Last Time
I hate even bringing this crap up again, and yet here I am.
The question I keep asking myself is "would people be as anti-Hiller if the Ams had lost to any other coach?" There are some that feel Nachbaur taking the job in Spokane was a slap in the face or to spite Tri-Cities. That sounds awful conspiracy theory-ish to me. Until Don Nachbaur himself or Bob Tory himself tell me otherwise, I have to go with the knowledge I have which is that Don's family was still here when he went to Binghamton and he decided to leave there to come back to be closer with his family. Coincidentally (or not) there was a job opening in Spokane.
In Binghamton he had a 36-35-0-9 record. You gotta think that he wanted to get back to the WHL where he'd have more success than a .514 win percentage. (I think I did that math right...) When he started as a WHL coach in Seattle, he had a .543 win percentage:
1994-95 0.597
1995-96 0.451
1996-97 0.597
1997-98 0.472
1998-99 0.590
1999-00 0.556
So there were some lean years in there. As there would be for any coach the first several years. What about in his time in Tri?
2003-04 0.528
2004-05 0.438
2005-06 0.465
2006-07 0.667
2007-08 0.750
2008-09 0.701
Also a couple lean years as Bob was busy building a winner. What about Hiller?
2006-07 0.396
2007-08 0.451
Numbers with the Bruins not great. But come on, doesn't take a genius to know he didn't have a lot of talent to work with. In Tri (and all that talent Bob's accumulated)?
2009-10 0.674
2010-11 0.639
Some more numbers:
Play-offs
Don Nachbaur 2003-09
Play-off wins 27
Winning Pct. .500
Series Wins 4
Jim Hiller 2009-
Play-off wins 19
Winning pct. .594
Series wins 4
Regular Season
Don Nachbaur 2003-09
Wins 229
Winning Pct. .589
Jim Hiller 2009-
Wins 91
Winning pct. .656
I like numbers. Just a few more, bear with me.
Games coached (regular season)
Nachbaur 864 WHL, 80 AHL
Hiller 288
So to say Hiller was "out-coached" is...I dunno, odd. Six hundred and fifty-six more (regular season) games coached is experience. In that sense, I wouldn't say out-coached, I'd say out-experienced. There's a learning curve for everyone--players and coaches--in this league. Is he able to make adjustments like Don Nachbaur? Maybe not, but that doesn't mean he should be fired. It means there's learning to be done, experience to be gained. To want to toss Hiller out after only 2 years, two successful years I might add, is not thinking long-term.
In 22 years of existence, the Americans have had 12 coaches. TWELVE. Thirteen if you count 02-03 when Clouston was fired and Tory took over as bench boss. That's an incredible amount of turnover and with that comes lack of continuity, consistency, credibility. The Americans were an embarrassment. Tory arrived, brought in good scouts and Don Nachbaur. This created an atmosphere of winning and pride. Even moreso after the team was bought out of Darryl Porter's slimy hands.
Getting rid of Hiller would go against what the ownership is trying to continue growing here--success. Remember Bob Tory is part owner, you can be damn sure he's going to get his money's worth by having a consistently competitive team. Are the Ams going to be Division champs or Conference champs or WHL champs every year? God no, that's not realistic. Would it be nice? Hell yeah. Personally, and I know I'm not alone, I like having a respected team that year after year has a chance for a championship.
Final thoughts 1.) None of us knows what goes on behind closed doors. Unless you're in that locker room, it's heresay, rumor, and speculation. 2.) I fully trust Bob Tory. So if Hiller's good enough for him, he's good enough for me.
Almost all stats from Hockey DataBase
Almost all stats from Hockey DataBase
*and yes, I'm well aware there are people who disagree with me and that's fine. I just happen to like the numbers a lot more. And disagreeers, you're not going to change my mind. J/S
7 comments:
Good article. I am fully in support of Hiller. Some fans, unfortunately, will not accept anything but perfection and when they don't get it they immediately forget everything the coach has done in the past. Also, a coach taking over for a successful coach is almost always in an unenviable position of being able to do no right. Several years ago a local high school's girls basketball team had a phenomenal run. Only the willfully blind couldn't see that the coach, once she'd won a state championship, was headed for college coaching. Sure enough, she left. The new coach had a couple of very good years going on inherited talent, then had a merely good year. Immediately the calls came for her to be fired. I can't remember if the school stuck with her or not, but she would have had to won back to back state championships to satisfy the spoiled parents.
My opinion of Hiller has nothing to do with wins and losses, but how I see the boys performing on the ice. If they came out with a consistent effort and lost every game, that would be one thing. They haven't. They have come out flat far too many times. Yes, the boys have to play their game, but when a business is underperforming, who do people look to? The boss. It's the boss' job to get his employees fired up and on track. This Americans team had more talent than they knew what to do with... and finished third in the division... and was knocked out of the playoffs by a team with far fewer talented players... and did it with a complete collapse in essentially the most important game of the entire season.
Bob Tory built a playoff team this year. He obviously felt they had a strong chance of going deep by his comments earlier in the year. He obviously expected a lot from his coach. To me, that goes against the theory that we need to give Hiller time to gain experience. Bob Tory obviously felt that he was ready now.
Jim Hiller has done a lot of good things with this team. Yes, he did get them farther than any other coach, with a team that was still heavily influenced by Don Nachbaur's coaching. Yes, he is better than a lot of other coaches in this league. In my opinion, that does not excuse the uninspired, unemotional performances we watched this year's team produce over and over. It's almost like he is a great doctor with a not-so-great bedside manner. A HUGE part of coaching is getting the most from your players and he has yet to do that.
I guess I'm the opposite of you, DS. Numbers don't mean much to me. Effort is far more important. And I'm not saying "FIRE HILLER", but I am saying I have my suspicions. Just my $0.02.
LOVE numbers! It makes everything clearer. Thanks Dave for clarifing.
And I get that, I've been disappointed in the effort--or lack thereof--as well.
But I don't know that I agree that it's the sole responsibility of the coach to motivate.
Let me take your business analogy and turn it a bit to a school model. Is it the sole responsibility of a teacher to make sure students pass? Or does some of that responsibility fall on the students to participate in their learning and motivate themselves to be successful?
A coach can talk/prod/yell till he's blue in the face but if they players are putting out a flat effort, some of that is on them.
The mention of all the talent--in my opinion on some of those lackluster effort nights it seemed to be individual effort(s) rather than a team effort. Is that on coach too? Perhaps. But it's also on the players.
I believe Bob attempts to build a playoff team every year. I think he expects a lot from his players and his coaches. In that sense, and using your analogy about business and bosses, Bob is the boss. Then it's HIS job to motivate/inspire/teach Hiller and the assistant coaches to bring out the best in players.
Difference between school and hockey: kids (98% of them) don't want to be at school. WHL players want to be there.
Bob may be the CEO, but he's not the boys' direct boss on a daily basis. Maybe it does fall on him though. Maybe Hiller isn't inspired from HIS boss and it trickles down.
I understand your side of the argument and I do respect it! And you're probably right in that if they had lost to a different team with a different coach, we might not all be as upset as we are.
Wanting to be there, wanting to win, wanting to move on to the next level should be motivation on a nightly basis. They should play like there is NHL scouts in the building every night. But we know that doesn't happen.
I see your point too, and I'm not trying to fight with you--i lurve you too much for that--but I'm saying the responsibility for lackluster effort should be shared not just on Jim's shoulders.
IMO there are a few key knocks...
1. The talent this year was insanely deep. Probably the deepest I have ever seen an Ams team. Thinking back, it rivals a particular Kamloops team from the 90s with Iginla.
2. WHO the team got ousted by stings more than your average opponent, which I why i think people are more passionate about the coaching one way or the other.
It sucks... but not sure its time for Hiller to leave just yet...plus like you said...if he is good enough for Trader Bob, he's good enough for me.
Post a Comment