Discussion on Coaches Developing Players (copied from Princeton thread)

[Trillium]

Re: Princeton 2010-2011

Re: Princeton 2010-2011

But even we agree you're metric is useful, I still question your cutoff for significantly improved.

Generally >2 points...except if they scored >20 freshman year.

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

As mentioned above, many apologies for missing Buesser, somehow I had it as 26 vs 26, not 16 vs 26. Definitely quite significant, as was Coskren. Thanks for noting the error. In the case of Wheeler, one could certainly question whether not playing someone for their first 2 years contributed to their eventual level of development in any way. But she was noted as one of the two for Harvard, though arguably that growth could have been merely a function of ice time. [/QUOTE]

 

[Skate79]

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

While I see the logic in using point totals as a metric, Dave's point about Julie Chu is exactly why the point total argument fails to hold up. Ashley Wheeler is a case in point of not only a player who has improved her point total but I would argue that she has become a more complete hockey player since she arrived four years ago because her skill set in other areas improved dramatically. Her skating, stickhandling and on ice vision have made dramatic leaps yet you wouldn't necessarily see it on the stat sheet. You have to see her play consistently to appreciate the improvement.

Also, one has to factor in each recruiting class coming in as having players who possess more and better skills than prior classes. A Deb Conway can get ice time as a third liner her freshman year; now, she isn't dressing because Harvard has better forward talent in their younger players. Experience doesn't always win out even if the player improves her ability to play the game by the time she is a senior. If players choose to leave a program because of that, so be it.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Princeton 2010-2011

Re: Princeton 2010-2011

I mean you can always find exceptions to the rule in any kind of social science relation. I do think you can get some idea of how a coach is doing by looking at the stats, on average.

I can recall one team in a different sport where the coach had a huge recruiting haul and those freshmen led the team immediately to a top 10 national ranking. By the time they were seniors, they were a .500 team and just missing the NCAA tournament. Two of the players transferred and played out their eligibility at different BCS schools and won conference titles in two different conferences -- one was her conference's playoff MVP. A couple years later, the coach was an assistant AD. In that case, I think you could tell something was wrong just by looking at the stats.

I can't think of too many teams where the development was truly disappointing. Maybe Minnesota State recently. But often times the failure can be due to injuries more than anything else.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Princeton 2010-2011

Re: Princeton 2010-2011

While I see the logic in using point totals as a metric, Dave's point about Julie Chu is exactly why the point total argument fails to hold up. Ashley Wheeler is a case in point of not only a player who has improved her point total but I would argue that she has become a more complete hockey player since she arrived four years ago because her skill set in other areas improved dramatically. Her skating, stickhandling and on ice vision have made dramatic leaps yet you wouldn't necessarily see it on the stat sheet. You have to see her play consistently to appreciate the improvement.

Also, one has to factor in each recruiting class coming in as having players who possess more and better skills than prior classes. A Deb Conway can get ice time as a third liner her freshman year; now, she isn't dressing because Harvard has better forward talent in their younger players. Experience doesn't always win out even if the player improves her ability to play the game by the time she is a senior. If players choose to leave a program because of that, so be it.

1. Ashley Wheeler WAS included as a player with demonstrated improvement within Harvard's totals, so I'm not sure what you're arguing here. It is certainly gratifying to see situations like this where players are able to grow and fulfill a far more important role eventually.

2. Just to play devil's advocate though, could it be argued that Wheeler could actually have contributed at her current levels earlier in her career, and be perhaps an even more impactful a player to her team this year had she only been given that same opportunity in earlier years? Griffen comes to mind as another player from Harvard who contributed quite impressively as a senior once she was finally given more playing time. Cases of previously underutilized and therefore to some extent wasted talents perhaps? No doubt however there are numerous examples across most programs of players who surprised both positively and negatively.

3. Your premise here appears to be that Conway had limited talent, which I think is unduly harsh and therefore worthy of further comment. It could be argued instead that Conway's inherent talents were not realized, though development is undoubtedly a two-way street. I happen to know that Conway was actually a very good player prior to Harvard. In her last year in the PWHL, league stats show she was actually among the better scorers in the league, with as many goals as a previous teammate who, as it happens, has continued to develop over her 4 years and notched 14 goals this year for Cornell...and despite the fact that Cornell has been able to recruit a far more impressive array of talented younger players than Harvard. Hughes still made a big impact there. Could Conway have similarly developed her potential at that same level? Of course we'll never know. Certainly none of Harvard's rookies who have displaced her achieved those kind of stats either.

5. Obviously some players everywhere don't continue to develop, or frequently chose to leave programs early because they are displaced in the lineup over time. These things do happen in lots of programs, most especially those in rebuild mode, nothing is ever guaranteed (nor should it be!) and certainly not every player can be expected to succeed. But I can assure you that if such realities do happen to form a strong pattern, they do have a tendency to raise red flags to potential future recruits, especially if the expectations were not accurately spelled out to players at the outset. Players do generally tend to want to go to where they believe they will have sufficient opportunity to play, contribute, and grow as players...as well as succeed as a team. Their priorities are different than fans in that way. I'm sure that's been one of the big recruiting challenges facing Brown more recently.

6. To reiterate again, this topic was not initiated to be critical of particular coaches for their ability to develop talent, but rather in response to just such a criticism which had been made. Rather, the observation seems to be that across programs, there would appear to be a consistently greater emphasis deliberately being placed on near term performance, (perhaps through improved recruitment?) over optimizing development of existing players.

 

[dave1381]

Discussion on Coaches Developing Players (copied from Princeton thread)

Disclaimer: I'm speaking in general terms about players competing for playing time, not about the specific players mentioned below, whose specific circumstances I know little-to-nothing about.

2. Just to play devil's advocate though, could it be argued that Wheeler could actually have contributed at her current levels earlier in her career, and be perhaps an even more impactful a player to her team this year had she only been given that same opportunity in earlier years? Griffen comes to mind as another player from Harvard who contributed quite impressively as a senior once she was finally given more playing time. Cases of previously underutilized and therefore to some extent wasted talents perhaps?

Possibly, but it's also possible if some players didn't have to compete for playing time the first two seasons, they wouldn't have as much incentive to develop in practice and off the ice. Maybe these players would have just stagnated were they given playing time right away.

But I can assure you that if such realities do happen to form a strong pattern, they do have a tendency to raise red flags to potential future recruits, especially if the expectations were not accurately spelled out to players at the outset. Players do generally tend to want to go to where they believe they will have sufficient opportunity to play, contribute, and grow as players.

Sure, but I don't get the impression that this coach has ever hid the fact that her recruits have to earn their playing time. Of course players can have high opinions of themselves and not think that they're the ones on the bubble when they're recruited.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Discussion on Coaches Developing Players (copied from Princeton thread)

Disclaimer: I'm speaking in general terms about players competing for playing time, not about the specific players mentioned below, whose specific circumstances I know little-to-nothing about.



Possibly, but it's also possible if some players didn't have to compete for playing time the first two seasons, they wouldn't have as much incentive to develop in practice and off the ice. Maybe these players would have just stagnated were they given playing time right away.

Same Disclaimer: I'm speaking in general terms about players competing for playing time, not about the specific players mentioned, whose specific circumstances I know little-to-nothing about.

OK, that may be the theory, but it seems far more likely to me you instead probably just destroyed a fragile sense of confidence, which in my experience is a far more difficult entity to have to rebuild, and a key to strong performance. Confidence requires successes for reinforcement, however small.

 

[Radar3535]

Re: Discussion on Coaches Developing Players (copied from Princeton thread)

Sure, but I don't get the impression that this coach has ever hid the fact that her recruits have to earn their playing time.

OK here is a hypothetical situation. Students X & Y take a math class. X misses the first few classes , misses HW and a test. Y does the HW and gets an A on the test. The rest of the semester X does a little better on the HW. Both do the same on their quizes. Y does a lot better on the tests. X gets the teacher's praise. The teacher admits to Y, that Y is a better test taker. Who should the teacher take to the Math competition?( OK maybe not so hypothetical)
How does one earn playing time? Does scoring a lot of goals during the week but few on the weekends warrant more playing time than someone who produces on the weekend? Shouldn't performances on the weekends dictate the amount of playing time. Isn't the object at this level to win on the weekends and not during the week.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Princeton 2010-2011

Re: Princeton 2010-2011

1. Ashley Wheeler WAS included as a player with demonstrated improvement within Harvard's totals, so I'm not sure what you're arguing here. It is certainly gratifying to see situations like this where players are able to grow and fulfill a far more important role eventually.

2. Just to play devil's advocate though, could it be argued that Wheeler could actually have contributed at her current levels earlier in her career, and be perhaps an even more impactful a player to her team this year had she only been given that same opportunity in earlier years? Griffen comes to mind as another player from Harvard who contributed quite impressively as a senior once she was finally given more playing time. Cases of previously underutilized and therefore to some extent wasted talents perhaps? No doubt however there are numerous examples across most programs of players who surprised both positively and negatively.

3. Your premise here appears to be that Conway had limited talent, which I think is unduly harsh and therefore worthy of further comment. It could be argued instead that Conway's inherent talents were not realized, though development is undoubtedly a two-way street. I happen to know that Conway was actually a very good player prior to Harvard. In her last year in the PWHL, league stats show she was actually among the better scorers in the league, with as many goals as a previous teammate who, as it happens, has continued to develop over her 4 years and notched 14 goals this year for Cornell...and despite the fact that Cornell has been able to recruit a far more impressive array of talented younger players than Harvard. Hughes still made a big impact there. Could Conway have similarly developed her potential at that same level? Of course we'll never know. Certainly none of Harvard's rookies who have displaced her achieved those kind of stats either.

I never said that Conway was limited in talent. She came in as a freshman to a team that was fairly strong up front so opportunities for her to showcase her talent vis a vie Vaillancourt, Brine, Wilson, et al were not going to be plentiful. And let's face it, if she did have top tier talent and demonstrated that in practice, she would have been playing a lot more. What you do in high school or in a junior league has no bearing once you reach D-1. You have to prove yourself all over again. Even Sarah Vaillancourt will tell you she became a more complete player during her years at Harvard because of the coaching she received here.

My premise with Wheeler was that stats don't tell the whole story regarding a player's development from Year One to Year Four. Ashley started as a spare part on D her freshman year and has progressed to first line right wing in her senior year. That improvement isn't necessarily reflected in her scoring stats. As I said, you have to watch her play to appreciate how she has developed as a more complete hockey player.

I don't think either Wheeler or Griffin would have made a more significant contribution earlier in their careers because they had to adjust to the speed and intensity of D-1 hockey. Maybe if they had chosen to play at Union or Brown, perhaps they would have accelerated their development but again, playing time doesn't always translate into improvement especially if the head coach and the talent surrounding you is subpar.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Discussion on Coaches Developing Players (copied from Princeton thread)

OK here is a hypothetical situation. Students X & Y take a math class. X misses the first few classes , misses HW and a test. Y does the HW and gets an A on the test. The rest of the semester X does a little better on the HW. Both do the same on their quizes. Y does a lot better on the tests. X gets the teacher's praise. The teacher admits to Y, that Y is a better test taker. Who should the teacher take to the Math competition?( OK maybe not so hypothetical)
How does one earn playing time? Does scoring a lot of goals during the week but few on the weekends warrant more playing time than someone who produces on the weekend? Shouldn't performances on the weekends dictate the amount of playing time. Isn't the object at this level to win on the weekends and not during the week.

Great question. I believe that most coaches if not all will tell you they want both; goals in practice and goals on weekends. But forced to choose between the two, they will take the weekends because that translates into wins. In theory at least.

 

[mattj711]

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.

I certainly agree with your point to a degree. I some how skipped over the word "significantly" when reading about increased point production in your original post.

However, to continue using Karlee Overguard as an example of where I disagree, she is definitely an all around better player than she was as a freshman. While she has only seen a modest total increase from her freshman to senior year, she is a much more valuable asset. I would say the same thing for all of the other seniors on Cornell as well. A critical aspect of coaching is finding players that are willing to fit the role you need them for and being willing for that role to potentially change over time. Some roles are more glamorous some roles are less, but they're no less important to the success of the team.

 

[mattj711]

Re: Discussion on Coaches Developing Players (copied from Princeton thread)

...OK, that may be the theory, but it seems far more likely to me you instead probably just destroyed a fragile sense of confidence, which in my experience is a far more difficult entity to have to rebuild, and a key to strong performance. Confidence requires successes for reinforcement, however small.

I completely agree with your point here. Confidence is key. Coaches can play a large role in building a players confidence or destroying it.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Princeton 2010-2011

Re: Princeton 2010-2011

I don't think either Wheeler or Griffin would have made a more significant contribution earlier in their careers because they had to adjust to the speed and intensity of D-1 hockey. Maybe if they had chosen to play at Union or Brown, perhaps they would have accelerated their development but again, playing time doesn't always translate into improvement especially if the head coach and the talent surrounding you is subpar.

Everyone has to adjust to the spend and intensity of D-1 hockey, but that doesn't typically take most players several years to do. I don't see why either of these players would be an exception in that regard. But I do agree that's often why teams with high numbers of freshmen typically do less well, particularly in the first half of the season.

You are certainly right that playing time doesn't always translate into improvement. However, the reverse is equally true, lack of playing time will definitely not lead to improvement either.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Discussion on Coaches Developing Players (copied from Princeton thread)

How does one earn playing time? Does scoring a lot of goals during the week but few on the weekends warrant more playing time than someone who produces on the weekend? Shouldn't performances on the weekends dictate the amount of playing time. Isn't the object at this level to win on the weekends and not during the week.

Practices generally tend to be all about skating, passing and shooting drills, and executing scripted plays where everyone is positioned where they are supposed to be in a given situation. Obviously these are important to do well for a team to excel in games. But not sufficient. Games are far more fluid and unpredictable, and some creativity and thinking-on-the-fly is needed too.

Anyone who's been around hockey a long time knows of lots players who will look breathtaking fast in practice drills and tryout situations, but have trouble translating that impressiveness on the scoreboard during games. Similarly, some players despite comparable effort just don't stand out in practice, but find way of delivering the goods in game situations over the long haul. The difference between the two is typically their level of hockey sense and on ice vision. It is a critical skill which is tough to teach, and is tremendously tough to demonstrate through practices alone.

More than once over the years with players I did not know, I've seen someone look like pretty much the worst one on the ice at tryouts and been surprised to see a coach choose them for their teams. I certainly wouldn't have. But those coaches had really done their homework by following the players in real game situations, rather than solely evaluating their potential based on artificial conditions. In each of these cases, the players ended up being among the most prolific producers for their teams. Most coaches would have missed out on that opportunity. Their loss.

 

[Watson Rink]

Re: Discussion on Coaches Developing Players (copied from Princeton thread)

Has anybody considered how Tyler Seguin is doing in the NHL this year? Or how Joe Thornton did as a rookie?

My perspective seems to be different from that of most posters on this thread. My initial asumption is that (1) physical development between ages 18 and 22 and
(2) getting used to the pace and physicality of a higher level of play are such strong factors that I'm amazed that anybody does well as a rookie in college or the pros. Furthermore, each year your opponents and teammates get younger: that Sarah V you had to play against (or compete against for icetime) when you were a first-year may have been replaced by The Next Sarah V, but that Next Sarah V is still a first-year Next Sarah V, not a senior Next Sarah V.

My initial assumption may get challenged to some extent by the number of successful first-years, and to a greater extent by those players who don't get progressively better each season, but it still seems to be a more intuitively appealling and commonsensical beginning assumption than the converse assumption that age and experience shouldn't conduce to higher skills, more scoring and more icetime.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Princeton 2010-2011

Re: Princeton 2010-2011

Everyone has to adjust to the spend and intensity of D-1 hockey, but that doesn't typically take most players several years to do. I don't see why either of these players would be an exception in that regard. But I do agree that's often why teams with high numbers of freshmen typically do less well, particularly in the first half of the season.

You are certainly right that playing time doesn't always translate into improvement. However, the reverse is equally true, lack of playing time will definitely not lead to improvement either.

I don't think Sarah Vaillancourt, Julie Chu or Angela Ruggiero had any problems adjusting to the speed and intensity of D-1 hockey. Of course in Chu and Ruggiero's cases, they had an Olympic year prior to matriculating at Harvard so they got a big jump on their classmates.

The reason Wheeler and Griffin would be an exception has to do with their talent level and their ability to hone and improve their skills. Sure more ice time would have helped early on but they were also practicing with and against top level talent on their own team and in some instances against the boys JV team. Sometimes the light goes on a little later for some players. It's true on many levels including the pros. How come it took Tim Thomas so many years to become a Vezina winning goalie? Why did Peter Ciavaglia who led the AHL three times in scoring with 100+ points each season never get a serious look from the Buffalo Sabres? Coaches see things in players that we don't see as has been pointed out and in general, it is for the good of the team.

 

[binnyrus]

Re: Discussion on Coaches Developing Players (copied from Princeton thread)

I'm a bit late to this coversation and I haven't read the entire thing but it's very interesting.

It would seem to me that one of the key ingredients to a coach's effectiveness in developing players is the ability to understand the psychological make-up of each player. I mean, aside from the very few players who are obviously more gifted (genetics or natural ability or whatever) the vast majority of D-1 players are very equal in skill and ability. However, the turning point in their development might be psychological more than physical - which has very little to do with playing time.

I'll just throw Sara O'Toole (UMD) into the mix here. Sara was sort of a run-of-the mill
2nd or 3rd liner for the first two years of her career at UMD. Solid but not spectacularly so. Then somone got hurt (Koizumi maybe) and Sara was given the opportunity to move up. I recall coach Miller talking about needing to convince Sara that she was a first line player just waiting to happen (that's a rough, rough paraphrase there!). What I took from that was that Sara "accepted" her role and played to that level. She didn't see herself as the one to make it happen for her team. Somehow she transformed the way she thought of herself and Lo and behold her last season and a half were spectacular!! Now, she was never in Kaz consideration but she was a player that reached her potential and most of it was the coach somehow finding a way for Sara to bring out the best in herself.

 

[skatefast]

Re: Discussion on Coaches Developing Players (copied from Princeton thread)

To tag team you a little bit Binny, I have often, in 10 years, heard UMD players speak about why they chose UMD. It seems like every time I ask, every player talks about how they wanted to come here to learn from Miller and the people she puts together (be it other players or coaching staff) to become a better player. Development and growth is on their minds first and foremost.

But having been a coach, I can say that there is no secret formula and it's a constant dance with each individual athlete and their individual circumstances-- to create opportunities to have them develop as an all around athlete. Practice, performance, strength development, and character development all have so many variables that it is impossible to say which activity contributes the most. Somedays, I think it's a crap shoot. No matter how much you think it over and try to formulate the right plan for player and for team, sometimes there's a certain amount that is out of your (and the athlete's) control.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Discussion on Coaches Developing Players (copied from Princeton thread)

I'm a bit late to this conversation and I haven't read the entire thing but it's very interesting.

It would seem to me that one of the key ingredients to a coach's effectiveness in developing players is the ability to understand the psychological make-up of each player. I mean, aside from the very few players who are obviously more gifted (genetics or natural ability or whatever) the vast majority of D-1 players are very equal in skill and ability. However, the turning point in their development might be psychological more than physical - which has very little to do with playing time..

I couldn't agree more with you! Whether as a manager or as a coach, different approaches are usually needed to bring the best out of each individual.

I'll just throw Sara O'Toole (UMD) into the mix here. Sara was sort of a run-of-the mill 2nd or 3rd liner for the first two years of her career at UMD. Solid but not spectacularly so. Then somone got hurt (Koizumi maybe) and Sara was given the opportunity to move up. I recall coach Miller talking about needing to convince Sara that she was a first line player just waiting to happen (that's a rough, rough paraphrase there!). What I took from that was that Sara "accepted" her role and played to that level. She didn't see herself as the one to make it happen for her team. Somehow she transformed the way she thought of herself and Lo and behold her last season and a half were spectacular!! Now, she was never in Kaz consideration but she was a player that reached her potential and most of it was the coach somehow finding a way for Sara to bring out the best in herself.

Thanks for sharing that wonderful example of growth. It also speaks to the earlier point of instilling greater confidence in a player as a means of inspiring greater levels of achievement.

The difference here being that if Skate's assessment is accurate, the players in the previous example didn't have sufficient skills and abilities to dress or play much their first two years at all to start with.

 

[binnyrus]

Re: Discussion on Coaches Developing Players (copied from Princeton thread)

To tag team you a little bit Binny, I have often, in 10 years, heard UMD players speak about why they chose UMD. It seems like every time I ask, every player talks about how they wanted to come here to learn from Miller and the people she puts together (be it other players or coaching staff) to become a better player. Development and growth is on their minds first and foremost.

But having been a coach, I can say that there is no secret formula and it's a constant dance with each individual athlete and their individual circumstances-- to create opportunities to have them develop as an all around athlete. Practice, performance, strength development, and character development all have so many variables that it is impossible to say which activity contributes the most. Somedays, I think it's a crap shoot. No matter how much you think it over and try to formulate the right plan for player and for team, sometimes there's a certain amount that is out of your (and the athlete's) control.

I agree with all you've said here. Not having read the entire thread, I'd assume the ability (by the coach) to make it happen more often than not is what's at issue. Some coaches seem to be able to do it on a regular basis. It's a bit of an art I'd say . . . then again, it's easy to see the successes (sp?) but may be harder to pick up on the "failures". In both cases, as you say, there are many variables at play. It would be interesting I think to talk to some players say 10 or 15 years down the road to gain their perspective on what made them better players . . . how much they attribute to coaching, innate talent, or to their own issues. Same with what inhibited their growth.

 

[IceIsNice]

Re: Discussion on Coaches Developing Players (copied from Princeton thread)

Here's a wrinkle: in a word........ Goalies?