Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Flight Plan, WJC Camp, Cechmanek, Coach of the 2000s

morning, bill

Top of the blog to you

I know Lavvy's gonna get a ton of votes, but I'll go with Hitch.

I enjoyed how tough his team's played and thought he was pretty good when he actually talked hockey in interviews.

My only beef with Hitchcock was that he seemed less than nurturing with young kids (i.e.--Patrick Sharp, Mike Richards).

That said, however, both of the players I've mentioned have said (at least, publicly) that Hitch getting on them early did help them become better players.

I know Lavvy's gonna get a ton of votes, but I'll go with Hitch.

I enjoyed how tough his team's played and thought he was pretty good when he actually talked hockey in interviews.

My only beef with Hitchcock was that he seemed less than nurturing with young kids (i.e.--Patrick Sharp, Mike Richards).

That said, however, both of the players I've mentioned have said (at least, publicly) that Hitch getting on them early did help them become better players.
- johndewar

I also went with Hitch. And agree with your post and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Lavi, to me, is a little too married to his system and has repeatedly shown an inability (or stubborness) to adjust his system in game, per opponent, or out of necessity. I also have a big problem with the way he handles goalies.

I know Lavvy's gonna get a ton of votes, but I'll go with Hitch.

I enjoyed how tough his team's played and thought he was pretty good when he actually talked hockey in interviews.

My only beef with Hitchcock was that he seemed less than nurturing with young kids (i.e.--Patrick Sharp, Mike Richards).

That said, however, both of the players I've mentioned have said (at least, publicly) that Hitch getting on them early did help them become better players.
- johndewar

This

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=679625

Sad

Lava flows...

Laviolette may not be seen in the same light as when he was hired, even by me (and he was my candidate to replace John Stevens in the autumn of 2009), but he has accomplished more than the other coaches on the list. Of course, this is an opinion poll so no answer would be wrong unless one of the coaches coached the team to a dreadful season, missing the playoffs. Oh. Well, Lava only messed up a half-season that the NHL & NHLPA Seravallied up. I guess they should get more blame than anyone, especially since the lockout will not have fixed anything by the time the new CBA expires.

I know Lavvy's gonna get a ton of votes, but I'll go with Hitch.

I enjoyed how tough his team's played and thought he was pretty good when he actually talked hockey in interviews.

My only beef with Hitchcock was that he seemed less than nurturing with young kids (i.e.--Patrick Sharp, Mike Richards).

That said, however, both of the players I've mentioned have said (at least, publicly) that Hitch getting on them early did help them become better players.
- johndewar

Agreed. I like Lavi and all, but I had more faith in Hitch. Close, but he just seems like more a hockey guy. And:

"Tell Lindy to (frank) off."

I'm sorry, I know this is a hockey blog, but I think I'm done with baseball. The MLBPA is basically saying they're totally cool with their players taking PEDs, and I just can't get behind that. The Phillies will not be getting one dollar more from me.

Lava flows...

Laviolette may not be seen in the same light as when he was hired, even by me (and he was my candidate to replace John Stevens in the autumn of 2009), but he has accomplished more than the other coaches on the list.
- Flyskippy

How has he accomplished more than Hitchcock?

I'm sorry, I know this is a hockey blog, but I think I'm done with baseball. The MLBPA is basically saying they're totally cool with their players taking PEDs, and I just can't get behind that. The Phillies will not be getting one dollar more from me.
- jmatchett383

The MLBPA is just a union, doing what unions do. Protecting their members.

Especially members whose salaries helped drive up salaries for the rest of their members.

It's nothing personal; strictly business.

How has he accomplished more than Hitchcock?
- Feanor

More wins, better win %, 1 SCF appearance.

But I voted for Hitch.

How has he accomplished more than Hitchcock?
- Feanor

Took the Flyers to the Cup Finals and an overtime goal away from forcing a Game 7 in Finals. Hitch got the Flyers within two goals of a Cup Final in a seven-game ECF, but not to the Finals. Both coaches have won a Stanley Cup elsewhere.

I personally would have voted for Hitchcock, because I think teams that play stronger defense generally match up more favorably to a wider array of opponents. But that's just a personal preference.

The MLBPA is just a union, doing what unions do. Protecting their members.

Especially members whose salaries helped drive up salaries for the rest of their members.

It's nothing personal; strictly business.
- johndewar

I'm fine with unions protecting players. But they do everything in their power to stop the MLB from testing the players, basically saying, "We know our members are cheating, and we're going to stop you from finding out." I just can't agree with that. Basically, they're protecting cheaters...multimillionaire cheaters...multimillionaire cheaters who young kids look up to.

I went with Hitch because I simply think he did more with less talent. Lavi's system is meant for a team with good depth, two way play and mobility. He struggles when his teams don't possess above average talent.

Hitch can pretty much work with anything. His one terrible season had more to do with Clarkes inability to put together any kind of defense or depth scoring after the 12-21-22 line. Once Johnsson left and Forsberg couldn't play, NO coach could have saved that team.

The one thing I like about Lavi more than Hitch is his staying power. Hitch has a shelf life much shorter than Lavi. The Flyers weren't good last year, but they competed very hard in those final games, which shows they were still playing for their coach.

Took the Flyers to the Cup Finals and an overtime goal away from forcing a Game 7 in Finals. Hitch got the Flyers within two goals of a Cup Final in a seven-game ECF, but not to the Finals. Both coaches have won a Stanley Cup elsewhere.

I personally would have voted for Hitchcock, because I think teams that play stronger defense generally match up more favorably to a wider array of opponents. But that's just a personal preference.
- bmeltzer

I'm going with Hitchcock cause I believe in 2004 that if half the team wasnt banged up and Roenick, Kapanen, Primeau werent playing with concussions and Kapanen playing on defense cause we lost quite a few defenders we would have beat TB and won the cup. Just bad luck, but Laviolette is reallllly close for me. If the goalie wasnt Leighton we would have won in 2010 also.

I'm fine with unions protecting players. But they do everything in their power to stop the MLB from testing the players, basically saying, "We know our members are cheating, and we're going to stop you from finding out." I just can't agree with that. Basically, they're protecting cheaters...multimillionaire cheaters...multimillionaire cheaters who young kids look up to.
- jmatchett383

I can't argue with any of this.

beat writers were always more favorably disposed towards hitch than a guy like lavi and that certainly colors their assessments. hitch was a quote machine.

i think lavi has done more w/ less overall. hitch also inserted himself personnel wise to the detriment of the teams he coached in certain cases.

I'm going with Hitchcock cause I believe in 2004 that if half the team wasnt banged up and Roenick, Kapanen, Primeau werent playing with concussions and Kapanen playing on defense cause we lost quite a few defenders we would have beat TB and won the cup. Just bad luck, but Laviolette is reallllly close for me. If the goalie wasnt Leighton we would have won in 2010 also.
- GOA88

No one knows this for sure.

No one knows this for sure.
- KGBflyers10

Yeah, Boucher wasn't exactly stellar in his Game 1 appearance. Talk about taking yourself completely out of the play. At least Leighton was lights out against Montreal.

Capt Kangaroo gets my vote.....he always seemed ready for every team, he never lost he cool and even though players hated him, he had the gel to keep the locker room together until his gel left or had to retire (Recchi & Primeau)

Capt Kangaroo gets my vote.....he always seemed ready for every team, he never lost he cool and even though players hated him, he had the gel to keep the locker room together until his gel left or had to retire (Recchi & Primeau)

No one knows this for sure.
- KGBflyers10

Thats why I said I "Believe". Think about it..... all those injuries and lose by 1 goal in game 7.