Page 1 of 3
Shorting the bench
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:42 pm
by ontheglass
It seems each organization and coach has a different view of this topic. At what age/level should coaches start extending ice time for the top lines? I believe most of the top A teams begin this at the PW level (if not Squirt)..... is this also true for B teams? What impact (good or bad) does this have on the strength of a program from Bantams and beyond?
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:44 pm
by countrygentleman
Please learn to spell...
"Shorting" is not correct. It is "shortening". You should have caught that just by looking at that word and occasionally reading a book or two. It just looks retarted.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:45 pm
by countrygentleman
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:09 pm
by ontheglass
countrygentleman wrote:Please learn to spell...
"Shorting" is not correct. It is "shortening". You should have caught that just by looking at that word and occasionally reading a book or two. It just looks retarted.
Thank you for the spelling and grammar check. Unlike "retarted", shorting is actually used in writing.
As used in the investment community: "Several investors are shorting the stock." As used in the engineering community: "The circuit board keeps shorting out".
Thanks four takeing the thyme to coment thow
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:30 pm
by MaxPower
My philosophy:
At Squirts:
All players should be playing equal time. Lines rolled all game long.
At Peewees:
All players should have CLOSE to equal time. This changes slightly due to the fact that on PP/PK situations, you generally want to get the more talented and players on the ice that suit the philosophy of certain special teams.
Also at Peewee's, in close games, at the end of a game (5 mins or less remaining), it is then OK to shorten the bench. NOT before this time though.
At Bantams:
All Players should play, however at the 'A' level, I can see shortening the bench and go with the top 2 lines more often than the 3rd. Say for example 1,2,1,2,3,1,2,1,2,3......
Also at this level you should be getting specialized lines together for PP/PK situations. (ie: some Fwds may suit the PP well by playing on the blue line and Vice Versa).
my $.02
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:32 pm
by breakout
ontheglass wrote:countrygentleman wrote:Please learn to spell...
"Shorting" is not correct. It is "shortening". You should have caught that just by looking at that word and occasionally reading a book or two. It just looks retarted.
Thank you for the spelling and grammar check. Unlike "retarted", shorting is actually used in writing.
As used in the investment community: "Several investors are shorting the stock." As used in the engineering community: "The circuit board keeps shorting out".
Thanks four takeing the thyme to coment thow
Funny
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:33 pm
by elliott70
For what reason would you 'shorten your bench' (let some players play more than others)?
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:34 pm
by elliott70
I'll just talk to myself.
Answer - Shorten up to win.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:36 pm
by elliott70
Well then, when does winning become more important than say, player development, or player's fun, or a players right to participate?
Re: Shorting the bench
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:42 pm
by breakout
ontheglass wrote:It seems each organization and coach has a different view of this topic. At what age/level should coaches start extending ice time for the top lines? I believe most of the top A teams begin this at the PW level (if not Squirt)..... is this also true for B teams? What impact (good or bad) does this have on the strength of a program from Bantams and beyond?
From what I have seen, few squirt teams shorten the bench. However, there are some squirt teams that will shorten the bench.
It seems the shortening of the bench starts in Pee Wees. The bench seems to get smaller at the Pee Wee A and Bantam A levels. Some coaches take it to an extreme and rarely play the third line. All that is done for the sake of winning.
I haven't seen as much shortening of the bench at the B level. That is probably a good thing.
As for impact, shortening the bench has been a part of hockey for a long time. There may be a risk of losing players that may develop later.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:43 pm
by Charliedog
If you are good enough to make the team, you should be good enough to play on the team.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:43 pm
by elliott70
elliott70 wrote:Well then, when does winning become more important than say, player development, or player's fun, or a players right to participate?
Perhaps when the players have agreed to it.
But hopefully it is communicated to players (and parents) ahead of time.
In traveling baseball that I coach, we shorten it up in playoffs.
At other times certain players may get shorted because of breaking team rules. But other than that players are put in positions to be succesful with fairly even playing time (even though this is impossible). But in baseball, stats (not entirely) earn more opportunities. Stats mean less in hockey.
Back to the question, shorten the bench? Why?
It should be when predefined reasons are met.
I do not believe 'never' is the correct answer as that is not a good teaching tool, just as the opposite is not a good answer.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:46 pm
by breakout
elliott70 wrote:Well then, when does winning become more important than say, player development, or player's fun, or a players right to participate?
I agree with you. However, there may be a time to shorten the bench...............such as power play, penalty kill or end of game when the game is on the line.
As a player, there were times that I didn't get to be on the special teams. To me, that was a motivator to improve my skills and overall hockey ability. Some adversity can lead to valuable life lessons.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:53 pm
by Can't Never Tried
elliott70 wrote:I'll just talk to myself.
I gotta hunch this happens often, huh elliott?
As far as the spelling duel above, that's the best when someone calls out another posters error, while making one of their own.
I've done it *&#!*
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:26 pm
by Gums45
Special teams -power play, penalty kill I believe should be reserved for bantam level. Otherwise, let everyone have their regular shift. And to "Ontheglass" - your rebuttal was the best laugh I had all day
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:31 pm
by theref
Spelling lesson aside, here are my thoughts.
Yes, I can understand playing your top players (which usually means your goal scorers) when you are behind. However, why not develop those third or fourth lines, for differents situations. While one player might not be a great scorer, maybe he's a heck of a defensive forward and someone you would want in during the last two or three minutes of a game to preserve a lead or in a penalty kill situation. Mean while, that same player plays on the third line the rest of the game.
So I guess my point is this, shortening a bench can be a good thing, but it shouldn't always be the same players for all situations.
And though we aren't really talking about it, shortening the bench at the high school level does not work. Too many teams that are running 3 or 4 good lines for you to over work your top two lines and not develop the 3 and 4 lines through experience. Come playoff time, the teams with 3 to 4 solid lines are going to make it to state.
Also, like posted above, there should be equal playing time at squirts and about equal time at PeeWees.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:38 pm
by Hockey Guru
PW & Squirt teams, should all be played at equal time.
Bantams is where Coaches should start shortening time for worse players....
and start playing those who stick out, and make an impact on the team.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:59 pm
by HockeyGuru#6
Hockey Guru wrote:PW & Squirt teams, should all be played at equal time.
Bantams is where Coaches should start shortening time for worse players....
and start playing those who stick out, and make an impact on the team.
WOW rofl copy my name much? l
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:02 pm
by cadillac
We had this conversation last week. The majority believed shortening the bench at age 12 should not happen. Here were some other thoughts.
If the coach is a parent coach, is his kid one of the ones getting the more playing time?
If the coach is a non parent coach, did he address this in his interview to be hired? Would a association hire him if he/she did? Did the coach tell the team parents? Are they coaching only to win for themself or because they love the game and teaching kids?
Do the kids playing less have parent that pay less? If the team has 3 lines, and they play 15% of the game, and not 33% it adds up. On a $1000 season fee, do they pay $500 and another $1500? This was a big part of it, but develop perhaps was more important. They all pay the same amount, and all were placed on the team.
It is association hockey, the players competed to make the team where they live. Perhaps the shortening the bench coaches can invite Housley in to see when to make line changes.
post 8531
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:59 pm
by boblee
And you got on someone???
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:17 am
by nickel slots
This is a question that is difficult to answer. While I agree with Elliot that everybody pays the same and should therefore get equal playing time, I can also see where there might be situations where a coach might consider shortening (or shorting) the bench.
My belief is that if it's early November and your coach is already putting a premium on playing time, he is not only doing those kids a disservice that are riding the pine more than others, but in the long run, he is doing his team and, ultimately, his high school program a HUGE disservice.
We all know that winning or losing doesn't really amount to a hill of beans until those kids get to high school... and even then, there are lots of coaches that believe in giving everybody a chance up until the holidays or maybe section playoffs... even so, I would be willing to be that those coaches would love to see ALL of their youth programs develop as many players as possible. Sure, when they get to bantams there can and should be a #1 & #2 PP & PK unit, but before then, give them all a shot.
The major problem is this: There is too much weight put on winning early and winning often - by coaches, parents, kids, and even Minnesota Hockey and USA Hockey. Which begs the question (maybe you can answer this, Elliot)...
Why do we have district, region and state tournaments for kids that are 12-13 years old if we believe the emphasis should be on development and not on winning???
Doesn't it seem a teeny bit hypocritical for MN Hockey to preach that the emphasis should be on development, yet every year they spend oodles of time and money putting together a "who's the best at 12 & 13 years old" tournament?
why
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:14 am
by jancze5
My .02, if you start shortening the bench at a young age, those 3rd liners who never see the PP or other important ice situations will not develop those skills required to compete in that time of the game. You have to roll the lines in Squirts, Pee Wee's and at least the first year of Bantams...
to echo someone else...if the kid was good enough to pay to play on your team, he's good enough to play in any situation.
k
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:13 am
by watchdog
this is simple. if your playing a good team and you can see the third line is not matching up and will lose the game for the team you have to put them on the pine. this is not gona be the case every game. as a coach you have to make those choices. we all want to win the game including the players everyone makes their best effort for the win.
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:28 am
by elliott70
Can't Never Tried wrote:elliott70 wrote:I'll just talk to myself.
I
gotta hunch this happens often, huh elliott?
As far as the spelling duel above, that's the best when someone calls out another posters error, while making one of their own.
I've done it *&#!*
Only when I am in a room with all my friends.
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:40 am
by elliott70
nickel slots wrote:This is a question that is difficult to answer. While I agree with Elliot that everybody pays the same and should therefore get equal playing time, I can also see where there might be situations where a coach might consider shortening (or shorting) the bench.
My belief is that if it's early November and your coach is already putting a premium on playing time, he is not only doing those kids a disservice that are riding the pine more than others, but in the long run, he is doing his team and, ultimately, his high school program a HUGE disservice.
We all know that winning or losing doesn't really amount to a hill of beans until those kids get to high school... and even then, there are lots of coaches that believe in giving everybody a chance up until the holidays or maybe section playoffs... even so, I would be willing to be that those coaches would love to see ALL of their youth programs develop as many players as possible. Sure, when they get to bantams there can and should be a #1 & #2 PP & PK unit, but before then, give them all a shot.
******************************************************
The major problem is this: There is too much weight put on winning early and winning often - by coaches, parents, kids, and even Minnesota Hockey and USA Hockey. Which begs the question (maybe you can answer this, Elliot)...
Why do we have district, region and state tournaments for kids that are 12-13 years old if we believe the emphasis should be on development and not on winning???
Doesn't it seem a teeny bit hypocritical for MN Hockey to preach that the emphasis should be on development, yet every year they spend oodles of time and money putting together a "who's the best at 12 & 13 years old" tournament?
I cannot answer why it was started. I wasn't around (the MNH Board - but yes I was alive and still am, surprisingly, and to the dismay of some).
My guess is that it gave teams from around the state to test themselves (a lot less invitational tourneys and traveling from here tot here in thsoe days).
Why is it still being done????
Pretty hard to stop it now. And I do not think it is emphasized to the point that that is all that matters in the season. At least I would hope not becuase only one team would have a successful season.
