gdt 10/15 GDT : Bruins 3 at Red Wings 2 (SO)

[Euro_Twins 4,475]

I don't think nestrasil should have been out for the shootout that was an obvious thing to me, should have been Tatar goose and sheahan or z. But I feel bad for the guy everyone was booing him when he came out for the shootout

[Ekmanc 586]

Would've liked to see Nes make an easier move than trying to pull a Forsberg in his first shootout ever on NHL level that was a really really poor judgement call on his side.

[Guest Praying Mantha]

I'm the biggest fan of Smith, but clearly Danny Dek was the best tonight. He looks like he could be scary good at some point.

Yin and yang. Let's all agree that the DeKeyser/Smith pairing kicks some ass. I'd really like to see Ericsson moved to forward on the 4th line in place of Miller and Ouelett in his spot on D. Ericsson has been thoroughly unimpressive since signing his deal. Call it injuries if you want, but this team desperately needs the 52 who levels Bickell type guys and not the 52 who sits around watching. The top pairing for the Wings shouldn't be the one getting hammered by cycles. It should be our bottom pairing when caught on the ice against the other team's top 2 lines. But Kronwall and Rig have been chasing a lot these first 3 games. That shouldn't happen. Hopefully, a few more games and they'll be in better form. If not, Rig needs a move. Not off the team, but a change of position and responsibility.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

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.

Your dripping sarcasm doesn't refute any of the points I'm making.

1. They regularly practice shootouts so the coaching staff probably has a very good idea who's good at it, at least in that setting. The only way to find out who's good in a game is to try them.

2. Scoring ability during a game doesn't necessarily correlate to shootout failure or success. There's plenty of examples of this.

What's funny is you sarcastically imply that it's blind love of Babcock influencing my decision, when it's actually your dislike for him that pins a disproportionate amount of blame on him, sometimes even for things that are not his call.

My points are at least reasonably drawn from what we do know about practices, players and games.

Since Nestrasil didn't score, in retrospect should Babcock maybe have gone with someone else? Sure

Did Babcock put an untested player out there primarily because he likes him? That's just silly.

[wings87 1,290]

I don't like Nestrasil being the first shootout shooter, but its not like anyone else has done anything in the shootout the past 3 years.

[kipwinger 8,521]

Your dripping sarcasm doesn't refute any of the points I'm making.

1. They regularly practice shootouts so the coaching staff probably has a very good idea who's good at it, at least in that setting. The only way to find out who's good in a game is to try them.

2. Scoring ability during a game doesn't necessarily correlate to shootout failure or success. There's plenty of examples of this.

What's funny is you sarcastically imply that it's blind love of Babcock influencing my decision, when it's actually your dislike for him that pins a disproportionate amount of blame on him, sometimes even for things that are not his call.

My points are at least reasonably drawn from what we do know about practices, players and games.

Since Nestrasil didn't score, in retrospect should Babcock maybe have gone with someone else? Sure

Did Babcock put an untested player out there primarily because he likes him? That's just silly.

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.

Edited October 16, 2014 by kipwinger

[Internet.Unknown 422]

You guys do realize that an empty lower bowl is nothing new, right? It has nothing to do with lack of offseason moves, or Franzen being lazy and sucking, or people being pissed about the Cleary signing. Don't use that to further the narrative because it is disingenuous. The lower bowl has belonged to the corporations for a loooong time.

I wonder about this whole "corporation" argument. I worked for a company with season tickets for almost ten years. If the owners weren't using the tickets on a given night, they usually called me. If I couldn't use them, they offered them to the rest of the employees. I assume most people who pay for things hate to see them go to waste, especially those folks who are smart at making money and own their own businesses.

[Mckinley25 677]

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 was clearly a worse choice 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.

I feel like in sports whenever something doesn't work out the way it's intended it will be looked at as a bad decision because well, something else obviously would have worked better.

We have a substantially different set of information to base our criticism on then Babcock does. It's really difficult to discuss this with you though because your replies are so filled with forced implications I feel like I'm defending a position I didn't take, so I apologize if this is confusing. I'm not a Babcock apologist, I don't think he's the greatest coach ever, but I just know there's a lot of things we as fans just don't know.

I feel the same way when people bash Holland for not making deals we don't know he didn't attempt to make. I'd like an answer as much as anyone on why signings did or did not happen or why Nestrail was his first choice, but it seems everybody knows better than the people tasked to get the job done, and the objectivity is stripped from these debates before they get anywhere.

There seems to not be any real discussions here anymore.

I wouldn't be upset if the Wings underwent a regime change, but I think the reason we don't win as many games is simply because we don't have good enough players. The reason for that is because the NHL has adopted a system that's designed to create quality turnover. The Wings have done a decent job at fighting that system. Not as good as Edmonton has though.

Well now I've lost myself so I won't torture you any further.

[kipwinger 8,521]

I feel like in sports whenever something doesn't work out the way it's intended it will be looked at as a bad decision because well, something else obviously would have worked better.

We have a substantially different set of information to base our criticism on then Babcock does. It's really difficult to discuss this with you though because your replies are so filled with forced implications I feel like I'm defending a position I didn't take, so I apologize if this is confusing. I'm not a Babcock apologist, I don't think he's the greatest coach ever, but I just know there's a lot of things we as fans just don't know.

I feel the same way when people bash Holland for not making deals we don't know he didn't attempt to make. I'd like an answer as much as anyone on why signings did or did not happen or why Nestrail was his first choice, but it seems everybody knows better than the people tasked to get the job done, and the objectivity is stripped from these debates before they get anywhere.

There seems to not be any real discussions here anymore.

I wouldn't be upset if the Wings underwent a regime change, but I think the reason we don't win as many games is simply because we don't have good enough players. The reason for that is because the NHL has adopted a system that's designed to create quality turnover. The Wings have done a decent job at fighting that system. Not as good as Edmonton has though.

Well now I've lost myself so I won't torture you any further.

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.

Edited October 16, 2014 by kipwinger

[rrasco 1,312]

I'm not going to read the novels above written by some, but how is everyone so quick to forget Nessy scored in the S/O on preseason game AGAINST F****** RASK? Don't you think that might have had something to do with Babs choosing him in the S/O against the same goalie?

[Mckinley25 677]

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.

To be fair I mentioned the practice thing as well, but it was more in response to what I perceived as blind criticism and calling Babcock dumb etc., I was suggesting that there is likely something we don't know, whether that be practice or something else entirely, as I don't think Babcock is dumb, though certainly not infallible. Edited October 16, 2014 by Mckinley25

[Internet.Unknown 422]

Jennifer Garner is still rocking the DSLs

What happened to the Bell Tire girl this year?

[kipwinger 8,521]

To be fair I mentioned the practice thing as well, but it was more in response to what I perceived as blind criticism and calling Babcock dumb etc., I was suggesting that there is likely something we don't know, whether that be practice

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?

I'm not going to read the novels above written by some, but how is everyone so quick to forget Nessy scored in the S/O on preseason game AGAINST F****** RASK? Don't you think that might have had something to do with Babs choosing him in the S/O against the same goalie?

And Nyquist didn't have a point in the preseason. Who cares? It's the preseason. It's not an indicator of anything.

[Mckinley25 677]

I'm not going to read the novels above written by some, but how is everyone so quick to forget Nessy scored in the S/O on preseason game AGAINST F****** RASK? Don't you think that might have had something to do with Babs choosing him in the S/O against the same goalie?

It very well could be, but I'd like to think there was more to it.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Mckinley25

[joesuffP 1,746]

Babs goes with his gut and looks foolish when it doesn't work out. He just didn't have a clue last night we were lucky jimmy was a god in night or this could have easily been a blow out I'm talking 5-6 goals against

[Mckinley25 677]

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?

Those seem like different scenarios to me, the criticism I was responding to is that Babcock was basically an idiot for making that decision and I felt like because of a wild diversity of variables and the nature of sports results there could be an explanation that alludes us because we are not there all the time. It's more similar to if people were accusing Zetterburg of being a terrible player because of his sub par performance last night. And actually you could speculate as to the reasons instead of just coming to the conclusion he's worthless. Similarly to how when Ericcson had a bad game it was surmised that his finger is still bothering him, not he's an awful defender.

For the record I believe he's a good defenseman but on a Stanley Cup team he's a 4/5/6 guy not a 1/2/3 guy.

Does that make sense or am I talking garbage? I admittedly am not well versed in Internet debate.

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?

Those seem like different scenarios to me, the criticism I was responding to is that Babcock was basically an idiot for making that decision and I felt like because of a wild diversity of variables and the nature of sports results there could be an explanation that alludes us because we are not there all the time. It's more similar to if people were accusing Zetterburg of being a terrible player because of his sub par performance last night. And actually you could speculate as to the reasons instead of just coming to the conclusion he's worthless. Similarly to how when Ericcson had a bad game it was surmised that his finger is still bothering him, not he's an awful defender.

For the record I believe he's a good defenseman but on a Stanley Cup team he's a 4/5/6 guy not a 1/2/3 guy.

Does that make sense or am I talking garbage? I admittedly am not well versed in Internet debate.

[Guest Praying Mantha]

Babs goes with his gut and looks foolish when it doesn't work out. He just didn't have a clue last night we were lucky jimmy was a god in night or this could have easily been a blow out I'm talking 5-6 goals against

Jimmy looked like a 6 mil keeper in the 3rd. Not in the SO.

[Ekmanc 586]

Jimmy looked like a 6 mil keeper in the 3rd. Not in the SO.

That's how an average keeper rolls, highs and lows, highs and lows...

[kipwinger 8,521]

Those seem like different scenarios to me, the criticism I was responding to is that Babcock was basically an idiot for making that decision and I felt like because of a wild diversity of variables and the nature of sports results there could be an explanation that alludes us because we are not there all the time. It's more similar to if people were accusing Zetterburg of being a terrible player because of his sub par performance last night. And actually you could speculate as to the reasons instead of just coming to the conclusion he's worthless. Similarly to how when Ericcson had a bad game it was surmised that his finger is still bothering him, not he's an awful defender.

For the record I believe he's a good defenseman but on a Stanley Cup team he's a 4/5/6 guy not a 1/2/3 guy.

Does that make sense or am I talking garbage? I admittedly am not well versed in Internet debate.

Those seem like different scenarios to me, the criticism I was responding to is that Babcock was basically an idiot for making that decision and I felt like because of a wild diversity of variables and the nature of sports results there could be an explanation that alludes us because we are not there all the time. It's more similar to if people were accusing Zetterburg of being a terrible player because of his sub par performance last night. And actually you could speculate as to the reasons instead of just coming to the conclusion he's worthless. Similarly to how when Ericcson had a bad game it was surmised that his finger is still bothering him, not he's an awful defender.

For the record I believe he's a good defenseman but on a Stanley Cup team he's a 4/5/6 guy not a 1/2/3 guy.

Does that make sense or am I talking garbage? I admittedly am not well versed in Internet debate.

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.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

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 never said you couldn't criticize Babcock.

The issue I had with your criticism is you asserted that Babcock made the decision simply because if he liked nestrasil. That's absurd.

As to your points about Nestrasil's inexperience or there being better guys to put out there, I think it's easier in hindsight but I can understand that point of view.

Agree with the decision or not, Babcock is not an idiot. I have no problem with criticizing him. It's just when people attribute his decisions to mostly emotional reasons they could only know if they were Mike Babcock.

It's probably best we drop it. I don't know if it's your dislike of Babcock or of me but for whatever reason when we discuss him you seem to get more and more pissed off. I think I'm beating a dead horse at this point.

[kipwinger 8,521]

I never said you couldn't criticize Babcock. The issue I had with your criticism is you asserted that Babcock made the decision simply because if he liked nestrasil. That's absurd. As to your points about Nestrasil's inexperience or there being better guys to put out there, I think it's easier in hindsight but I can understand that point of view. Agree with the decision or not, Babcock is not an idiot. I have no problem with criticizing him. It's just when people attribute his decisions to mostly emotional reasons they could only know if they were Mike Babcock. It's probably best we drop it. I don't know if it's your dislike of Babcock or of me but for whatever reason when we discuss him you seem to get more and more pissed off. I think I'm beating a dead horse at this point.

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.

Edited October 16, 2014 by kipwinger

[kipwinger 8,521]

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.

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

And Nyquist didn't have a point in the preseason. Who cares? It's the preseason. It's not an indicator of anything.

So in the preseason goalies don't try to stop the puck?

Preseason play definitely has consequences on who's going to used where and how. It's why Weiss and Cleary are sitting (unless Weiss is secretly injured), and I think it's why Nyquist didn't start on the first line. One of the main reasons there is a preseason is so Coaches can judge players against NHL competition. The fact that Nestrasil scored against Rask in the preseason is a legitimate consideration.

The thing that bothers me most about this is the fact that people are acting like we clearly had multiple superior options. Jurco was 0 for 2 last year, Zetterberg was 0 for 4, Franzen 0 for 2, Nyquist was 0 for 3.

The only players out there last night who scored last year was Tatar (3 for 9) and Helm (1 for 2). Tatar might very well have been the 3rd shooter. We don't know, but I feel that it would be a safe guess.

It really doesn't seem to be that outrageous a choice to put Nestrasil out there when so many of our players have shown that they can't score and Nestrasil scored on the same goalie in a shootout not very long ago.

[Echolalia 2,961]

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 sof****** controversial? Oh, because I'm criticizing Babcock, that's why.

The best statistical shooters on the team last year were Eaves , Helm, and Tatar. Eaves isn't on the team anymore. Helm converted on 1 of 2 attempts for 50% total. Tatar converted on 33% for third best on the team. Not very good odds.

Zetterberg was 0 for 4, which means last year he was not among the best shootout players on the team. He was tied for the worst. Franzen was also tied for the worst with a total of 0 shootout goals.

So I'm not surprised to see Nestrasil get the nod over Zetterberg and Franzen. Statistically speaking there's literally no way he could perform any worse than what we've come to expect of them. When your team is as bad as the Wings have been in the recent past in shootout attempts, it's not that difficult to crack the top 3 as a new face from the AHL.

I'm surprised that Nyqvist got the nod over Tatar in the shootout, though, but maybe Babs was trying to ride a hot hand through the shootout.

[rrasco 1,312]

And Nyquist didn't have a point in the preseason. Who cares? It's the preseason. It's not an indicator of anything.

That doesn't make sense. Preseason or not, a SO is a SO. It's an indicator that on a 1-on-1 situation Nestrasil has the capability to score on Rask. It also probably didn't hurt he actually scored a legit goal that same game too.