LOG IN
SIGN UP

Tag: hockey-development

Categories
2023 Coaching Girls Hockey Player Development Women's Hockey

The USA Hockey 2023 Girls 16/17 Camp Feedback Process – Part I

I have a lot of passion about feedback when it comes to hockey player development, because I think it is probably the most important factor to improve player performance.  Darryl Belfry, who is regarded as one of the best player development coaches in the world, uses actual game analysis as the primary way to provide feedback on improvement areas for players.

As the governing body of hockey in the U.S., USA Hockey understands the importance of player feedback. At the USA Hockey 16/17 Girls Camp which took place in Oxford, OH this past June, feedback was highlighted in the parent meeting as a key component of the camp.  In Part I of this post about the USA Hockey Girls Camp feedback, I wanted to focus on understanding the three levels of feedback  utilized during and after the camp.  Part II of this topic will discuss my thoughts on how effective the feedback process has been.

1. On-Ice Feedback  – During Practice and Games

Just like with their regular teams, coaches were quite consistent in talking to players individually and in groups during practices to share their thoughts on specific, tactical ways to improve a drill or situation.  Same for a player coming to the bench during one of the games after a shift – coaches would lean over to players and give advice on what adjustments could be made to improve a player effectives.  These situations are quite comfortable for all the coaches at an event like this since most were DI coaches or previous DI players.  As I mentioned in my previous post about player feedback, in-game comments are the easiest for a coach to communicate.

2. One-on-One Feedback with one of the Team Coaches

All teams had two head coaches.  On about the fourth day of week-long camp, each player had a 10-15 minute conversation with one of their coaches.  It is my understanding that most players were asked to do a self-review in anticipation of the meeting.  From talking to several parents, the coach-player conversation was then highly dependent on the coach. Some coaches were well-prepared and had video clips to show players as a way to communicate their feedback, some coaches had simple basic priorities for players to focus on while others relied on the player’s self-evaluation as the primary source of the feedback conversation.  Given the variance in feedback methods, I suspect the feedback meeting process was not highly structured by the camp organizers.

3. Letter Grade and Player Development Performance Criteria

About four weeks after the end of the 16/17 Girls Camp, my daughter received by snail mail a form letter which included an evaluation which is supposed to serve as a benchmark for a player’s performance at the camp.  This entails a letter grade and a rubric on the “Player Development Performance Criteria”.  Here are the details.

At the top of the player evaluation sheet, the players was provided a rating of A, B or C with the following explanation

“A” grade = Excellent – ranks in the top 1/3 of players at camp

“B” grade = Good – ranks in the middle 1/3 of players at camp

“C” grade = Below average – ranks in the bottom 1/3 of players at camp.

The Player Development Performance Criteria had 5 possible selections (from best to worst):

  • Excellent
  • Very Good
  • Good
  • Fair
  • Poor

Each skater then had attributes selected within two categories.  General and position-specific attributes with a selection in one of those five boxes (“X” for each attribute).  Here are those attributes:

General:

  • Makes Possession Plays (i.e. keep team on offense; limited turnovers)
  • Angling: pressure to take away time/space; dictate play with body/stick
  • Stick Positioning
  • Deception
  • Quick Transitions
  • Off-Puck Habits & Puck Support
  • Scoring Ability
  • Physicality
  • Athleticism
  • 200-Ft Player
  • Skating Ability (north/south; agility; speed)

Defenders:

  • DZone Execution First
  • Puck Retrievals
  • Good First Pass or Exit
  • Win Race Back to D-Side of Play/Net
  • Wine Board Battles
  • Deter Offensive Opportunities
  • Scan to Make Exit Play; Fast Transition to Breakout
  • Work Well with D-Partner
  • Gap Control: (North/South & East/West)

Forwards:

  • Puck Retrievals & Ability to Stay Off the Wall
  • Ability to Leave Perimeter and Gain Inside Ice
  • Owning Space with Puck
  • Scanning/Awareness of Teammates & Opponents
  • Use Teammates to Make Plays
  • Zone Entry: Ability to create depth/layers/lanes
  • Create & Maintain Offense

I don’t know the process that was used to aggregate the evaluators feedback, but am assuming they collected a populated rubric from all the evaluators for a position and then aggregated the data to take an average of the selections.  (I hope they used some online tool to aggregate this all, because there are lots of ways to simplify collecting this information).  Then I suppose this compiled data was used as the rating for each player’s Development Performance Criteria. I would then assume the average across all Development Performance Criteria was calculated and the each player was force ranked into one of the three tiers to give the letter rating of A,B or B based on which third they ranked.

Other than the rating and the rubric box selection – no other personalized information was included in the feedback. No short paragraph summary (like you would see in a student report card) from the coach or evaluators to provide additional context was provided.  

It is important to note that the ratings are based on the criteria described above.  If different criteria were used (which will be discussed in the next post), then a player’s rating might be different if those criteria were closer or further away from the capabilities of a player.

In Part II on this topic I will share my perspective on the good, the bad and the ugly of this feedback process.

Read Part II Here

Categories
2023 Development Camp Hockey Tryouts Junior Hockey

What I Learned Attending My First Junior Hockey Main Camp

Last month, my 15-year old son was invited to the main camp of a NAHL team in Minnesota.  This was the follow-on event from a Summer Tryout showcase in June, hosted by several NAHL teams, in which my son was invited to attend the July main camp at the end of the showcase.  Here are some details that I learned from the camp:

  • The camp started with 8 teams of up to 22 players – each with 12 or 13 forwards, 6 or 7 D and 2 goalies
  • All the players at the camp were 2003-2007 birth years.  My son is a late 2007, so obviously, he was one of the youngest players at the camp.
  • Each team played 3 games consisting of two 25 minute periods with a running clock.
  • To keep things flowing, icings and most offsides were almost never called. And any puck which touched the netting and returned to the ice did not stop the play.  When the very odd penalty was called, a penalty shot was granted.
  • With 13 forwards, unless you started the game, a forward typically only got 6-8 shifts per game.  This was because everything eats into the running time, goals, faceoffs, penalty shots etc.  Most players were taking ~75 second shifts. So when you do the math with four lines, a forward only received 3-4 shifts per period. Not a lot of time to show what you can do.
  • After 3 games, the first players cut took place with the list of players making it to the next day posted on Instagram and Twitter.  The announcement just showed the team colors and numbers of players who made the cut – no names were listed.
  • Out of the ~160 players who started the camp, 99 players made the first cut. My son was on the list, so he would play 2 more games the next day.
  • The next day the players were then assigned to one of 6 teams. Once again each team had up to 22 players (13F, 7D, 2 G).
  • What was confusing to me was if there were only 99 players who made the cut and the teams reduced to 6, how could there be so many players on each of the 6 teams? That’s when things got real. What I learned was that the first part of camp did not include all the players on the team’s protected list. So about 30 players – made up of players from the past season, draft picks etc. were then added to the rosters of the 6 teams.
  • While there were a few players with half-shields (usually you have to be over 18 to play with a visor) playing the first couple of days of the camp, that number more than doubled for the second round.  In addition, I was impressed by how many of the players also had moustaches to enhance their hockey player look.
  • The age, skill and size of the average player went up dramatically from the first round of games. For one of the games, my son’s linemate was a 2003 player committed to play DI hockey.   The difference in size and skill was obvious. Man vs. boy.
  • While my son played well in both games, including a solid assist to set up the DI player’s goal, he clearly did not have the size or speed of the top players on the ice.  As a result, he made a few mistakes turning over the puck along the boards or missing passes when under pressure.
  • Following the two second-round games, we once again looked online at the end of the day and reviewed who made the next set of cuts. 
  • 81 players (out of ~130)  made it to the All-Star games with a separate 20 players moved to something called the Young Guns Game at the end of the next day.  My son was not selected for either games, so his tryout was done.
  • The next day the All Star games took place.  After they were done, 27 All Star cuts were assigned to the Young Guns Game.
  • We didn’t stick around for the last two days, so I can’t provide any details about the games (LiveBarn feed was blacked out after the first cut).
  • However, I do know that 44 players made the cut for the final All Star Game which included 6 goalies (couldn’t tell how many F vs. D).  Not sure if the team was finalized after the last game or if about 30 of the players then were invited to training camp for the final team cut.

 Some additional thoughts:

  • One real positive aspect of the camp was that the coaches made it clear that all players who were cut could reach out for feedback when the camp was over.  My son had a phone call with one of the coaches and received  helpful feedback (which was much more specific than what my daughter received has from the USA Hockey Camps)
  • This was a great learning experience for my son to see the level of play of the NAHL. The NAHL is known to be an older Tier II junior league with the average player age of about 19.5 years old. So seeing where my son needs to be in the next 2-3 years was an eye-opening moment for him and seems to be quite motivating to him.
  • This spring/summer my son received dozens of invitations to a variety of junior camps at every level (USHL, NAHL, Tier 3 etc.).  I have heard that unless you were drafted by the team or know that a team has specific interested in you, that most of these invites are just a way for teams to make money. I felt I could see this at the camp.  There probably wasn’t a need to have so many players at the first round of cuts with so many players on each team.  Just doing the math on the ~60 players who did not make the first cut @ $375/player is over $20K in the team’s pockets. That is on top of the money they made at the 3 summer tryouts.
  • Each player needs to decide what is right for them, but it is very easy to waste a lot of money (and time) attending multiple events. You need to be realistic about your odds of making a team and self-aware about how close you are to the level of play needed.  We went to see what the level was and learn from the experience – and now we know. And for the next couple of years I don’t expect my son to be trying out for many teams until we think he is ready and there is a reasonable chance he could at least make it to the final round of cuts (if not make the team).
Categories
2023 Development Camp Girls Hockey Player Development Women's College Hockey Women's Hockey

Analyzing the USA Hockey Girls 16/17 Camp Forward Selections for the U18 Camp

USA-Hockey

The is the second analysis I have done about the selections for the USA Hockey Girls U18 Camp which took place last week. The first was about the defenders picked to go to the U18 Camp. Now that the selections of the forwards from U18 Camp to go to the Women’s Festival were announced a few days ago, it makes this analysis even more interesting because none of the top 3 point-getters from either the Girls 16/17 Camp nor the U18 Camp were selected to advance to the next stage in the process.

WHAT?

Similar to the previous post, rather than engage in a subjective discussion on who was selected, I thought it might be helpful to collect some analytical data and metrics to understand how top players performed at the 16/17 camp and compare them to a couple of the players who weren’t selected.

WHY?

When you don’t select the top 3 point-getters from either Girls 16/17 Camp or the U18 Camp, there are bound to be a lot of folks who wonder what the selection criteria is for making it to the next stage of USA Hockey. I don’t know the answer to that question. But I can analyze the video of each shift for several of the top players picked and not picked to see if there is an obvious difference between the two segments. The purpose of this post is not to say who did or did not deserve to be selected to the U18 Camp. Instead, it is to help provide perspective and context to other players and parents the types of metrics that demonstrate the level of play needed to be selected.  And ideally, individual players do their own self-analysis to see how they compare.

HOW?

I watched and coded specific attributes for every shift in all 4 games for every player in this analysis using the USA Hockey TV footage. I collected more metrics than are listed below, but I feel that the attributes shown, provide the right amount and level of data to gain an understanding of the level of play for this position. Note: Sometimes the live stream footage didn’t always focus on the area of the ice where the play was taking place, so it is very likely the odd play may have not been accounted for.

WHO?

Here is the list of the 13 players selected to go to the 18’s camp

Since I only had the time to watch 5 players – I watched 3 selected forwards plus 2 top players who weren’t selected. Those 3 forwards represented a mix of the forward selections.  I am not identifying the names of any players because singling out any individual player is not my objective.  For full transparency, in this analysis I do know the parents of one of the players.

SO WHAT?

Do I think the 5 selected were in the Top 10 forwards at the camp, almost certainly. Do I think there are 3-5 other players that could easily have been selected instead – also, almost certainly. There is no algorithm to calculate and rank the top players. I don’t know the selection criteria, so whatever they may be (whether well-structured or not) at the end of the day what matters is results. As stated in the parents meeting, the results of the last two U18 World Championships was not the result USA Hockey wanted – so we will see if the current process yields better results.

THE ANALYSIS

2023 USA Hockey Girls 16-17 Camp Analytics for Forwards Selected to Advance to the U18 Girls Camp

Note: Players 1-3 were selected to go to the U18 Girls Camp – Players 4 & 5 were not selected

Some notes on the tracked attributes:

  • Takeaways = a one-on-one situation where the player gains control of the puck from directly challenging the other player
  • Giveaways = full change of possession to the other team (e.g. a missed pass, dump in/out, rim or redirected puck)
  • OZone entries = skating across the blue line with full possession of the puck
  • Team Shots For/Against do not include shot attempts that did not reach the net. Only SOGs were included.
  • I am not including the point stats or PIMs for any player since they can already be found on the USA Hockey website
  • There were additional attributes I tracked like “faceoffs won” but they indirectly show up in other higher-order key metrics. Since not all the forwards played center, I didn’t include the faceoff attribute.  But I did want to note, that one player was very good at faceoffs while another was not.  The one that won most of their faceoffs did see that reflected in other measurement areas since many faceoff wins led to greater possession time.

OTHER THOUGHTS

  • From all the players and games I’ve watched, it seems (and it’s only natural) that really good plays are rewarded disproportionately more than their equivalent poor plays are punished (e.g. creating a “wow” scoring chance vs. causing a “wow” scoring chance for the other team). Forwards tend not to surrender many negative scoring chances unless they are somewhat negligent defensively.  So, it seems likely that creating offense is highly disproportionately weighted in player evaluation.
  • Not all players gave the same defensive effort throughout a game, whether it is being tired or laziness.  But over the course of four games, it was pretty clear who consistently tried to play a 200-foot game (vs. cheating a little defensively or taking some shortcuts).
  • Scouting and evaluating is not an exact science.  In my humble opinion, most of the scouts/coaches don’t watch any player enough to really get the full picture.  It is sampling data – and while it is directionally correct, when there are many players within a close band it is hard to discern who is absolutely the “best” player. And who you pick may vary when you are building a team for a short tournament and need different types of players. 
  • After watching over 20 hours of individual game footage, this process is somewhat exhausting. It takes a lot of work to watch and tag each type of play. I can’t imagine being a scout and trying to watch 10 skaters live on the ice throughout an entire game.  At the same time, the insights are quite valuable.  I hope that college scouts leverage Instat to watch players individual shifts (if a club/prep team uses Instat) to evaluate the full body of their work rather than just sampling one or two periods of a game during a tournament or showcase weekend. To me, it is hard to watch multiple players in a game rather than on just one player at a time.
  • Note: We are still waiting to on the written feedback and letter rating that we were told all players would receive.  If you are a player or parent from 16/17 Camp who has a received this feedback, please reach out and let me know. Update: We did receive the USA Hockey Feedback on July 27th – I will be writing up my thoughts on the feedback process in a upcoming post.
Categories
2023 Development Camp Girls Hockey Player Development

Analyzing the USA Hockey Girls 16/17 Camp Defense Selections for the U18 Camp

USA-Hockey

As I mentioned in my previous post about USA Hockey Girls 16/17 Camp, there was a a mix of perspectives on the selections for 18’s camp.

WHAT?

Rather than engage in a subjective discussion on who was selected, I thought it might be helpful to collect some analytical data and metrics to understand how top players performed at the camp.

WHY?

The purpose of this post is not to say who did or did not deserve to be selected to the U18 Camp. Instead, it is to help provide perspective and context to other players and parents the types of metrics that demonstrate the level of play needed to be selected.  And ideally, individual players do their own self-analysis to see how they compare.

HOW?

I watched and coded specific attributes for every shift in all 4 games for every player in this analysis using the USA Hockey TV footage. I collected more metrics than are listed below, but I feel that the attributes shown, provide the right amount and level of data to gain an understanding of the level of play for this position. Note: Sometimes the live stream footage didn’t always focus on the area of the ice where the play was taking place, so it is very likely the odd play may have not been accounted for.

WHO?

Here is the list of the 13 players selected to go to the 18’s camp

For D analysis, I included the 3 players selected plus another ‘top D’ player who was not selected. I am not identifying the names of any players because singling out any individual player is not my objective.  However, I can say, that I personally do not know any of the players or their parents that were included in this analysis.

SO WHAT?

Based on my analysis, I don’t have any issues with the D selections since measuring defense is not an exact science.  I am sure there were other players for whom there is an argument they could have been selected instead – but the differences are hard to discern in just 4 games and I don’t expect the selection committee to be perfect in only picking players based on their game performance.

All selected players made several really good plays (both offensively and defensively) in their four games – many of which were ‘highlight worthy’.  At the same time, these same players made multiple, significant turnovers/mistakes which resulted in high scoring chances for the other team. This goes to show you that none of the D were anywhere close to being perfect. But overall their consistency over 4 games is what you can see in the metrics.

THE ANALYSIS

Note: Players 1-3 were selected to go to the U18 Girls Camp – Player 4 was not selected

Some notes on the tracked attributes:

  • Offensive Shot Attempts does not mean the shot made it to the net – as mentioned in my previous post, I estimate almost 80% of all point shots were blocked or missed the net.
  • Turnover = full change of possession to the other team (e.g. a missed pass, dump in/out, rim or redirected puck)
  • I am not including the point stats or PIMs for any player since they can already be found on the USA Hockey website
  • Note: With only 4.1 goals per game combined between both teams, all the top players played strong defensively and were not on the ice for many goals.  This can be seen in their “On-ice goals for/goals against ratio” (this is different from the traditional +/- stat). 
  • There were additional attributes I tracked like offensive zone entries and good defensive plays. In addition metrics like pass attempts or turnovers could be segmented further by situation – however, given the outcome based of the measurements presented here, I feel they are a good representation of how each player played.

Finally, yes, I did a similar analysis for my daughter’s games (for her eyes only). And we are using the results to prioritize her summer development plan.

NEXT ANALYSIS

I have already started working analyzing the Forwards who were picked for the U18 Camp. This is a little more complicated since there were 5 forwards selected. I will not be doing goalies, because I don’t feel qualified to do so – and as mentioned previously, from what I’ve been told by goalie experts, there is a huge weight given to one-on-one time spent with an evaluator to judge goalies.

Categories
2023 Girls Hockey Player Development Women's College Hockey

More Thoughts on the 2023 USA Hockey 16/17 Girls Development Camp

This is the second post about the 2023 USA Hockey Girls 16/17 Development Camp

You can read the first post here

I wanted to get this our right after the camp, but didn’t have time before taking a week-long vacation.  But here are some additional thoughts that I compiled during my time in Oxford:

  • The operational excellence of the camp was consistent the entire week – kudos to the organizers for such a well-run event. Especially when compared to many other camps, showcases and tryouts I have seen on both the girls and boys side of hockey
  • Unlike the previous camp I attended, I now appreciate all the different paths to hockey excellence there are in the U.S. I could now see where all players came from that I learned about over  the last couple of years – hockey academy, top clubs, prep and Minnesota
  • The last two days of games brought a whole slew of additional DI and DIII coaches to Oxford. I personally saw coaches from just about every school  (over 30 DI teams) – however there were some top programs where I didn’t see a representative (e.g. Wisconsin, UMD, Colgate, Northeastern) and several NEWHA schools (note:  they may have been there, but I just didn’t see them).
  • One DI coach did tell me that some of the players looked tired for the fourth game – while another thought there was better team play the last two games compared to the first two games.
  • 7 players who were at 16/17 camp this year were at 18s camp last year.  1G , 2D  &  4Fs.  Two of them were players who were selected from the 2022 16/17’s Camp to go the 2022 18’s Camp – the other 5 went direct to 18s last year.
  • Here is the list of the 13 players selected to go to the 18’s camp
  • 5 of those 7 2022 18’s Camp players were selected to return to the 18’s camp this year from the 16/17s Camp
  • In  general,  I noticed a big difference between the average 2006 and average 2007 player. seemed to be weaker. That one extra year of development is noticeable not just size, but hockey IQ
  • Interesting stat – the Girls 16/17 Camp averaged 4.1 goals per game (combined both teams) while the Boys 17 Camp averaged 10.0 goals/gm and the Boys 16 Camp averaged 8.6 goals per game. Significantly less scoring on the girls side.
  • Unofficially, I estimated that about 80% of point shots were blocked/never reached the net – surprisingly low for this level of play
  • It seems that just watching games isn’t sufficient to judge players – while important – there really are a lot of nuances you can get from practices that you can’t see from a live stream that likely factored into players selected for the 18s camp
  • Depending on position and length of shifts, most players only had between 40 and 50 shifts to demonstrate their abilities over the course of 4 games. Which isn’t a lot, all things considered.
  • Based on talking with multiple parents and players there was certainly a mix of perspectives on the selections for 18’s camp.  I will hold off judgment on skaters until I spend more time reviewing video of the players selected in comparison to other top players who were not selected.  I do not feel qualified to analyze goalies, especially based on past conversations with expert goalie coaches – but I do know that you can’t just rely on game performance in goalie evaluations.
  • I can’t include everything I want to discuss in this post, so I am going to publish additional posts sourced from the camp including:
    • A candid conversation with a DI coach on their detailed recruiting process for their 2025 recruiting class
    • Applying some analytics to the players selected from the 16/17 camp for the 18’s Girls Camp
    • My thoughts on the 16/17 Camp feedback process – which is dependent on receiving the official player feedback report via snail mail expected sometime this week.

Next:

Analyzing the USA Hockey Girls 16/17 Camp Defense Selections for the U18 Camp

Categories
Player Development Strength and Conditioning Women's College Hockey Women's Hockey Youth Hockey

Summer Hockey Development Plans

How I helped create a summer training plan for my kids

Since both my kids returned from school, I have been very focused on helping them figure out what to work on this summer.  Each of them has a big tryout that they need to prepare for – in addition to continued development for next season.   My kids are completely different players. One is a forward, the other defense. One is above average in size, the other is slightly under-sized. One is a lefty, the other a righty.  

After re-watching 4 or 5 games for each kid from mid-to-late season I was able to identify several key areas that they had a pattern of underperforming. But then, since I am not really a hockey coach, I needed to figure out how they could improve their performance in those areas. Specifically, I followed the methodology I previously discussed about tracking high-frequency events and success rates based on the teachings of Darryl Belfry.

I am not sure we figured out the secret sauce, but I wanted to share my research methodology and how it translated into an action plan.

For each of my kids, I chose 2 or 3 players who I knew were clearly more successful in those key areas. All of them would be considered top players at the USA Hockey national level. As a result, finding historical video from those players either on HockeyTV, LiveBarn or from the recent USA Hockey Nationals was not difficult.  Once again, I watched 3-5 games for those benchmark players to see how they handled the same key situations as my son or daughter.  What I learned was enlightening.

To provide one specific example, I watched video via HockeyTV of Caroline Harvey (Olympic medalist and recent rookie of the year at Wisconsin) way back during her time at Bishop Kearney Selects through to her games at the U18 USA Hockey Development camp in 2019. Seeing how she handled similar game situations provided excellent contrast to my daughter’s play.  The way KK could handle the puck and find time and space at that young age was truly impressive – and makes it very easy to understand why she is a generational talent.

For each player under analysis, patterns and insights emerge after 2 or 3 games. Each player is different, and I found there was at least one attribute for each player that made them special and worth emulating.

Note: this was not a one-day exercise watching all the games and collecting video snippets to review/ edit at a later time. It took several days to watch the video for each player.

I then spent time individually with my kids over the course of a few days discuss with them the areas I recommended they focus on (most of them they already knew). This included showing them video of themselves not succeeding (which they did not enjoy) and then showing them clips of the benchmarked players completing similar situations successfully.  We are still early in the summer, but both kids have been working on these areas by themselves and with their skills coaches. 

We shall see how effective this whole process is when we get to the fall, since I have no expectations that my kids will see immediate results.  But one of the key learnings for me about this whole exercise was not to depend on my kids’ team coaches for their development plans and how to implement them (as I have alluded to in a previous post about hockey development plans).

Categories
Development Camp Girls Hockey Player Development

Observations from the 2023 USA Hockey Pacific District Camp

Earlier this month my daughter attended the USA Hockey Pacific District Camp for the third and final time (she’s aging out of the U18 events).  Now that the results have been posted, I am posting my thoughts on this year’s event. Feel free to read my previous summaries from the 2021 camp and 2022 camp to understand the three year experience.

Overall, operationally speaking, this was clearly the best run district camp of the three she attended.

Just like previous years, there were three practice/skills sessions and three games. The practice/skills sessions were well organized and structured – and in my opinion, allowed the evaluators to see how players performed both offensively and defensively beyond just the games.

More Teams

There were some significant changes from previous years.  First, the number of teams for the 16/17 age group was increased from 4 teams to 6 teams (the 15’s age group had 4 teams similar to last year). There are arguments to be made on both sides about the pros and cons of increasing the number of players invited to attend. However, on-balance, as we try to grow the girls game on the west coast, I think it worked out just fine. The overall level of play may have been a little diluted, but the goodwill from attending the event works for me. Plus, the extra money it generated allowed more USA Hockey staff to attend from all over the country. 

More Coaches

Unlike the last couple of years where it seemed to be only 2-4 coaches watching from the stands while another 2 coached from the bench. There seemed to always be at least ~6-8 coaches scouting from the roped-off coaches section in the stand.  Another big change, as referenced above, was not only the number of participating coaches, but also the list of coaches and their role during the weekend was shared with all attendees via email.  In the past, I had to work hard to identify who all the coaches were and decipher the role they played. The day after camp ended, we were emailed the full list of coaches, where they were from and what role they played (evaluator, volunteer, USA Hockey Staff) – which was awesome.  No more guessing.

The only complaint I heard via several parents (from their daughters) was that it seemed that some of the coaches were over-coaching on the ice. There were lots of times coaches would stop drills and call everyone over or a coach would give detailed feedback to a specific player.  Feedback is good – I love player feedback – but at an event like Districts, players don’t want to get drill-related  feedback from every coach they interact with. What players really want is feedback on how to improve their overall game.

Same Number of National Camp Spots

I am not sure what players and parents expected in terms of realistically making the USA Hockey National Camps, but the odds aren’t good for most players.  Here are the numbers of National invites (based on % of registrations of girls in the Pacific District):

Notes:

  1. Only 1 2008 forward was selected to go straight to the 18s Camp (last year 1F and 1 D went straight to 18s)
  2. Goalies are selected at the national level and not dependent on the proportion of district registrations

So hopefully, most players, especially those who were invited from the alternate lists (or not even originally selected) understood they were long shots to make it National Camp and were just happy to go to Las Vegas.

Goalie Development

Another positive from the event was when I talked to the goalie coaches for the district and she explained how they evaluate goalies, the process of providing goalies feedback and tracking their development from year-to-year.  I wish they would have done something similar for skaters – because in the 3 years we’ve gone, there has been no pro-active mechanism to receive feedback from the event for skaters.

A few other points:

  • Games were two 32 minute running-time halves – which was 2 minutes more than last year
  • The refs were less noticeable this year compared to last year.  Which is a good thing.
  • The jerseys were 100 times nicer than previous years (not embarrassing to have mismatched jerseys and socks like last year) – with a number scheme which made it clear who were 2006s and 2007s.
  • It would have been nice to also have the jersey #s included in the roster lists that were sent out so parents didn’t need to try to figure who the players were by themselves
  • Everyone had to travel to Vegas for the weekend, with many coming from out-of-district.  I hope parents and players felt that the total cost of the weekend was worth it. Unless you were driving from California, the weekend had to be super-expensive.
Categories
Coaching College Hockey Recruiting Player Development Women's College Hockey Women's Hockey

Some Thoughts on the Ohio State Women’s Hockey Recruiting Strategy

Ohio State women’s ice hockey head coach Nadine Muzerall is a winner. Muzerall, who won two national championships as a player and four as a coach with the University of Minnesota, has instilled a winning culture at Ohio State. She has a proven track record of success in her seven years at OSU. With Muzerall at the helm, Ohio State women’s hockey team has made the Frozen Four the last three years,  won the National Championship in 2021-22 and appeared in the finals again this past March.

Coach Muzerall Wants to Win Every Year

A key ingredient in OSU’s ability to compete these last few years for a National Championship has been to add high-end, experienced talent from other schools via the transfer portal.  In 2021-22, OSU had 8 upperclass players transfer from other schools n their roster (including 3 from Robert Morris University which had just folded).  In 2022-23 there were 5 players who came to OSU via the transfer portal including Makenna Webster (from Wisconsin who finished 4th in scoring on the team), Lauren Bernard (D from Clarkson who played in all 41 games) and Kenzie Hauswirth (from Quinnipiac who finished 8th in team scoring). So these players were significant contributors to the team’s success this past season.

Want to Win Before Your Career Ends? Transfer to OSU

With as many as 8-10 players leaving the program this spring, Coach Muzerall’s strategy is not to rebuild, but to reload. Over the past few weeks, Coach Muzerall has reloaded with more experienced high-end talent via the transfer portal by adding Olympian defender Cayla Barnes from BC , Patty Kaz Top-10 Finalist Kiara Zanon from Penn State,  BC’s leading scorer Hannah Bilka, Kelsey King from Minnesota State and D Stephanie Markowski from Clarkson. Needless to say, a very talented group of transfers.

While there may be multiple reasons for these transfers to move on from their previous schools (e.g. graduated, no longer a fit etc.), the appeal of winning a national championship is pretty clear. For these new players, they know there is a very high probability they will be competing at the Frozen Four next March – while they may not have had the same opportunity if they stayed with their previous program. Why not go for it?

Source: https://gopherpucklive.com/transfer-portal/

The Impact on Underclass Players

At the same time, there were at least 5 OSU players who entered the transfer portal this spring, all with multiple years of eligibility left.  Most notably, Sydney Morrow, a first-year D who tied for team scoring with USA Hockey at the U18 Women’s IIHF tournament in scoring last summer, transferred to Colgate.  From what I could tell watching the Frozen Four, while dressed for the last two games, Morrow saw little-to-no ice time as the 7th D.

Implications for Incoming Recruiting Classes

With the increased number of transfers, potential recruits must recognize that freshmen may find themselves in a more competitive environment at schools like OSU and may struggle to find playing time early on. Furthermore, coaching staff may give priority to more experienced players over freshmen, and this may impact player development. As a result, incoming freshmen may have to consider the challenge in earning their spot on the team and how hard it would be to make a meaningful contribution to the program in all four years of eligibility. While the transfer portal provides more opportunities for players to explore their options and find the best fit for their needs, it also creates a more challenging environment for incoming freshmen to establish themselves in the team.

Creates an Environment Between the “Have” and the “Have-Nots” Hockey Programs

The women’s hockey transfer portal has essentially created a two-tier system between the top talented schools and everyone else. The portal has provided top-tier programs with the ability to attract and acquire the best players in the country, leaving other schools having to figure out to replace the top talent they lose to these programs. The top schools have the resources and coaching staff to offer a highly competitive environment and the opportunity to compete for national championships, which makes them attractive destinations for talented transfers. On the other hand, smaller or less successful programs may struggle to keep up, which creates a divide in the quality of play between the top programs and everyone else. While the transfer portal has created new opportunities for high-end players to explore and find the best fit for their needs, it is creating an uneven playing field in women’s college hockey.

It will be interesting to see if other Top 10 schools begin to copy the Ohio State strategy of picking off several top players via the transfer portal in order to better compete with the top recruiting schools like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northeastern and Minnesota-Duluth who have not yet adopted this strategy (even though all schools have the occasional top talent transfer).

What Happens When No More 5th Year (Covid) Eligibility? 

It will be interesting to see how things go with the 2025 recruiting class for Ohio State. The last class of Covid year grad students is 2024, so the pool of 5th year transfers will be much smaller and potential players would likely need to be move prior to graduating from their current schools.  Will the top players from the incoming class of 2025 be concerned about transfer portal players at OSU and thus look elsewhere? We will find out this fall.

Implications For Potential Recruits and Which Schools to Consider

As a high school player trying to figure out which program is right for you, it would be important to be realistic about your own talents and where you might fit in the line-up over all four of your years. Even if you are a national U-18 team member, you might still struggle to get ice time at a top tier program that brings in experienced top talent with 1 or 2 years of eligibility left.

During the recruiting process, understanding the coaching staff’s player development process over 4 years and ice time philosophy is an important conversation to have before a decision is made.

Categories
hockey Minor Hockey Player Development Youth Hockey

Why Your Team Should Play AA Instead of AAA Youth Hockey

Do you want a chance at playing at the USA Hockey National Championships?

Did your team play AAA last year? 

If yes, what was your final ranking on MyHockeyRankings?

If your team wasn’t in the Top 50 teams for your age group, then this post is for you.

Last week, USA Hockey announced all the team that either qualified or were invited to Tier I and Tier II National Playoffs taking place at the end of the month. Many low ranked AAA teams never had a chance of going to Nationals.

This post discusses why your AAA team might be better off being designated as Tier II (AA) instead of Tier I.  And while this post primarily focuses on youth (boys) hockey in the U.S., some of the same principles can be applied to girls hockey.

Here’s why…

1. Teams ranked below the Top 50 rarely qualify for USA Hockey Nationals

lowest ranked team qualifying for 2023 USA Hockey Youth Nationals Playoffs

If you aren’t at least a Top 50 team in your age group, there is almost no chance you will win your Tier 1 District playoffs – the exception being a team from Northern Plains (Team North Dakota for 16s) and the Rocky Mountain District (for 18s).

2. Lower ranked AAA teams are rated about the same as top AA teams

Here is how the bottom half of Tier 1 team ratings compare to the top teams in both Tier 1 and Tier 2

2023 USA HOCKEY tier i vs Tier 2 ratings comparison

As you can see, after the ~50th ranked team, the AAA teams are pretty competitive with top AA teams in each age group.  There is less than a goal differential between these teams – so games between 50th ranked Tier 1 teams would be close with the Top Tier 2 teams.

3. It should be easier to qualify for USA Hockey Nationals

There are 48 spots for each Tier II age group. By classifying at the Tier II level, they would have a much better chance of qualifying for Nationals and playing competitive games in that tournament.

4. You can still play in AAA tournaments and showcases.

At the same time, they can continue to play in the same leagues and events during the regular season.

There are already tournaments specifically set-up for the bottom half of AAA teams.  Some tourneys are explicit about this by segmenting their division names (AAA and AAA elite – or Ribcor + Supertacks +  Jetspeed). Others make sure that similarly ranked lower rated teams attend the same event.

For some regular season Tier 1 leagues, they already do this implicitly. In one league, the weakest teams don’t even get to play in the leagues end-of-season playoffs, instead they are relegated to their own ‘Consolation’ division. This past season, there was a club which had all 4 of their Tier 1 teams in the consolation division due to poor regular season performance at each age group. Once again, these leagues are set-up to treat the lower ranked teams at the level they actually play – a tweener between AAA and AA.

Be Realistic

From a game and tournament perspective, weaker “AAA” teams are playing each other anyway, but not really playing for anything. It is unlikely any of them will with their districts and to be one of the 12 automatic qualifiers to Tier 1 USA Hockey Nationals, and they certainly won’t get an at-large invitation for the remaining 4 spots.

However, there are 48 spots for each Tier II age group.   By classifying at the Tier 2 level, they would have a much better chance of qualifying for Nationals and playing competitive games in that tournament. At the same time, they can continue to play in the same leagues and events during the regular season.

At the end of the day, these weak “AAA” teams will still be who they are – but now they would have a chance to play against their peers for a National Championship.   Considering that youth hockey is all about development, competing in a real playoff environment is a great development opportunity and playing competitive games.  Certainly better than what is happening today, where most of these teams are enjoying limited success – and when they do, it usually versus their true peer group.

Youth hockey is all about development. You really shouldn’t care how many letters your team has as long as players and teams are getting better every year. It’s not about being able to tell your friends that you (or your kid) plays AAA.

So, are you willing to trade playing triple-A for double-A in exchange for a legitimate chance to play for a National Championship?

Data Source: MyHockeyRankings.com

Categories
Development Camp Youth Hockey

The Early Birth-Month Advantage in Hockey

This week, the USA Hockey NTDP released the names of the 45 2007’s invited to their evaluation camp. Over 50% of the players were born in the first 3 months of 2007.  Malcolm Gladwell talked about this hockey phenomenon in his book Outliers, where the earlier you are born in the calendar year, the more likely you are to be get selected to elite teams. This is due to the size and age advantage over players born later in the year. It is a self-reinforcing cycle from atom/squirt ages – despite hockey being a late-development sport. 15 years later, this bias still exists.

© 2024 CHAMPS APP, INC. - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Profile Directory

Cookie Policy - User Agreement - Community Guidelines - Copyright Policy - Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy