Funny thing is I wasn't being facetious; I seriously couldn't remember.
That truly is crazy talk
Not really.
Consider coaches for a second. Out of every coach in pro sports history, how many do you think finished with a career winning record? Logically, it would be around 50%. In reality, it's somewhere between 29-34%, depending on the sport.
The reasons are simple. A losing coach will be fired, and if he's especially poor, he won't get another chance. And if he does, it's most likely in a desperate situation where the chances of success are minimal. If a coach wins but doesn't perform up to expectations, he'll be canned, but get another job. In fact, he'll get several more jobs, each one of them offering more chances to drive down his own career record. And if a coach wins and meets/exceeds expectations, he'll be given enough slack to be around when the team inevitably starts sinking. Now think about how many of those there are.
In NHL history, there have been 345 coaches who have at least 1 game behind the bench. Of those, only 136 have a career record of over .500 (39.4%). But you also have to account for the OT/SO loss, which didn't exist for most of NHL history. This artificially inflates the record of 23 coaches to over .500. Adjust for that, and you're back to 32.7%.
This means that if you're looking at coaches over .500, guys like Terry Murray and Bob Berry and Brian Sutter automatically are in the top 1/3 in all of NHL history. Intuitively, you know that's wrong as much as I do. But if all we're going on is wins and losses without consideration for everything else, that's what we're kind of stuck with.