Coaching Records Since The Lockout – Let The Reader Use Discernment

Jonathan Willis
April 28 2009 08:10PM

Renney

With the news coming out today that the Oilers are going to interview Tom Renney (shown above, demonstrating his easy going manner and rapport with his players), I thought it might be of interest to take a look at the records of NHL coaches post-lockout.

What follows is such a list, featuring every bench boss with more than fifty games coached since the NHL lockout. The number in brackets on the right is a coach’s points percentage – what percent of available points his teams have taken. Coaches listed in bold are currently available for hire, and those listed in italics are NHL G.M.s who either stepped behind the bench temporarily or have since been elevated to the top hockey job.

Some caveats apply; obviously coaches with bad teams are going to be grouped near the bottom (hey look, it’s Scott Gordon!) regardless of their personal level of ability, and the reverse is true also (hello, Michel Therrien). Also, while I got all of my information from hockey-reference.com, it’s only as accurate as my math skills; so while I checked the numbers twice, if there’s a suspicious one please double-check.

Coaching Records, Post-Lockout

 

Todd McLellan – San Jose: 53-18-11 (.713) Mike Babcock – Detroit: 213-77-38 (.707) Lou Lamoriello – New Jersey: 34-14-5 (.689) Bruce Boudreau – Washington: 87-41-15 (.661) Daryl Sutter – Calgary: 46-25-11 (.628) Claude Julien – BOS/NJ/MTL: 160-88-36 (.627) Brent Sutter – New Jersey: 97-56-11 (.625) Randy Carlyle – Anaheim: 180-107-41 (.611) John Paddock – Ottawa: 36-22-6 (.609) Dave Tippett – Dallas: 184-113-31 (.608) Barry Trotz – Nashville: 181-114-33 (.602) Ron Wilson – SJ/TOR: 178-111-39 (.602) Peter Laviolette – Carolina: 157-100-24 (.601) Alain Vigneault – Vancouver: 133-86-27 (.596) Guy Carbonneau – Montreal: 124-83-23 (.589) Tom Renney – New York Rangers: 159-106-42 (.586) Mike Keenan – Calgary: 88-60-16 (.585) Jim Playfair – Calgary: 43-29-10 (.585) Lindy Ruff – Buffalo: 185-129-34 (.580) Bob Gainey – Montreal: 29-21-7 (.570) Jacques Lemaire – Minnesota: 170-125-35 (.568) Peter DeBoer – Florida: 41-30-11 (.567) Joel Quenneville – COL/CHI: 176-114-34 (.560) Michel Therrien – Pittsburgh: 135-105-32 (.555) Paul Maurice – TOR/CAR: 109-85-27 (.554) Bob Hartley – Atlanta: 84-67-19 (.550) Pat Quinn – Toronto: 41-33-8 (.549) Andy Murray – STL/LA: 138-113-37 (.543) Ken Hitchcock – CBJ/PHI: 149-128-39 (.533) John Tortorella – TB/NYR: 130-115-22 (.528) Jacques Martin – Florida: 110-100-36 (.520) John Stevens – Philadelphia: 107-98-33 (.519) Ted Nolan – New York Islanders: 74-68-21 (.518) Craig MacTavish – Edmonton: 152-141-35 (.517) Don Waddell – Atlanta: 34-34-8 (.500) Denis Savard – Chicago: 65-66-16 (.497) Terry Murray – Los Angeles: 34-37-11 (.482) Wayne Gretzky – Phoenix: 143-161-24 (.473) Marc Crawford – LA/VAN: 101-116-29 (.470) John Anderson – Atlanta: 35-41-6 (.463) Dave Lewis – Boston: 35-41-6 (.463) Mike Sullivan – Boston: 29-37-16 (.451) Gerard Gallant – Columbus: 40-52-5 (.438) Tony Granato – Colorado: 32-45-5 (.421) Glen Hanlon – Washington: 63-95-27 (.414) Rick Tocchet – Tampa Bay: 19-33-14 (.394) Trent Yawney – Chicago: 33-55-15 (.393) Scott Gordon – New York Islanders: 26-47-9 (.372) Mike Kitchen – St. Louis: 28-63-19 (.341)

Some fun points from this list:

  • Mike Keenan and Jim Playfair have posted identical points percentages with the Calgary Flames. I wonder what that means, exactly.
  • I was shocked to see that of available ex-NHL coaches, John Paddock has the best record, post-lockout.
  • I wonder what the problem is with Claude Julien; he sees nothing but success and he’s been fired twice since the lockout.
  • Bob Gainey’s record as an interim coach looked good at first, but then I realized that it was significantly further down the list than the two men he replaced.
  • I remain a strong supporter of Craig MacTavish’s ability to coach at the NHL level, but it is somewhat interesting that he’s just behind Ted Nolan in terms of winning percentage. Nolan may be all kinds of difficult, but it seems to me that the man can coach.
74b7cedc5d8bfbe88cf071309e98d2c3
Jonathan Willis is a freelance writer. He currently works for Oilers Nation, Sportsnet, the Edmonton Journal and Bleacher Report. He's co-written three books and worked for myriad websites, including Grantland, ESPN, The Score, and Hockey Prospectus. He was previously the founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue.
Avatar
#51 Archaeologuy
April 29 2009, 04:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Big Deal: I have always contended that the way hockey formulates its "winning percentage" is whacky. Shouldnt it be a stat that displays how often a team/coach/goalie wins the games they play in? Instead, it shows how often they do not lose in regulation time, which isnt the same at all.

But people get their feathers ruffled when you suggest that the way things are done dont make sense.

Avatar
#52 Mike Krushelnyski
April 29 2009, 04:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Archaeologuy:

Yeah, I find it weird too. Like people say the Oilers finished the season 3 games over .500, despite the fact that they won 38 games and lost 44.

Avatar
#53 Jonathan Willis
April 29 2009, 05:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Ref wrote:

But remember that Scotty Bowman was quoted as saying “Statistics are for losers”

I've never heard that, but if he really made that statement he was being a complete hypocrite. His nickname in Pittsburgh was "Rainman" because of his incredible grasp of statistics.

If you think statistics are useless, you don't have an ally in Scotty Bowman.

Avatar
#54 Jonathan Willis
April 29 2009, 05:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Further on that, from a Sports Illustrated article about Scotty Bowman:

"He is comfortable with numbers, more comfortable with numbers than he is with people."

Avatar
#55 Jonathan Willis
April 29 2009, 05:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I used points percentage here because that's the most important number for teams looking at a playoff spot.

If I ruled the world, there wouldn't be OT points; just a straight win-loss count.

Avatar
#56 Archaeologuy
April 29 2009, 05:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Jonathan Willis wrote:

If I ruled the world, there wouldn’t be OT points; just a straight win-loss count

That's the only way that makes sense now that there are no ties. People are tossing out ideas like 3 points for regulation wins 2 points for OT wins blah blah blah. Why? There is a system in place that allows for the categories to be simplified to either Wins or Losses, so why hire a Mathematologist to figure out who makes the playoffs?

Avatar
#57 Archaeologuy
April 29 2009, 06:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Archaeologuy wrote:

If I ruled the world,

Also, if I ruled the world, there would only be 24 teams in the NHL and none of them would be located in the southern US. Dallas, your on notice.

The instigator rule would be abandoned and hitting to the head would be encouraged, but the plastic armour they call pads would be changed to softer material.

Anyone who suggests increasing the size of nets or changing to a 4 on 4 format would be exiled to Antarctica and they would be erased from history. Not even a birth certificate.

Thus concludes Day One of Archaeologuy's reign.

Comments are closed for this article.