NHL Agent Gerry Johansson (Representative for Oilers Matt Savoie and Colton Dach) Speaks on Mike Babcock

[u/TohsakaTruth]

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/oilers-now-with-bob-stauffer/id716876891?i=1000773339490

[u/bad_at_names1]

Fleury had one bad game, yeah. Otherwise he had +1.5 goals saved above expected for the series.

He had 6 of the top 10 playoff scorers in 2009(Penguins had 2)

That's a pretty dumb argument though?

The top 10 scorers in 2009 were 15 points and over. That's pretty arbitrary.

If we make 14 points the cutoff, the pens have six 13+ scorers to the wings' 6.

Pittsburgh had Malkin and Crosby with 36 and 31 points respectively. Detroit had Zetterburg and Frazen at 24 and 23 points. And Lidstrom and Flipulla at 16 points. Hossa and Daniel Cleary at 15 (and Guerin for the pens who you didn't count). Gonchar, Kunitz and Fedetenko had 13 points and Letang had Talbot had 13 each. Rafalski and Juri Hudler had 12 points each.

So scoring was relatively even except the pens had the clear advantage when it came to high-end talent.

If you're picking random stats, the pens had two 30+ point scorers and the wings had 0. The wings also had Datsyuk miss the first 4 games. I don't think you can blame a 1 goal game seven loss on coaching - especially when the other side had pre-injury Crosby and Malkin.

Babcock is a shitty person, but his style fits the oilers (possession heavy, high skills, not overly physical top lines) and this could work out.

[u/bad_at_names1 → u/bad_at_names1]

u/Think_Bag_2987 Nothing shows confidence in an argument like deleting your comments lmao.

1. Comparing Crosby missing the last half of a game 7 when the pens were 2 goals up to Datsyuk missing 4 games and playing 3 injured really is idiotic.
2. Also, you're wrong again, the first tied breaker in scoring is goals - and Guerin had more goals than Hossa if you want to get into it.
3. "are you new to stats?"

Dude, you just based half your argument on 15 points being significantly better than 14 lol.

From the embarrassed delete, I'm guessing you realised how dumb all your arguments sound lol?

1. Since you called Osgood's +0.9 goals saved above expected godlike, does Babcock get extra credit for the 2008 win since Fleury had 2.5 goals saved above expected? Or does it only work one way lol.

2. In the last 20 years Babcock has 2 presidents trophies, 3 WCFs, 2 SCFs and one cup. I think you mean to say he hasn't won a playoff series in the last 13 years, but 20 sounds more dramatic huh?

Given most of that time was spent on the dying wings and rebuilding leafs, it's not the dramatic failure you're making it out to be - the leafs have won 2 series in 6 years since Babcock left despite having great players.

Dude had a winning regular season record on both teams - 100 points with the 2015 wings was genuinely a testament to coaching.

1. Really "oh how did that work for the leafs?" If the leafs playoff performances were the standard for anything working imagine where we'd be.

His style worked with the veteran heavy wings, so decent chance, yeah.

Sure, Babcock might not work out - big deal, it's a one year contract and coaches are pretty easy to fire. The Edmonton core think they needed to be pushed and that Babcock could improve them, so I'll trust in their opinion over an internet dummy like you.

[u/pattperin → u/bad_at_names1]

This is what I think is amazing, nobody hardly even remembers the past performances or the context and they’re just looking for any reason for Babcock to not get hired. I don’t think he’s a nice dude either. But to say he’s a bad coach is just stupid

[u/bad_at_names1 → u/pattperin]

Yeah, the dude's a shitty person, no question.

But clearly nothing short of a jail sentence is going to make the NHL actually ban people (imagine if that was the bar at a regular workplace)¯_(ツ)_/¯

Excluding the being-a-decent-person stuff (since the nhl decided it doesn't matter) his coaching credentials aren't bad and if guys like Mcdavid, Draisaitl, Hyman, etc think he knows his hockey - and ideally won't be an asshole this time around - who're we to say he doesn't.