9 replies to this topic

[wndrkty]

So I got to thinking about this today after discussing the difference between the coaching change in Omaha vs. Muskegon. In Omaha, we saw instant gratification for the decision, and I can't think of a single person who would say that making that decision was the wrong answer. But Muskegon has not had the same fortune. Mind you, the new coach only has a few games under his belt, but as I said Omaha saw INSTANT gratification.

Anyway, so that made me wonder how the new interim coaches are doing since taking on their teams. Below is a breakdown of the team records for Omaha, Muskegon, and Tri-City with their original head coach and the interim coach. (forgive me, I thought there was a 4th coach fired this year, but I couldn't locate anything so I went with the three I knew.)

Omaha
Bliss Littler: 9-8-2; Win Percentage - 47%
Mike Aikens: 15-4-0; Win Percentage - 78%
Team Total: 24-12-2; Win Percentage - 63%

Tri-City
Drew Schoneck: 6-15-0; Win Percentage - 28%
Josh Hauge: 8-9-0; Win Percentage - 47%
Team Total: 14-24-0; Win Percentage - 36%

Muskegon
Kevin Patrick: 9-14-2; Win Percentage - 36%
Jim McKenzie: 1-5-2; Win Percentage - 12%
Team Total: 10-19-4; Win Percentage - 30%

This was really surprising to me. Omaha felt the need to fire their coach when his win record fell just under 50%, and moving their assistant coach into the slot was enough to turn things around. Tri-City waited until their coach was significantly further down in win percentages before making the change, they also promoted their assistant to interim and while he has made improvements, he's still under 50% for wins himself. Muskegon makes the coaching change, does NOT promote their assitant and they are actually doing worse than before.

Just thought I'd share and see what everyone else thought about this.

[Ryan]

I don't think it's ever easy to make an in season coaching change, but sometimes you just see nothing is changing like in Omaha and Tri-City's case, and the assistant is moved up and the team responds. With Musky, maybe they would have done a bit better if they didn't name McKenzie head coach and promoted Noel-Bernier for the remainder of the season. I believe they won the game following Patrick's firing and Noel-Bernier was the head coach for that game since McKenzie wasn't even in town yet.

[Mr Ricochet]

Nice work, wndrkty!!

Obviously it's a case by case decision. Once the question is answered what an organizations goals are you proceed from there. Is the goal to win, develop, fill the seats, entertain or parts of all?

I think Muskegon really wants to entertain and they see that as a pugilistic endeavor, so they bring in a guy with zero games coached but 1,739 PIM in 880 NHL games. I'm sure the Jacks would love to win but their actions show that's not their #1 priority, at least to date.

TC seems as though they are proactive making a few trades and looking to win shook things up. So far some decent results.

The Lancers and their long and proud history want wins. Littler despite going 42-12-6 for a .750 win percentage last year wasn't afforded time with a talented club was removed after a sub par start. Looks like the right lever was pulled at the right time in Omaha.

Will patience be given to Simon in DM? One of their fans posted that the club seemingly looks to make a profit first and foremost. Concessions were raised across the board and folks are still coming to the arena despite playing at a .414 clip. Going by the theory/goal why change anything when people are still in the seats and the receipts are fine, no need for a change.

[hydrogyrum]

I don't know about Omaha and Tri-City, but from what I've heard, the Muskegon team has had some off-ice behavior problems that has affected everything on-ice. It involved habitual breaking curfew and drinking, culminating in a drunk driving episode that featured smashing mailboxes, a federal offense. About the time I heard about this event, 3-4 players exited the team without fanfare (press releases, etc.) and the old coach got his walking papers. So building up the Jacks team is a monumental task going forward.

It's my perception that Muskegon has to draft players who are not only good hockey players but are of good moral character as well. "Good moral character" involves guarding one's reputation and not being persuaded to engage in high jinks that could lead to legal ramifications, etc. Muskegon is a small fishbowl, which can make a young man in the spotlight feel like he's something special and do some pretty stupid things.

Should Muskegon have gone with Noel-Bernier for the rest of the season? Possibly, but 2 games is really too few to make a judgement on. Except for last night's hiccup, McKenzie has got the guys focused on playing hockey, IMO. Winning lots of games is probably not a realistic goal right now because it seems like we're back to square one, re-discovering what good USHL-level hockey is supposed to be.

I do know this: the games with McKenzie as coach have been very entertaining--as in, how the game is being played, no pugilism required. It's been on-the-edge-of-your-seat action right up until the final horn. It's been a night-and-day difference in that respect; before McKenzie, going to a game meant frequent wristwatch-checking and wondering if it was worth wasting another hour of my life watching on-ice drivel.

Season ticket holders seem to be happier now, if that's worth anything. People are leaving the arena in good spirits. Groups (including church groups and youth groups) are coming back to the games--they had been scared away by the punchfests that the slop-head players had turned the games into.

[wndrkty]

I'm not in disagreement and hope you didn't take the post as a slam against Muskegon. I'm not really a fan of bringing in an unknown to coach for the second half of the season and wanted to take a look at his performance in comparison to the other interim coaches. The Jacks are definately playing better overall and given enough time he may be able to make them a team to reckon with. I'm beginning to doubt it can be done before the playoffs, but I'm willing to wait it out and see.

IMO the most telling thing for Muskegon will be next season. Chicago got rid of their coach around this point last season and the team wasn't able to dig themselves out of the basement before the end of the year. It hasn't been until this year that the improvement has finally started to show. Chicago got off to a slow start, but they definately seem to be on the rise now. If Muskegon can finally make that type of turnaround next year I'll be willing to say that firing Coach Patrick was the right move at the right time.

[hydrogyrum]

No, I didn't take your comments as a slam--you raised a good point for discussion. I'm thinking that Muskegon's choice of an ex-NHL player who's hoisted the Stanley Cup once in his career is a good one because it puts an example in front of the players of what many/most of them want to become. Someone's who's been through it all and went to the top, that sort of thing.

[wndrkty]

Just thought I'd update this thread with another month's worth of data.

Omaha
Bliss Littler: 9-8-2; Win Percentage - 47%
Mike Aikens: 18-7-1; Win Percentage - 69% (change: -9%)
Team Total: 24-12-2; Win Percentage - 60% (change: -3%)

Tri-City
Drew Schoneck: 6-15-0; Win Percentage - 28%
Josh Hauge: 13-11-0; Win Percentage - 54% (change: +7%)
Team Total: 19-26-0; Win Percentage - 42% (change: +6%)

Muskegon
Kevin Patrick: 9-14-2; Win Percentage - 36%
Jim McKenzie: 4-9-3; Win Percentage - 25% (change: +13%)
Team Total: 13-23-5; Win Percentage - 31% (change: +1%)

So with another month under these interim coaches belts we definately see some changes. Aikens has lost some ground on his own win percentage, but as the first place team in the West he's definately keeping the team on the right track. Meanwhile, both Hauge and McKenzie have improved their teams win percentage over a month ago. Hauge has enough games as interim coach that his win percentage is starting to make a difference in the team's overall percentage, and he's gotten the team to almost 50% in wins. McKenzie still has the fewest games with his new team, and therefore its going to be hardest for him to make a dent in the overall wins of the team.

My opinion of McKenzie is slowly changing. I was of the opinion originally that bringing in an unknown as the coach could never work. While the team hasn't been able to see drastic or instant results, they are seeing results. They're still losing a good portion of their games, but the effort is there. They're able to actually play the game and compete with the other team. Most impressive to me is the penalties. They aren't taking nearly as many as they were before, and that alone has made significant improvements to their abilities. If they keep McKenzie around for another year I think we'll see a Muskegon team that doesn't spend their entire season in the basement.

[Ryan]

wndrkty, on 25 February 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

Just thought I'd update this thread with another month's worth of data.

Omaha
Bliss Littler: 9-8-2; Win Percentage - 47%
Mike Aikens: 18-7-1; Win Percentage - 69% (change: -9%)
Team Total: 24-12-2; Win Percentage - 60% (change: -3%)

Unless my math is off, something is a bit wrong here. Bliss' 9 wins and Aikens' 18 should be 27 wins and their losses add to 15, OTL add to 3. Don't match team totals like the other teams do. Just an observation

[wndrkty]

Yep, I copied the wrong cell in my excel. Thanks!

The 60% win rate was right, just the record was wrong. Ah well.

[Mr Ricochet]

wndrkty, on 25 February 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

My opinion of McKenzie is slowly changing. I was of the opinion originally that bringing in an unknown as the coach could never work. While the team hasn't been able to see drastic or instant results, they are seeing results. They're still losing a good portion of their games, but the effort is there. They're able to actually play the game and compete with the other team. Most impressive to me is the penalties. They aren't taking nearly as many as they were before, and that alone has made significant improvements to their abilities. If they keep McKenzie around for another year I think we'll see a Muskegon team that doesn't spend their entire season in the basement.

Great work kty!!

As I mentioned I got a look at Muskegon last week, and to be honest if Patrick was still there I wouldn't make the drive to see the Jacks again until next year.

I'm still way uncommitted as far as McKenzie goes, but do think the club played with a lot more flow. It appeared they were unleashed so to speak without having to worry about exact positioning and that gave the skaters more freedom, and it showed. Under Patrick this year the Jacks were the slowest club I saw, and had zero rhythm.

I did notice at one point a bad blown assignment by a Dman leaving a Steel unmarked in the crease by 15 feet and watched as he went to the bench. Not a word was said to the kid as he took his seat, which bothered me a bit. Not sure when the coaching was going to come, but IMO you get in the kids ear right now.

Some have said Patrick carried himself as if many in the USHL were below him. If true I can see where that eventually will wear on those around him and he's tuned out, both on and off the ice. If McKenzie can at least create a positive atmosphere the Jacks are bound to improve even if McKenzie were found to be short on x's and o's.

But I would have to say a rookie head coach going up against USHL coaches from Day 1 next year would justifiably cause concern. And if Mervis decides to go that route he better be sure it's the right move, because he'll be getting to the point that Musky fans will decide this ship will never get righted and find other things to do on Jack game days.

I will add McKenzie looks like he could lace em up and play today. Guy is fit as a fiddle.