It’s very hard to go wrong by reading The Hardball Times.

Yes, because the Capitals’ coaching change last season led to a short-term effect. When a team changes its coach, it’s usually done not to give the team a short-term boost—it’s to fix a problem behind the bench and get the team playing consistantly for the long term. Although it’s easier to fire the coach than the team, a good team needs consistency behind the bench to be successful; otherwise, you’re just a GM screwing the pooch with different systems and personalities being introduced on a far too-frequent basis.

And when you look at the success of the coaching change, looking at a new coach’s record when he’s had less than 20 games doesn’t prove a thing. Projecting a small sample of 11 games or so over an 82 game season in terms of points is like taking a baseball hitter’s first 20 plate appearances and projecting his performance over the course of an entire season based on that—it’s stats-for-stats’ sake and has no analytical value whatsoever.

Carolina has been on a roll the past couple of weeks; before that, they were playing the same erratic .500 hockey they were under Laviolette, hovering around the same spot in the conference ranks that they were in when they fired their former coach. Who’s to say that Laviolette couldn’t have turned things around if he were given the time that Maurice did? Laviolette clearly didn’t have the support of management and ownership given the circus of last off-season, and Maurice has both a history with the organization and a friendship with its GM. That has more to do with the coaching change than anything else.

Ottawa, as I pointed out, reeled off 5 wins in a row. Then they began to struggle again, with bad losses in Vancouver and Calgary sandwiching a 1-2-1 run, followed by three wins in a row against three non-playoff teams, and a loss against the struggling Bruins. Of course, they were sinking badly before Hartsburg’s firing, so playing themselves out of a high chance lottery pick I guess is an improvement…over one month in a season.

Pittsburgh’s the most obvious, because they’ve only lost one game under Bylsma, who’s simplfied their system and using his players better. But then again, he’s only coached for 11 games.

Earlier this season, Alain Vigneault seemed to be a prime candidate. Hard to imagine that now. Every team struggles and has bad months—last year’s Stanley Cup champions lost six in a row last season and went 4-8-2 in February, and they still managed to win the President’s Trophy. A month’s worth of games tells you nothing about a coaching performance, the quality of a team’s play under that performance, or if the coaching boost actually has worked.