Coach Mike Babcock

[Kin]

So you agree there is no exact way for a successful rebuild?

1. No, because I just laid out what I think it is. I think every NHL team of appreciable success employed the very method I just described absent teams built on circumstances that aren't repeatable.

2. If you're not going to bother actually replying to a long post, there's really no need to quote it in its entirety. Or at all.

 

[bustaheims]

1. No, because I just laid out what I think it is. I think every NHL team of appreciable success employed the very method I just described absent teams built on circumstances that aren't repeatable.

Yeah. To further your recipe metaphor, just like there are many ways to make a lasagna, the foundation of every lasagna is largely the same. The specifics of each rebuild is going to be different, but the path to a successful rebuild is going to have the same foundation.

 

[Bates]

1) that's a guideline ti increase your chances at success, not an exact plan.

2) appologies, will remember for next time.

So you agree there is no exact way for a successful rebuild?

1. No, because I just laid out what I think it is. I think every NHL team of appreciable success employed the very method I just described absent teams built on circumstances that aren't repeatable.

2. If you're not going to bother actually replying to a long post, there's really no need to quote it in its entirety. Or at all.

 

[Kin]

Ah. I didn't realize it was "Funtime at Semantics Corner".

 

[Kin]

Yeah. To further your recipe metaphor, just like there are many ways to make a lasagna, the foundation of every lasagna is largely the same. The specifics of each rebuild is going to be different, but the path to a successful rebuild is going to have the same foundation.

Right. Saying otherwise is, to continue the metaphor, saying you can never have an exact recipe for cooking chicken because each time you're cooking a different chicken.

 

[Bates]

Me neither, I simply stated that there is no exact way to successfully rebuild and you wrote me a book.  That is a guideline that all teams try to follow, some with success, some not so much.  You could have just ignored my post.

 

[Kin]

Me neither, I simply stated that there is no exact way to successfully rebuild and you wrote me a book.

The "book" I wrote was in response to you saying:

Let's hear the exact recipe for a perfect rebuild then?

And "a guideline you try to follow" is essentially the precise definition of what a recipe is(Recipe, #3). You're the one who wants to talk about the semantic differences between a "guideline", "way" or "recipe".

Also, you should probably be reading longer books.

 

[Bender]

I'm so glad I'm eating lunch right now

 

[hockeyfan1]

Leafs have their eye on the draft no doubt, but will still want to call this an improved season under Babcock's masterful helm:


http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/maple-leafs-chasing-no-1-overall-pick-while-maintaining-dignity/:

 

[Highlander]

Yes it is great to lose and have a chance at Matthews and still look pretty good whilst tanking

 

[herman]

http://www.si.com/nhl/2015/12/04/how-teams-system-affects-player-offense-defense-hockey-analytics

Some interesting points in here, like how Babcock gives the players an automatic boost in the possession metrics.

Actually, more like our players are no longer anchored by a system that gives everyone a -2/-2 off the hop.

Of course this doesn't mean all you need is a system. Talent will bear out over time, especially as the system occasionally breaks (see February Marlies). Every little bit of help in driving the puck at the other net and keeping it away from yours is a good thing.

 

[hockeyfan1]

http://www.si.com/nhl/2015/12/04/how-teams-system-affects-player-offense-defense-hockey-analytics

Some interesting points in here, like how Babcock gives the players an automatic boost in the possession metrics.

Actually, more like our players are no longer anchored by a system that gives everyone a -2/-2 off the hop.

Of course this doesn't mean all you need is a system. Talent will bear out over time, especially as the system occasionally breaks (see February Marlies). Every little bit of help in driving the puck at the other net and keeping it away from yours is a good thing.

Excellent article and a bit of an eye-opener.  The example of JVR's improvements (re: CFRelTM,etc.) goes to show the impact a change of linemates also has on a player's stats.

Same goes for Calgary on the surface.  While their defence has looked suspect this season, (it isn't, actually imoroved), it's the subpar goaltending that alters the  team course here and it's negative impact on overall team defence stats.

Good example given.  Guess all of this also shows that the Leafs made the right decision in hiring Babcock to being the master behind the bench.

 

[herman]

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2016/3/10/11184956/leafs-d-zone-winger-positioning

Joffrey Lupul put it rather succinctly, following a 5-3 loss to the Blues:

We didn?t seem to be able to break the cycle, and they were using the points. We play with a lot of people down low in our zone so the points are going to be open. And yet they seemed to be getting the point shots through and a lot of tips and rebounds. Obviously something.. something was wrong there.

Perhaps the worst part of this strategy was that the Leafs didn't (and still don't) have the kinds of big, bruising wingers necessary to win a lot of puck battles down low and along the wall. Listen, I loved Phil Kessel, but he was only ever took a passing interest in puck retrieval. In HBO's 24/7 series that focused on the Wings and Leafs, we heard the phrase "they can't handle us down low" uttered by Wings players, Leafs players, and Mike Babcock himself.

Oh, how things have changed.

While you'll occasionally spot a Leaf winger dropping down low to cover for a defender, there is a lot more trust placed in the team's defence, and the wingers are a lot more ready to take a pass. Not being so deep in the zone certainly helps the breakout, but the other factor is that the wingers aren't glued to the boards and trying to take the puck from there. Instead, wingers are ready to receive a pass and immediately start skating.

Brooks Laich is playing wing on the weak side and swoops low to cover Evander Kane, who, while not likely to get a pass at this point, is still not someone you want roaming free in your zone. Meanwhile, Colin Greening, playing as the C here, takes away the option of going back to the point through the middle of the ice. Ben Smith, playing RW on the strong side, is also preventing the puck from getting back to the point via a bank pass off the wall. Notice how he faces the wall anticipating the push back to the point.

Worth noting is that every other Leaf is in good position. Jake Gardiner's positioning is absolutely perfect, forcing his man to the corner while using good stick positioning to encourage the pass back to the point, where Smith and Greening are waiting to cut it off. That stick positioning is something all of Babcock's teams do very, very well. Frank Corrado, for his part, is the weak side defender, and has good net-side positioning on his man.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Thanks for posting Herman, loved that.

 

[herman]

Thanks for posting Herman, loved that.

I love this stuff too. I never got to play beyond the elementary school floor hockey level, but I appreciate the tactical analyses that these blogs put together. I was hoping Toronto would pick up Tyler Dellow at some point but it appears Edmonton is still hanging onto him.

 

[herman]

There's quite a bit to unpack here, so I've tried to precis as best as I could. Basically, Mike Babcock is a tinkerer and tweaks his system to his personnel to give them the best chance to succeed (so long as they execute positionally).

http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2016/3/9/11181526/why-mike-babcock-was-the-perfect-coach-for-these-red-wings?_ga=1.127544525.1925546660.1436963754

Following the retirement of Rafalski and Lidstrom, Babcock recognized that he was going to need to protect his defensive corps. Heading into the 2012-2013 season, this was Mike Babcock's defensive group: [Niklas Kronwall, Ian White, Carlo Colaiacovo, Kyle Quincey, Jonathan Ericsson, Jakub Kindl, Brendan Smith, Brian Lashoff]

Given this relatively inexperienced group, Babcock elected to tighten up the Red Wings system by reducing the frequency of pinches by defensemen in the offensive zone, reducing the frequency of defensemen joining the rush, and by increasing the frequency in which the third forward stayed high in the offensive zone to prevent odd-man rushes. Going back to the graphs above, you'll see steady declines in 5v5 shot attempts against, scoring chances against, and high-danger chances against. However, you'll notice that the tradeoff was a significant decrease in offense. Granted, some of that is due to the loss of Rafalski and Lidstrom in successive years, but a large part of that is due to the systems changes made by Babcock.

Adjustments To The Forecheck
The first adjustment made by Babcock was to decrease the aggressiveness of the forecheck by playing his weak-side winger outside the blue line, almost in a soft "1-2-2" formation. [...] [The centre] forward is playing deeper to prevent a stretch pass or quick breakout pass on a team's motion or lane regroup. This is considered a "soft" 1-2-2 forecheck that provides strong neutral zone support to your defensemen. Essentially, the Wings are able to keep everyone in front of them defensively. This helps mask any potential weaknesses in skating for your defensemen by relying on sound positioning and strong skating from your forwards.

[The] Wings keep everybody in front of them and [the opponent] has to come through the neutral zone with little speed. This allows the Wings defensemen time to appropriately gauge [the opponents'] oncoming speed and adjust their skating accordingly. Ultimately, Babcock was able to hide many of the deficiencies of the Red Wings' defensemen by playing sound positional hockey.

The other thing to note [...] is how deep the defenseman is playing off of the oncoming forward. By playing off of the forward but ahead of the blue line, it gives the defenseman an added bit of space to turn and chase the puck if the forward elects to dump the puck in. Many teams like to have their defensemen press up on the forward receiving the puck to force a neutral zone turnover or force a tip-in to the offensive zone. However, Babcock preferred his defensemen to play a little off the high forward, giving his defenseman the opportunity to still force a turnover with his stick, but also have an extra bit of space if he needs to turn and chase a dump-in.

In conjunction with this, Babcock stressed having his third forward play high in the offensive zone. Below is an image depicting what that looks like.

This player is playing "high" in the offensive zone, meaning that he is not trapped down low where the puck is. Instead, he is hanging out higher in case the puck is recovered by the defensive (blue) team and they start a breakout. If the play moves in his direction (i.e. towards the near boards in the image above), he can leave his position and jump into the offensive play while the red "R" would drop back into third-man high position. Overall, this player is in better position defensively and slightly worse position offensively. However, Babcock preached this principle in order to limit the number of odd-man rushes his team faced.

Offensive Zone Pinches
To avoid creating races for the puck, Babcock also preached having his defensemen retreat rather than pinch and to only pinch if absolutely certain they could create a play. While some teams like to have their defensemen pinch up in the play to keep possession in the offensive zone, others prefer to have their defensemen retreat in order to prevent odd-man rushes. Babcock was a staunch proponent of the latter, especially over the past three years in Detroit. He was a proponent of this as it created less situations where his defensemen had to skate or be involved in a foot race. He was masking the deficiencies of his players.

[...]

By masking the deficiencies of his defensemen and forcing the Wings to play a more "low-event" system, Babcock watched his team progressively struggle to score goals.

[...]

After Babcock left for Toronto this past summer, new head coach Jeff Blashill stepped in and promised to activate his defense more in order to generate more consistent offense. Many fans were excited as they felt that Babcock's message was starting to fall on deaf ears. However, we can see from this graph and the graphs above, that Blashill's strategy switch has not paid dividends and has actually led to a significant increase in 5v5 high-danger scoring chances against and 5v5 scoring chances against. The Wings are giving up 10.6 5v5 high-danger scoring chances against per 60 minutes, the worst mark for a Red Wings team over the last nine seasons. Essentially, the activation of the defense and propensity to lose the third-man-high contain has unmasked the flaws of the Red Wings defense.

[...]

Is Blashill's system a bad one? No, not even close to it. The problem lies in the fact that the Red Wings personnel does not matchup with the coach's system. This is not a problem that only applies to Detroit. In fact, this problem applies to a large majority of the NHL and results in "bad" players playing more and "good" players playing less as a coach feels these players fit his system better. Babcock loved Luke Glendening because he was a defense-first player who was very concerned about his positioning. Blashill has gone that route at times because Glendening is not likely to give up his position as third-man high. It's quite possible that this is just an average roster and that within Blashill's system, he is not able to get as much out of them as Babcock.

Blashill's system is predicated on having mobile, high IQ defensemen in combination with positionally-sound forwards. The Wings have very few of these types of players, illustrating why this team has struggled to adapt to Blashill's system. I do believe that a coach is responsible for tinkering his system to match his personnel as Babcock has done for the past few years.

 

[Kin]

Mike Commodore still isn't a fan though.

 

[herman]

http://www.tsn.ca/an-attempt-to-measure-true-coaching-impact-1.466414

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Thanks for sharing herman.

Anyone else bothered to read "Leave No Doubt" Babcock's reflection on life via the 2010 Olympics?

I found it read like a self-help book at times, but for the most part, it is a really nice look inside the head of the man that's steering the ship for the next decade. He comes across as an intelligent father figure who genuinely cares as he tries to lead by example.

I loved it overall and it's a page turner you can finish in a few hours.

 

[herman]

Thanks for sharing herman.

Anyone else bothered to read "Leave No Doubt" Babcock's reflection on life via the 2010 Olympics?

I found it read like a self-help book at times, but for the most part, it is a really nice look inside the head of the man that's steering the ship for the next decade. He comes across as an intelligent father figure who genuinely cares as he tries to lead by example.

I loved it overall and it's a page turner you can finish in a few hours.

Gotta check that out! Thanks for the recommendation, Patrick.

I like the way Babcock operationalizes his strategies to the players' level. It's never "play with more grit", or "score more" or "get your Corsi up". It's more like, "if you don't have the puck go here, and then look for options up the middle", or "come down past the circles to give a quick outlet to your D-man", or "try to carry it over the line, or curl back to reset". The repeated mantras simplify the game on the individual level and allow the team to execute a more robust scheme to serve a unified purpose. Then each player has certain aspects of his game to work on and grow in and is deployed accordingly.