Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Hav e any of those talks come at the of their careers at Princeton?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Discussion on Coaches Developing Players (copied from Princeton thread)
- Thread starter PrincetonFan
- Start date
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
My comparison was strictly based on failure in the playoffs and yes, Princeton has been a middle of the pack team while the Colts have won a Super Bowl. But if you ask people who follow the NFL about how the Colts will be measured against other teams, they will tell you that they have been an abject failure given their talent and their QB. I know because I talked to some NFL folks last summer about the impending lockout and the discussion got around to various teams. The Colts are thought of as a great franchise that can't seem to get it done in the postseason. So I do feel the comparison is valid to some degree.
PrincetonFan actually makes a better comparison to Marty Schottenheimer. I'll throw in Norv Turner as long as we're discussing coaches that can't get their teams through the playoffs. I don't know what the answer is because I'm not close to the Princeton program and have no inside knowledge. But if as PrincetonFan suggests that Kampersal is safe with the administration there, then I guess there is no reason to expect much will change in the future.
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
My comparison was strictly based on failure in the playoffs and yes, Princeton has been a middle of the pack team while the Colts have won a Super Bowl. But if you ask people who follow the NFL about how the Colts will be measured against other teams, they will tell you that they have been an abject failure given their talent and their QB. I know because I talked to some NFL folks last summer about the impending lockout and the discussion got around to various teams. The Colts are thought of as a great franchise that can't seem to get it done in the postseason. So I do feel the comparison is valid to some degree.
PrincetonFan actually makes a better comparison to Marty Schottenheimer. I'll throw in Norv Turner as long as we're discussing coaches that can't get their teams through the playoffs. I don't know what the answer is because I'm not close to the Princeton program and have no inside knowledge. But if as PrincetonFan suggests that Kampersal is safe with the administration there, then I guess there is no reason to expect much will change in the future.
PrincetonFan
Baker Rink Irregular
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Do you mean end of their careers? Yes.
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Do you mean end of their careers? Yes.
njhockeyfan
New member
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Relatively new here.. But have had the opportunity to get to know several current and graduated members of the Tigers over the past few years.
Three points:
1. From freshman year to graduation, it would seem that there is very little individual player improvement (this goes for top-end players as well as players who essentially start and end their careers on the bench). Why is this?
2. As has already been noted, and seems to be the trend in this forum around this time of year, the Tigers can't win in the post-season. Why?
2. The number of teams I follow closely are pretty limited, but is it just me or does Princeton have an unusually high number of girls quitting the team? Why might this be?
And I'm just curious, why is making coaching changes something that Princeton hockey is so afraid of? Other than perhaps Brown, no other (moderately unsuccessful) team seems to be so afraid of mixing it up. Clearly something needs to change... :/
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Relatively new here.. But have had the opportunity to get to know several current and graduated members of the Tigers over the past few years.
Three points:
1. From freshman year to graduation, it would seem that there is very little individual player improvement (this goes for top-end players as well as players who essentially start and end their careers on the bench). Why is this?
2. As has already been noted, and seems to be the trend in this forum around this time of year, the Tigers can't win in the post-season. Why?
2. The number of teams I follow closely are pretty limited, but is it just me or does Princeton have an unusually high number of girls quitting the team? Why might this be?
And I'm just curious, why is making coaching changes something that Princeton hockey is so afraid of? Other than perhaps Brown, no other (moderately unsuccessful) team seems to be so afraid of mixing it up. Clearly something needs to change... :/
PrincetonFan
Baker Rink Irregular
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
I don't think they've had anybody quit in the last few years. Mariesa Mason quit, but she played very little and decided to focus on her schoolwork. Who else were you thinking of?
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
I don't think they've had anybody quit in the last few years. Mariesa Mason quit, but she played very little and decided to focus on her schoolwork. Who else were you thinking of?
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
I agree with Princeton Fan's comment. Having known several players at each of the Ivys, I also know of several players who were attracted to Princeton specifically because Kampersal's personality was a big draw for them. And I haven't heard the big negatives associated with some others.
Like any coach, I am sure he has his strengths and weaknesses, but many players no doubt find a more laidback style like his much more appealing than a more intense one.
Believe it or not, most players probably don't choose which school to attend based on how far their team will go in playoffs every year. The fact that they are consistently a top half-ish team, he doesn't overrecruit, everyone gets playing time, the coach is likeable, and the Princeton campus is stunning and secluded, yet easily accessible to the city are all factors that likely carry FAR more weight with most recruits in their decision-making.
And as suggested by the rate of player attrition from Princeton relative to other ECAC schools over the past 5 years (posted in the Brown thread last season), Princeton actually has one of the lowest rates of players leaving the hockey program prior to graduation. That must say something positive about their experience.
Yes, there are other coaches with better records of playoff success. For those for whom that is a key selection criteria, they will choose go to those programs. However, I also know for a fact, that despite their more enviable program successes and playoff records, the coaches were also a turnoff for many potential recruits for other reasons.
While the grass may look greener on the other side, you don't know how much weed killer they used to make it appear that way.
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
I agree with Princeton Fan's comment. Having known several players at each of the Ivys, I also know of several players who were attracted to Princeton specifically because Kampersal's personality was a big draw for them. And I haven't heard the big negatives associated with some others.
Like any coach, I am sure he has his strengths and weaknesses, but many players no doubt find a more laidback style like his much more appealing than a more intense one.
Believe it or not, most players probably don't choose which school to attend based on how far their team will go in playoffs every year. The fact that they are consistently a top half-ish team, he doesn't overrecruit, everyone gets playing time, the coach is likeable, and the Princeton campus is stunning and secluded, yet easily accessible to the city are all factors that likely carry FAR more weight with most recruits in their decision-making.
And as suggested by the rate of player attrition from Princeton relative to other ECAC schools over the past 5 years (posted in the Brown thread last season), Princeton actually has one of the lowest rates of players leaving the hockey program prior to graduation. That must say something positive about their experience.
Yes, there are other coaches with better records of playoff success. For those for whom that is a key selection criteria, they will choose go to those programs. However, I also know for a fact, that despite their more enviable program successes and playoff records, the coaches were also a turnoff for many potential recruits for other reasons.
While the grass may look greener on the other side, you don't know how much weed killer they used to make it appear that way.
scrambledlegs
Registered User
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
I completely agree with everything Trillium said. While I don't follow the team in detail, it does appear that the girls who have chosen Princeton are very happy with the choice they have made.
And really, the fact that they have made the playoffs is still an accomplishment as there were 4 teams that did not.
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
I agree with Princeton Fan's comment. Having known several players at each of the Ivys, I also know of several players who were attracted to Princeton specifically because Kampersal's personality was a big draw for them. And I haven't heard the big negatives associated with some others.
Like any coach, I am sure he has his strengths and weaknesses, but many players no doubt find a more laidback style like his much more appealing than a more intense one.
Believe it or not, most players probably don't choose which school to attend based on how far their team will go in playoffs every year. The fact that they are consistently a top half-ish team, he doesn't overrecruit, everyone gets playing time, the coach is likeable, and the Princeton campus is stunning and secluded, yet easily accessible to the city are all factors that likely carry FAR more weight with most recruits in their decision-making.
And as suggested by the rate of player attrition from Princeton relative to other ECAC schools over the past 5 years (posted in the Brown thread last season), Princeton actually has one of the lowest rates of players leaving the hockey program prior to graduation. That must say something positive about their experience.
Yes, there are other coaches with better records of playoff success. For those for whom that is a key selection criteria, they will choose go to those programs. However, I also know for a fact, that despite their more enviable program successes and playoff records, the coaches were also a turnoff for many potential recruits for other reasons.
While the grass may look greener on the other side, you don't know how much weed killer they used to make it appear that way.
I completely agree with everything Trillium said. While I don't follow the team in detail, it does appear that the girls who have chosen Princeton are very happy with the choice they have made.
And really, the fact that they have made the playoffs is still an accomplishment as there were 4 teams that did not.
njhockeyfan
New member
Re: Pulling the Goalie
Re: Pulling the Goalie
Right. Nothing wrong with settling for mediocrity .. ?!?
Re: Pulling the Goalie
Right. Nothing wrong with settling for mediocrity .. ?!?
OnMAA
Vort Doen.....Heija Heija Heija
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Well Said. Post of the day on the subject.
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
I agree with Princeton Fan's comment. Having known several players at each of the Ivys, I also know of several players who were attracted to Princeton specifically because Kampersal's personality was a big draw for them. And I haven't heard the big negatives associated with some others.
Like any coach, I am sure he has his strengths and weaknesses, but many players no doubt find a more laidback style like his much more appealing than a more intense one.
Believe it or not, most players probably don't choose which school to attend based on how far their team will go in playoffs every year. The fact that they are consistently a top half-ish team, he doesn't overrecruit, everyone gets playing time, the coach is likeable, and the Princeton campus is stunning and secluded, yet easily accessible to the city are all factors that likely carry FAR more weight with most recruits in their decision-making.
And as suggested by the rate of player attrition from Princeton relative to other ECAC schools over the past 5 years (posted in the Brown thread last season), Princeton actually has one of the lowest rates of players leaving the hockey program prior to graduation. That must say something positive about their experience.
Yes, there are other coaches with better records of playoff success. For those for whom that is a key selection criteria, they will choose go to those programs. However, I also know for a fact, that despite their more enviable program successes and playoff records, the coaches were also a turnoff for many potential recruits for other reasons.
While the grass may look greener on the other side, you don't know how much weed killer they used to make it appear that way.
Well Said. Post of the day on the subject.
OnMAA
Vort Doen.....Heija Heija Heija
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
And a home seed to boot. Back in late November this team was on a 7 game slide, in serious danger of not even making the playoffs. They get on a run and pass Quinnipiac in the last weekend of the season to get home ice over those same Quinnipiac Bobcats, only to fall to them in a tight series.
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
And a home seed to boot. Back in late November this team was on a 7 game slide, in serious danger of not even making the playoffs. They get on a run and pass Quinnipiac in the last weekend of the season to get home ice over those same Quinnipiac Bobcats, only to fall to them in a tight series.
Re: Pulling the Goalie
Re: Pulling the Goalie
Who said anything about settling for mediocrity? When was the last time Princeton truly had a mediocre season? Compare that to the records of Brown, Yale and Dartmouth, who all missed playoffs altogether just last season...Brown and Yale for several now. Or Cornell, who was the perennial bottom-feeder of the league as recently as 4 years ago.
You're choosing not to look at the big picture, but rather like a professional sports team owner whose only interest is on how his profits are enhanced by how deep the team goes into the playoffs, and could give a rats arse about how to achieve it. Rather this is supposed to be an additional enrichment experience for students aiming to get the best education they can, while hopefully learning some additional life skills along the way through their participation in a sport.
It seems to me there is far more good than bad here overall. He does a better than average job at recruiting, has achieved a consistently good track record of results for the team every year (despite playoff disappointment, a top 4 finish isn't easy), the players get lots of opportunity to contribute to team success, and seem happier than average at their overall experience with the team over their 4 years. Seems like a very good situation in total from the athletes' perspectives that players from any other program might actually envy.
I can guarantee that in 10 years, these players will not remember which round of the playoffs they ending up losing in at the end of the season, but will treasure forever all the wonderful times they will have had and the relationships they forged with their teammates, and the contributions they made to make their time together successful and special over the 100+ games of their playing career.
We get that you don't like the coach and think they could do better. Maybe they could. They could certainly also do far worse. And I would hope any coaching decisions that are made are based on what would be in the best interests for the Princeton players and program as a whole, rather than to fulfill a desire for more fan/alumni ego gratification based merely on winning more titles.
Re: Pulling the Goalie
Who said anything about settling for mediocrity? When was the last time Princeton truly had a mediocre season? Compare that to the records of Brown, Yale and Dartmouth, who all missed playoffs altogether just last season...Brown and Yale for several now. Or Cornell, who was the perennial bottom-feeder of the league as recently as 4 years ago.
You're choosing not to look at the big picture, but rather like a professional sports team owner whose only interest is on how his profits are enhanced by how deep the team goes into the playoffs, and could give a rats arse about how to achieve it. Rather this is supposed to be an additional enrichment experience for students aiming to get the best education they can, while hopefully learning some additional life skills along the way through their participation in a sport.
It seems to me there is far more good than bad here overall. He does a better than average job at recruiting, has achieved a consistently good track record of results for the team every year (despite playoff disappointment, a top 4 finish isn't easy), the players get lots of opportunity to contribute to team success, and seem happier than average at their overall experience with the team over their 4 years. Seems like a very good situation in total from the athletes' perspectives that players from any other program might actually envy.
I can guarantee that in 10 years, these players will not remember which round of the playoffs they ending up losing in at the end of the season, but will treasure forever all the wonderful times they will have had and the relationships they forged with their teammates, and the contributions they made to make their time together successful and special over the 100+ games of their playing career.
We get that you don't like the coach and think they could do better. Maybe they could. They could certainly also do far worse. And I would hope any coaching decisions that are made are based on what would be in the best interests for the Princeton players and program as a whole, rather than to fulfill a desire for more fan/alumni ego gratification based merely on winning more titles.
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Which coaches? I'm only guessing here but looking back over the past ten years, one would conclude that you are referring to the coaching staffs at Harvard, Dartmouth and SLU? Flanagan is no longer at SLU so that leaves Stone and Hudak. Are those the coaches you are referring to?
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
However, I also know for a fact, that despite their more enviable program successes and playoff records, the coaches were also a turnoff for many potential recruits for other reasons.
While the grass may look greener on the other side, you don't know how much weed killer they used to make it appear that way.
Which coaches? I'm only guessing here but looking back over the past ten years, one would conclude that you are referring to the coaching staffs at Harvard, Dartmouth and SLU? Flanagan is no longer at SLU so that leaves Stone and Hudak. Are those the coaches you are referring to?
Probably, but it's not like it matters. Of course some players are just a better fit for Kampersal's style than the other coaches.
PrincetonFan
Baker Rink Irregular
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Now that the season is over the Baker Rink Irregulars have conferred and hereby announce the awards for the 2010-11 season.
MVP: While Sasha Sherry was certainly the most dynamic and entertaining player to watch this year, and ends her career as one of the best defensemen the program has ever seen, it has to be Rachel Weber to win this award. When they were 3-10-1 she found a magic elixir and went on an incredible run, with six shutouts (four of them in a row) to spark the Tigers back to respectability. While her season ended more modestly, without her the season might have been a disaster.
Rookie of the Year: All five of the rookies in this year's class contributed a great deal. Olivia Mucha and Sally Butler had the numbers, and they're almost identical. Therefore we're going with Gabie Figueroa for being a stable force on the blueline.
Unsung Hero: Julie Johnson, who provided an occasional offensive spark but, even without big stats, always managed to be in the middle of things.
Most Improved: Have to go with Rachel Weber here, too. Nothing she had done before was precedent for her sterling streak.
Best Pony-Tail: Once again, Danielle DeCesare, with Alex Kinney as runner-up.
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Now that the season is over the Baker Rink Irregulars have conferred and hereby announce the awards for the 2010-11 season.
MVP: While Sasha Sherry was certainly the most dynamic and entertaining player to watch this year, and ends her career as one of the best defensemen the program has ever seen, it has to be Rachel Weber to win this award. When they were 3-10-1 she found a magic elixir and went on an incredible run, with six shutouts (four of them in a row) to spark the Tigers back to respectability. While her season ended more modestly, without her the season might have been a disaster.
Rookie of the Year: All five of the rookies in this year's class contributed a great deal. Olivia Mucha and Sally Butler had the numbers, and they're almost identical. Therefore we're going with Gabie Figueroa for being a stable force on the blueline.
Unsung Hero: Julie Johnson, who provided an occasional offensive spark but, even without big stats, always managed to be in the middle of things.
Most Improved: Have to go with Rachel Weber here, too. Nothing she had done before was precedent for her sterling streak.
Best Pony-Tail: Once again, Danielle DeCesare, with Alex Kinney as runner-up.
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
In my opinion, the ability to continue to actually develop the acquired talent to full potential over 4 years is the hallmark of a truly great coach, and I would think would be something that might be an effective recruiting hook.
Out of curiousity, I had a look at the stats of the senior classes of every ECAC team for 10-11 to see how Kampersal might compare in this regard.
On average, each ECAC club would have had 5-6 incoming players, for 60-70 players in total entering in 07-08. The results may be a shock to many: of this group only 11 seniors across the entire ECAC actually increased their point production significantly this year vs their rookie seasons....no more than 1 player per program (other than 2 players for Union ironically, though on an unusually small base; plus a second player for Harvard who didn't get to play in her rookie season).
When you consider that generally speaking, as a group their ice time and especially special teams opportunities should be much greater by senior year, and given added physical development and experience over the next 3 years, you would think the numbers should improve for more than half of them. But when less than 20-30% of the incoming rookie class in each and every program has actually demonstrated any long term improvement, these numbers certainly don't flatter ANY of the coaches, not just Kampersal.
As far as development goes, it appears they are all mediocre. Maybe they should all be fired then ?
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
In my opinion, the ability to continue to actually develop the acquired talent to full potential over 4 years is the hallmark of a truly great coach, and I would think would be something that might be an effective recruiting hook.
Out of curiousity, I had a look at the stats of the senior classes of every ECAC team for 10-11 to see how Kampersal might compare in this regard.
On average, each ECAC club would have had 5-6 incoming players, for 60-70 players in total entering in 07-08. The results may be a shock to many: of this group only 11 seniors across the entire ECAC actually increased their point production significantly this year vs their rookie seasons....no more than 1 player per program (other than 2 players for Union ironically, though on an unusually small base; plus a second player for Harvard who didn't get to play in her rookie season).
When you consider that generally speaking, as a group their ice time and especially special teams opportunities should be much greater by senior year, and given added physical development and experience over the next 3 years, you would think the numbers should improve for more than half of them. But when less than 20-30% of the incoming rookie class in each and every program has actually demonstrated any long term improvement, these numbers certainly don't flatter ANY of the coaches, not just Kampersal.
As far as development goes, it appears they are all mediocre. Maybe they should all be fired then ?
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Hey, Cornell actually had two players with increase point totals also.
Karlee Overguard has seen a modest increase from 21 to 24 points. Hayleigh Hughes has seen a dramatic increase, going from 12 to 29 points.
While point totals can show player development, I think it can be a bit misleading also. Probably one area that coaches really work with players to develop is defensive play. Improvements in that area can impede point production. Also, as a players game develops/matures, they might be moved from a first line wing to a second or third line center. The player very well could be an all around better player as a senior but be carrying a heavier load and score less points.
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
In my opinion, the ability to continue to actually develop the acquired talent to full potential over 4 years is the hallmark of a truly great coach, and I would think would be something that might be an effective recruiting hook.
Out of curiousity, I had a look at the stats of the senior classes of every ECAC team for 10-11 to see how Kampersal might compare in this regard.
On average, each ECAC club would have had 5-6 incoming players, for 60-70 players in total entering in 07-08. The results may be a shock to many: of this group only 11 seniors across the entire ECAC actually increased their point production significantly this year vs their rookie seasons....no more than 1 player per program (other than 2 players for Union ironically, though on an unusually small base; plus a second player for Harvard who didn't get to play in her rookie season).
When you consider that generally speaking, as a group their ice time and especially special teams opportunities should be much greater by senior year, and given added physical development and experience over the next 3 years, you would think the numbers should improve for more than half of them. But when less than 20-30% of the incoming rookie class in each and every program has actually demonstrated any long term improvement, these numbers certainly don't flatter ANY of the coaches, not just Kampersal.
As far as development goes, it appears they are all mediocre. Maybe they should all be fired then ?
Hey, Cornell actually had two players with increase point totals also.
Karlee Overguard has seen a modest increase from 21 to 24 points. Hayleigh Hughes has seen a dramatic increase, going from 12 to 29 points.While point totals can show player development, I think it can be a bit misleading also. Probably one area that coaches really work with players to develop is defensive play. Improvements in that area can impede point production. Also, as a players game develops/matures, they might be moved from a first line wing to a second or third line center. The player very well could be an all around better player as a senior but be carrying a heavier load and score less points.
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
I agree with matt in the sense that you can't use point improvement to evaluate an individual player, but on balance you should see some improvement within any given class: not every player on the team can move from top line forward to third line center. Though often times the improvement in point totals is simply a matter of moving onto the power play units so who knows what this metric really means in terms of actual improvement.
But even we agree you're metric is useful, I still question your cutoff for significantly improved. I'd classify three players at Harvard as having significantly improved point totals since freshman year. I'm not sure how you get one player out of this. And even if Wheeler got less playing time early on, that's still an improvement across the other years.
Buesser 16-10-40-26
Coskren 5-4-19-21
Wheeler 0-1-5-10
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
I agree with matt in the sense that you can't use point improvement to evaluate an individual player, but on balance you should see some improvement within any given class: not every player on the team can move from top line forward to third line center. Though often times the improvement in point totals is simply a matter of moving onto the power play units so who knows what this metric really means in terms of actual improvement.
But even we agree you're metric is useful, I still question your cutoff for significantly improved. I'd classify three players at Harvard as having significantly improved point totals since freshman year. I'm not sure how you get one player out of this. And even if Wheeler got less playing time early on, that's still an improvement across the other years.
Buesser 16-10-40-26
Coskren 5-4-19-21
Wheeler 0-1-5-10
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
I'd also note in past years you didn't necessarily see so much improvement. 01-02 was a much lower scoring year than 02-03 or 00-01. And 04-05 and 03-04 were definitely lower scoring than 02-03. Years after Olympics tend to be relatively higher scoring overall. Like you wouldn't say Julie Chu failed to ever improve because she happened to play with Botterill her freshman year. Though sure any of these factors are relevant today, so anyway....
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
I'd also note in past years you didn't necessarily see so much improvement. 01-02 was a much lower scoring year than 02-03 or 00-01. And 04-05 and 03-04 were definitely lower scoring than 02-03. Years after Olympics tend to be relatively higher scoring overall. Like you wouldn't say Julie Chu failed to ever improve because she happened to play with Botterill her freshman year. Though sure any of these factors are relevant today, so anyway....
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
While I agree that point totals are only one measure of player improvement, they are the one easily quantified and therefore objective. I didn't think Overguard's 3 point increase on a base of 21 truly significant by the way, but would agree that Hughes numbers growth is quite astonishing...probably about the best of any ECAC player in the group and great to see. And, as Dave points out too, as I pulled the numbers really quickly, I obviously missed out on another with significant growth at Harvard and quite possibly a couple more elsewhere too. Apologies.
But rather than quibble about the specific number and individuals, including those 2 players and even if there are another few around the league, the points still stand. That is, between 13-20 out of 70ish still seems an extremely low percentage showing offensive growth 3 whole years later. And that no coaches appear to particularly stand out as being great developers of talent on a consistent basis.
Of course, I also quite agree that the ultimate goal should be to improve anyone's abilities as an all-round two-way player and teammate, not just as a points producer. Though in the case of quite a number of high profile D1 players that come to mind, I would not be the only one to conclude that does not really seem to have been the case either, though that is obviously more of a subjective assessment.
As to your point about being moved from first line wing as a rookie to third line centre as a senior, because they had developed so well as a player.....I challenge you to find many players who would be truly satisfied with that kind of development progress over their careers, and the recognition that typically would go with that.
There are also a great many examples of real impact players through high school who never reach similar heights in college at all, whether immediately as rookies, or beyond that. Sometimes no doubt it is due to having peaked early, or perhaps some other reasons of their own doing, but in some cases perhaps they don't get the opportunities they had previously, or otherwise fail to flourish with the coaching they receive at the next level.
I think the observation might be that in general, more often than not at this level, the real focus tends to be on winning in the short term rather than development of players for the longer term. Do you disagree? And given that women have no longer term career in hockey, maybe there is some logic in that point of view anyway.
Re: Princeton 2010-2011
Hey, Cornell actually had two players with increase point totals also.
While point totals can show player development, I think it can be a bit misleading also. Probably one area that coaches really work with players to develop is defensive play. Improvements in that area can impede point production. Also, as a players game develops/matures, they might be moved from a first line wing to a second or third line center. The player very well could be an all around better player as a senior but be carrying a heavier load and score less points.
While I agree that point totals are only one measure of player improvement, they are the one easily quantified and therefore objective. I didn't think Overguard's 3 point increase on a base of 21 truly significant by the way, but would agree that Hughes numbers growth is quite astonishing...probably about the best of any ECAC player in the group and great to see. And, as Dave points out too, as I pulled the numbers really quickly, I obviously missed out on another with significant growth at Harvard and quite possibly a couple more elsewhere too. Apologies.
But rather than quibble about the specific number and individuals, including those 2 players and even if there are another few around the league, the points still stand. That is, between 13-20 out of 70ish still seems an extremely low percentage showing offensive growth 3 whole years later. And that no coaches appear to particularly stand out as being great developers of talent on a consistent basis.
Of course, I also quite agree that the ultimate goal should be to improve anyone's abilities as an all-round two-way player and teammate, not just as a points producer. Though in the case of quite a number of high profile D1 players that come to mind, I would not be the only one to conclude that does not really seem to have been the case either, though that is obviously more of a subjective assessment.
As to your point about being moved from first line wing as a rookie to third line centre as a senior, because they had developed so well as a player.....I challenge you to find many players who would be truly satisfied with that kind of development progress over their careers, and the recognition that typically would go with that.
There are also a great many examples of real impact players through high school who never reach similar heights in college at all, whether immediately as rookies, or beyond that. Sometimes no doubt it is due to having peaked early, or perhaps some other reasons of their own doing, but in some cases perhaps they don't get the opportunities they had previously, or otherwise fail to flourish with the coaching they receive at the next level.
I think the observation might be that in general, more often than not at this level, the real focus tends to be on winning in the short term rather than development of players for the longer term. Do you disagree? And given that women have no longer term career in hockey, maybe there is some logic in that point of view anyway.
Watson Rink
Registered User
Luster of Hogwarts
Luster of Hogwarts
Did I miss the explanation of the phrase "Luster of Hogwarts" as applied to Tigertown?
Luster of Hogwarts
Did I miss the explanation of the phrase "Luster of Hogwarts" as applied to Tigertown?