Interesting. I still have faith in Babcock, but that's because I view him sort of like a dog; he can't control what he's going to do. If you give him a lump of chocolate, he'll eat it. If you give him Cleary, he'll play him. He's a great coach, but you have to limit him or he'll create a crazy lineup full of huge grinders and nothing more. His virtue is that he can take a normal roster and make them really systematic and responsible.
The problem is that Holland doesn't limit him. In fact, Holland is just as bad in some respects. I think Holland's main fault (and I don't know where it comes from. Possibly Ilitch?) is that he's convinced that he MUST win the cup right, right now, but doesn't really have the personnel. In doing so, he gives guys like Tatar and Nyquist smaller roles instead of letting them grow. (and I'm not even in the 1st line camp. I think T and N should be on the 3rd line at the maximum to start.) I don't think Holland is stupid, but I think he has the wrong goals for right now. It's not going to help the team in the way that he thinks, and the time will pass anyway—and the Wings' prospects will lose chance after chance in the name of "competitiveness" and icing the best team possible with no regard for upside.
Of the two, I think Holland is more incompetent. He's had more decisions to make, yes, but he's also made more bad decisions, and he does a poor job of keeping Babcock sane. Babcock, on the other hand, does a really good job. Maybe we don't like Babcock's philosophy, but I think it's hard to argue that he doesn't produce consistently and sometimes prolifically. The guy is a beast of a coach with a somewhat regressive philosophy of hockey.
If I had to rank them:
Babcock: 9
Holland: 6