Coach Mike Babcock

[herman]

So you're talking about accountability for infractions off-ice as well? Like blowing off the media?

What I'm saying is that there are two definitions for "accountable". There's the one you seem to be focused on, which is being required to explain things, and there's being held responsible for your actions. What i'm saying is that typically, when the word is used in this context, people are referring to the second definition and by "being held responsible" they don't mean "having to explain themselves".

Thanks for clarifying that, Nik.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in earlier responses, because I don't think I was talking about players explaining their actions (to the coach); more like the coach is now willing to explain his reasoning behind why that particular play was not right -- which is an aspect of the second definition, as you can't really hold someone responsible for being wrong if they don't know what they got wrong. Sorry if this derailed the actual conversation.

 

[Bullfrog]

Nik touch on it by questioning the efficacy of benching Kessel, but some people seem to equate punishment with accountability.

Accountability to me suggests owning up to your actions and doing something about it. It's like how time-outs don't really work for toddlers; they just make them fearful of consequences. That's not always the best motivator.

Yeah I didn't really read the accountability comments in a punishment sense but in an owning up to it sense - no sugarcoating it, brutally honest, justify your actions, etc.  As in, be accountable for how you are playing - if it's not good enough, own up to it and Babcock will be honest with you about it.

That's not to say it's not just platitudes but I don't think reading it in a punishment sense only is really correct.

I don't disagree with your interpretation of Babcock, I was just responding specifically to thought of benching someone like Kessel and the point that it would probably accomplish nothing.

Your second sentence seems to be the exact same thing I'm saying in my first sentence, second paragraph.

 

[Kin]

Thanks for clarifying that, Nik.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in earlier responses, because I don't think I was talking about players explaining their actions (to the coach); more like the coach is now willing to explain his reasoning behind why that particular play was not right -- which is an aspect of the second definition, as you can't really hold someone responsible for being wrong if they don't know what they got wrong.

Right and what I was sort of trying to say is that I don't really believe that's particularly novel. I might buy that the difference between Babcock and, say, Carlyle is that when Babcock says "that play wasn't right, here's why" what he's actually trying to get a player to do is better than what Carlyle wanted them to do but I don't believe that Carlyle didn't tell players what they did wrong.

Anyways, that's a minor point. My major point, I suppose, revolved around the larger context of accountability within the organization. What does it mean to hold a player more accountable to the fans? Or the media?

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Thanks for clarifying that, Nik.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in earlier responses, because I don't think I was talking about players explaining their actions (to the coach); more like the coach is now willing to explain his reasoning behind why that particular play was not right -- which is an aspect of the second definition, as you can't really hold someone responsible for being wrong if they don't know what they got wrong.

Right and what I was sort of trying to say is that I don't really believe that's particularly novel. I might buy that the difference between Babcock and, say, Carlyle is that when Babcock says "that play wasn't right, here's why" what he's actually trying to get a player to do is better than what Carlyle wanted them to do but I don't believe that Carlyle didn't tell players what they did wrong.

Anyways, that's a minor point. My major point, I suppose, revolved around the larger context of accountability within the organization. What does it mean to hold a player more accountable to the fans? Or the media?

More than one player commented that Carlyle did not talk to them, so read into that what you will.

 

[herman]

Thanks for clarifying that, Nik.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in earlier responses, because I don't think I was talking about players explaining their actions (to the coach); more like the coach is now willing to explain his reasoning behind why that particular play was not right -- which is an aspect of the second definition, as you can't really hold someone responsible for being wrong if they don't know what they got wrong.

Right and what I was sort of trying to say is that I don't really believe that's particularly novel. I might buy that the difference between Babcock and, say, Carlyle is that when Babcock says "that play wasn't right, here's why" what he's actually trying to get a player to do is better than what Carlyle wanted them to do but I don't believe that Carlyle didn't tell players what they did wrong.

Anyways, that's a minor point. My major point, I suppose, revolved around the larger context of accountability within the organization. What does it mean to hold a player more accountable to the fans? Or the media?

I'm just spitballing here, but my guess is it's beyond become complete players, it's becoming professionals that the younger generation can aspire to;
the fulfillment of their off-ice obligations (training hard) and not ducking the hard questions after losses (Babcock talked about that extensively in his first round of interviews).

Then there is stuff like this:
[tweet]644918708897476608[/tweet]

It sounds like they want to develop a -- I hate to call it this -- culture where the players give back regularly to the community. But they were doing that already before (every team does). There's been more focus on media-availability since Shanahan came on board (and I guess since Bell/Rogers took majority ownership because they know who pays the bills).

 

[Kin]

I'm just spitballing here, but my guess is it's beyond become complete players, it's becoming professionals that the younger generation can aspire to;
the fulfillment of their off-ice obligations (training hard) and not ducking the hard questions after losses (Babcock talked about that extensively in his first round of interviews).

Then there is stuff like this:
[tweet]644918708897476608[/tweet]

It sounds like they want to develop a -- I hate to call it this -- culture where the players give back regularly to the community. But they were doing that already before (every team does). There's been more focus on media-availability since Shanahan came on board (and I guess since Bell/Rogers took majority ownership because they know who pays the bills).

I really don't think that's it. Like you say, wanting to "give back" to the community isn't new around the league or in Toronto and, to be honest, I don't really think it fits the definition we're talking about.

Honestly, I'm pretty comfortable with my reading of this. Lots of the post-Kessel talk was how Kessel never got molded into the player they wanted him to be and this is New Sheriff in Town tough-talk. I get it, I just don't particularly buy it. Burke said a lot of the same stuff, a lot of the same people bought it, the team's fate was still ultimately decided by the quality of the players they had.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Just a question for the people here.

We can all agree that a team's success is by and large decided by the quality of the players on it, let's start there.

This summer I've read a lot of sporting biographies and autobiographies. One of the things that came up from a lot of the coaches and top athletes was that as much as talent was important, the chemistry in the room was just as important.

There were a lot of stories of a similar vein, of very talented teams that went nowhere because the guys in the room just didn't click, the sum of the parts was less than they were individually. On the flip-side, a lot of athletes talked about coming from nowhere to have incredible success and they often attributed it to a dressing room that was rock solid, a band of brothers.

Now I know a lot of that is likely nostalgia, the desire to explain things easily, but to what extent do people really think it matters?

I mean it can't be that common a theme without there being a decent amount of truth to it, can there?

Is it something we overlook because it's not easily quantifiable?

 

[Frank E]

I think the trouble with that argument Patrick is that chemistry is pretty tough to quantify.

Having said that, does anyone know of a successful team whose players were at eachother's throats?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I think the trouble with that argument Patrick is that chemistry is pretty tough to quantify.

Having said that, does anyone know of a successful team whose players were at eachother's throats?

Do we really know of any teams, successful or not, where players were at each others throats? I can't really think of that many.

But to link your first sentence back to your second, is a team successful because they're close or close because they're successful? Who knows.

 

[Kin]

I think the trouble with that argument Patrick is that chemistry is pretty tough to quantify.

Having said that, does anyone know of a successful team whose players were at eachother's throats?

Hockey or anything?

 

[Frank E]

I think the trouble with that argument Patrick is that chemistry is pretty tough to quantify.

Having said that, does anyone know of a successful team whose players were at eachother's throats?

Hockey or anything?

Let's stick to hockey, for the sake of relevance to the thread.

 

[Frank E]

I think the trouble with that argument Patrick is that chemistry is pretty tough to quantify.

Having said that, does anyone know of a successful team whose players were at eachother's throats?

Do we really know of any teams, successful or not, where players were at each others throats? I can't really think of that many.

But to link your first sentence back to your second, is a team successful because they're close or close because they're successful? Who knows.

I don't know either.

 

[Kin]

I think the trouble with that argument Patrick is that chemistry is pretty tough to quantify.

Having said that, does anyone know of a successful team whose players were at eachother's throats?

Hockey or anything?

Let's stick to hockey, for the sake of relevance to the thread.

No then. But, that said, I don't know many hockey teams of any success level where players were at each others throats. Heck, the common complaint about last year's Leafs seemed to be that they got along too well.

 

[Kin]

But to link your first sentence back to your second, is a team successful because they're close or close because they're successful? Who knows.

I mean, I know I'm supposed to be "relevant" to the thread and everything but, if you suspend the idea that a hockey team is particularly unique in this regard, there have been lots of successful sports teams in history where players weren't particularly close.

 

[Tigger]

I dunno, some things are universal in terms of trying to set a tone, some have a shelf life, some don't, I hear the same kinds of things being said about laying a foundation and doing it properly, yadda yadda, Burke with his version of it. What's different is that a good chunk of what's being talked about is new, progressive and I'm willing to suspend my disbelief long enough to see if they're just as full of crap as the next management group.

Babcock lends credibility to the message surely, but in the end I think the long term success of the Leafs could very well boil down to just how good a hockey man Hunter is. 

 

[L K]

What's the over under on Babcock getting frustrated with the media using points and wins as the sole measure of team development this year?

 

[herman]

Mike Babcock's sit down with Darren Dreger
https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2015/10/06/mike-babcocks-sit-down-with-darren-dreger-transcript/

According to this latest interview (where Babcock is remarkably consistent and candid), he doesn't really read or watch the media coverage. He also insists he doesn't get frustrated as that is a waste of time. And he will measure the team by the work they do, not necessarily the end results of said work.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

A pretty interesting look at the Leafs reduced shift length under Babcock.

http://www.tsn.ca/talent/mike-babcock-and-the-40-second-shift-1.377209

 

[CarltonTheBear]

A pretty interesting look at the Leafs reduced shift length under Babcock.

http://www.tsn.ca/talent/mike-babcock-and-the-40-second-shift-1.377209

The Corsi vs. Shift Length thing is interesting. Is a players shift length longer because they're getting stuck in their zone and corsi'ed to death and can't change, or are they getting corsi'ed to death because they're tired from longer shifts? Either way, it's clear that getting to that 40 second mark has been a mandate from Babs and the Leafs have followed it.

 

[hockeyfan1]

A pretty interesting look at the Leafs reduced shift length under Babcock.

http://www.tsn.ca/talent/mike-babcock-and-the-40-second-shift-1.377209

The Corsi vs. Shift Length thing is interesting. Is a players shift length longer because they're getting stuck in their zone and corsi'ed to death and can't change, or are they getting corsi'ed to death because they're tired from longer shifts? Either way, it's clear that getting to that 40 second mark has been a mandate from Babs and the Leafs have followed it.

That seems to be the rationale here, though Babcock does believe that shorter shifts and /or quick changes  prevent or reduce odd-man rushes (due to positioning breakdowns), or, to put it another way to prevent or reduce positioning breakdowns (which result in odd-man rushes). 

Either way, it's the same thing and if it's any indication of the Mike Babcock era here in T.O., we should all be all the more for it, similar to his Detroit days.