• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Wings_Dynasty

Babcock Interview on 105.1 this morning

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

It's obviously opinion at this point but there's no way I'd want Quenneville over Babcock. Sutter maybe. I think Sutter outcoached and exposed the Hawks this playoffs, and Babcock almost did it the previous year with a helluva lot less talent.

Here's part of the reason I think Babs is a great coach.

That's legit, but nobody is remembering how Quenneville nearly did the exact same thing to us with those Blues teams in the late 90's that were significantly less talented than our Cup teams. And he was coaching against Bowman.

One of the reasons that I think Quenneville is a great coach? Of the 15 times he's made the playoffs he's won the Cup twice and lost to the eventual Cup winner 7 times including three times to the Bowman Wings (widely considered some of the greatest teams EVER to play hockey) of the late 90's and early 2000's. The best teams Babs has lost to? Quenneville's Hawks a year ago.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's legit, but nobody is remembering how Quenneville nearly did the exact same thing to us with those Blues teams in the late 90's that were significantly less talented than our Cup teams. And he was coaching against Bowman.

One of the reasons that I think Quenneville is a great coach? Of the 15 times he's made the playoffs he's won the Cup twice and lost to the eventual Cup winner 7 times including three times to the Bowman Wings (widely considered some of the greatest teams EVER to play hockey) of the late 90's and early 2000's. The best teams Babs has lost to? Quenneville's Hawks a year ago.

Before he hooked up with the Hawks though, he made it out of the 2nd round of the playoffs once in 10 years as a head coach. Losing to the eventual cup winner in a first round series doesn't really count for much to me.

Babcock took out the 2003 Red Wings in 4 games with a Ducks roster that wasn't exactly stacked with stars and got them to game 7 of the Finals.

in 2007 he took the Wings to the Conference finals, losing to a great team and eventual Cup winner in the Ducks .

In 2008 he won the Cup

In 2009 he went through the Ducks, still a very good team, and beat Quenneville's Blackhawks (the next year's Cup winner), then took the Pens (who people here don't like to admit but were a great team) to 7 games.

In 2013 he took the Blackhawks to game 7 OT with a lineup that had no business hanging with the Hawks.

I think Quenneville is a good coach, but I still put Babcock a notch above him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's legit, but nobody is remembering how Quenneville nearly did the exact same thing to us with those Blues teams in the late 90's that were significantly less talented than our Cup teams. And he was coaching against Bowman.

One of the reasons that I think Quenneville is a great coach? Of the 15 times he's made the playoffs he's won the Cup twice and lost to the eventual Cup winner 7 times including three times to the Bowman Wings (widely considered some of the greatest teams EVER to play hockey) of the late 90's and early 2000's. The best teams Babs has lost to? Quenneville's Hawks a year ago.

Quenneville also had two first round exits between those Stanley Cup winning Blackhawks teams. Also, prior to joining the Blackhawks, Quenneville has only coached a team past the second round once. That team was the Blues in 2001, and they were eliminated in the third round. I also disagree that Quenneville "did nearly the exact thing to us" during his tenure with the Blues. They never won more than two games against the Wings in any playoff series he coached. Before he had Toews, Kane, Hossa, Keith, etc etc Quennevile did nothing to warrant being a top coach, least of all win Stanley Cups, which seems to be the main focus of your argument as to why he and Sutter are better than Babcock.

Sorry but I'm with Harold on this one. I don't think Quenneville is better than Babcock, even if he has won one more Cup.

Edited by Echolalia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Babs says a few words on advanced stats:

http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2014/7/23/5930979/could-advanced-stats-be-the-key-to-success-in-the-nhl

Quoting Dan Rosen, who's quoted in the piece:

Unrelated to the reason I spoke to Mike Babcock today, he told me Detroit doesn't have an analytics guy yet, "but yet is the key word."

Babcock said the Wings "will for sure" have to hire an analytics guy. "We just have to." He said he's a fan of it. "I love the information."

Babcock on use of analytics: "The bottom line is the NFL and Major League Baseball, they have been way ahead of us in this area."

Finally, Babcock thinks with more revenue streaming into the NHL there should be more opportunity for research in this department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quincey isn't a bad contract, it's only for 2 years. Niskanen and Orpik, are bad contracts.

That Quincey was re-signed at all is bad. That he was given a raise, when seemingly no other team was interested in his services, is nuts. Not Orpik bad, but not exactly a stroke of genius.

Where do you get that he wasnt talking with anyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More advanced stats stuff:

Babcock looks to learn more via advanced stats [Dan Rosen, NHL.com]

"I've seen so many analytics presentations it's not even funny," Babcock said. "Some of them have been very impressive and some of them I wasn't as impressed with, but I love the information. I absolutely love the information. We're in the information business, so how do you get it? And then you have to use your expertise to sort it out."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advanced stats in and of themselves aren't inherently bad. It's typically that people often draw conclusions from them that aren't supported by what the data is actually measuring.

Bingo. Statisticians the world over will warn you not to put the cart before the horse as far as the relationships between variables go. It's often not clear which variable is affecting the other.

For example: When we see that Brendan Smith has a high Corsi it's easy to assume he drives possession. However, given the fact that he starts in the offensive zone more often than the other top defensemen you'd expect him to be on the ice for more shots at the net. Not because he's advancing the offensive cause, but because teams typically don't get a lot of shots on net from the defensive zone.

Must be careful about those pesky causal relationships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advanced stats in and of themselves aren't inherently bad. It's typically that people often draw conclusions from them that aren't supported by what the data is actually measuring.

This is why our society has dedicated masters and doctorate programs exploring the interpretation and application of statistics. It would be cool to get a Nate Silver like mind into the Wings organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this