Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I agree.
Perhaps, and I have not made any claims about "The Brawl." However, I will say that it your statement with regards to its impact is also a very good candidate as a confirmation bias. We already have beliefs about fighting—justified or otherwise. NHL players already hold beliefs about fighting—justified or otherwise. When fights occur, we all naturally return to our (unjustified?) beliefs for confirmation of what happened.
Possibly. But I am willing to bet that with or without "The Brawl" this team is likely still in a playoff position today.
Of course, but this is not because of how badly hockey needs fighting so much as it is about how it entertains you.
|
Disagree, could another moment have arrived before the team bonded and bought in the way they did immediately after? Possibly, but the Brawl was undoubtedly the catalyst to this teams mentality. I would not say it's confirmation bias either. Because no other event had the effect on the team as that moment had. They were listless before it and hardened steel after it.
Ultimately it's completely irrelevant what we as fans believe will bring a team together. It's everything to the players in the room though. Fighting isn't that one thing that can have that effect and a big goal or an insane save could do the same.
But to disregard fighting as one piece to a puzzle in
this sport is a bias towards your personal preferences.
To me a situation like the brawl was the quenching of the steel when making a sword, all the materials are there, combined but not complete, that quenching makes it tougher and harder and ready to use in battle. Actually, I think that's a completely relevant analogy.