100 coaches....100 approaches.
Bad games happen, but when it is the first game the coach might feel he needs to "shake things up" so that it doesn't become the way the year goes. This holds more water if leading into the game there was a complacency/overconfident sense by the team. Getting whipped will get their attention if they care at all. If they don't care - there is no amount of screaming or motivation a coach can give to change that.
If they aren't good enough....that is different. All the running in the world won't change that either. It is time to spend some quality time picking up grounders and working in the bullpen - assuming the coach is capable of improving players. Even if he isn't there will be some value to the reps.
Then there is this....is this something the coach has done previously? It then might fall into the "Coach being Coach" category. Screamers are screamers. It can be worse if the school does not get whipped frequently. This can be potentially volatile if parents take on the coach. The result will almost certainly be chaos. If coach survives the challenge he might feel untouchable and if he were damaged now you decend into the parents committee chirping on everything which is probably the worst possible outcome.
My opinion is that screaming and punishment has limited value and diminishing returns to the point of being counterproductive. Especially so if teens feel "humiliated" publicly. Generally, coaches are better served if they resist these tactics and focus on improving in practice. It is fair to acknowledge the story's about how the coach "pushed" teams to be better than they would have been otherwise. AKA the Vince Lombardi school. Having a coach challenging players for better performance undoubtedly has value but like anything else it needs to be tempered and fit the players involved.