Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Interesting analysis of how having an enforcer is insignificant to reducing cheap shots.
http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-e...don-1442618145
Another one:
http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/20...ness-in-hockey
Well maybe if fighting has no effect whatsoever on reducing the amount of cheap shots maybe it helps with swinging the momentum? Yeah maybe not:
https://georgetownsportsanalysis.wor...-hockey-fight/
On my larger point, the data doesn't exist to the adequate resolution to pinpoint cheap shots in the 1970s and 80s so we're left with conjecture. But just think to yourself if you watched games in the 80s, doesn't it appear as though there were more high sticks, spears, sucker punches and match penalties in the high fighting 80s than now?
Parroting this argument that fighting has some worthwhile merit to the on ice performance of a team is simply not supported by the evidence. But hey don't let the ugly facts get in the way of a beautiful theory. |
The reffing and the rules have changed since the 70s and 80s. The reffing was a lot looser and the players were allowed to enforce the level of aggression that the game was played at. With the instigator rule and the two refs calling the game much stricter, there isn't the amount of flagrant fouls. I like that there is some fighting as it's a game of aggression and intimidation as well as skill.
That there has been an increase in skilled players is eliminating the one trick enforcer but there are still skilled enforcers around and they are highly valued. That's why we have high hopes for Ferland and Wolf to make our team. For me, fighting is part of hockey and if you don't like it, go watch the SHL or basketball.