Peewee AA 2017-2018

[Hockey sophist]

 This list is undoubtedly flawed and a simple first attempt to measure coaching performance.   However, most if not all of the factors are observable and most could be measured.    The goal was to move beyond parental perception. 

 
Survey research on perceptions should play a role in an evaluation system. Teachers are evaluated, movies, restaurants and various services have a star rating system, corporations use 360 rating systems of their managers, and even a call to your bank will trigger an online survey about the customer's satisfaction with the bank's service.     We evaluate just about everything but not hockey coaching although it is likely to be one of the most expensive and emotionally embedded services we purchase for our children.   Accountability ought to play a role in the sport and applied to more than just the children themselves. 

 
A combination of objective and subjective evaluations available to prospective parents before the “letter of intent” signing period in May or June would allow for more informed choices and less discontent at the end of the season.   It might be preferable to the current BS system.

 
I'm not sure I understand or accept that a 80% or 90% satisfaction rate by customers is acceptable in customer driven or any businesses. But that is the rub, ice hockey is not a customer driven business in its governance, club management, and coaching.

[Landshark]

Your set of criteria is by far a better measure of coaching than the one I provided from experience only.   I'd like to see all coaches fill out your form and post it before the tryouts. 


It would also set up a proxy idea of expectations of what makes a great youth hockey coach. I think everyone would benefit from that aspect as well.

[In The Crease]

It's always interesting to see people post on this board who hide behind a screen name talk crap. Coach Shand sent an email out to the team offering year end reviews. I would suggest you take him up on that offer instead of posting crap about the coach and players on a public board. Seems pretty cowardly to me.

This list is undoubtedly flawed and a simple first attempt to measure coaching performance.   However, most if not all of the factors are observable and most could be measured.    The goal was to move beyond parental perception.  [size=78%]

 
[/size]Survey research on perceptions should play a role in an evaluation system. Teachers are evaluated, movies, restaurants and various services have a star rating system, corporations use 360 rating systems of their managers, and even a call to your bank will trigger an online survey about the customer's satisfaction with the bank's service.     We evaluate just about everything but not hockey coaching although it is likely to be one of the most expensive and emotionally embedded services we purchase for our children.   Accountability ought to play a role in the sport and applied to more than just the children themselves.  [size=78%]

 
[/size]A combination of objective and subjective evaluations available to prospective parents before the “letter of intent” signing period in May or June would allow for more informed choices and less discontent at the end of the season.   It might be preferable to the current BS system.[size=78%]

 
[/size]I'm not sure I understand or accept that a 80% or 90% satisfaction rate by customers is acceptable in customer driven or any businesses. But that is the rub, ice hockey is not a customer driven business in its governance, club management, and coaching.

[Bear71]

In The Crease = Mrs. Shand 

[Racetonowhere]

This issue at hand is how we might evaluate ice hockey coaching.  Some seem to thing it is just a matter of perception or perspective.  If you kid is good and plays a lot, you love the coach; if you kid sucks, then it is the coach's fault.  I think that data could be collected or created to evaluate youth coaches not that this will ever happen.   Let's explore this question.    This is not about Coach Shand who is a “love him” or “not” type coach. The larger issue how we might objectively measure the quality of hockey coaching.   

 
The factors of evaluation are divided into four categories:   Team strategy and performance, player development, team culture, and role modeling for youth players.

 
Team or Season strategy

 
 

• How many players are rostered and why?    Does a coach, like parents on signing day, take his chances with 3 lines and several keepers or approach recruitment of players like a box of chocolates?   Take 20 and maybe find 15 or less he likes for big games at the end of the season.   
  The latter clearly seems more pragmatic in terms of wins and losses but probably weakens player development in terms of attention at practice or ice time during games.
• How does the team performs over the course of a season.   Does it win games early and then decline relative to its competition or does it steadily improve its relative rank through a season.   
  Expectations before the season are largely meaningless except perhaps for a few big clubs but early season performance compared to end of season performance is important. 
• Are lines rolled?   When not rolled, does the team do better or worse?
• Is there a rational basis for playing some players more and other players less. 

 
Player development

 
 

• How much focus in practice on skill and tactical development?
• How much time at practice is spend with the coach talking or sending players on penalty skates for messing up a drill (not planned skates for fitness).

 
   Is the methodology teaching-by-talking or chalk boarding or teaching-by-   doing with corrections made “on the fly,”

 
  7. How many players move on to the next level and, in particular outside the    club​?

 
   The Reign for example seems to argue that they are the true advocates of player development even though their teams generally suck.   Few of their    U-12 players move and especially outside the club.   Placing kids at higher    competitive levels is perhaps more important than W-L records although this    is not a simple linear continuum.   

 
Team Culture

 
 

• Is the team culture one of blame and scapegoating or one in which the coach assumed responsibility for mistakes and losses?
• Do long-time members of the team mimic or reflect the blame culture of the  coach or accept responsibility for their own mistakes?
• What is the level of authoritarianism by a coach?   

 
   If the larger goal of parenting is the prepare our children to live responsibly    in a free a    free society, do we want them to learn to live with authoritarian    behavior?   It would be interesting to know how each coach scores on the    Adorno F-scale for authoritarian personality.

 
    11. To what extent does the coach encourage creativity (not selfishness) in their players?   How does this manifest itself?
    12 To what extent does playing time depend on paying a coach for private     lessons?  At or above the market rate?

 
Role Modeling

 
    13 Does the coach reflect the values we would want our children to emulate or    does coach direct profanity at referees, volunteer personnel at games?
    14 Does the coach exhibit good sportsmanship in wins and losses?
    15 How is the coach regarded by peers at the same competitive level?

  Since we're talking  about 10-12 year olds, shouldn't the main factor be whether the kids enjoy playing for the coach? All the  skill development. strategy and winning in the world won't make  a bit of difference if your kid doesn't want to play because the coach is a jerk. 

[In The Crease]

On the team but not a coach.

In The Crease = Mrs. Shand 

[lcadad]

With all due respect, a little simple math, not to mention the basic fact that every other team in PWAA played with 3 lines or less should have indicated to people that OC1 was going to be problematic.  There is no reason to engage in travel hockey other than for the competition.  Even with 3 lines the disparity in ice time can be dramatic.  How often does this happen?


1st line 1:30
2nd line 1:45 + penalty
1st line PK 2:00
3rd line gets out for first shift after 5:00 minutes have expired!



Kids who do not get the opportunity to play in all situations in the games, will undoubtably turn out to be one dimensional and missing the ingredients that a coach feels will make them effective special teams players who have a strong "Hockey IQ".  It's a self fulfilling prophecy of failure that often falls in line with the pre-conceived notion that a coach has.


I don't find it good coaching when a coach focuses on 5 "special players" while the other kids stand by the boards and are called in occasionally to provide forechecking pressure.  A good coach teaches all the kids the various roles and strategies to the best of their ability, and finds ways to get everyone on the roster opportunities to play.


I remember having a conversation with a coach about a kid, and the coach brought up the reputation the kid had at a previous club when he as a mite.   The coach wasn't interested in the kid (who was a good player in many ways) due to a couple of stories the coach heard from another coach 2 years prior when the kid was 8!


Coach Shand may be a great coach in many ways, but I would have a hard time getting past the fact that he rostered 20 players for a Peewee team. 

[#4BobbyOrr]

Kings 2 over Ducks 1 5-4 in an upset

[Racetonowhere]

Kings 2 over Ducks 1 5-4 in an upset

Yes, but Ducks 1 had much better skill development in the game.

[In The Crease]

I see some good points from everyone, and we won't agree on all.  However, a good read (or listen on audible) is a book called MINDSET by Carol Dweck.  It is great lesson on not only sports but everyday life.  It really gets into whether you choose to blame the ref, coach, boss, company, government, or whoever; versus looking at yourself at what you could do differently yourself to change/improve circumstances.

That said, having a couple kids in hockey at wide range of levels and birth years, I can tell you when at the AA level, I am not looking for a coach to play the lines even, and want my kids to earn their ice time.  That is how life is in sport or in the workplace.  If you want equal ice time, don't push to higher level.  Play at the level your child excels.  Possibly play rec hockey.  Tier 1 and 2 hockey are not the place.

As for the quantity of kids, not sure the answer there.  Should that be on the coach or club?  Who knows the circumstances.  Maybe even on CAHA who implemented rules. 

Obviously, some people not happy, others very much are.  So instead of whining and attacking others, look at yourself and just make the change that you want to fix your situation. 

[jvreagan]

Certified USA Hockey coaches have been shown this over the past few years, but for others that haven't very relevant take and perspective on age-appropriate skill development from professionals (really applies to all sports): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4ezlS8Z_cY

[lcadad]

In the crease:

You suggest that hockey is a meritocracy when that is often far from the truth.  The level of hockey really has nothing to do with it at these ages when kids are supposed to be developing their skills and hockey acumen.  There are plenty of ways for a kid to learn about the harsh realities of adult life, and plenty of time to do so.  We are talking about adolescents here, not mini NHL journeymen.

Does a 3rd line parent pay a reduced fee?  Does the coach come up at signing and tell you:  "Hey your kid is going to be on the 3rd line all year and if we have a close game, they will play 2 shifts in the 3rd for approximately 1 minute."  And for the record, we played OC1 several times this season, and when it was close I saw how much the 4 lines were rolled, which is to say, I saw the same kids out on back to back shifts. 


I understand that when a game is on the line, a coach is often going to try and win the game.  When it's a tournament championship or the playoffs, the stronger kids are going to play more.  Kids that are completely outclassed may be sheltered, and for good reason. 

My point is that a good coach spreads the coaching AND the game opportunity around.  My kid has been in both situations on both types of teams.  For all the shit talking that people on this board do about the prospects for their kids (and of course you have a much better idea when your kid is 16), the reality is that not all kids develop at the same time.  Some mature earlier and others later.  Nobody knows for certain what type of player they might be in 5 or 7 years, or the potential they might have to succeed at a higher level of hockey at the age of 12.   Take for example, the story of Misty Copeland, who started Ballet at the age of 13, when most girls are well into their peak growth velocity period.  Copeland would eventually become the principal dancer at the American Ballet Theater.  Sweden discourages early specialization in sports, and has an incredible track record in the modern era, of developing some of the top NHL defenseman and Goalies, not to mention a long list of quality forwards, when the entire country has a population of 9 million.


One thing's for sure, and that is this:  if a kid has lost the desire to play the sport, it doesn't matter what their potential might be. 
Kids aren't stupid, and they know when coaches don't like them, or value them, or see their potential.  It's human nature that coaches have favorites, but a really good coach will hide their biases better than a bad one, and if you spend any significant time watching practices and games, you should know whether your coaches are investing their time and attention on your child in a way that justifies your expenditure of time and money.

[healthy scratch]

A coach with a little integrity will not roster a kid if he knows the kid won’t be getting a reasonable amount of playing time during the season.

[Bear71]

I feel like I'm in the crossfire of a Stuart Smalley vs Matt Foley Battle Royale, yet I can't decide if Icadad or In The Crease is Matt Foley.

[Go Kings_26]

Race to no where - Much better skill development?  Were they working on their cherry picking skills? Unfortunately those didn't work so well for them.   Kings even played down a guy and the lines were all mixed up.  How bad could it have been?  I'd be worried if I were the Ducks.   Expected a lot more from an all 05 team.