Coach Mike Babcock

[herman]

Some light reading while we wait for final Training Camp cuts.

http://www.macleans.ca/society/mike-babcock-23-men-23-ways-to-coach/

Q: At the same time, you?ve stressed a need for more accountability?to teammates, management, the fans and media. How do those two concepts go together?
A: I call it ?sharing the love.? You know when your wife?s having a good go at you? I always say to the guys, ?Hey, she?s just sharing the love. If she didn?t love you, she wouldn?t talk to you like that.? To me, it?s kitchen-table accountability. When you sit around your kitchen table with people you love, if you say something stupid, they call you on it right away?because they?re honest with you and they?re making you better. That?s what we?re going to have here. We?re going to have an honest respect for one another, to make everyone maximize the potential they have. I expect the players to listen to me, and I?m going to listen to them. We?ve got to make each other better here, and it?s another way to create safety, because the players know you?ve got their backs. When you tell a player what you want, he will try to please you.

Q: Doesn't all that ?honest dialogue? create friction?
A: I think it?s 100 per cent the opposite. I think being honest with one another creates an environment that?s comfortable. You want to know where you stand, whether you?re doing a good job. The players know what?s going on before you do. They?re trying to see if you?re going to do something about it. And when it?s not like that, everybody is pissed off, because they know that people can get away with stuff and that nobody is keeping them in line. That?s not a team to me.

[...]

Q: Last year, the Leafs never seemed to be able to find a balance between offence and defence. How will you fix that?
A: I?m a big believer that you don?t want to play defence. Having the puck is way more fun, playing in the offensive zone is way more fun. So let?s build a structure and habits so that we can do that. If you don?t work, if you don?t execute quick in the [defensive] zone, if you don?t slow people down through the neutral zone, you can?t be on offence. I call our end the work zone, neutral ice, the speed zone, and their end the fun zone. Let?s figure out a way to get in it.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I enjoy listening to him talk, much like when I'm listening to Dubas, my BS radar doesn't pick up anything.

 

[Kin]

It's unfortunate because I think what the interviewer was trying to get at there is something that I'm genuinely interested in which is what does "accountability" mean beyond a meaningless buzzword that can be used retroactively to criticize an underperforming team? Babcock acknowledges that each individual player creates a unique challenge in terms of coaching them so when this need for more "Accountability" is raised...what does that actually mean? Will he yell at players more? Bench them more often? Be quicker to reduce their ice time?

Because this idea that previous coaches or front offices didn't do these things or, at the very least, try to find the right way to manage the players on the team is pretty obviously not true. Now, if the team is as talent poor as the Leafs are now Babcock will have a little more leeway in terms of being creative with how players might be held to account but I think describing accountability in terms of "more" or "less" like it's a quantitative thing without specifically describing what you mean is really just a way to take unfair shots at people who previously worked for the team.

People roasted Carlyle for the gentlest/entirely accurate description of Reimer's mediocre play and yet when it comes to vague notions of player discipline they want coaches to bring down the hammer. I don't know why that is. I suppose in the abstract people like the idea of the bad hockey they're watching being met with players facing some invented standard of consequence but I don't know we have any real indication that various levels of "accountability" actually do anything.

 

[Frank E]

It's unfortunate because I think what the interviewer was trying to get at there is something that I'm genuinely interested in which is what does "accountability" mean beyond a meaningless buzzword that can be used retroactively to criticize an underperforming team? Babcock acknowledges that each individual player creates a unique challenge in terms of coaching them so when this need for more "Accountability" is raised...what does that actually mean? Will he yell at players more? Bench them more often? Be quicker to reduce their ice time?

Because this idea that previous coaches or front offices didn't do these things or, at the very least, try to find the right way to manage the players on the team is pretty obviously not true. Now, if the team is as talent poor as the Leafs are now Babcock will have a little more leeway in terms of being creative with how players might be held to account but I think describing accountability in terms of "more" or "less" like it's a quantitative thing without specifically describing what you mean is really just a way to take unfair shots at people who previously worked for the team.

People roasted Carlyle for the gentlest/entirely accurate description of Reimer's mediocre play and yet when it comes to vague notions of player discipline they want coaches to bring down the hammer. I don't know why that is. I suppose in the abstract people like the idea of the bad hockey they're watching being met with players facing some invented standard of consequence but I don't know we have any real indication that various levels of "accountability" actually do anything.

Good questions Nik. 

For there to be accountability, there has to be consequences to not following through on what has been expected.

What are the consequences?  A team roast around the kitchen table?

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

From comments made by previous coaches, it seemed at least in part that Kessel undermined their authority. It was apparent that he was the best player and several coaches lamented having to take what you get to a certain extent.

I think having a regime in charge that is quite willing to hold anyone to account and one that is not undermined by its unwillingness or inability to discipline a star player will go a long way towards getting a reaction from players when necessary.

But hey, I've been awake all night with a crying baby, so the above might be written in Dutch, I might be hallucinating.

 

[Kin]

Good questions Nik. 

For there to be accountability, there has to be consequences to not following through on what has been expected.

What are the consequences?  A team roast around the kitchen table?

Well, or the thing that immediately comes to mind is Phil Kessel. Let's say, and I think we can with some certainty, that the organization wasn't very happy with Phil Kessel last year. Would benching him have fixed that? Does anyone look at Phil and all of his idiosyncracies and really think that sending him to the press box would have turned him into Jonathan Toews?

And once it became pretty clear that the season was over I think it's fair to say that, knowing that they'd try to trade him in the off-season, making him a healthy scratch or putting him on the 4th line would have been counter-productive.

It's easy to be tough on a roster where there's nobody on it who figures to be a key player long term. The real question is how you hold a Marner or a Nylander "accountable".

 

[Kin]

From comments made by previous coaches, it seemed at least in part that Kessel undermined their authority. It was apparent that he was the best player and several coaches lamented having to take what you get to a certain extent.

I think having a regime in charge that is quite willing to hold anyone to account and one that is not undermined by its unwillingness or inability to discipline a star player will go a long way towards getting a reaction from players when necessary.

But hey, I've been awake all night with a crying baby, so the above might be written in Dutch, I might be hallucinating.

Sure. But I think in a situation like that, if that were the case, then the far larger issue would be having Kessel on the team and in a de facto position of leadership in the first place. If your best player is really that toxic a presence then unless you're of the belief that there's a quick or easy way to fix him for lack of a better word then I don't know how effective any kind of disciplinary method would be.

Assuming that trading him isn't a disciplinary method, that is.

 

[herman]

The real question is how you hold a Marner or a Nylander "accountable".

The plan there appears to be taking a strong look at the personalities they're drafting, an early indoctrination into the 'Leaf way' with their rookie camps, and developing them into players that would never even think to buck their coaches.

That, and forcing them to cut their hair to break their willful, petulant ways.

 

[Kin]

The plan there appears to be taking a strong look at the personalities they're drafting, an early indoctrination into the 'Leaf way' with their rookie camps, and developing them into players that would never even think to buck their coaches.

Ok. But the second and third thing you list both indicate corrective measures taken to eliminate behaviour you don't want to see which, again, actually requires specifics rather than platitudes.

The difference between this group and the previous group is not going to be what they want or what they plan.  Brian Burke didn't open every training camp by saying "Rules are for loserz" and then shotgunning a beer.

 

[Bullfrog]

Nik touch on it by questioning the efficacy of benching Kessel, but some people seem to equate punishment with accountability.

Accountability to me suggests owning up to your actions and doing something about it. It's like how time-outs don't really work for toddlers; they just make them fearful of consequences. That's not always the best motivator.

 

[herman]

The plan there appears to be taking a strong look at the personalities they're drafting, an early indoctrination into the 'Leaf way' with their rookie camps, and developing them into players that would never even think to buck their coaches.

Ok. But the second and third thing you list both indicate corrective measures taken to eliminate behaviour you don't want to see which, again, actually requires specifics rather than platitudes.

Of course (Babcock is almost always quoted in platitudes). My primary answer to that good question was that it is easier to impart accountability early on with new players, rather than with surly veterans.

I don't know what those measures will be, but from everything I've read so far, if a player makes an on-ice mistake, he hears about it on the bench (the whats and whys) and then gets a chance to correct it. I don't know what happens if it keeps occurring, as that's hard to assess until we see it over the next few months. Part of that interview touched on why specifics might be hard to come by, as Babcock aims to coach each individual per that individual's needs, motivations, and potential.

Based on some of the comments from bloggers who covered the Red Wings for awhile, if you're a round peg for the square peg role Babcock needs you to be, then you're eventually moved out. He might be overly loyal to those that fit his scheme though.

With the previous-previous coach, it sounded like (from Gardiner's remarks) that if you made a mistake, you were stapled to the bench to figure out what you did wrong. Horachek took pains to explain the rationale behind his decisions and strategies, which sounds like a very deliberate decision to be different from Carlyle.

 

[Frank E]

Nik touch on it by questioning the efficacy of benching Kessel, but some people seem to equate punishment with accountability.

Accountability to me suggests owning up to your actions and doing something about it. It's like how time-outs don't really work for toddlers; they just make them fearful of consequences. That's not always the best motivator.

I guess I disagree somewhat....I don't think accountability exists without real consequences.

I think in the toddler's example, the consequence is the time in the corner all alone without toys. 

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

You're talking about platitudes Nik, but how much detail are you hoping to get out of him here realistically? I'm sure there is pretty clearly defined procedures in place behind the scenes, but making that public is only going to invite controversy anytime the media decides it's not being followed, no?

Isn't part of this holding your hands up and accepting that most of this will go on behind closed doors and we won't be privy to it?

 

[Kin]

You're talking about platitudes Nik, but how much detail are you hoping to get out of him here realistically?

Realistically, none. But I think that if you talk about how your system/coaching/philosophy holds the players "more" accountable you open yourself up to the question of what that actually means. If Babcock were to say, for instance, something along the lines of "We've got a different approach" then my inclination would probably be to say, you know, alright.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Nik touch on it by questioning the efficacy of benching Kessel, but some people seem to equate punishment with accountability.

Accountability to me suggests owning up to your actions and doing something about it. It's like how time-outs don't really work for toddlers; they just make them fearful of consequences. That's not always the best motivator.

Yeah I didn't really read the accountability comments in a punishment sense but in an owning up to it sense - no sugarcoating it, brutally honest, justify your actions, etc.  As in, be accountable for how you are playing - if it's not good enough, own up to it and Babcock will be honest with you about it.

That's not to say it's not just platitudes but I don't think reading it in a punishment sense only is really correct.

 

[Kin]

Of course (Babcock is almost always quoted in platitudes). My primary answer to that good question was that it is easier to impart accountability early on with new players, rather than with surly veterans.

I don't know what those measures will be, but from everything I've read so far, if a player makes an on-ice mistake, he hears about it on the bench (the whats and whys) and then gets a chance to correct it. I don't know what happens if it keeps occurring, as that's hard to assess until we see it over the next few months. Part of that interview touched on why specifics might be hard to come by, as Babcock aims to coach each individual per that individual's needs, motivations, and potential.

But that's largely what I'm saying. Everyone aims for those things. That's coaching 101. Implying that that separates or distinguishes Babcock is just buying into the new guy's hype.

What you're saying though, doesn't really indicate a higher standard of accountability. It may indicate a better standard of communication but that's not the same thing. I appreciate it may be from a textbook definition of the word but when people around here complained that Kessel or Bozak weren't being held "accountable" it wasn't because they wanted more conversations between the staff and the players because those conversations are taken as a given(and I don't particularly believe Jake Gardiner on that account). What people expect is actions taken when certain standards aren't met.

 

[herman]

I read that whole kitchen-table accountability thing as: "hey, if I'm yelling at you, it doesn't mean you suck; it means I see what you're capable of and want you to be able to reach that level"

or, to be a bit more Old Testament about it: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

But that's largely what I'm saying. Everyone aims for those things. That's coaching 101. Implying that that separates or distinguishes Babcock is just buying into the new guy's hype.

What you're saying though, doesn't really indicate a higher standard of accountability. It may indicate a better standard of communication but that's not the same thing. I appreciate it may be from a textbook definition of the word but when people around here complained that Kessel or Bozak weren't being held "accountable" it wasn't because they wanted more conversations between the staff and the players because those conversations are taken as a given(and I don't particularly believe Jake Gardiner on that account). What people expect is actions taken when certain standards aren't met.

I don't think the accountability thing really sets Babcock apart from other coaches, per se, more the structure and tactics and his ability to get players to understand their roles in that structure, boiling it down to easily digested mantras and minimizing decision-making time during the flow of play. The accountability piece is just how he gets the team there.

I'm not entirely sure what answers you're looking for, Nik. Communication is the key component to accountability.

 

[Kin]

I'm not entirely sure what answers you're looking for, Nik. Communication is the key component to accountability.

Uh huh but like I said up there you're reading a pretty narrow definition of the word, I think. To quote the question from the article with my own emphasis:

Q: At the same time, you?ve stressed a need for more accountability?to teammates, management, the fans and media. How do those two concepts go together?

So it's pretty clear that "accountability" in this context is not simply about a coach and his interaction with players. Not to repeat myself too much but when accountability is typically used in this context, it's not fans upset that players aren't being communicative enough with their coaching staff.

 

[herman]

Q: At the same time, you?ve stressed a need for more accountability?to teammates, management, the fans and media. How do those two concepts go together?

So it's pretty clear that "accountability" in this context is not simply about a coach and his interaction with players. Not to repeat myself too much but when accountability is typically used in this context, it's not fans upset that players aren't being communicative enough with their coaching staff.

So you're talking about accountability for infractions off-ice as well? Like blowing off the media?

This is a very interesting discussion, but I think I'm missing what the real question is here.

 

[Kin]

So you're talking about accountability for infractions off-ice as well? Like blowing off the media?

What I'm saying is that there are two definitions for "accountable". There's the one you seem to be focused on, which is being required to explain things, and there's being held responsible for your actions. What i'm saying is that typically, when the word is used in this context, people are referring to the second definition and by "being held responsible" they don't mean "having to explain themselves".