HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Hannah Brandt is a fantastic player. Samantha Donovan scored half of Irondale's goals this season. It comes as no surprise to me that very few of the top scorers are on teams that are in the state tournament. Its too easy to neutralize one player for one game. So if you get to coach one of these kids what do you do? Do you build a game around them or play them the same as every other player (including ice time)? Since regular season records are meaningless I think I'd shoot for balance to strengthen the team.

Your thoughts?

Your thoughts?

Go ahead and develop a few more then. The problem is, they weren't developed. They have special natural skills that have been refined by their coaches along the way. They have also had special coaches that have taught these girls, and other special top players, how and when to do these special things. Most have some nifty tricks and moves in their bag that someone taught them along their way. But, they were special to begin with.

I'll add, with the growth of girls hockey there are a lot of them coming up. Maybe not as special, because they are rare, but very good.

Dumbest question ever proposed.

I would take HB 100 0f 100 times.
She is a complete package. Just as happy w/ assists as goals. I think she would prefer to see her teamates score than to carry the team herself.

Any coach would.

Still waiting for an answer about how you maximize the benefit of having a standout player. So far only stupid answers.

What exactly are you looking for? Sure, HB was the engine of that squad and she made everyone around her better. That was apparent when she was gone at the Kaposia and Tonka got a little revenge.

Does Breck not play #34 a lot or SSP #3 or Roseville #8. You get a special player you lean on them. It's done at the youth level, H.S., college, pros, national teams. A coach wouldn't last to long (at any level) if the best player was on the bench at crunch time.

luckyEPDad wrote:Still waiting for an answer about how you maximize the benefit of having a standout player. So far only stupid answers.

In years past, I frequently put together AAA teams to compete in summer tournaments. I knew that I would have a team capable of winning the tournament whenever I was lucky enough to get the Brandt sisters and a good goalie. Luckily a few times I was blessed to have both and we won. Hannah Brandt is not only the best player in girls hockey. She also makes the players around her better. She is a great player and a great leader. Having the best player on your team to build around is a no brainer. You say that so far there are only stupid answers but what do you expect when you are asking a question with an obvious answer.

I agree with Homer, it's a no brainer you play her as much as possible. She is a difference maker who makes everyone around her better.

hockeywild7 wrote:I agree with Homer, it's a no brainer you play her as much as possible. She is a difference maker who makes everyone around her better.

Why do you play her as much as possible? How does that help the team get better? I understand doing it for tournaments, but for mostly meaningless regular season games what is the benefit of playing your stars and limiting the playing time of others?

Another thing I've noticed is a lot of players defer to the best players. Is it EVER a good thing to teach players to not play agressively?

And then there's the matter of competition. Nobody benefits from blowouts. Playing way over your competion just makes a team lazy. If I can count on Player A putting two or three in the net every game is that really benefitting the team, other than in the win column?

Is it really a no brainer?

Homer wrote:What exactly are you looking for? Sure, HB was the engine of that squad and she made everyone around her better. That was apparent when she was gone at the Kaposia and Tonka got a little revenge.

Does Breck not play #34 a lot or SSP #3 or Roseville #8. You get a special player you lean on them. It's done at the youth level, H.S., college, pros, national teams. A coach wouldn't last to long (at any level) if the best player was on the bench at crunch time.

Yeah, but what about when it isn't crunch time? In HS hockey crunch time is 6 games at the end of the season. What about the other 25? That's what I'm asking. If you lean on a player all the time are you getting the maximum benefit? How detrimental is it to play a different mix when games aren't so important?

To warm up for the Olympics the US Women's team plays Canada, not China. When you have a player like Brandt she can make a lot of teams look like China.

And that's exactly what they did. Played her as much as possible when they needed her too. When they didn't such as having the game in hand they didn't play her as much. You say all the answers are stupid, seems to me you already have your own answer it's just different than what others are offering up. Every situation is different so what your asking isn't that black and white as you seem to want it to be.

luckyep,

You are lucky in EP. At Irondale they don't cut players because they are a small association. This season they skated 3 lines and 5 D all season long. Occassionally they played 4 lines in lopsides games. Only the 2 Benilde games and and the Wayzata then Chisago Lakes (last 2 games of season) did the team change to a 1-2, 1-3, 1-2,1-3 pattern. It was to get ready for Section play, knowing Irondale loves Overtime games. They also recorded only 6 goals from forwards over the last 19 games not on the 1st line.
The lines most of the year were 3- 10 graders, followed by 2- 8th graders and a 9th grader, followed by a 9th, 11th and a senior(playing her 1st year at the varsity level). They are young and will get better.
Players like Hannah B and Sam D are very hardworking athletes that work year round and the have a passion for the game. That is what helps seperate them.
In the past seasons yes Irondale was mostly a 2 line team, not this season.

luckyEPDad wrote:

Homer wrote:What exactly are you looking for? Sure, HB was the engine of that squad and she made everyone around her better. That was apparent when she was gone at the Kaposia and Tonka got a little revenge.

Does Breck not play #34 a lot or SSP #3 or Roseville #8. You get a special player you lean on them. It's done at the youth level, H.S., college, pros, national teams. A coach wouldn't last to long (at any level) if the best player was on the bench at crunch time.

Yeah, but what about when it isn't crunch time? In HS hockey crunch time is 6 games at the end of the season. What about the other 25? That's what I'm asking. If you lean on a player all the time are you getting the maximum benefit? How detrimental is it to play a different mix when games aren't so important?

To warm up for the Olympics the US Women's team plays Canada, not China. When you have a player like Brandt she can make a lot of teams look like China.

EP,
Do you recall the EP vs Hm game this past season? EP down 6-0 after 2. HM switches goalies, moved d to forward and vice versa. HB had may 4 shifts at D in the 3rd. EP scored 3 times to make the game look closer than it was. Thats why you play your best players.

Well...uh yeah...you're darn right I do

Homer wrote: EP,
Do you recall the EP vs Hm game this past season? EP down 6-0 after 2. HM switches goalies, moved d to forward and vice versa. HB had may 4 shifts at D in the 3rd. EP scored 3 times to make the game look closer than it was. Thats why you play your best players.

Is it better to win 9-0 than 6-3? I have this great player who makes winning easy for the team. Is winning easily necesarily the best thing for my team? Eventually they'll run into someone that isn't easy to beat. Normally you want the competition to be strong enough so that every game is a struggle. When that doesn't happen do you juggle the lineup to manufacture competition? Not for fairness, not for injuries, but just to put the team in tight situations that they need to work out of? Isn't part of the purpose of games learning? How much learning is there if games are seldom close and you always can count on someone else to pull off the win?

I'm not asking about Hanna Brandt in particular. There are always a few stellar players moving through HS. Depend too much on a couple of players and you end up with games like this years Class A championship. Both teams were skating like zombies in the third period. If either had any real depth it would have been an easy win. Remember what happend on the boys side a few years ago with Edina. One stong line handed them a bunch of regular season wins. Come state tournament they ran into a team that could hang with them through two periods and they stood no chance in the third.

Homer wrote:What exactly are you looking for? Sure, HB was the engine of that squad and she made everyone around her better. That was apparent when she was gone at the Kaposia and Tonka got a little revenge.

Does Breck not play #34 a lot or SSP #3 or Roseville #8. You get a special player you lean on them. It's done at the youth level, H.S., college, pros, national teams. A coach wouldn't last to long (at any level) if the best player was on the bench at crunch time.

In college, national teams and the pros you buy talent. There is no need to develop it. Are HS coaches just managers, or are they expected to coach their team?

Another big difference is that all games count in college, national teams and the pros. In Minnesota HS none of the games count for much. If losing early makes you better in the end it is worth it.

Perhaps you have a legitimate question, but you picked a poor example. In the games that I've seen Brandt, she skates what is mostly a normal shift for a top-line HS player, flies around distributing the puck, and then leaves the ice. She isn't coasting around trying to conserve energy in order to remain on the ice like several of the top players did in the "A" tournament.

If your question is should the Pioneers play Brandt less during the season in order to manufacture close games where they otherwise wouldn't exist, that's an odd question, IMO. When EP had horses like Pezon, Stoa, Feste, and Seeler, they played a lot; EP was just fortunate to have a number of D-I players at the same time. This is varsity hockey, not a game of one-on-one with a younger sibling where one artificially tries to keep a game close.

luckyEPDad wrote:Is it better to win 9-0 than 6-3?

No difference really, provided you can guarantee in advance that you'll come away with a win. But when the score is just 6-3, there are no guarantees, and if winning is the objective then the coach needs to play those who will give his team the best chance to win. This is not always as easy at it appears - do you keep sending your top 1-3 players out there, even though they're gassed and not as effective as they normally would be? Or do you play your 3rd line, who are not nearly as skilled but are going to try harder because they still have energy? This can be a tough call, and there is no best answer for all situations.

I am wondering if the White Bear Lake boys coach might be second guessing himself today, after his team blew a big lead and lost their section game yesterday? They had a 5-1 lead with just 5 minutes to go, and #7 seed St. Paul Johnson scored 5 straight (including the overtime winner) to beat his #2 seeded squad 6-5. I don't know if he was mostly relying on his tired first liners or his fresh but inexperienced third liners there at the end, but whatever it was I'm sure he'd change his strategy if he could have a do-over.

Talented players advancing from high school to college, or college players advancing to a National Team require no further development? I don't know about that one.

Developing increased strength from one level to the next is almost always required by all. Just as one example.

EP,
It doesn't look like anyone can satisfy you with their answer. So I'll give you this question back.

What about goalies? How many of the final 5 (for Sr. Goalie) played 90% of the games? Should you not play your best goalie alot either for the sake of development of the next in line?

I would say your regular season record does matter when it comes time to do the seeding for the sections.

Homer wrote:EP,
It doesn't look like anyone can satisfy you with their answer. So I'll give you this question back.

What about goalies? How many of the final 5 (for Sr. Goalie) played 90% of the games? Should you not play your best goalie alot either for the sake of development of the next in line?

I would say your regular season record does matter when it comes time to do the seeding for the sections.

I agree, and would say it's not a great question in the first place. You are using making it to state as the deciding factor of a good/great team. I would argue that the section you are in has more to do with if you make it to state than if you have a good team. The tournament in the MSHSL league language is designed to get a geographical representation of the state in the the State Tournament, not get the 8 best teams. Therefore you can't use making it to state as the deciding factor in an argument like this. You put HM in any other section other than theirs or 6AA, and this question isn't even posted as they are most likely playing for a state championship.

Oh, yeah and to answer the original question. EVERY Coach in the state could only dream of having a player of Brandt's caliber on their team. EVERY coach in the state would take her without flinching, and if you think otherwise than I would say to you please put down the crack pipe you are not setting a good example for our future generations.

Homer wrote: I would say your regular season record does matter when it comes time to do the seeding for the sections.

Not much if you end up in the top half. Sure there's the occasional upset, but it is usually #1 playing against #2 in the end.

So it sounds like most folks think the main purpose of playing regular season games is to rack up wins. If that's the case then I would have to agree that playing your top players most makes the most sense.

I don't think the goalie comparison is valid. Most teams play their starting goalie near 100% of the time. Spending ice time developing a backup goalie only pays off in case of an injury. It is not a good use of resources (game time). This is not true for skaters. Each second you can rest your first line without giving up a goal is valuable. If you can rest your starting line and still have a genuine scoring threat that is priceless.

As for players in college or the national team not needing development, that is not what I said. Way to twist it. There is definately still a need for development, but they get to pick their talent. HS teams have to depend on development and luck.

MNHockeyFan wrote:

luckyEPDad wrote:Is it better to win 9-0 than 6-3?

No difference really, provided you can guarantee in advance that you'll come away with a win. But when the score is just 6-3, there are no guarantees, and if winning is the objective then the coach needs to play those who will give his team the best chance to win. This is not always as easy at it appears - do you keep sending your top 1-3 players out there, even though they're gassed and not as effective as they normally would be? Or do you play your 3rd line, who are not nearly as skilled but are going to try harder because they still have energy? This can be a tough call, and there is no best answer for all situations.

I think there is no difference if you can guarantee you'll come away with a win. For there to be any benefit you need to create a situation where there is a high probability of a loss.

I have to agree that using Hannah Brandt in the subject line was a poor choice. Hill Murrey is good enough that they can usually win without her, and playing her on balanced shifts is enough to put them over the top against almost anyone. Allow me to rephrase the question using some hypothetical player that so dominates her team that winning without her playing every other shift is unlikely. In that hypothetical case do you ride that horse until she gives out, or do you work hard to get her some help? And if you work hard to get her some help, should some of that development happen during games, even if it increases the likelyhood of losing?

IMHO your goal at this level is to win the state tournament. So, Hannah plays at least her fair share during the season including PP's and PK's. With a team this good, you play your 3rd line as much as possible during blowouts.

I respectfully do not agree that H-M is anywhere near as good without HB. Yes, they are decent, but you take away 4 points each game she doesn't play, even against most top-notch competition. Look at how H-M fared over Christmas without HB compared to how they fared elsewhere in the season with HB.

In the playoffs, you play HB as much as possible since your goal at this point in the season is to win, not develop players. Hopefully you have a decent 2nd and 3rd line that match up OK against opposition 2nd and 3d lines and then HB is the difference-maker against almost every 1st line in the state.

Roseville employed a good strategy against H-M that worked, so it would have been interesting to see what other teams at the State Tourney would have done if H-M had made it.

In any event, this is a dilemma that every coach in the state would dream of trying to resolve. Agree that the college game will offer no such luxury to her next coach.