• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
kickazz

All purpose Mike Babcock thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

So did Babcock. And he won less. Unless you don't consider Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Franzen, Hossa, Rafaski, Lidstrom, and Kronwall stacked. In 2005 Babcock had four 80 point players and lost in the first round. This insinuation that Quenneville has had better teams is a complete joke.

Woulda coulda shoulda

Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I've ever said is that Babcock is "one of the best". I've said so hundreds of times. I've NEVER said he was a bad coach. What I've refuted, and what started this discussion yesterday, was this asinine "Babcock is the greatest coach in all of hockey, period" argument. I even said so. Something to the effect of "Nobody would argue that he's good, but he's not the best". And I stand by that. To be the best you have to win Championships. Quenneville, Sutter, and Babcock have all gone to the finals three times. Babcock won the fewest of the three. If he truly was "the greatest coach in all of hockey", I'd expect a different outcome.

He's not the best. If you want to call it an "opinion" fine. But it's an opinion based on the fact that other people have won more than he has at the highest levels. Which is a little more sound than your average "Babcock is the best and there's no debate" type of opinion.

And yes, I do know that Quenneville coached before Chicago. I assume that if Babcock gets credit for getting knocked out of the playoffs by eventual Cup finalists (Edmonton, Tampa, and Chicago) that Quenneville would to. During his tenure before Chicago he was knocked out by the eventual Cup finalist 6 times.

Completely missed the point.

I never said you said he was a bad coach, nor was I arguing your stance that he's not the best, nor asserting that he is the best or even better than Q. What I was saying is that your opinion that Q is "clearly the best coach in the hockey world" is no less "asinine" than Babcock's "legion of acolytes" believing that he is.

One person in this thread made the claim that Babs is the best. That guy, along with Frank, are the only two that I know of on these forums that hold that opinion. You and a few others act like it's the whole world that thinks that way. You're needlessly histrionic and insulting towards a few people that hold an opinion that you don't like, while you do most of the same things you criticize them for.

And yeah, I gave Q credit. Maybe you have some creative way of reading the sentence, "several losses to eventual Cup winners between them", and just didn't notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its absolutely less asinine because it happens to be supported by the fact that Quenneville has more wins, and more championships than any other active coach. All opinions are not equally valid. You seem to be saying that any two opinions are, in effect, equally legitimate because they are both opinions. Which is absurd. If I said Sidney Crosby was the leagues best player, and you thought it was Steven Stamkos, your opinion would be less legitimate based on the fact that a number of facts seem to suggest otherwise.

Any opinion is only as valid as the support for it. And the profundity of evidence in this case suggests that mike Babcock isn't the leagues best coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its absolutely less asinine because it happens to be supported by the fact that Quenneville has more wins, and more championships than any other active coach. All opinions are not equally valid. You seem to be saying that any two opinions are, in effect, equally legitimate because they are both opinions. Which is absurd. If I said Sidney Crosby was the leagues best player, and you thought it was Steven Stamkos, your opinion would be less legitimate based on the fact that a number of facts seem to suggest otherwise.

Any opinion is only as valid as the support for it. And the profundity of evidence in this case suggests that mike Babcock isn't the leagues best coach.

The profundity of one specific, mostly arbitrary, criterion you mean. Q has more wins because he's coached 18 years to only 12 for Babs. They both have similar winning %s. Even given the wins, it's still only two criteria. I think coaching is a bit more complex than that, and it takes more than two numbers to make a valid comparison.

And no, I'm not arguing that ALL opinions are equal. I'm saying these two specific opinions are. (Granted, that in itself is only my opinion.) Don't strawman and don't misuse analogies. Even if you think they aren't exactly equal, you say yourself that you believe Babcock is one of the best. So why is it so absurd that someone might think he's better than Q that you're so offended by the suggestion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its absolutely less asinine because it happens to be supported by the fact that Quenneville has more wins, and more championships than any other active coach. All opinions are not equally valid. You seem to be saying that any two opinions are, in effect, equally legitimate because they are both opinions. Which is absurd. If I said Sidney Crosby was the leagues best player, and you thought it was Steven Stamkos, your opinion would be less legitimate based on the fact that a number of facts seem to suggest otherwise.

Any opinion is only as valid as the support for it. And the profundity of evidence in this case suggests that mike Babcock isn't the leagues best coach.

I was onboard when we were saying it's hard to judge and compare coaches since they're tied to the quality of the teams they coach. If you're trying to prove that Q's the best, I think it's a fool's errand because of those reasons.

If you're looking at resumes, Babcock does have the best around. I'll turn to Wikipedia's intro paragraph for acheivements that Babs has that no other coach has: "As of November 2015, he is the only coach to gain entry to the Triple Gold Club, guiding his Red Wings to the Stanley Cup in 2008, as well as leading Team Canada to gold at the IIHF Ice Hockey World Championships in 2004, the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver and the2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. Babcock is the only coach to win five distinct national or international titles, guiding Canada to gold at the IIHF World Junior Championships in 1997 and the University of Lethbridge to the CIS University Cup in 1994."

You can't argue wins because Q has coached longer. You argued that they both had stacked teams and Babs only won once while Q won 3 cups. You seemed to allow that we where only stacked for 4 of Babcock's years here - well Q's been with hawks 7 years and they've all been stacked teams so they've were more likely to win more cups.

I get that you're annoyed with the Babcock love, but he's a great coach. Q does get a lot of love too. He'll get a big raise as well soon. I don't think you can demonstrate that the difference between coaches of this caliber - there's no coaching stats (unlike your crosby/stamkos example) and it is so dependant on the level of teams, injuries in certain years, and so many other factors for how many times they've won. If you enjoy the debate, though, here's an article on Doug Armstrong's choice of Babcock over Quenneville for the World Cup:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=786516

Edited by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Babs proved himself "among" the best in the world, when he willed our injury riddled team to the playoffs. Other years we made the playoffs another coach may not have been able to either but that year especially. We had no business getting in with all those rookies

You mean aside from Dan Bylsma. Who did the exact same thing, in the exact same year, only better. He had even more injuries that year and won his division, and a playoff round.

Actually, maybe Dan Bylsma is the best coach in the world when I think about it. I mean, he's got a better win percentage than Babs AND Quenneville. Just as many Cups as Babs (but who cares about those when evaluating coaches anyway), and he WILLED his team to a division title, the playoffs, and a first round win despite massive amounts of injuries to key players.

Now that's impressive.

I'm completely sour on Q now. All he ever did was win 3 Cups and is 20 wins away from overtaking Al Arbour (in fewer games) for second all time in wins. Which I've been reliably informed isn't all that impressive because Quenneville has coached for a long time.

1. Bowman

2. Bylsma

3. Babcock

4. Arbour

5. Quenneville.

Seems just as plausible as any other top five eh?

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean aside from Dan Bylsma. Who did the exact same thing, in the exact same year, only better. He had even more injuries that year and won his division, and a playoff round.

Actually, maybe Dan Bylsma is the best coach in the world when I think about it. I mean, he's got a better win percentage than Babs AND Quenneville. Just as many Cups as Babs (but who cares about those when evaluating coaches anyway), and he WILLED his team to a division title, the playoffs, and a first round win despite massive amounts of injuries to key players.

Now that's impressive.

I'm completely sour on Q now. All he ever did was win 3 Cups and is 20 wins away from overtaking Al Arbour (in fewer games) for second all time in wins. Which I've been reliably informed isn't all that impressive because Quenneville has coached for a long time.

1. Bowman

2. Bylsma

3. Babcock

4. Arbour

5. Quenneville.

Seems just as plausible as any other top five eh?

Really, Kip?

Joe said nothing about Babs being the best. He even made a point to stress the "among". Yet you feel you have to attack him. Is no one allowed to say anything positive about Babcock unless they qualify it with other coaches who've done the same or better, without you mocking and belittling them?

Get over your Babcock hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Dave Feschuk uses this article's headline in today's Toronto Star:

Mike Babcock’s decision to coach Canada’s World Cup entry fuelled by ego

it does get your attention.

I personally believe it is the wrong decision. Babcock has won everything with team Canada, the world cup of hockey is a joke (see team europe and team under 24). So why risk a perfect legacy for such a joke?

Sure team Canada as always is the best team but I don't think the players will give their all or even take this thing half seriously so it is a waste of time. Do coaches get paid for coaching during the WC? I mean it is in the off season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Dave Feschuk uses this article's headline in today's Toronto Star:

Mike Babcock’s decision to coach Canada’s World Cup entry fuelled by ego

it does get your attention.

I personally believe it is the wrong decision. Babcock has won everything with team Canada, the world cup of hockey is a joke (see team europe and team under 24). So why risk a perfect legacy for such a joke?

You just asked a question that's already answered in the headline of the article in the post you quoted as a set-up to your question. Turbo-meta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Dave Feschuk uses this article's headline in today's Toronto Star:

Mike Babcock’s decision to coach Canada’s World Cup entry fuelled by ego

it does get your attention.

It was designed to get your attention by a bitter leaf fan because they need something or someone to finger at all times when things aren't going their way. Even though Babcock made it clear that what had to happen in T.O. will take a very long time and be a huge challenge it seems that mesage went over certain people heads. They expected Babcock to come in and take a PoS and miraculously make it into a deliscious soup over night... Yet another Stanley Cup parade foiled by reality!

He left the Wings to take on the biggest challenge in the NHL, let him have a little taste of something good before he goes back to tweaking the recipe of his Poop soup!

Maybe take the time to realize that he will be offered other similar type jobs in the future and be proud that it is your coach that is being hailed the best man for the job!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's keep the conversation to Babcock, not each other, please.

That being said, I honestly don't understand why everyone is so all-consumed with Babcock. He was here, now he's not. I wish him no ill will whatsoever and would be pleased to see Toronto do well (but not too well), but I have moved on. We shouldn't be giving Babs a second thought unless and until we meet in the playoffs, or maybe when Olympic hockey is gearing up. Or is it just me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's keep the conversation to Babcock, not each other, please.

That being said, I honestly don't understand why everyone is so all-consumed with Babcock. He was here, now he's not. I wish him no ill will whatsoever and would be pleased to see Toronto do well (but not too well), but I have moved on. We shouldn't be giving Babs a second thought unless and until we meet in the playoffs, or maybe when Olympic hockey is gearing up. Or is it just me?

He is my favourite coach, I like talking about him. Same as I still like to talk about #19 and #24 even though one is a defector and the other in the great penaltybox in the sky

It's a Babcock thread people. If you don't think he is worth the discussion STAY OUT OF THE THREAD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll tell you why I feel the need to chime in on Babcock. And this is only from my point of view. I don't "hate" the guy. Or even "dislike" the guy. I read his book, and I actually think that many of his general philosophies about life are spot on (with regard to putting in honest effort and holding yourself accountable).

What I can't stand about Mike Babcock, is this tendency to lionize him. I don't like it when anybody becomes larger than life. It's the same reason I always make sure to mention his unpaid taxes when anybody gets too crazy with the "Mike Ilitch is Detroit's savior" stuff. It's the same reason I said Crosby is the better player in the Ovechkin thread that I started.

Idol worship isn't really my thing. And sometimes, here on LGW, discussions of Mike tend to trend that way.

Anyway, that's why I feel the need to talk about him. Can't speak for anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is my favourite coach, I like talking about him. Same as I still like to talk about #19 and #24 even though one is a defector and the other in the great penaltybox in the sky

It's a Babcock thread people. If you don't think he is worth the discussion STAY OUT OF THE THREAD!

Thanks for the advice, but I never said he wasn't worth discussion; I stated I didn't understand the obsession going on. I expressed my opinion on said obsession and asked a question. Is that okay by you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's keep the conversation to Babcock, not each other, please.

That being said, I honestly don't understand why everyone is so all-consumed with Babcock. He was here, now he's not. I wish him no ill will whatsoever and would be pleased to see Toronto do well (but not too well), but I have moved on. We shouldn't be giving Babs a second thought unless and until we meet in the playoffs, or maybe when Olympic hockey is gearing up. Or is it just me?

I mostly agree with this. I think it's the way things should and eventually will be. But it's clearly a little too soon to completely move on when it's still a thing with pro journalists. See Travis Yost's recent article about The Babcock Effect of him leaving Detroit as just one example. When sports media lets go, specifically the spin doctors at tsn and sportsnet, I'll let go.

I agree that people should give up caring about Babcock, and how great he is or isn't, or was or will be, but I disagree about being pleased to see him and his Leafs doing well... F*** Babcock, but more importantly F*** the Leafs...

This. For another 100 years!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be so pissed if i was a leafs fan and the coach getting paid 6 mil a year says "its going to take time". Thats such an out by Babcock. If he's so good, why is it going to take time? He's supposed to fix it fast. Not turn Toronto into a development project. Lame. "Toronto has given me an opportunity to make an immediate impact, and thats what I plan on doing. This team is gonna be a winner now. Not in 5 years. Now." If he would have said that and followed thru, then I would have to believe the Babcock hype. But he's just confirming my belief - great all star team coach. BFD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether Babcock is the best or not, I don't know.. But you could get three best coaches together to coach that leafs team and they'd still suck. Their roster is horrible and they look like the sabers did last year.. tanking for Matthews.

I hope they last and because of the new draft lotto, end up with the fourth pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice, but I never said he wasn't worth discussion; I stated I didn't understand the obsession going on. I expressed my opinion on said obsession and asked a question. Is that okay by you?

What ever... I said nothing specific to you. It's a Babcock thread (I didn't start it). He is my favourite coach so I joined in the conversation. Something that is apparently obsessive... ce la vie!

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