The Puck Stops Here

Frequently, my choice for coach of the year is out of touch with the mainstream hockey media (who tend to choose the coach of the most improved team as coach of the year). This is incorrect because teams improve for many reasons. Sometimes they improve because of coaching, but often it is for other reasons. Usually, they improve because their players are better than they were the year before.

I had been picking Ted Nolan of the New York Islanders as coach of the year. He has done a very good job keeping the Islanders focussed and in the playoff race despite off season distractions that looked to make the team into a laughing stock. The Islanders hired and fired two GMs last summer and the latter hire was a backup goalie with no management experience in Garth Snow. The Islanders signed goalie Rick DiPietro to a ridiculously long contract. It didn't look like things would go very well for them. They have managed to stay in the playoff race (though more than likely they will be one of the top east teams that miss the playoffs). Nolan was given a lot of credit for making Alexei Yashin regain interest in playing well, though with Yashin fighting injuries and having only scored one goal since December 20th that credit may no longer be as valid. Nolan is definitely a coach of the year candidate, but he is no longer my choice.

I pick Jacques Lemaire of the Minnesota Wild as my coach of the year so far. There is no coach in hockey that has as much influence over the style of play his team exhibits and no coach who's team's success if more dependent on the style of play the coach teaches. Minnesota is currently holding down the eighth and final playoff spot in the far superior West Conference. They are in the toughest division in hockey (the Northwest Division). This is the division of the largest travel (I have driven from Vancouver through Edmonton and to Minnesota once. It took about four days. No other division has that kind of distance). This is also the only division in the tougher West Conference that lacks any weak sister teams to beat up on. A team just barely slipping into the playoffs in the west is a far better team than one would be that just barely slipped into the playoffs in the east.

Minnesota's improvement from last season was predictable with the addition of Kim Johnsson and Pavol Demitra; however improvement is a poor way to assign value to a coach. Lemaire was coaching in Minnesota last year (in fact he has been coaching there since the team expanded in 2000). His coaching this year is likely no better than last (where he deserved the Adams Trophy), so why should he be scored on his team's improvement? That method only has some merit when a coach is new to a team. Likely, however the best coaches in hockey stay with teams for long periods of time. Why would you fire the best? So it is a poor method to evaluate the best coaches in hockey to look for single season improvement.

When I pictured the Wild this year, I pictured an improved team led by Marian Gaborik (their best player). If it was suggested that injuries would have limited him to 22 games so far this season, I would not have imagined the Wild to have been as successful as they have so far. The Wild have kept on going while their best player was hurt. Jacques Lemaire teams succeed despite adversity.

There is an interesting (but rather stupid) issue that will likely be brought up this season. Ted Nolan is clearly a mainstream coach of the year candidate (arguably the favorite at this point). At the same time, the New York Islanders will likely miss the playoffs (though not by much). This will lead to a debate about if Nolan can be a good coach on a team that missed the playoffs. This debate is stupid. How many points do you think coaching is worth to a team in a season? Is it enough that a bad team would make playoffs merely by adding a good coach? If so does that mean you seriously think Columbus will make playoffs with Ken Hitchcock coaching? Coaching is an important part of a team, but not as important as the star players. It is very clear that a coach could have a great year (be responsible for more wins than any other coach in hockey) and also miss the playoffs.

I think the mainstream method of coach evaluation is bunk. I think that coaching is much harder to rate than by looking at single season improvements. It is something that must be determined by a much more complex analysis. This year, I think the two best coaches have been Jacques Lemaire and Ted Nolan. I think Lemaire has been moderately better and thus deserves coach of the year. At the same time, I would be surprised if he gets as much as a nomination.