Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
This is all good. Thanks for your carefully considered and articulate response.
I understand what you are saying, and it is possibly correct. However, studies that have been conducted on the subject tend to produce results that the effect of a fight in a hockey game is entirely random. There is usually a change in momentum that follows a fight, and this has something to do with what Russell believes (like I expect all players believe) about the impact of fighting. However, the catch here is that there are always two players involved—one from each team—in every fight, and the outcome of a fight impacts each team: when there is a momentum shift, it tends to shift in one direction. The problem is that there is virtually no correlation to which direction momentum does turn. Fights are won, lost, or end in a draw, and there is virtually no perceivable, even remotely consistent pattern to what follows.
I have long been a proponent of eliminating—or at least substantially minimising fighting in hockey. I am of the opinion that it is dangerous and barbaric, and produces no quantifiable result from which to justify its continued existence. Having said that, I am also not so naïve as to not recognise that the players want it, and they believe in it. This on its own is powerful, even if the rusts of this belief are not measurable. But here is my point: even if there is a correlation between fighting and performance, it is not a necessary correlation. In other words, if there was no fighting in hockey, there would still be rallying cries and momentum swings.
As I see it, the only purpose that fighting serves in hockey today is for entertainment. I find that distasteful, and am in no way sorry to see the Flames playing a style of game this year in which fisticuffs are a rarity.
|
I'll fully admit, that I enjoy the fighting in the game. I'm glad we are moving away from the staged fights, but a inprompt scuffle sparked by emotion in the game, I'm entertained. I'll also admit, my gut feel on the matter is, well timed fight by the right person does often result in a positive momentum shift for the team. That said, I will also admit that I'm far from convinced that my opinion on this is actually correct.
That said, I think the problem with all the analytics on this, and the two players involved thing is also what constitutes a "win" in a fight is different everytime, because as you articulate well, it's all about the emotional state or interpretation based on the players on the ice. To try to articulate what I mean I'll use some fake examples:
- For example, a player taking on Chara in a fight, might technically lose the fight to the big man. But if he hangs in there with him, does alright, and shows his team that we can compete with Chara and the Bruins physically, that might be the win in that fight.
- Or using an old school 04 Flames theory, when if you win your fights and against a more skilled team, maybe you show your guys we might not have the skill, but if we can beat them in the ally could give you confidence and lessen theirs.
Anyway, the point being, because fighting and technically winning a fight doesn't directly give you points on the scoreboard, all it does is impact the "mentality or emotion" on the ice for a brief time frame, what winning a fight means has very little to with actually winning it. And as you can see, isn't measurable when looking at a stat sheet. In fact it's only measureable truly by the people on the ice at that moment in time.
Which is why, no matter how hard anyone tries, you can't actually conduct a completely scientific study on the matter that is free of bias ect.... The topic is completely intangible and beyond strong measurement IMO.