Coach Mike Babcock

[TBLeafer]

Holland with some Babcock insight and the changed culture on the Leafs:

Holland Optimistic Maple Leafs Headed Toward Bright Future

http://www.tsn.ca/holland-optimistic-maple-leafs-headed-toward-bright-future-1.509754

 

[Kin]

Whether or not Holland is a part of that future...eh.

 

[Bullfrog]

He's a really likable guy and I hope he sticks around. But honestly, I'm not sure where he's going to fit with a top 3 of Matthews, Kadri, Nylander. Perhaps he'd be a good fit on an active 4th line (10 minutes or so.)

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'm going to be completely honest, when I read that title I first thought "Why is the Wings GM still talking about Babcock"?

 

[TBLeafer]

I'm going to be completely honest, when I read that title I first thought "Why is the Wings GM still talking about Babcock"?

LOL, I initially thought the same thing.  ;D

 

[herman]

https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/09/13/toronto-maple-leafs-systems-analysis-the-penalty-kill/

Last in the league (thanks to Lou-luck), but first in our hearts.

Toronto had a firmly above-average PK last year despite lacking any of the traditional pieces that we generally consider paramount to a good PK (elite goalie, stud defenseman, all-star two-way forward).

[...]

On the forecheck and the neutral zone, the Leafs often ran a 1-3. The primary purpose of a 1-3 is to stack the blue line with the two defensemen lined up around the faceoff dots and a forward in the middle of the ice blocking a clean entry, with the goal of forcing a dump-in out of the opposition. For this to work effectively, the one forechecker has to prevent the opponent?s power play from generating speed up ice and cutting through the three defenders blocking off the blue line (this is where Grabner?s speed was very effective). The second forward who protects the middle of the ice won?t automatically line up there; he?ll move up the ice to around the blue line, close enough to pounce on a turnover or retreat back to protect the middle of the ice.

I heart Anthony Petrielli articles and I heart analyses of systems, so I'm pretty giddy to read this through.

 

[herman]

Looks like Babcock tries to do the opposite of his breakout strategies in PK systems: limit options, force plays into low-percentage areas.

I still don't know who will play PK beyond Komarov (because I don't know who will be on the team).

 

[herman]

Mike Babcock

?Sometimes we get way too caught up talking about structure and systems and all that, but it?s just that players are better. I had that same structure on my team and we finished dead last last year and I was the worst coach in the National Hockey League, if I remember correctly.?

Echoing what Nik said a year or so ago (repeatedly) about talent being what takes a team to the top, in response to my theory that coaching and systems can raise the team bar and overcome a dearth in talent.

True as that is, Babcock is underselling himself here because we've seen bad coaching tank good talent too. For all his quirks and minor flaw of sometimes sticking with odd choices, he really knows how to bring a team together and operate efficiently as a unit.

 

[Zee]

Mike Babcock

?Sometimes we get way too caught up talking about structure and systems and all that, but it?s just that players are better. I had that same structure on my team and we finished dead last last year and I was the worst coach in the National Hockey League, if I remember correctly.?

Echoing what Nik said a year or so ago (repeatedly) about talent being what takes a team to the top, in response to my theory that coaching and systems can raise the team bar and overcome a dearth in talent.

True as that is, Babcock is underselling himself here because we've seen bad coaching tank good talent too. For all his quirks and minor flaw of sometimes sticking with odd choices, he really knows how to bring a team together and operate efficiently as a unit.

Babcock must be thoroughly enjoying his time coaching Canada since he gets to win again.  You're right about him underselling himself though, he brought structure to the Leafs and they played much better last season despite the 30th overall finish.  With more talent on the roster this season, I'm sure he can get them up in the standings, as to how much remains to be seen.

 

[Kin]

Mike Babcock

?Sometimes we get way too caught up talking about structure and systems and all that, but it?s just that players are better. I had that same structure on my team and we finished dead last last year and I was the worst coach in the National Hockey League, if I remember correctly.?

Echoing what Nik said a year or so ago (repeatedly) about talent being what takes a team to the top, in response to my theory that coaching and systems can raise the team bar and overcome a dearth in talent.

True as that is, Babcock is underselling himself here because we've seen bad coaching tank good talent too. For all his quirks and minor flaw of sometimes sticking with odd choices, he really knows how to bring a team together and operate efficiently as a unit.

Just out of curiousity, and I apologize if I asked you this when we talked about it before, but what examples come to mind when you think of a really talented team being tanked by bad coaching?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Just out of curiousity, and I apologize if I asked you this when we talked about it before, but what examples come to mind when you think of a really talented team being tanked by bad coaching?

The Penguins last year before they made their coaching change?

 

[rdowdall]

Just out of curiousity, and I apologize if I asked you this when we talked about it before, but what examples come to mind when you think of a really talented team being tanked by bad coaching?

The Penguins last year before they made their coaching change?

Was it bad coaching, or did Crosby just come out of his slump?  How did the coach make Crosby not score?  Also, they finally moved Kessel to the third line and paired him with a recently traded for Hagelin.  It's possible that all these things would have happened even if they hadn't fired the coach.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Was it bad coaching, or did Crosby just come out of his slump?  How did the coach make Crosby not score?  Also, they finally moved Kessel to the third line and paired him with a recently traded for Hagelin.  It's possible that all these things would have happened even if they hadn't fired the coach.

There's a lot of evidence out there to suggest that the coaching change made a pretty big impact on their season. This was a good article: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/how-a-head-coaching-change-saved-the-penguins-season/

I've also read a lot to suggest that Johnson's coaching style was at least partially responsible for Crosby's slump.

 

[Kin]

The Penguins last year before they made their coaching change?

Even if you want to hold coaching accountable for Crosby's slump, or forget the solid trades they made in season, they were 15-10-3 under Johnston which is a 97 point pace.

 

[herman]

Just out of curiousity, and I apologize if I asked you this when we talked about it before, but what examples come to mind when you think of a really talented team being tanked by bad coaching?

I'd throw in the example of Stamkos' early career as well, but my knowledge is not encyclopedic on this topic.

From what I can see, coach-driven performance stems from Tactics and Personality Management, which Babcock seems to have a good handle of.

 

[herman]

Just to tie it all back to my old video/board game analogy that grossly oversimplified how hockey works, I'm seeing that the amplitude of influence in coaching is far less than that of talent depth on the roster.

On a team without much talent, every little bit helps, at least on the defensive side.

 

[Kin]

I'd throw in the example of Stamkos' early career as well, but my knowledge is not encyclopedic on this topic.

Those teams had some ok forwards but were still pretty bad. For example, these are the defensemen who played 20+ games for the Lightning in Stamkos' rookie year:

Andrei Meszaros
Matt Smaby
Marek Malik
Lukas Krajicek
Steve Eminger
Cory Murphy
Paul Ranger
Josef Melichar
Phil Connors
David Koci
Mike Lundin

That's a pretty non-descript list of nobodies. And their goaltending was Mike Smith, Karri Ramo and someone named Mike McKenna.

 

[herman]

Would anyone go so far as to say coaching is irrelevant to a team's performance?

Edit: solid re-titling right there.

 

[Kin]

Would anyone go so far as to say coaching is irrelevant to a team's performance?

Edit: solid re-titling right there.

No. But I think the difference between the greatest coach in the world and a sort of baseline NHL competent coach is much, much smaller than most people seem to.

 

[bustaheims]

Would anyone go so far as to say coaching is irrelevant to a team's performance?

I've said it before and I'll repeat myself here - I strongly believe that bad coaching has a much more significant impact than good coaching.

A good coach can really only get the best of what the talent on his roster can manage - and, a really good coach adapts to new realities and does this with regularity. That won't always translate to a good record, but will usually translate to a well structured team that gives at least solid, respectable effort every night.

A bad coach, however, doesn't get the buy-in from players, doesn't adapt, etc. That inevitably ends up seeing the losses pile up regardless of the talent level of the team - at least, past the level one would reasonably expect from that team's talent level (or, in the case of teams that very talent poor, done so with performances that are embarrassing).

The problem is that, outside of a few exceptions, the worst coaches in the NHL in an average season aren't bad coaches in the grand scheme of things. They're all generally pretty good at their jobs. So, you're not frequently going to see a significant impact from coaching at the NHL level, because, to paraphrase Nik, the gap between the best coach in the world and the average NHL head coach isn't all that significant.