What exactly is Babcock doing that is impressing you.

[BertCorbeau]

Sure but he also had proven winners on the roster that included Norris and Selke trophies as the best in the NHL.

11/12 won't be as impressive after a few seasons here with less talent.

Also note that of those 11/12, 3 of the last 4 were first round exits with a playoff record of 5-12 in those 3 exits.

All a matter of what you want to focus on.

To me, his organization in Detroit was fantastic and he complimented it well. Put him with the Leafs for 8 years… without upgrading any talent over that time frame… and I'm not sure he comes up with a winning record (loser points aside) … you?

All a matter of what you focus on indeed.

And I'm done here

 

[Gallagbi]

Worth noting Burke completely overhauled the team that misses the playoffs.

Comparing Carlyle's roster to Babcock'a last is apples to oranges.

Not sure there's a debate on how proven Babcock is. He's won a cup, won a gold medal, basically won at every level and is generally regarded as the best coach in the league. Hell he's the only coach I can remember who allowed himself to become a UFA and he did it twice.

 

[Bomber0104]

What I am trying to say is that, you are over generalising it and downplaying the important of coaching.

I didn't downplay anything.

All I said was that the tactics are the same.

You're putting words in my mouth.

The secret of any successful sports team is to always out score the opponent in any given games. That's pretty much what you are saying.

Yep. That's how games are won...

Great coaches will play players to their strengths instead of their weakness. While also works with the players for them to improve.

Yeah but again, a coach is often limited in what he can do with his lineup...

A guy like Kessel should have been buried in ES time and just used as a 2nd line winger with PP time but his contract dictated he be played as much as he possibly could.

The result was a pile of points but the most goals-against in the league from a first line... which hurt the team more than it helped.

Toews is a much better player than he was when he was 20. Sure Toews worked hard over the yrs, but I will bet that JQ and his staff had something to do with it too.

Toews has been a prolific player at every level, regardless of the coach...

The same can be said to any players in any sports. Look at the Sedins, they had their worst season under Torts and everything is back to normal when they have a coach who understands how to use them.

Torts is a unique case, that's for sure.

But how much better are the Desjardins-led Canucks vs. the Torts Canucks, really?

Look at Dion and Jake under Babs and how they played last yr under Horechek and RC.

Have they improved?

Could have fooled me.

They're looking as below-average as ever....

To say that the coach has very little impact is a discredit to all the top coaches both past and present.

Sorry but the difference between one coach and the other makes little difference.

If a coach actually has power over his players, he can be effective and motivating...

Otherwise it's just a game of tactics (which everyone in the NHL is using).

 

[Hockey Talker29]

He declined an offer to stay with the Ducks to join the Wings .. Oddly enough that's the only time a team of his has missed the playoffs... 11/12 years his team has made the playoffs, 5 division titles, 3 Stanley Cup appearances, 1 Cup ring, and 2 Olympic gold medals

I really don't know how much more he have to prove to be called a "proven winner"

Between the sustained success, and the fact that he was never fired, he's undoubtedly a proven winner.

Making the finals with two different teams is also extremely impressive.

 

[Gabriel426]

I didn't downplay anything.

All I said was that the tactics are the same.

You're putting words in my mouth.



Yep. That's how games are won...



Yeah but again, a coach is often limited in what he can do with his lineup...

A guy like Kessel should have been buried in ES time and just used as a 2nd line winger with PP time but his contract dictated he be played as much as he possibly could.

The result was a pile of points but the most goals-against in the league from a first line... which hurt the team more than it helped.



Toews has been a prolific player at every level, regardless of the coach...



Torts is a unique case, that's for sure.

But how much better are the Desjardins-led Canucks vs. the Torts Canucks, really?



Have they improved?

Could have fooled me.

They're looking as below-average as ever....



Sorry but the difference between one coach and the other makes little difference.

If a coach actually has power over his players, he can be effective and motivating...

Otherwise it's just a game of tactics (which everyone in the NHL is using).

If that's what you believe in, that's Kool with me. Have to respect that since u r part of Leafs Nation.

To me coaching make a huge differences and that's why RC is unemployed and Babs is the highest paid coach.

 

[Le Cobra]

Hearing Babcock talk earlier today sounds like Kadri Komarov Gardiner Phaneuf and Reilly will most likely stay with the team come next season.

 

[Pookie]

I don't know why people have to be defensive about this Coach. What's also curious is that the record is used to brand one as horrible but excused for talent reasons for the other.

Folks, talent matters.

A good coach takes the assembled talent and manages to deliver to the expected outcome.

An excellent coach manages to take the talent and exceed expectations.

A coach that struggles is the one that delivers below expectations.

Babcock's Wings had an aging talent roster. And is it any coincidence that in 3 of their last four playoff series they played 17 games and Team Babcock only won 5 of them?

He didn't lose his stuff overnight. It's just that his "possession based", relentless forechecking system was played by players that got beat by players on the other team playing the same possession based, relentless forechecking system. In most cases, the other team was just better.

He's probably somewhere between Good and Exceptional. But for this season, with bottom feeding expectations, we are bottom feeding. That's a good coaching job but not exceptional. We can really see what we have once the talent improves and whether he can over deliver on expected results.

 

[Beaninfritz]

I don't know why people have to be defensive about this Coach. What's also curious is that the record is used to brand one as horrible but excused for talent reasons for the other.

Folks, talent matters.

A good coach takes the assembled talent and manages to deliver to the expected outcome.

An excellent coach manages to take the talent and exceed expectations.

A coach that struggles is the one that delivers below expectations.

Babcock's Wings had an aging talent roster. And is it any coincidence that in 3 of their last four playoff series they played 17 games and Team Babcock only won 5 of them?

He didn't lose his stuff overnight. It's just that his "possession based", relentless forechecking system was played by players that got beat by players on the other team playing the same possession based, relentless forechecking system. In most cases, the other team was just better.

He's probably somewhere between Good and Exceptional. But for this season, with bottom feeding expectations, we are bottom feeding. That's a good coaching job but not exceptional. We can really see what we have once the talent improves and whether he can over deliver on expected results.

This post really sums it up. Our offense is one of the worst in the league. Especially with JVR out now. Our D is okay, but there's still some question marks with some players. Players like Marincin playing, well, he's not costing us, but he's also not producing. Goaltending is a multi-year question mark. Reimer shows up and gave us hope. We got into the playoffs. Then he starts crapping the bed while Bernier was great? Now Bernier is crapping the bed and Reimer is great? Je suis en confuse (yeah, it's probably not proper french).

The fact we're doing better than a team like Buffalo which has a comparatively stacked offense compared to ours is testament to the Babs.

We've had a 2nd line, two 3rd lines, and a 4th line all season. Phil the Thrill, despite his defensive woes, worked magic in the offensive zone. Nobody else on the team can do what he did.

We just have to deal with it until next season when some of our juniors graduate. I'm hoping Nylander isn't permanently messed from that incredibly dirty hit. He's done nothing but improve every season from when he was drafted. Although I wasn't as high on him as I was Marner, after watching him play, he makes me a very very happy fan. Marner, he almost scored a hat trick in one period against a team that won the championship in international play, which brings the best players from their nations to play against one another.

The Leafs are in grade 9 right now. It's an awkward year where the seniors are pushing them around.

Yet a team like Edmonton, which has drafted a lot of high-end talent pre-McDavid, is doing worse than the leafs. Yes they would be doing better with McDavid, but our #1 is Bozak. He'd be a good #2 on a cup team for sure. I'm not complaining about his play so far this year. A lot of question marks about how he'd perform without Kessel. Low and behold, he's out-performing Kadri so far. Kadri at $4m/5yr? I'm okay with that. Anything more than that? Trade bait.

The fact we haven't crapped the bed totally, coupled up with the other fact that Babcock is honest, and doesn't shield players from scrutiny when they mess up is testament to the fact he is nothing less than a good coach. Komarov is in the all-star game. Babs knows what he's doing.

 

[Mess]

He's probably somewhere between Good and Exceptional. But for this season, with bottom feeding expectations, we are bottom feeding. That's a good coaching job but not exceptional. We can really see what we have once the talent improves and whether he can over deliver on expected results.

He is the best Leafs coach since the late Patty Burns and Leaf Nation is lucky to have him.

Babcock is the victim of inheriting a bad team from past mismanagement, for that he can't be blamed. However it finally appears we have competent management again, and we have to trust Shanny, Lou, Hunter and Dubas for finding and developing better future players for Babcock to work with in order to expect better on ice results.

But, based on the little talent he has had so far, the coach has been able to create a cohesive group, that is willing to play with more structure and compete harder than before. It has set up a safe environment for the players to work in as they who no longer face the constant harassment from the Toronto media.

Despite the results not being there at present, its easy to see the improvements that have been incorporated by Babcock in just 3-4 months time, which once provided with more talented player personnel in 3-4 years we can see promise of a competitive team down the road.

Lets not forget Babcock was open and honest when he took the job and told everyone "If you think there is no pain coming, there is pain coming". He recognized just like many others, that we can't expect miracles overnight from a decade of abuse of poor GM decisions and drafting and developing.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

He's taken the heat of Phaneuf.
Amazing.

 

[666]

He declined an offer to stay with the Ducks to join the Wings .. Oddly enough that's the only time a team of his has missed the playoffs... 11/12 years his team has made the playoffs, 5 division titles, 3 Stanley Cup appearances, 1 Cup ring, and 2 Olympic gold medals

I really don't know how much more he have to prove to be called a "proven winner"

He's a proven winner with great talent. Bowman won three cups with Detroit before Babcock.

I also don't think standings watching this year is a viable way to judge Babcock as a coach considering even with him most projected the Leafs to be where they're at anyway. It's not that hard to see on the ice the impact he's having on the team. Making some veterans play well, he's doing a good job developing the younger guys into quality NHLers, he's cut the team's average goals against per game and improved defensive structure differently, he's made this team harder to play against even with the losses.

I don't think there's anything to really be embarrassed about .. They're playing with compete and effort at both ends of the rink that we haven't seen in years

If Babcock was so great he would have this team higher up in the standings than they were expected to be. But they aren't. Anyone could coach this team to 3 points out of last place.

Babcock isn't the embarrassing part. The worship of Babcock (who is 3 points out of last place) is. The team is embarrassing because of how horrible they are.

Lidstorm retired in 11/12 and although he won the Norris in 10/11, he was not a force like he was during the last few yrs.
As for getting KO in the first round. Carlye and Wilson could not even get into the first round of the playoffs.
Honestly, I tend to believe that if Babcock was here during the last few seasons of Sundin till now. The Leafs would have made the playoffs more often than once.

Someone doesn't understand the Detroit team. Once again, look at how well Detroit is doing without Babcock. They are actually higher in the standing than the were last year and they have a minus diff. Now there's a coach that the Leafs should hire as he appears to be much better than Babcock with the same team.

Between the sustained success, and the fact that he was never fired, he's undoubtedly a proven winner.

Making the finals with two different teams is also extremely impressive.

He's also lost in the finals more times than he's won. There isn't a Detroit fan who isn't at least a bit disappointed in Babcock's playoff performance. His regular seasons were fantastic with a stacked team but in the end, one cup, one finals loss and a bunch of disappointing early exists are a dismal failure given the talent he had.

 

[Pookie]

To the point about Detroit with and without Babcock and talent:

Last year at this time, 4th in conference. 57 points. 23 regulation wins.

This year, 3rd in conference. 53 points and 22 regulation wins.

Pretty flat. Ie no significant difference save for a shootout loss or two.

Once again, talent level and health dictates results for the most part.

Coaches should be judged on meeting, exceeding or failing to achieve expectations.

Bottom 5 team expectations based on talent, bottom 5 results. He's a good coach. Not a miracle worker.

 

[ACC1224]

No doubt when all is said and done, Babcock will go down as the greatest all time Leaf coach.

 

[Daisy Jane]

There are a few trains of thoughts here so I am hoping I am covering them all

Some people are strictly looking at where the the team is and is going how "embarrassing" it is that the team is basically where they were supposed to be, and that Babcock is being lauded. And there is another train of thought, that coaching doesn't matter at all - it is simply the talent and things just happen. (which..okay?).

This is how I see it. (for the entire spectrum of coaching in general - and Babcock v. Carlyle specifically, and Babcock in general).


Say you had a child - and your child - just was not doing well at school. At all. Like. They showed promise and everythig like that, but all their homework was covered in red ink, they were failing every test, they simply were not getting it. And you go to Parent-Teacher meetings, and the teacher is like, "Hey I have no idea what is going on, I give the child the work, I show them what to do, and this is exactly what happens, so I am going to have to fail them."

the effort the child is doing is bare minimum, they don't want to do anything, they think they suck, and they aren't going to do anything. because what's the point? they're going to fail anyway.

Then they get a new teacher, and the new teacher is like - "Okay it's fine. we're just starting over, I'm not going to punish you for failing last year." And this teacher, instead of showing the student and expecting them to just figure it out - but they'll help them work through the things that they are struggling with. They put that student in proper situations that they could do bettter. Their marks don't really improve for that first year - but you see a remarked difference in how your child acts, how they approach schoolwork, etc.

is the second teacher just as bad as the first teacher because the child didn't have straight A's? Do you ignore all what the second teacher has done to set up the child for success - even though it's not evident now?

Like thats how I'm reading some of these posts. "Babcock isn't that hot because his record is the same/worse than before." without looking at the entire spectrum of what he's actually doing.

Babcock is getting acknowledged for what he's doing (here in Toronto) - for actually coaching. He's not just telling people what to do, or showing them, and be all "well, I did it, and they aren't getting it." He's adapting to the situations that he faces, adjusts how he teaches the team and is allowing the team to adjust. That is huge. Babcock can't be the team more "talented" but - for the most part, he can make them compensate for some of those factors - and play relatively better.

We're third last - but the structures and practices put in place - allows the management to actually see what players are capable of doing. Not just "potential" - but this is what the standard is - this is how they are doing at that standard. Even though we're having a bad year - I know that as the team gets better they can maintain doing this - or they constantly struggle underneath what we're doing and now I can do that.

That's coaching. More or less talent doesn't impact that aspect.

for an example Jake. He's more "seamless" now. you don't literally see him trying to think out there (#1 thing that drove me insane the last few years). he doesn't use his skating to get himself out of trouble ALL the time. He's changed (for the better in my opinion).He's coached up Bozak, he's coached up Dion, he's coached up Paranteau (he looks a lot better than he did in Montreal and in Colorado), Morgan looks really good and is in situations that is allowing him to get points without relying on the powerplay - as well as challenging his development by constantly allowing him to be against top line pairings.

that's coaching.

Babcock is doing the best that he can. the expectation for this team was relatively where they were supposed to be. However the way they were playing was not. Most people expected us to be blown out and look horrendous every single night. And we ride that horrible train from Day one until Lottery night. that is not the case. Are we still being outshot. yes. and to me especially around now - that should be expected. we're not good ad we're basically a team of third-fourth line talent - but the structure isn't going to change to be like "hey okay you know - we can win if we just trade shots, or go for the win, and we'll hold on tight." they're working within what they have so that as we do get better - nothing is significantly different, other than - we now have more talent to win more games and eliminate the greater amount of shots

that is what he is doing. Now. That is why he is being praised now - and why it is not embarrassing - especially, where you consider what expectations were going to be. which was basically everyone being crappy.

When we're more talented - he'll be judged accordingly.


in regards to his stint in Detroit.
there have been many seasons even with the "talent" that he has - there was a legitimate curiosity of "would this be the year. that the Wings don't make the playoffs" but he always got them there. And while they didn't do amazing things in the playoffs - from what i've heard a lot of teams ended up saying that the series vs. the red wings were generally the hardest ones they have to go through. Which signals to me - we can look at goal tending, goal scoring as other factors of why they going get over the hump.

Not to mention - ignoring that one year Babcock literally took the Grand Rapid Griffins to the playoffs, and were a game away from game seven. (that would be the season where Zetterberg/Datsyuk and others were missing for copious amounts of the season).

I am not saying that he is a perfect coach. He has his hang ups and his "i'm going to depend on you" people even though it drives everyone insane. (see, Helm. See. Marincin). but it doesn't take away from the actual coaching/teaching that he does do and the fact that people are dismissive of what an actual coach does and wants to put it ALL on talent.. amazes me.

Having a lot of talent allows the coach to focus on other aspects - and trusting that the talent can carry it out. It doesn't guarantee a cup. But it does help. (and if - for example. a situation arises like the one that Detroit had with a good 1/3-1/2 of their roster gone for injury and 1/2 the Marlies up - a good coach and some good luck can result in being steady - not torpedoing down the standings).

How that could ever be seen as embarrassing (regardless of where they stand - see my teaching analogy) or simply put on talent, is dismissing what all extremely good coaches, teachers, mentors, etc do. End of story.
A good instructor makes a world of difference, with or without talent

 

[666]

No one is saying that Babcock is a bad coach. In fact I think everyone agrees that he's a fine coach as are pretty well all NHL caliber coaches BUT:

1) Talent is an order of magnitude more important than coaching and this teams sucks.
2) Babcock can not be fired so he's got a very unique situation where he can lose. This allows him to implement a system that "looks" better but produces the same bad results. Coaches that are worried about losing their job would coach differently.
3) His replacement in Detroit is doing about the same as him so he's probably not the greatest coach ever (by the way that would be Bowman but that's for another thread)
4) Results matter.
5) Stop worshiping an average coach it's embarrassing.

 

[champs*]

No one is saying that Babcock is a bad coach. In fact I think everyone agrees that he's a fine coach as are pretty well all NHL caliber coaches BUT:

1) Talent is an order of magnitude more important than coaching and this teams sucks.
2) Babcock can not be fired so he's got a very unique situation where he can lose. This allows him to implement a system that "looks" better but produces the same bad results. Coaches that are worried about losing their job would coach differently.
3) His replacement in Detroit is doing about the same as him so he's probably not the greatest coach ever (by the way that would be Bowman but that's for another thread)
4) Results matter.
5) Stop worshiping an average coach it's embarrassing.

huh, How is it, you have not been hired to run a NHL team yet?

 

[mikebel111*]

Babcock once again showing he is the best coach in the NHL.

He is an elite coach

 

[Daisy Jane]

No one is saying that Babcock is a bad coach. In fact I think everyone agrees that he's a fine coach as are pretty well all NHL caliber coaches BUT:

1) Talent is an order of magnitude more important than coaching and this teams sucks.
2) Babcock can not be fired so he's got a very unique situation where he can lose. This allows him to implement a system that "looks" better but produces the same bad results. Coaches that are worried about losing their job would coach differently.
3) His replacement in Detroit is doing about the same as him so he's probably not the greatest coach ever (by the way that would be Bowman but that's for another thread)
4) Results matter.
5) Stop worshiping an average coach it's embarrassing.

1: You can have a very talented team - and not have a proper coach.
the team sucks because we're not talented to the sum of its parts.
ignoring the fact that he is coaching a lot of players better than others did is ignorant.


2: There is so many things wrongs with this statement.
A: Babcock can be fired. However - as the organization right now is fine with where we are - as long as the players are playing well to ensure proper evaluation before you move out more pieces - he doesn't have to "coach differently."

B: how much different would he coach? like. you keep stating this as if - he's not maximizing the most out of his roster right now trying to win.

he's building up the players that had zero negative value right now. I doubt an average coach can do that.

C: why is it "looks" better? Every single team that has played ours has flat out stated how different it is playing against the Leafs. What was embarrassing was having teams go out on national television flat out tell you how to beat the Leafs - then go out and do it. What was embarrassing was having teams flat out laugh about how utterly easy it was to play against them. What was embarrassing was having OTHER bad teams note that playing the Leafs was flat out easy for them, and it was the easiest game they had in a season

if what we are having is average coaching, then it s very obvious that for the last few years with equally less talented teams, that we had below-average coaching. And they were coaching to win.

3: I don't think anyone has lauded Babcock as the greatest coach ever.
At the same time, I don't think judging anyone to what Bowman did is fair either. Contemporary speaking, I would say the two best coaches in the league bar-none is Joel Quennville (and I was beating the drum forever saying that the day he left St Louis, we should have gotten him instead. Instead we went with Ron Wilson, and Q went to Chicago) - and Mike Babcock. If you want to diminish what Babcock is able to do, or label it as average. that's your prerogative.

And the irony here in this point
Blashill - who has assistant coached Detroit (which is basically the same team give or take a player or two), and then coached Grand Rapids (that a good chunk of those players are on Detroit now - is doing what Babcock could do. With really good talent with the exact same system (give or take Blashill's traits) and without seeing how they do in the playoffs (or for that matter) with two hall of famers, two really good steady goaltenders, and a steady defensive core.

and Babcock is being labeled as average for making a team who has minimal talent, that if we were a good team most of these players would be third-fourth line players minus a few players - actually playing systematic, and playing well - albeit still being third-worst in the league (so a factor of TALENT. not COACHING) is laughable.

4: Results matters
but also - how you gain those results matter. If your team is only good because they are surviving on scoring first and holding on to dear life, allowing the other team to have their way in the defensive zone, and don't do anything, not adjusting to situations as they arise, not coaching, instructing your players in a way that they get it and they don't improve or look worse and you make the playoffs, then what? what happens then? Can that style of play survive four rounds? Anything can happen etc, but I'd rather the style of a Babcock result (and see what happens) vs. whatever else your peddling.


5) the fact that you think that Babcock is "average" is eye-raising.
Again. collective looking at his entire coaching career he has missed the playoffs what? once-twice?
the overall play of any and all teams - has improved wherever he goes.
The man has won everywhere he has coached.
Unlike Quennville (whom I adore) Babcock has had more success with less talented teams and improved their overall play, as well as benefiting from some beast-mode performances (which EVERY coach in the league benefits at times)

including the fact that you can't separate the difference between

A: appreciating good instruction with the coaching we're getting. (regardless of where the standings are. and that you can't acknowledge that is questioning)

B: acknowledge that everyone in the league (including media from outside the Toronto market) notes how good we are - despite where we are in the standings.

is eyebrow raising.
no one is "worshiping" Babcock. people are appreciating what he's brought. the fact you can't see that makes me wonder if you just have an isssue with Babcock, or you don't care who the coach is as long as the team is making the playoffs, who gives a crap how they play. Because quite frankly, all it reads is, team is crap and if Babcock was good he would basically make the team better in the standings. Which is head-shakingly wrong.

 

[Ovate]

3) His replacement in Detroit is doing about the same as him so he's probably not the greatest coach ever (by the way that would be Bowman but that's for another thread)

Getting .930 SV% goaltending out of Mrazek and a rookie on pace for 60 points might be helping Blashill a bit. And despite that they're on pace for fewer points that last year under Babcock.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

The Leafs are three points out of last place.

The Leafs are three points out of last place.

The Leafs are three points out of last place.

To say that coaching has little impact on team results is unfair to coaches.

Chicago might be the most talented teams in the league but I doubt they will have their success without Quenneville. Bc I am pretty sure Horachek won't be able to do that for them.

These 2 posts represent the opposite ends of the spectrum and argument. But how far apart are the two (supposed) "sides" really?

One side is saying that Babcock's coaching and systems have improved the Leafs "situation". Even the people who appear to be arguing against the coaching thing would agree I think to this. The coaching, systems and structure that coach Babcock has implement are an improvement for the Leaf's situation.

At the same time, the results in the standings don't indicate any "improvement in the standings". We are currently in 4th last place, the same place that we ended last year. Hockey/professional sports is a result oriented business.

My guess is the more nuanced points are being missed, namely that coaching will take us only so far in terms of success (i.e., deep playoff runs, Cup appearances, etc.), or in terms of significant impact, or an significant improvement in the standings. The key word here is "significant". Some are pointing out that talent level of the club will have to improve to achieve this goal. I don't see any particular reason to disagree with this. But the disagreement seems to be the understanding of this nuance.

The other hotly debated topic is the composition of the team in let's say 2017-18 or 2018-19 when many people here (I assume) believe that we will be a good (contender even) team i.e., it doesn't take 5 years to rebuild.

Some people seem to suggest that we could ice a team consisting 6 or 7 older vets (many or some of which are currently on the team - Kadri, Phaneuf, Gardiner - don't get hung up on the players named, think big picture) plus Stamkos. The theory is that the rest of the team can then be filled with ELCs and bargain-basement, one-year UFA contracts i.e., low cost, $1 m/year range contracts. This is suggested to be reasonable from 2 perspectives:

1. All (or the vast majority) of our ELCs will make the jump to the bigs and will make significant (key) contributions
   
2. Its a sound, viable plan that will be easy to do without any financial or cap constraints.

No doubt there is some debate on this subject. Some people see this an easy, sound plan and very achievable while others think it might not be i.e., not that easy or realistic.

 

[Slot]

To the point about Detroit with and without Babcock and talent:

Last year at this time, 4th in conference. 57 points. 23 regulation wins.

This year, 3rd in conference. 53 points and 22 regulation wins.

Pretty flat. Ie no significant difference save for a shootout loss or two.

Once again, talent level and health dictates results for the most part.

Coaches should be judged on meeting, exceeding or failing to achieve expectations.

Bottom 5 team expectations based on talent, bottom 5 results. He's a good coach. Not a miracle worker.

Extrapolated out those Detroit numbers are an 8 point spread over a year. Which is anything but insignificant, it will be interesting to see what Detroit's numbers look like at the end of the season.

 

[666]

Getting .930 SV% goaltending out of Mrazek and a rookie on pace for 60 points might be helping Blashill a bit. And despite that they're on pace for fewer points that last year under Babcock.

Extrapolated out those Detroit numbers are an 8 point spread over a year. Which is anything but insignificant, it will be interesting to see what Detroit's numbers look like at the end of the season.

I think I'm the one that started the comparison between Blashil and Babcock and we should probably stop there because while the teams are similar and the league is similar they are not the same. For example Buffalo and Edmonton aren't tanking this year as much and the league in general is tighter.

The point is simply that the Wings didn't collapse when Babcock left and the Leafs didn't shoot to the top of the standings. The logical conclusion is that those two teams changed coaches and they are pretty well getting the same results as last season which supports what some of us are talking about and that is that coaching at this level doesn't have much of an impact because the talent is what drives success. So stop worshiping Babcock. He's a fine coach just like pretty much every other NHL coach including Blashil and Carlyle.

 

[mikebel111*]

I hope we continue to praise Babcock. Red Wings might miss the post season this season. Was Babcock one of the main reasons why they were great? It looks like it.
he is showing he is an elite coach and finally brought in structure.

Awesome coach!

 

[Menzinger]

Getting .930 SV% goaltending out of Mrazek and a rookie on pace for 60 points might be helping Blashill a bit. And despite that they're on pace for fewer points that last year under Babcock.

Yep - people make very bold general statements without taking a second to look at the details.

There of plenty examples around the league of coaching change demonstrating the impact of coaching on team results - look no further than the Ducks post Carlyle firing.

 

[Pookie]

Yep - people make very bold general statements without taking a second to look at the details.

There of plenty examples around the league of coaching change demonstrating the impact of coaching on team results - look no further than the Ducks post Carlyle firing.

And yet studies on the subject find virtually no impact.