Despite his tremendous performance as an NHL coach, (both in Anaheim and Detroit), Mike Babcock will never win a Jack Adams award, until and unless he wins a Stanley Cup.  Even then, it is doubtful.

Because his team is consistently excellent, the players are given all the credit.  The truth is, his players are no better than a lot of other teams’.  Babcock just motivates them better than other coaches on a day-to-day basis.  Isn’t THAT what a coach is supposed to do?

Posted by w2j2 on 12/16/07 at 09:44 AM ET

I think it is a very big stretch to say “The truth is, his players are no better than a lot of other teams’”.  That just is not true, the Detroit scouting and development systems are far better than any other teams and have been for some time.  I think Mike is a great coach, but he works within the greatest management model in the league, and I think that does hurt his chances at winning the JA.

Though it may be early, I agree Hitchcock should be in the running now for the “If the season ended now Jack Adams”.  Lots of time left though, and lets see if that team can sustain their current success!

Posted by WingMan from Canada on 12/16/07 at 10:23 AM ET

If you’re looking for the large improvement, how about Claude Julien?  Boston is on a pace to better last year’s record by more than 20 points, they lost their best player, Patrice Bergeron, to an ugly hit, possibly for the season, and have been without their first two goaltenders for long stretches.  Boston is winning with smoke and mirrors and a tight system as a team - Columbus is winning because some of the players finally started to work hard.  Coaching has a part, but Boston is more impressive.

@ w2j2:
In 2002, someone in one of those silly polls said that he thought Dave Lewis should win the award.  His point was that you should give it to the coach of an excellent, elite team instead of whatever team came out of the blue to surprise, and that was why so often an award-winning coach was fired a year or two later when the magic wore off.  I thought it was an interesting take.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 12/16/07 at 10:26 AM ET

*edit*

I meant to say that coaching has played a part in the turnoround of both Columbus and Boston, but Hitchcock has more to work with after the Bruins’ injuries.  His situation is more stable, while Julien has been dealing with a lot more shifting in his team.  That is why I find the job he has done in Boston more impressive.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 12/16/07 at 10:30 AM ET

I am not so sure about the BJ writers take.  If you look at the standings by conference, in the East (removing OTT from the equation), 2nd is BOS with 39 pts, then NJ, CAR, and MON with 37.  PIT and TOR are tied for 8th (last playoff spot) with 34 pts. The CAPS are last in Conf with 28 pts., only 6 pts out of the playoff hunt.

In the West (removing DET from the equation), 2nd is DAL wit 40 pts, STL, COL, EDM, and ANA are tied for 8th with 34 pts.  Last is LAK with 26 pts, only 8 pts out of the playoff hunt.

A reasonable conclusion is that, if the playoffs started today, the Adams should go to either Uncle Mike or to Sens Coach Paddock.  All of the other teams are mired in mediocrity (a commentator from TSN pointed this out last week).

If all the teams in the NHL, except DET and OTT, are playing just above .500 hockey, why should anyone of those coaches get singled out?  Why not the Coach of the exceptional team?  Why make excuses for the teams that excell?  They are doing what they are supposed to be doing.  You can also name of few teams with great talent that are not performing up to snuff (ANA, SJS, etc.).

IMO, why reward mediocrity.  I do think its great what some coaches do with lesser talent.  But the salary cap was supposed to “level the playing field”, all the teams are playing with the same amount of available money.  Reward the coach whose team stands out.

Posted by Jeff OKWingnut from Hockey Netherworld on 12/16/07 at 10:55 AM ET

I’ve said this before a few times...as long as the Adams is awarded by the NHL Broadcasters’ Association, there is roughly a 1 in 30 shot of it going to the ‘best coach’.

Broadcasters favor the guys who are most quotable, the new kid in town, etc.

Posted by shep from california on 12/16/07 at 11:03 AM ET

OklahomaWingNut,
The fact that it is supposed to be alevel playing field because of the cap and those two teams are standing out is more a testament to the GM’s ability to work the cap well in my opinion.  A guy like Claude Julien deserves it because he took a team that was in the gutter last year that made few changes in the off-season and had many injuries and made them not only competitive, but winners.  That is a huge testament to his coaching.

Posted by NHLJeff from Boston, MA on 12/16/07 at 03:43 PM ET

What Shep said.  The Adams is notoriously reliable for going to the guy who’s the best “story” of the season, not the coach who received the best results per player.  The unwritten rule that a coach has to make the playoffs is part of the parcel, of course, though it’d be hard to argue that someone like Hitchcock wasn’t doing a good thing even if Columbus doesn’t make the playoffs.  That one puzzles me, because I’ve seen guys do wonderful things with teams that barely missed the cut.

Posted by George James Malik from South Lyon, MI on 12/17/07 at 04:05 AM ET