Greg Ambrose wrote:
>
> Mike Machnik, responding to Greg Ambrose, writes:
>
> >There is ample evidence to suggest that for
> >various reasons both PC & Merrimack took longer to come around - both teams
> >had a number of freshmen to work in on defense - freshmen who took longer
> >to adjust than UNH's freshmen did - as well as some injuries in the first
> >half. Can't blame the coaches for those things.
>
> Leaving aside the injury factor (and UNH has had their share this year),
> why not? If one coach prepares his freshmen to play right out of the gate
> and another doesn't, it's not the coach'S fault, either in his coaching or
> recruiting?
Greg, you don't mean to suggest that all freshmen are "created equal",
do you? Were Merrimack's freshmen as talented and ready for DivI
hockey as UNH's, so that if you swapped the coaches then *they* would
have been the ones to get off to a great start?
You're not going to find too many people who did not think before
the season that UNH had a pretty darn good freshman class that would
make an immediate impact. That's a big reason why they were picked
second. You will find even fewer who thought Merrimack or PC had an
equal or better set of rookies.
Do you also think that Merrimack, for example, had an equal chance to
get the same players that UNH got? That it was only a superior job of
recruiting that enabled UNH to wind up with those players?
> I don't want to talk this issue to death but the bottom line is that
> Umile's competition for this award - Anderson and Pooley, I guess - have
> not even led their teams to .500 records this year.
?? Providence is 12-10-1, and Merrimack is 10-10-2. Both *are* at
or over .500. Why do you keep saying they are not?
> I have just reviewed last year's HE Media Guide (I don't have this year's
> for some reason), here is a rundown of the Coach of the Year winners:
>
> 1986 Jack Parker w/20-11-3 (25-14-4 overall), 1985 19-11-4 (24-14-4)
> 1987 Bill Riley w/20-10-2 (22-12-2 " ), 1986 5-27-2 (11-29-1)
> 1988 Shawn Walsh w/20- 4-2 (34-8-2 " ), 1987 19-12-1 (24-16-2)
> 1989 Fern Flaman w/13-11-2 (18-16-2) " ), 1988 13- 9-4 (20-13-4)
> 1990 Shawn Walsh w/14- 6-1 (33-11-2) " ), 1989 17- 9-0 (31-14-0)
> 1991 Dick Umile w/10- 9-2 (22-11-2) " ), first year as coach
> 1992 Jack Parker w/10- 7-4 (22- 9-4) " ), 1991 10-15-1 (14-20-1)
> 1993 Shawn Walsh w/22- 1-1 (42 -1-2) " ), 1992 17 -2-2 (31- 4-2)
> 1994 Bruce Crowder 14- 6-4 (25-10-5) " ), 1993 10-13-1 (20-17-2)
> 1995 Shawn Walsh w/15 -3-6 (32- 6-6) " ), 1994 a forfeit year
>
> What does this tell you? First, to win you should have a winning record,
> both in HE and overall, and only once has a coach won after winning less
> than 20 games. Second, you don't necessarily have to go from the bottom to
> the top to be honored. In only 3 years has the winner had a losing record
> the previous year. Third, you should be a contender for the title. In the
> 10 years shown, the winner finished 1st or 2nd in the league 7 times
> (Flaman was 3rd, Umile 5th & Parker 4th in '92). Based on these criteria,
> there are only two possible candidates - Umile & Parker. Since Parker's
> team is doing worse this year than last, it looks as though it should be
> Umile.
What you are trying to do is to look for characteristics that are
shared among most of the winners and extrapolate from that to say
that the coach this year who most closely meets those characteristics
should (or will) be the winner. Not a bad idea.
But you haven't listed all of the shared characteristics. I would
also say you have not listed the one that I believe has tended to be
the most important, the one that is also intangible.
That is that historically, the award tends to go to the coach who his
peers believe has exceeded expectations more than any other. Not
every year, but more often than not. This is not reflected in the
statistics you display, but it most certainly has been the case.
For example, as you say, from 1986 to 1995, the winner finished 1st
or 2nd 7 of 10 times. But *more* than 7 of 10 times, the winner also
exceeded expectations rather significantly. In fact, from 1987 to
1996, *every year*, I would say it was the overriding factor that
determined the winner of the award. I believe the same was true in
1986 with BU, but I cannot recall that far back.
So given past history, it is quite likely that the coaches will once
again vote for their peer who they think has most exceeded their
expectations. And this may or may not be Umile.
> However, my gut tells me that it will be close because Umile is underrated
> by HE (and most UNH) fans as a coach. The man has won 20 games five of the
> seven years he has coached and, this year, will lead his team to the NCAA's
> for the fourth time. If Parker or Walsh had compiled records such as UNH
> did last year, and then turned it around as much as Umile has done this
> year, would there be any question as to who would be the coach of the year?
> I think not.
Again, Merrimack and UNH have had similar improvements this season.
1995-96 1996-97 (current) Increase
UNH 6th 8-12-4 20 1st 17-5-0 34 +14 pts, +70%
Merrimack 9th 4-18-2 10 5th 10-10-2 22 +12 pts, +120%
Also, try replacing UNH/Umile with Merrimack/Anderson in your above
comment:
"If Parker or Walsh had compiled records such as Merrimack did last
year, and then turned it around as much as Anderson has done this
year, would there be any question as to who would be the coach of the
year? I think not."
Interesting, isn't it, to see it from another point of view... :-)
Given how close the race may be, it is quite possible that this year,
Anderson will be the sort of sentimental favorite among the coaches.
I know that from talking to other coaches around the league, they
were happy to see him do well and they realized the situation he was
in. This is a very intangible award - not like a scoring trophy which
automatically goes to the guy with the most goals and assists - and so
these other things can enter into play and could do so here.
Finally: Greg, understand that people are not saying that Umile is
not a strong candidate for the award. But you have not convinced me
that he should be the *only* candidate or the overwhelming candidate
for the award. Especially when I listen to what other people around
HE say as I go from school to school and find that the prevailing
opinion is that Coach of the Year is a tough award to call this season.
You're the only person out of dozens that I have talked to or heard
from, who thinks that Umile is the only guy up for it.
It will be close, because it IS close. You can believe it is because
people do not like or respect Umile, if you want to. Not sure what
you'll say if he does wind up winning it, however. :-) I know I'll
say congratulations and that the award went to a guy who deserved it.
But what will you say if someone other than Umile wins it? Maybe
that's the difference here. You think it's not close, I do. Other
folks can make up their own minds.
--- ---
Mike Machnik [log in to unmask] *HMM* 11/13/93
***** (Part-Time) Color Voice of Merrimack Hockey WCAP 980 AM *****
***** Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at: *****
***** http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html *****
>>> U.S. College Hockey Online http://www.uscollegehockey.com/ <<<
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
