Editor In Leaf
Fansided

Toronto Maple Leafs: Why I’m Smarter Than Mike Babcock

By James Tanner

DETROIT, MI - OCTOBER 09: From L to R, assistant coach Jim Hiller, head coach Mike Babcock and assistant coach D. J. Smith watch the action from the bench during an NHL game against the Detroit Red Wings at Joe Louis Arena on October 9, 2015 in Detroit Michigan. The Wings shut out the Leafs 4-0. (Photo by Dave Reginek/NHLI via Getty Images)
DETROIT, MI - OCTOBER 09: From L to R, assistant coach Jim Hiller, head coach Mike Babcock and assistant coach D. J. Smith watch the action from the bench during an NHL game against the Detroit Red Wings at Joe Louis Arena on October 9, 2015 in Detroit Michigan. The Wings shut out the Leafs 4-0. (Photo by Dave Reginek/NHLI via Getty Images) /
facebooktwitterreddit

Mike Babcock, coach of the Toronto Maple Leafs, is pretty good.

Besides coaching the Toronto Maple Leafs, Mike Babcock has won a Stanley Cup and an Olympic Gold. For comparison, I came second place in a poll of my children for ‘Best Parent,’ and have never so much as won a free coffee at Roll up the Rim.

Full disclosure: I don’t compare favorably to Mr. Babcock.  Except, perhaps, I would wager to bet, in a contest of who is better friends with Mike Commodore.

So what am I on about?  I’ll tell you.

As a  ‘sports journalist’ (of possible ill-repute, and using the term in its loosest possible definition) covering the Toronto Maple Leafs, I am often tasked with criticizing the coach of the team.  Maybe he’s doing something I don’t like, like overplaying Roman Polak.  Maybe he won’t let my boy Martin Marincin join in any reindeer games.  Perhaps he’s earned my wrath by demoting Mitch Marner to the fourth line, yet again.  Who knows?  It’s a long season and I’m writing daily, and I’m not going to love all his moves.  I would rather question the authority of the Sainted Babcock than act as a cheerleader.

But who am I to criticize the master?

Mike Babcock and Me!

Whenever I write an article, I inevitably get a response along the lines of “I think I’ll take Mike Babcock’s opinion over yours, thanks.”  And, since I’m not generally an internet comment writer, you’ll have to excuse me if I failed to fully convey the full compliment of sarcasm the original always comes with.

This is, on the surface, a fair criticism.  And to be clear, I am open to all forms of criticism. I accept that if you’re going to operate in the public sphere, you’ve got to take heat. So please don’t misunderstand this as a shot against the critics. What I am hoping to do here is talk about the one overwhelmingly persistent comment that I think everyone who has to critique the jobs of professionals, in any industry, has to deal with.

(Certainly Roger Ebert never claimed to be able to be a better actor than Nick Cage. )

Faced with listening to myself or going along with Babcock, I’d usually side with him too.

Yes Coach Babcock knows more about hockey than I ever will even if all I do for the rest of my life is devote myself to its study. Yes, he is a professional coach, and among the best of the best.

But that doesn’t make him infallible.

Experts Are People Too

Experts are often subject to the same biases and blind spots as the rest of us.  Sometimes more so.

More from Editor In Leaf

Just for example, let’s take Roman Polak.  I would cut him from the team, and Babcock plays him every game.  Perhaps he is right despite every measure we have for hockey players saying otherwise.  It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Babcock knows something I don’t, or that the stats don’t properly portray. But, at the same time, it’s also possible that Babcock is friends with Polak, likes and trusts him, and is thus blind to his faults.

Or it could be that Babcock, who’s had nothing but success in his career, has had success with a certain style and sees no reason to change it.  I’m not saying this is happening, but if that was the case, then he wouldn’t be the first expert to lose a grip on the currents of an ever changing game as time marches on.

Regardless of the reasoning, it is a logical fallacy to appeal to authority. Just because someone has earned the title of expert does not mean that their opinion supersedes the evidence.

This doesn’t mean that I am correct when I criticize the coach either. What it means is that we should judge each situation on its own merit.  “Because Mike Babcock says so,” is not a better argument than saying “Because James Tanner said so.”  (Unless the question is ‘who is the greatest musical act of all-time, in which case the only correct answer is R.E.M, and ‘because Tanner said so’ is a perfectly reasonable argument. Exceptions make the rule).

The coach won’t always be right, and the critics won’t always be right either.  All we’re trying to do is have a conversation.  I ask, is it not better to perhaps over-question the coach as opposed to being a cheerleader?  Maybe it’s not.  I don’t know.

Next: Leafs Have to Cut Martin, Polak for Playoffs

What I do know is that I probably am not smarter than Mike Babcock.  I respect him and I’m a huge fan of his.  When I say he’s made a mistake, It doesn’t mean I want him fired.  It just means that I disagree and I think it’s worth talking about.

He might even be right most of the time.  We just shouldn’t take his word for it.

Home/Editorials