kipwinger

He was very good before he left too. He had a couple costly turnovers in the playoffs before he left, which everyone blew out of proportion, and so he's not looked upon favorable in hindsight. By every standard he was an exceptionally good investment during his time with the Wings.

You're speculating just as much as I am by saying that. There's at least some, admittedly circumstantial, evidence that Babcock totally makes decisions based on his fondness for players. He's certainly made lots of otherwise questionable decisions which can't be supported by stats, or prior successes. I've listed a bunch of them above. So while I can't verify with certainty that he did it because he likes the kid, you can't discount it either. He played Cleary for 53 games last year despite his contributing nothing and being a liability on every shift. Did that have some unforseen logic to it as well or did he do it because he's a softie for hard working, blue collar, types? I don't know. Neither do you. But you shouldn't be so surprised when decisions like that make me think he plays favorites. I suppose what it comes down to is you don't think Babs makes important decisions based on gut feelings. I do.

You're literally saying we couldn't expect better from Z or Franzen because they weren't good in the shootout one year ago? That's not how probability works. You know that right? That's last year. Are you suggesting that Franzen and Zetterberg are somehow worse options on the shootout because they didn't do great last year? What about all the shootout goals they scored prior to last year? Do those not count?

I didn't realize that Weiss had played so much worse than the 90% of the rest of the team who didn't score in the preseason. Also, unless Franzen and Zetterberg have never scored shootout goals in their careers (which they have) they're still better choices than a kid who hasn't. Turns out, while they're not spectacular at shootouts, both of those guys have scored shootout goals in the NHL and are more skilled finishers than a checking line rookie. Finally, as I've said already, using your best shooter (in this case Tatar) third is a mathematically stupid decision. If he shoots first or second he has a 100% chance of getting to take a shot and score. If he goes third there's a chance he doesn't hit the ice. Since he's your best chance at scoring, you probably want to make sure he gets on the ice. Again, there's a reason Datsyuk ALWAYS shoots first and never third. Because he's our best chance at scoring a shootout goal. So even if Tatar was slotted to go third, it's a bad decision by Babcock.

It's also not like your standing for virtue here. All of us have seen post after post after post of unfounded criticisms of Holland and I don't see you saying "it's easy to criticize in hindsight" or "you don't know what happens behind the scenes". I've literally seen people on here explicitly speculate on whether Holland is a drunk, has dementia, or has vaguely "lost it" without ever such an ardent defense as you're giving Babs right now despite his decision being mathematically (using statistical probability) bad BEFORE he made it.

I don't dislike you, I do however dislike your knee jerk defense of the guy. I've given quite a lot of reasons why I think it was a bad move. You responded to none of them, yet still defended Babs. Your response seems to be "it's easy to say that in hindsight" and "you don't know what he's thinking". That pisses me off a bit because there's nothing in there about why it was a good idea, only a generic defense of him. At least those saying "Nestrasil scored on Rask" in the preseason have provided a reason. I don't think it holds up, but it's a reason. You don't even provide that when you come to his defense.

Did I say that Babs was a "terrible coach" or an "awful coach" because he screwed the pooch on the shootout last night? I don't remember that. I did say he made an awful decision which cost us a point. He's a good coach, he was just stupid last night. Here's another reason why. His best statistical shootout performers on the team (last night) are Tatar, Zetterberg, and Franzen. Tatar's probably the best of the bunch (or was last year). Now, even if he was slated to shoot last (as some have speculated) it's still a bad decision by Babcock because there's a 100% chance your first and second shooters will get to shoot. There a less than 100% chance your third shooter will get to shoot. By putting your best shooter (from a year ago) in the third spot you're reducing the likelihood he can contribute in a positive way. There's a reason Datyuk ALWAYS shoots first and not third...they don't want to take the stick out of his hands (so to speak). So even IF you're going to experiment with a rookie third liner in the shootout (which you shouldn't if you've got better choices)...you should have him shoot third, not first. Why is what I'm saying so ******* controversial? Oh, because I'm criticizing Babcock, that's why.

Well we can't really discuss "what we don't know". We can only discuss what we do. It's like you (hypothetically) saying "Abby had a terrible game last night" and me responding with "well you don't know whether he's going through something personal at home". You don't. But that doesn't really make any difference to the discussion does it? And Nyquist didn't have a point in the preseason. Who cares? It's the preseason. It's not an indicator of anything.

I don't think you're being an apologist, and I really don't feel like I was unfairly bashing him in hindsight. I think that there was every reason to believe that last night (at game time) Nestrasil offered a lower probability of success than several other players on the team. If, for no other reason, than because its a high pressure situation and he's never dealt with anything like it (even at lower levels). He was never even a go-to shooter in the AHL and yet he was asked to be in the NHL with 3 games under his belt. Mike Babcock and I both agree that confidence matters a lot for offensive output. Nestrasil has none and it showed. Which wasn't hard to imagine before he took the shot. As for real discussion, it's pretty tough to discuss a questionable call from a game the night before if the folks (not you) around here act as though any criticism of Babcock is anathema. I think he f***ed up last night. I'm prepared to say why. But if the only response is Harold's "he knows something from practice that you (and I) don't so you can't criticize him" then there's no discussion to be had.

I'm not sure about that. He's a good player, but he's basically a righty Dekeyser (as is Petry). Good defensively with midling offense. I think the whole point in looking at guys like Myers, Green, Boyle, Niskanen, Yandle, etc. is that they produce offense (or are supposed to). A guy that tops out around 20-25 pts. a season with good defense isn't what we're after right now. We need offensive ability from the back end. Guys like Stralman or Petry just aren't going to give that to you with any degree of likelihood.

First, it doesn't take an (honorary) doctor of sports psychology from McGill to realize that a kid who's three games into an NHL career, has never scored much at any level higher than junior, who has failed to register an NHL point, who wasn't even in the roster discussion before three weeks ago, and who has never been relied upon to produce offense when it mattered, would f*** up a shootout in that situation. Practice is not the same thing as nationally televised game in front of 20,000 fans. I'd have been thrilled if he had scored, but I sure wasn't expecting it. Babs' job is to get points, not experiment with some AHL/NHL tweener's confidence level when the game is on the line. Secondly, Babcock makes questionable coaching decisions all the time which don't work in game situations. I sure hope they're based on player preference because they're certainly not based on results. Like breaking up the Legwand, Nyquist, Franzen line at the end of last year (cleary that wasn't working). Or burying Legwand on the fourth line wing (because who needed his team leading 51 pts. of offensive potential against the Bruins). Or scratching Tatar for the first ten games of last year (I'm sure practice showed Sammy was just plain better). Or playing Cleary for 53 games before finally scratching him last season (Tootoo or Eaves were clearly worse choices based on his health and season productivity). Or leaving Weiss on the bench whilst bemoaning his team's lack of offense this season (everybody knows when you're new to a team you have the same status as a rookie...unless you're Alfie). Or giving Brendan Smith one game on the PP last season despite his team's miserable PP numbers (I mean, you wouldn't want to demote Kindl with the year he was having). Or allowing Glendening to take the second most faceoffs a season ago despite having the worst FO percentage amongst regular centers. Or for that matter, like playing Glendening at all (despite his being worse than Joakim Andersson in every conceivable metric). Or not sending his two most capable offensive players out on the 4-3 powerplay last night (I know, Tatar and Nyquist didn't practice on the 4 man powerplay unit) Or not practicing with Tatar and Nyquist on the four man powerplay unit despite their being his most capable offensive players for two years. I'm sure he had a good, solid, analytical reason for all that. Because heaven forbid we acknowledge that Babcock makes bad decisions from time to time...including last night.

Right but if Marchenko is just going to be the same kind of player anyway, and be on an entry level deal (or bridge deal) for the next 2-4 years, why wouldn't you keep him instead? You get the same thing for a more cost effective price. All in all though, I personally don't think we need a guy like Petry no matter who's traded for him though. He reminds me of Stralman during UFA. He's a righty, so he's in the discussion, but ultimately he's not what we need. He's not a PP threat, and not overly offensively gifted. If he was a lefty we wouldn't even be talking about him. Our organization is starting to get messianic about a right shot defenseman, but if he's not better than Smith, and he's more expensive, and there's a chance he'd leave, then why pursue him? Just because he's a righty? As for Backman...I think he's going to be good, his skating and vision (as mentioned) are superb. I'm basing my comments about his size on the interviews during training camp in which he (and the beat writers) were saying he didn't gain weight easily. That he was getting stronger but not noticeably getting bigger. That's all. I'm not trying to knock the guy, I'm sure he's really skilled. He's just skinny. Personally, I wouldn't trade for any of those guys except Yandle. He's the only one who's OBVIOUSLY better than something we've got already. He's the only one with a dynamic skill set. He's the only one who, simply by virtue of being on the ice, makes us more of a threat. The other guys are slightly above average puck movers with lots of question marks...and we've got those already. I totally agree, provided Stephen Weiss gets to play one day and that's he's actually good when he does.

I'd consider losing Backman for Petry...but not Marchenko. Petry is a big righty who plays defense well, blocks shots, and is good for about 25 pts. a season. Which is almost exactly what Marchenko projects as. Plus Petry is a UFA. I don't want to get him and lose him for a real NHLer. I'd rather lose Backman since there are still some question marks about him (size).

Better for the city if that land is freed up and developed. I'm all for it.

You're right. It was completely justified. Babs couldn't possibly have made a bad decision there. If he says Nestrasil gives us the best chance to win last night then he does...because Mike said it. Which is why Nestrasil was picked, he scored, and kept the game within reach...oh wait...no he didn't. Not only was it a questionable decision, it was a questionable decision that had a predictably underwhelming result. Until Nestrasil scores a single NHL point, resting the game on his scoring ability is probably a bad idea. I know I know. Mike Babcock is a heroic, genius, who's hockey knowledge dwarfs all us peons. Nevertheless I can't help but think it's a bad idea to count on scoring from a guy who has literally never, EVER, done it in the NHL...ever.

*** for tat really. They were both good. Sadly, I don't think Ericsson is even close to 100%. It's becoming cool for everyone to ***** about him again, but for about three years now he hasn't been turning the puck over regularly. Last night he couldn't pass the puck at all. Got to be the finger.

McCrimmon gave his life to be a head coach? Are you suggesting that he somehow knew he was going to die, but did it anyway to realize his dream? Or are you exaggerating for effect? It's probably a little more accurate to say "he died doing what he loved", or "he died after realizing a life long dream". He didn't really "give his life" for anything as it implies he volunteered to die.

Think that has anything to do with the fact that Babs' preferred lineup if chocked full of guys who play offense like old people f***?

Anybody remember that movie "Rudy" about hard working, diminutive, and semi skilled, Notre Dame defenisive lineman Rudy Ruettiger? Rudy would start every game for Mike Babcock.

I find it hard to believe that a guy with roughly 15 AHL goals is some dazzling offensive threat and all of us die hard fans have somehow missed it. Nestrasil went first because Babcock likes him. Same reason Glendening played 17:00 minutes and Cleary got the final roster spot. I'm sure Babs thought "Nesty" could hard work a goal into the net during the shootout. Turns out he wasn't playing heavy enough...ugh.

How about Tatar and Jurco you ******* s*** head!!!! Babcock geniused us into a loss there.

Nestrasil? Seriously? f*** you and your man crushes Babs.

C'mon guys, he dove a little bit there.

Javerage. Totally Javerage.

Nyquist needs to learn a new move when carrying the puck in off the wing. As soon as he gains the zone he puts the breaks on, peels back, and looks for the trailer all the time. Also, good to see him back on the third line. I love having options.