If Leyland Coached the Red Wings...

First off, my apologies for the extended absence. Mrs. Nofrown and I packed up Baby Nofrown and headed up North. Admittedly, I did have interweb access. With the warm weather distractions coupled with the pathetic display by the beloved Tigers, I was less-than inspired to blog. Nevertheless, I'm back and ready to roll.

As we drove back home this weekend, Mrs. Nofrown and I had an interesting discussion regarding embattled Tigers coach Jim Leyland. It began with her comment: "Your Dad really doesn't like Leyland." It's true. Papa Nofrown, while he possesses much of Leyland's faux-curmudgeon tendencies, is turned off by Leyland's disrespectful treatment of the press. In post-game press conferences, Leyland has no problem cursing and, in general, acting like an ass. He's a frightful interview who holds a grudge. If your on his list, forget about getting any meaningful print. My Dad believes these athletes and coaches should be role models, and Leyland is no role model.

Mrs. Nofrown later commented, "Leyland is no Babcock." I couldn't agree more. Yes, the Tigers were hit hard with injuries this month, but it's hard to imagine a team more beset with injuries than the 09-10 Red Wings. The fact that the Wings kept afloat (barely) and eventually finished with a 44-24-14 record is a testament to Babcock's ability and the organization's depth. During the dark days of January, as the Wings lost game after game, I was extremely critical of the team and the defense in particular. Yet, it's seven months later, and, with the emotion removed from the equation, I can honestly look back with pride as the Wings overcame a ton of obstacles over the course of the entire season. They never panicked. They ground out wins when possible and patiently waited for the regular starters to return. First Zetterberg. Then Filppula. Then Holmstrom. Then Cleary. Then Lilja. And, finally, Franzen.

The drive-home conversation then became, "What if Leyland coached the Wings..." Perhaps the major difference between the two coaches is that Leyland appears set in his ways. Babcock has shown a tremendous ability to adapt, especially with regard to players. Despite a borderline Conn Smythe-level performance in the previous playoff run, Babcock benched Osgood when he wasn't performing. The move unearthed Jimmy Howard - a dude who showed almost no sign of NHL-level ability during his four previous seasons in the minors. Babcock also tinkered with the lines until he discovered a potent New Millennium grind line with Draper, Helm, and Eaves. All three of those players struggled until the trio played together. The new line ultimately sent long-time Wing Kirk Maltby to the scratch list.

One of Babcock's strongest assets is his talent evaluation. I always write on this blog that the coach's main job is to put players in a position to succeed. An example of this is Todd Bertuzzi. Babcock recognized that Bertuzzi is a step-slower but he's still got excellent hands and hockey-sense. Those attributes belong on the top lines. Instead of sending the past-his-prime forward to the 4th line (as would happen on most teams), Babcock inserted Bertuzzi with Datsyuk or Zetterberg, and Bertuzzi rewarded him with his highest goal output in four seasons.

Babcock did the same thing with Ville Leino the season before. He recognized Leino's top talent skill, which, for some reason, failed to manifest itself this past year. In fact, Leino could be Babcock's most glaring mistake. There was no spot for Leino on the top lines, and he struggled big-time to click with Helm, Drew Miller, and the other 3rd and 4th liners. Perhaps it was the burr in his arse after getting traded for a bag of pucks, but Leino showed his quality in Philly.

As for Leyland, I have no doubt that his stubbornness regarding personnel and strategy would've ultimately doomed him as coach of the Wings. Leyland would've stuck with Osgood in net. If his batting orders are any indication, he would've been much less experimental with the forward lines. Despite Brennan Boesch's month-long struggle at the plate, Leyland refused to move him from the 5 spot, until two days ago. As for putting players in a position to succeed, Leyland fails miserably. Incredibly, he had Jeff Frazier (career at-bats = 0) batting 3rd against the Red Sox. Traditionally, the player batting third is a reliable run producer (i.e. Maggs). Boesch could've worked there. Or Peralta. But Frazier? In his first-ever game? He went hitless, by the way.

Perhaps the biggest indictment of Leyland is his inability to right the ship. Babcock somehow managed to keep the Wings in contention despite the rash of injuries and then finished the season on a miraculous tear. Leyland simply does not inspire the Tigers to play winning baseball when it counts most. With the Twins breathing down their neck and two games to go, Leyland refused to pitch Verlander on 3-days rest and instead started rookie hurler Alfredo Figaro (career starts = 2) against the White Sox. Figaro lasted 38 pitches and 1.1 innings. The Tigers lost, and their historic collapse to the Twins was complete, as the Twins officially caught them that very day.

I saw Figaro earlier in the season and felt he had potential to be a capable starter. Yet, placing the kid in that pressure-packed situation for his 3rd career start? That's not exactly putting him in a position to succeed. With the way the Tigers are failing, I suppose this anti-Leyland post is guilty of piling-on. Yet, his stubborn antics just illustrate how lucky we are to have a fearless, adaptable coach in Babcock. Perhaps Leyland will change, but I doubt it will be in a Tiger uniform.