kipwinger

Everybody knows that you can't put Tatar and Weiss on the ice much because only bad things happen when they're out there. Well, that and they score goals. But mostly bad things. Here's a fun game to play. Mike Babcock bitched during the game that the Bruins were playing effectively in front of the net and the Wings weren't. Now, for funsies, go look at where Stephen Weiss scored every single one of his goals so far this season. It'll be a hoot.

Haha, even if you factor in special teams (Tatar and Weiss had more special team TOI) Glendening and Miller had more. If you look at their even strength time on ice only, Glendening and Miller had WAY more. Which makes sense, what with the fact that we were playing from behind the whole game...ugh.

Lol. Glendening and Miller had more ice time than Weiss and Tatar tonight.

He started Weiss on a higher line last game. Putting him on the fourth line would have made more sense a game ago, but he wasn't too concerned with it then. AND he benched Weiss in overtime as well. So I'm just puzzled as to what's going on.

Rock solid argument. Babcock is the bestest coach eva, so nobody should question anything he does. Got it.

We've got exactly three competent defenseman, and none of them are depth guys. I don't know who we could spare that they'd want.

I just feel bad for Weiss. The only thing he can control is his play on the ice, and in that way he's performed exceptionally well, and yet he can't get a break. Bummer.

Oh good, Weiss is back on the fourth line tonight. Because that guy doesn't create offense or anything.

Anybody have an idea why Weiss was glued to the bench in overtime? Not a single shift.

I don't know what you guys are talking about, everybody knows it's the refs who cost Detroit all their games. If not for the league's bias, and refs interference we'd win 75 games a year. A roster full of all stars couldn't overcome the insidious plotting of the black and white.

I had no idea asking an honest question about goons was so threatening to your point of view. In the future I'll be sure I'll treat all players with the subtlety and nuance they deserve instead of using categories like goon...or sniper, or offensive defenseman, or stay at home defenseman, or power forward. Ya know, because clearly those are broad stroke categories that are neither helpful nor palpable given your sensibilities.

That's exactly what I'm asking about. Why is he always in the spotlight? Because he's a worse sort of goon? Or because he's just the scapegoat? I honestly don't know.

Or even the third line winger that he wasn't supposed to be, but seemed effective at being, and produced as. The fourth line part is the thing that baffles me about this most recent lineup. But like I said above, I'm sure it will last a half a period, so I'm going to try not to get too irritated about it.

Fair enough. To me they're all the same, but I understand there must be some actual variance in their ability. I've just never really bothered to pay attention.

I know you're not defending goons here, but I've got to ask, how is he any different than any other goon? Everybody always says about Scott, "its a farce that he's in the league". But how's he any worse than Orr, Parros, McGrattan, Westgarth, etc.? I remember Milbury going off on Scott and how he's such a disgrace, but he was completely mum on all the other guys in the league who do the EXACT same thing on the ice. I honestly don't care about goons so I don't pay attention, is he a particularly disgraceful goon?

Why not? Babs did the same thing last year in the playoffs with Legwand and we all remember how beautifully that worked out. But don't say his coaching stifles offense. Heaven forbid anyone say that. Edit: In all fairness, I guess I should acknowledge that he's going to change all the lines about 30 seconds into the game so what does it matter? Put Kindl at forward to start the game for all the difference that would make.

The give away for me was the alliteration in the post. Really, Reilly, O'Reilly, Really. ******* literary devices in internet posts, what will the think of next!?!

I think his was too.

1. Not just one quote, he said the same thing four days later here: http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2014/12/red_wings_look_to_tighten_up_d.html 2. I didn't suggest anything about a "strategy change". He's always had the same strategy. When our guys get away from it, and open up, they score more goals and we win more often. When he reemphasizes the system (as I believe he did after his comments), they score less and lose more (or so my theory goes). Babcock didn't change, he just reemphasized something the players on the ice were getting away from. 3. Finally, I'm not sure why this comes as such a surprise. We all remember how Yzerman's points dropped off after he started playing defense. It seems (admittedly speculative) that Dats and Z would likely have scored more often under more offensively open systems. So why is the rest of the team any different? The more you emphasize "defense first" the more guys will prioritize that over offense. Which is a little less of an issue for guys like D and Z who will score either way, but for everybody else who aren't superstar two way players, I imagine being more defensively responsible could easily translate to being a little less offensively threatening. 4. None of which would be a problem except that we aren't winning the low scoring, closely contested games. We're losing them. We're also not losing because our defense is terrible and can't stop other teams from scoring. When we lose it's because we're not scoring much. When that happens six (very close) games in a row, it's a trend. And when I see Babcock emphasizing "tightening up defensively" during our best stretch of hockey; and the corresponding reduction of goals against, reduction of goals for, and six strait loses starting less than a week after his comments, I have to at least consider that those things are related. The only real way to know for sure would be to regress the goals for and goals against to determine the strength of that relationship. I'd imagine almost all teams (with the odd exception of Chicago) would see their goals for fall off as their goals against goes down. However, if the strength of the relationship was greater under Babs' system, then I'd have all the evidence I'd need to suggest his system is prohibitive. Sadly, while I know what type of statistical analysis you'd need to perform, I don't know how to do it...so my theory remains exactly that lol. Because he hasn't been bad at all this year. He hasn't hurt the team on iota so far this season. Which I'd imagine is why the critics (myself included) have had to eat crow on the Dan Cleary signing. So good for Dano. A million dollars richer and nobody's complaining.

I'm pretty sure Sproul was scratched. Three or four games I think. Since then he's responded and he's tied for the lead in defense scoring and his pluus minus has shaped up. He also doesn't weigh 175 lbs. Which is likely another reason Blackman was having a hard time finding a spot on the roster. He's too light to handle a physical north american game. And unlike almqvist, he wasn't producing tons of points.

The goals against average dropped by almost a whole goal after he made those comments compared to the previous winning streak. Add that information to his comments and its not hard to see why I'd conclude that an emphasis was made to "tighten up defensively". That the offense dropped off at the same time could be spurious, but I don't know why you won't even entertain the thought. Look back over all the games played and you'll notice the lower the goals against, the less we are scoring as well. Did Babcock make a deliberate decision to sacrifice offense or defense? I don't know. But based on his remarks and the correlating drop in goals against AND goals for, I don't think its as outlandish a proposition as you're making it seem.

Be still, my heart.

All of which have been committed to memory for quick recall.

Maybe, but in the past we've had more success in the shootout and were still heavily left handed. I mean, Dats, Filppula, Hudler, Bert, Z, Franzen, are all lefties and we were better when they were the regular shooters. But I'd agree that in general teams would be better if they could mix it up.

It's not like he was treated like Martin Frk and sent down to Toledo. He played 18 of 25 games for Grand Rapids. He was given plenty of opportunity to grab a spot, especially considering Sproul didn't start out well and was by no means a lock in the lineup until the last four or five games. Secondly, contrary to the current narrative that AHL veterans are holding back others' development, I'd argue that they're absolutely vital to it. I think everybody would agree that making the Calder Cup playoffs and going on a run is a HUGE boost for young players' development. Every player that won the Calder a couple years ago talked about what an important developmental opportunity it was. You don't make those kinds of runs without veteran AHL guys on the team. Every single AHL team has them because they're important, and we're no different.