching coaches is responsible for the change in results, is it not also a logical fallacy to make the opposite assumption that it was not the cause for the change in results?

you like to use a lot of big words and wordy explanations to sound smart - but when one truly digs into what you’re saying, their shovel comes out smelling like horseshit.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/20/09 at 12:27 PM ET

you like to use a lot of big words and wordy explanations to sound smart - but when one truly digs into what you’re saying, their shovel comes out smelling like horseshit.

In consecutive days, he has basically said coaching and goaltending don’t matter in the NHL.

What the hell is next?  I’m actually waiting with baited breath to see if I can actually suffer from retardation by osmosis from his next post.

Posted by Chris Pronger Rosetta Stone from Verizon Center Section 404 on 05/20/09 at 12:41 PM ET

If you would like to learn about your logical fallacy, here is some information.

I forgot to note this earlier, you are a dick.

Posted by Chris Pronger Rosetta Stone from Verizon Center Section 404 on 05/20/09 at 12:44 PM ET

If you would like to learn about your logical fallacy, here is some information.

I forgot to note this earlier, you are a dick.

the best part?  he keeps typing it as “post hoc ergo prompter hoc” yet when you go to the link he posted, it’s actually “post hoc ergo propter hoc.”

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/20/09 at 12:58 PM ET

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc = after this therefore read this on television?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 05/20/09 at 01:02 PM ET

Nathan is the closest to getting the story of a 2003 playoff series right. Anaheim beat Detroit.  The best explanation for it is that JS Giguere was by far the best player in the series.  When the opposing goalie is the best player in a series you rarely win.

Of course there are lesser issues.  Babcock did outcoach Lewis.  He didn’t do it because Lewis was too much of a player’s coach.  He did it because he got the right players on the ice at the right time better than Lewis did.  His job was made much easier because of his goaltending.

The idea that four games are the sample used to show Dave Lewis is not a good coach is problematic by itself.  They clearly weren’t his best showing - but he is a competent coach.

I believe that he could have won a Stanley Cup in Detroit.  The main reason he failed is that he came after Yzerman et al were in decline and before Datsyuk et al were ready to lead the way.  The Detroit offence was at its weakest point in recent memory.  That is his bad luck.

I also think its quite reasonable to assume that Detroit would be in the semis this year with a competent coach replacing Babcock.  The Wings are not such a frail team that any minor tinkering would ruin them.  They have the talent that they would do well with any competent coach.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/20/09 at 01:02 PM ET

Just to add to the fact that this guy is total BS - in 02-03, Detroit lead the league in goals for.  In 03-04, they were second.  Weak offense?  Go *#$%@& yourself.

Posted by moore00 from the Ohio State University on 05/20/09 at 01:13 PM ET

The Wings are not such a frail team that any minor tinkering would ruin them.

First, I wouldn’t call replacing a coach “minor tinkering”.

Secondly, correct, the Wings are not a frail team.  However, much of the credit for their mental toughness should be attributed to Mike Babcock’s coaching.  Perhaps if he was replaced this year after building this team to what they are over the past several seasons, Detroit could still find success.  But, you need more than a “competent” coach to remain competitive. 

This is what separates Detroit from the rest of the pack.  This is why they’re an elite team that has been so good for so long.  The pre-salary cap Rangers consistently proved that you could assemble a team of high-priced talent that could always find ways to lose because the refused to work together.  Having an entire organization that from the bottom-up is committed to a style of play, a system of evaluating, drafting, and developing talent is why Detroit, if not already, is the closest thing you’re going to see to a Dynasty in professional hockey for a long time.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 05/20/09 at 01:20 PM ET

I meant to finish that thought with this:

To coalesce the thoughts I’ve gotten since I’ve paid attention to TPSH (two days), it’s that a successfull hockey franchise needs to have an elite goalie and a cookie-cutter coach.  WIthout those things, it’s just not good hockey.

You are an insult to bloggers, coaches, goalies, and players everywhere.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 05/20/09 at 01:22 PM ET

I am not talking about the Wings goals for.  I am talking about the overall quality of their forwards.  There was nobody who was a star who was still in his prime.  Yzerman, Shanahan, Fedorov, Hull were past their prime.  Datsyuk, Zetterberg were not ready to lead yet.

If you disagree name a Wing forward who was in his career peak in 2003 or 2004.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/20/09 at 01:23 PM ET

If you disagree name a Wing forward who was in his career peak in 2003 or 2004.

go look up “framing the argument” and “moving the goalposts” on your fallacies site.  maybe you can translate them to Latin to sound smart.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/20/09 at 01:31 PM ET

So, it’s a boring day at work today. Very boring. So boring, in fact, I’m considering logging into my battle.net account so I can download Starcraft.

But enough of that.

I’ve watched this post increase in responses since I arrived here at about 9am. Every 30-45 minutes or so, I’ll hit the refresh key with the hopes of seeing something new. And, much like the Ducks following game seven, I walked away disappointed.

So now, I’ve popped in to see what the hub-bub is about. Remember, I’m bored. I consider myself pretty intelligent. I really want to kick some Zerg ass.

Faux goes on to assume the post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy

I’m willing to forgive that. However, it would have been far easier to just refer to it simply as a post hoc fallacy. It means the same thing.

I think it is much more likely that coach firing does not increase

This is probably the one thing we seem to agree on, as coaches are terminated for different reasons, and just because these guys made it to the conference finals doesn’t mean other teams will follow suit.

There’s no point in quoting the rest. Too long. What you said is the only team that improved with their coaching change is Chicago. Pittsburgh and Carolina? They were fine. Not true.

Pittsburgh was mired in a free-fall, sinking into the bowels of the Eastern Conference, at the time Therrien was shown the door. Carolina had a lot of consistency issues on the ice as well, insomuch as they were consistently giving a poor effort until maybe two or three minutes remained in the game. Both of those teams made incredible turnarounds and forced their way into the playoffs.

Chicago? The jury was never in the room, as far as they’re concerned. That team only played a handful of games before Savard was given his pink slip and told to clean out his desk. But it’s very likely that without that coaching change, things would be much different for those kids. All we can do about Chicago is speculate. However, it can be said that Joel is a great motivator of his team, and the team most certainly responds to their coach.

The point? Coaching means everything. Sure, a team could be carried through the playoffs by a hot goalie, or by clutch scoring, or by strong defense. But it is the coach that makes the difference. Who pushes those scorers, defenders, or goalies? Who motivates them to give 110%, even if they’ve already given 110%? Every little thing a coach does to prepare his players, whether it’s during an optional skate or during a 30 second timeout while a goal down and ten seconds left on the clock, matters.

It is disingenuous to opine otherwise, whether or not you’re just trying to create controversy.

Posted by Alan from Atlanta on 05/20/09 at 01:31 PM ET

I am not talking about the Wings goals for.  I am talking about the overall quality of their forwards.

wouldn’t the goals-for stat be a pretty good indication of the overall quality of a team’s forwards?

*face palm*

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/20/09 at 01:32 PM ET

wouldn’t the goals-for stat be a pretty good indication of the overall quality of a team’s forwards?
*face palm*

Nah, Nik Lidstrom scored 257 goals in 2002-2003.  If he were any better, he would be Zdeno Chara.  AMIRITE?!

Posted by Chris Pronger Rosetta Stone from Verizon Center Section 404 on 05/20/09 at 01:42 PM ET

The goals for stat says they had a good group of forwards.  That is obvious. But unlike before and after they didn’t have a superstar in his prime.  Both bewore and afetr they had multiple superstars in their primes.

A prime difference between playoff hockey and regular season hockey is that during the playoffs the effects of a superstar or two are maximized.  You tend to give them more ice time and the opponents work harder to shut them down. Detroit didn’t have as strong superstars at this point.

It is part of the reason this great offence onlya managed 6 goals in four playoff games that year - of course that result was poorer than any reasonable expectation

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/20/09 at 01:48 PM ET

Can the Flames trade Mike Keenan for Mike Babcock?  Let’s put this “How important is coaching” thing to the test.

Posted by dash_pinched from Rumour Mill Bay on 05/20/09 at 01:49 PM ET

A prime difference between playoff hockey and regular season hockey is that during the playoffs the effects of a superstar or two are maximized.  You tend to give them more ice time and the opponents work harder to shut them down. Detroit didn’t have as strong superstars at this point.

I’d argue that a prime difference in regular season hockey and playoff hockey is that paper thin teams with a few great players can excel in the regular season while in the playoffs you need more balanced effort and quality from the top to the bottom of your roster.

Secondary scoring is of little consequence when you’re playing the Florida panthers in a January game that doesn’t matter.  Secondary scoring in the playoffs wins games.

Depth > Players peaking, 99% of the time.  The only exception being the rare transcendent athlete that has the ability to lift his team onto his shoulders and carry them.  Those guys are an amazingly nice luxury but are not nearly as necessary as you suggest- unless the depth isn’t there behind them.

Posted by shanetx on 05/20/09 at 01:54 PM ET

But unlike before and after they didn’t have a superstar in his prime.  Both bewore and afetr they had multiple superstars in their primes.

Really?  I’m starting to wonder if you are just pulling my chain here.

They had two superstars in their prime in both 2002 and 2003.  Fedorov and Lidstrom.  Fedorov had more goals in 2003, as did Brett Hull who was nearing the end of his career.  Shanny and Yzerman were on their last legs in both years.

If you look at the regular season, the 2003 Wings forwards were actually stronger than they were in 2002.  They didn’t perform in the playoffs, there was no talent differential.  If there was, it was towards the 2003 team being better.

You are completely full of crap.

Posted by Chris Pronger Rosetta Stone from Verizon Center Section 404 on 05/20/09 at 01:58 PM ET

The only exception being the rare transcendent athlete that has the ability to lift his team onto his shoulders and carry them.  Those guys are an amazingly nice luxury but are not nearly as necessary as you suggest-

Just ask Ovechkin, the one man team.  He is preparing for an awards ceremony, not a game.

Posted by Chris Pronger Rosetta Stone from Verizon Center Section 404 on 05/20/09 at 01:59 PM ET

Fedorov turned 34 during that season.  He was nine years removed from his Hart Trophy season.  That is hardly what I call still being in his prime.

I was unaware Lidstrom was a forward that season (though he was in his prime).  Are you telling me the NHL messed up nominating him for the Norris?

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/20/09 at 02:03 PM ET

He is preparing for an awards ceremony, not a game.

“And the award for biggest cherry-picker goes to ...”

Posted by Alan from Atlanta on 05/20/09 at 02:09 PM ET

Boiling down the argument.

Part of what led to Detroit’s loss in that playoff season was having no “elite” forwards, despite scoring the most goals in the leage.

*adds “one elite forward” to TPSH’s recipe for playoff success*

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 05/20/09 at 02:09 PM ET

Fedorov turned 34 during that season.  He was nine years removed from his Hart Trophy season.

So Eight years away from his Hart Trophy season, he was in his prime.  But the next year, when he scored more goals, he left it?

As to the other comment about Lidstrom, you appear to be trying to boil this down to something in particular.  Just tell us what.  Because at this point, Defense, Goalies and Coaches don’t matter.  What about right wingers?

Posted by Chris Pronger Rosetta Stone from Verizon Center Section 404 on 05/20/09 at 02:14 PM ET

What about right wingers?

Those don’t matter either.

You know what does?

Ice girls. That’s all that matters. Because the playoffs change everything!

Posted by Alan from Atlanta on 05/20/09 at 02:17 PM ET

Those don’t matter either.
You know what does?
Ice girls. That’s all that matters. Because the playoffs change everything!

Linesmen, ice girls and fans on the club level.

Posted by Chris Pronger Rosetta Stone from Verizon Center Section 404 on 05/20/09 at 02:26 PM ET

Both bewore and afetr they had multiple superstars in their primes.

so in 2002-03 Yzerman, Fedorov, and Hull were in their primes, but one season later they were not?  I didn’t realize “in your prime” was a “one day you are, the next day you aren’t” kind of thing.

anybody who watched the Red Wings on a regular basis knew Yzerman was as good, or better, at the end of his career than he was at the beginning.  sure, he scored a ton of goals early in his career...but he was a much better player later on when his scoring dropped off because he became a COMPLETE PLAYER.

dammit.  even after pointing it out, I was tricked into following the goalposts to the “in their prime” topic.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/20/09 at 02:31 PM ET

Fedorov turned 34 during that season.  He was nine years removed from his Hart Trophy season.  That is hardly what I call still being in his prime.

you seem to be basing “prime of his career” on sheer point totals.  however, as most Red Wings fans understand (those who watched Yzerman throughout his entire career especially) it’s not as simple as “more points equals better.” I would say Fedorov and Yzerman were both MORE VALUABLE to their team and in the PRIME of their careers, when they developed into two way forwards instead of scoring machines.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/20/09 at 02:39 PM ET

so in 2002-03 Yzerman

sorry, make that 2001-02.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/20/09 at 02:40 PM ET

‘Fedorov turned 34 during that season.  He was nine years removed from his Hart Trophy season.  That is hardly what I call still being in his prime.

I was unaware Lidstrom was a forward that season (though he was in his prime).  Are you telling me the NHL messed up nominating him for the Norris? ‘

No but the fact is Detroit retained elite quality players like Lindstrom (certainly in his prime) and Fischer also looked to be a solid on defense it not like Lewis was coaching chopped liver, or the wings were rebuilding. How about Whitney he performed better before and after he left the Wings (by like 20 points - even this season).

Posted by Paul on 05/20/09 at 02:45 PM ET

What does it take to win the Stanley Cup?

The only hard answer is sixteen playoff wins.

In the past there were many different cup winners but most were what I call elite teams.  Elite teams neccessarily have several core players who are on Hall of Fame tracks and they have an elite goalie (by that I mean in the top 5 or so in the league).  Once in a while a team would win that didn’t make it.  Having the eleite players and elite goalie was not sufficient to win the cup.  It takes luck and it takes a good performance as a team, but it was hard to do without the stars.

In the salary capped NHL we are still learning what it takes to win.  What we do know is that the bar has been lowered.  Those elite teams seem to be a thing of the past.  There aren’t any anymore.  That loss bothers me as a fan.

Detroit comes the closest this year.  They have the Hall of Fame track position players in Lidstrom, Datsyuk and probably Zetterberg and Hossa.  They fail in goal.  Chris Osgood is not an elite goalie.  Definitely not at this point in his career.  It may have been debateable at times in his younger days but he definitely does not qualify any longer.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/20/09 at 02:45 PM ET

‘Elite teams neccessarily have several core players who are on Hall of Fame tracks and they have an elite goalie’

I grant that elite teams may need elite players although I think even here I would disagree a real elite team might not you know no I and that…

But I really don’t understand your focus on the goal - so I am sure you would say the Gretzky’s Oilers were not elite since Fuhr was not an elite goal tender.

I guess I don’t understand why Elite teams need elite goal tending - do elite teams also need an elite defense men and forward or 2 or what?

Posted by Paul on 05/20/09 at 02:56 PM ET

In the salary capped NHL we are still learning what it takes to win.  What we do know is that the bar has been lowered.  Those elite teams seem to be a thing of the past.  There aren’t any anymore.  That loss bothers me as a fan.
Detroit comes the closest this year.  They have the Hall of Fame track position players in Lidstrom, Datsyuk and probably Zetterberg and Hossa.  They fail in goal.  Chris Osgood is not an elite goalie.  Definitely not at this point in his career.  It may have been debateable at times in his younger days but he definitely does not qualify any longer.

You have to be Christing kidding me.

I’ll say this right now.  The Wings team of 2008 and 2009 could beat any Wings Cup winner hands down.  Period.  This team would toy with the 1997 Wings.

As to Osgood and your infinitly stupid argument.  No one will argue that Ozzie had a rough go of it in the regular season.  But of course this is the playoffs and his play has been nothing short of spectacular.  Also, just to show how damn dumb you were, I used the ole internet research tool.  Here is the little I found.

Ozzie has 389 wins, 10th all time.  Career GAA of 2.47 and a .906 save %

Patrick Roy?  2.54 and .910
Hall of Famer Grant Fuhr?  3.38 with an .887
Tony Esposito? 2.92 with a .859

In fact, the only goalie you could really look at the numbers and say “yeah, he really is better” is Martin Brodeur, who is probably the greatest netminder the game has ever seen.  So unless your argument is that Brodeur is the only elite netminder there ever was, you are basically full of crap.

Posted by Chris Pronger Rosetta Stone from Verizon Center Section 404 on 05/20/09 at 03:00 PM ET

Having the eleite players and elite goalie was not sufficient to win the cup.  It takes luck and it takes a good performance as a team, but it was hard to do without the stars.

isn’t winning in the playoffs the most important cog in the “are you elite” wheel?  most hockey fans would say so.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/20/09 at 03:00 PM ET

Grant Fuhr was definitely an elite goalie.  I have no idea why you would think otherwise.  Is it his Vezina Trophy, his Hart nomination, the five all star games in a row he played in,the fact he was regularly called upon to play for Canada internationally, his Hall of Fame induction?

The claim Fuhre wasn’t elite is stupid.  It probably comes from somebody who failed to notice that scoring was higher in Fuhr’s time so they attempt to compare his raw numbers to goalies in today’s lower scoring league.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/20/09 at 03:03 PM ET

Note, last year Ozzies GAA was 2.09, lower than Vezina winner Brodeur.  Was he elite last year and then magically became a sub par goalie?  Your arguments have more holes in them than JFK in 1963.

Posted by Chris Pronger Rosetta Stone from Verizon Center Section 404 on 05/20/09 at 03:04 PM ET

Hey, guys?

TPSH, though he didn’t explicitly say it, implied that Hiller counted as an elite goaltender in his post yesterday.

I don’t think logic is going to work.

Posted by shanetx on 05/20/09 at 03:05 PM ET

Is it his Vezina Trophy, his Hart nomination, the five all star games in a row he played in,the fact he was regularly called upon to play for Canada internationally, his Hall of Fame induction?

wait, being IN the HOF is part of the criteria for elite?  so how can you decide if a player is elite while he’s still playing?

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/20/09 at 03:08 PM ET

Is it his Vezina Trophy, his Hart nomination, the five all star games in a row he played in,the fact he was regularly called upon to play for Canada internationally, his Hall of Fame induction?
The claim Fuhre wasn’t elite is stupid.  It probably comes from somebody who failed to notice that scoring was higher in Fuhr’s time so they attempt to compare his raw numbers to goalies in today’s lower scoring league.

Then lets take a look at that Vezina season.  1987-1988.

He was number one in Wins.

He was number 15 in the league in GAA, number 19 in Save Percentage.

When Mike Green likely wins the Norris Trophy, I imagine you’ll believe that he is the best defenseman in the league.

Just a note, Chris Osgood was number 1 in GAA last year.

Posted by Chris Pronger Rosetta Stone from Verizon Center Section 404 on 05/20/09 at 03:12 PM ET

wait, being IN the HOF is part of the criteria for elite?  so how can you decide if a player is elite while he’s still playing?

By that logic, Brodeur is not an Elite goalie.

Jesus, Yzerman wasn’t an elite player!  He won’t be until later this year :-O

Posted by Chris Pronger Rosetta Stone from Verizon Center Section 404 on 05/20/09 at 03:13 PM ET

Jesus, Yzerman wasn’t an elite player!  He won’t be until later this year :-O

Nor was Hull.  No wonder that 2003 team failed so miserably.

Posted by shanetx on 05/20/09 at 03:15 PM ET

TPSH…

you should be banned from ever using the word elite again

You obiously have no idea what it means!

you should really actually be banned from your own blog

Posted by Pharazon from England on 05/20/09 at 03:25 PM ET

So the Wings players were past their prime in 02-03 or not ready, but rather were a bunch of average scorers then eh? 

In 01-02 - no player on the team had a point per game on the Wings.  Scotty was coach.  Result?  Stanley Cup.

In 02-03 - Fedorov averaged over a point per game and Hull was close, closer than anyone in 01-02.  The rest of the scoring was at or above prior year numbers for near everyone.  Mr. Lewis was coach.  Result? First round loss.

Coaching the only reason? Hell no.  Big part, I completely believe it. 

Next please....

Also, I’ve found any person who has tried to use logical fallacies as a part of their argument to make some of the stupid arguments possible.

Posted by moore00 from the Ohio State University on 05/20/09 at 03:25 PM ET

In the salary capped NHL we are still learning what it takes to win.  What we do know is that the bar has been lowered.  Those elite teams seem to be a thing of the past.  There aren’t any anymore.  That loss bothers me as a fan.

Are the playoffs year-after-year less entertaining than they were before the salary cap and expansion?  I think you’re being shortsighted here.  If ten years from now you can look back at these playoffs and say they sucked because there were no Goliath versus Goliath matchups by your standards, then I would wholeheartedly suggest you stop following hockey all together.  While the sport may need more fans, they don’t need more like you.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 05/20/09 at 03:28 PM ET

I suspected that would be your argument - and somebody has already stolen my thunder.

Yes I realize Fuhr played in an era of high offense, but like Osgood he played behind the best team of his era for the years of his awards. The real problem here is the complete subjectivity of deciding when team matters more than individual. In Fuhr’s case his record behind not the great Edmonton teams is not very impressive who did he carry on his back to the cup aside from loaded teams in Edmonton

More importantly I think and reiterate the point I made and CPRS just made Green is going to win the Norris trophy this year but in no way can he really be called the best defense man in the NHL if you do more than look a few stats in about 5 minutes.

Posted by Paul on 05/20/09 at 03:32 PM ET

Also about Fuhr, I would agree he was elite at his time...however, your argument that his stats would back it up?  Unless you include wins, not at all…

I grabbed a few years of his and while he was usually among the league leaders in wins, his goals against was never in the top 10.  He made the timely saves, which for his team was what they needed and what garnered him his awards. 

Sounds like someone else we know.  Except his stats (except this year) back it up.

Posted by moore00 from the Ohio State University on 05/20/09 at 03:34 PM ET

For a stats man, you sure don’t know how to use them.

Posted by moore00 from the Ohio State University on 05/20/09 at 03:35 PM ET

The claim Fuhre wasn’t elite is stupid.

No more stupid then claiming Osgood isn’t elite by standards that only you think are appropriate.

Posted by calquake on 05/20/09 at 04:21 PM ET

Can we come to the conclusion that TPSH is doing an experiment to come up with something in which not a single person on the internet agrees with him?

If you’re out there… speak up.

Posted by MarkK from Maryland on 05/20/09 at 04:39 PM ET

I have read his blog since before it was on KuklasKorner and have constantly felt that way.

Posted by Steve Strowbridge from St. John's, NL, CA on 05/20/09 at 10:23 PM ET

You still insist to state that Fuhr was elite and Osgood isn’t. And because Fuhr stats doesn’t back it up, you bring up the “era differences”. Ok, follow that.

In Fuhr’s era (82-00) the average of goals per game was 6.88, like in 3.44 goals-per-team-per-game.
In Osgood’s time (94-through 08) the goals per game average is 6.05, like in 3.03 per-team-per-game.

Yet, Fuhr’s GAA is 3.38
And Osgood’s 2.43.

So both of them have normal GAA in their respective times.
Osgood will retire with over 400 wins, at least 3 Stanley Cups, the staple goalie of NHL’s probable last dinasty, and is not “elite”?

source: wikipedia

Posted by Guilherme from Brazil on 05/21/09 at 01:01 PM ET