Obligatory fighting in hockey debate thread #84, version 3

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Here's an article with Trevor Gillies, our AHL enforcer.

In reference to Mirasty

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2012/1...dered-round-2/

*WARNING: the following discourse is a rant that has nothing to do with Flames training camp on 23 Sept.*

This whole exchange is a big part of the problem I have with fighting in hockey. It's similarly on display whenever McGrattan gets in a tilt, and then afterwards pats his opponent on the head in a gesture of respect. The presence of enforcers in the NHL has over the course of time developed a different meaning than it once had, as it has now become about the fights tangential to the game itself.

I suppose Mirasty could make the case that his hope to "redeem" himself by intentionally jumping a player from the team as a result of being on the wrong side of a fight with Gillies is meant to jack up his teammates, and produce an effect in their overall level of play. But I don't buy it. The "fighting culture" has become an end in itself. It perpetuates on the idea that it is about maintaining the unspoken code of fair play and for the purpose of infusing one's teammates with "energy," but in the end, it is really just about being the toughest guy on the ice.

It reminds me a little bit of a story from the Bible (bear with me—I'm a Bible scholar; almost everything reminds me of something in the Bible). In Exod. 17 the wandering Israelites were attacked at Rephidim by the Amalekites. Their leader, Moses, ascended to the top of a hill overlooking the battle with two attendants to "do his part." In Exod. 17:11, "As long as Moses kept his hands raised, Israel prevailed, but whenever he let his hands fall, then the Amalekites prevailed." So, the Israelites slaughtered their enemies and won the day because Moses was (with a little help from his friends) able to keep his hands raised, presumably to the effect of "empowering" his kinsmen to achieve victory.

It's a story about magic. And much like fighting in the NHL—much like what Mirasty expresses in his penalty box chat with Gillies—victory is somehow viewed as a product of separate event that is unconnected to the game on the ice. Either Mirasty is uninterested in what is occurring in the game, and only concerned about saving face, or he believes that he is magic—that a positive result from a fight is enfused with some sort of voodoo that will push his team to win.

*end rant*

[Vulcan]

that a positive result from a fight is enfused with some sort of voodoo that will push his team to win.

It isn't voodoo and in some cases it works otherwise we and other teams wouldn't employ them.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

It isn't voodoo and in some cases it works otherwise we and other teams wouldn't employ them.

"Dallas Eakins is an NHL quality coach because he is employed by an NHL team."
"If Tyler Bozak wasn't a legitimate top-line centre, then he wouldn't be the top line centre on an NHL team."

That's a pretty circular argument. It IS voodoo because the impact is co-relative to the event itself, and is also deeply subject to interpretation: I have also noticed that the Flames play ALOT better when I have my jersey on and am tuned in to my TV, but only with a cold bottle of McEwan's in hand.

If fighting isn't hockey voodoo, then the correlation between the outcome of the event (the individual fight) and the game itself would be the same every time: you win a fight, your team wins the game.

To be sure, I don't question the fact that players, coaches and fans believe there to be some sort of impact. What I do question is the necessity of it—without the idiotic sort of fighting that is described in the attached article, players would find something else from which to draw inspiration.

*EDIT* I actually think the last line in the article sums up pretty much what I am getting at:

Originally Posted by Justin Bourne

"The fighters truly exist under their own set of rules, and it’s hard on these guys. As much as many fans would like to see these guys eliminated from the game, they do entertain, they become fan favourites, and they know their roles. Whether they’re serving a purpose for their team or not (judging by the fact that killers like these two can’t crack the NHL full-time, you be the judge), there they are, night in, night out, doing what it takes to call themselves professional hockey players."

Like I said, I suspect that fighting in hockey survives not because it serves an actual purpose that contributes to the outcome of the game, but because of how it makes people feel—whether they be players, coaches or fans.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

It isn't voodoo and in some cases it works otherwise we and other teams wouldn't employ them.

Every study into the effect of fighting on win percentage has shown it to be completely irrelevant to wins. It's been looked at ad nauseum.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Every study into the effect of fighting on win percentage has shown it to be completely irrelevant to wins. It's been looked at ad nauseum.

Every study, eh?

[Vulcan]

It served more of a purpose before they brought in the instigator rule. Now they are slowly getting rid of fighting by adding more and more caveats to the fights. The tough guys were more policemen out on the ice but now they are trying to regulate the game by cluttering it up with more rules. At one time the Euro leagues were the dirtiest around because they knew they could get away with their spears and crosschecks with at most a 2 minute penalty whereas in NA, if you ran around like that you'd soon meet your maker. Anyways, go on enjoy your boring Euro hockey. To me fighting is a part of the game. Some just take it to deeper lengths than others.

[Vulcan]

Personally Textcritic I just think you are being obtuse. If you haven't noticed that our goalies get run far less since McGrattan arrived I don't know what to tell you. To me when a goalie is able to do his job with little interference that's a plus. This goes for our skill players as well.

[Caged Great]

The goons in my opinion are necessary when you're rebuilding so other teams do not take liberties with the kids. If you look at Sven, he's already had two major concussions if I recall correctly and he might not be able to proceed much further in his career if he gets another one or two. Having McGrattan + Bollig + Wolf ++++ in the organization helps to dissuade teams from being stupid.

When we're actually competing though, we will be better off not having nearly 10 in the system.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic
^
I took the liberty of moving this discussion to its own thread, including Caged Great's last post (sorry about that), and I think we should continue there.

That's cool, after posting it I thought it should have been on the "Backburner" forum where people know who Trevor Gillies is, for better or worse.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

It served more of a purpose before they brought in the instigator rule. Now they are slowly getting rid of fighting by adding more and more caveats to the fights. The tough guys were more policemen out on the ice but now they are trying to regulate the game by cluttering it up with more rules.

I would argue that the increasing number of rules are in place because of the increasing number of pure enforcers, and by extension the higher frequency of tangential hockey fights (these are fights that occur separate from the development of the game, and are intended for inspiration of the team, or as part of the sub-component in which players fight to establish their own reputation). In my opinion, the "clutter" is not the rules, but these tangential fights themselves.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

At one time the Euro leagues were the dirtiest around because they knew they could get away with their spears and crosschecks with at most a 2 minute penalty...

This is anecdotal. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? How does one measure "dirty"?

Originally Posted by Vulcan

...whereas in NA, if you ran around like that you'd soon meet your maker.

I can agree that the presence of tough players and the threat of having to fight in retaliation for on-ice infractions once served a somewhat useful purpose. But things have changed dramatically since the seventies and eighties, and I am not convinced by anything that I watch in the game today that "policing" is all that necessary. At least not in the form into which it has evolved.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

...To me fighting is a part of the game. Some just take it to deeper lengths than others.

I am not sure what this last bit means. And I disagree that fighting needs to be "part of the game." It has remained a part of the game because fans enjoy fighting, and because players and coaches believe in the voodoo. Without proof of the correlation—and with positive proof from other hockey leagues where there is no perceptible impact in the level of danger or quality of play between the presence or absence of hockey fights, then I remain convinced that it is an unnecessary component without which the game will survive.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Personally Textcritic I just think you are being obtuse. If you haven't noticed that our goalies get run far less since McGrattan arrived I don't know what to tell you. To me when a goalie is able to do his job with little interference that's a plus. This goes for our skill players as well.

I'm "obtuse" because I haven't "noticed" the same thing that you have "noticed"?

Do you have the figures available for how much better it is for Flames goalies since the arrival of McGrattan? (I know that this is something Brian Burke mentioned in an interview, but I am afraid that I am not convinced by just his say so, nor by what you purport to have noticed).

I am a firm believer that much of what we think we see is what we expect to see, and until there is actual data to confirm the belief that what you or I have noticed corresponds to reality I will remain dubious of these sorts of anecdotal claims.

[Stanathan]

I like fighting in hockey and I never want to see it go away. I'm not going to debate it or get into an argument. I like it and I won't feel guilty about it.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Personally Textcritic I just think you are being obtuse. If you haven't noticed that our goalies get run far less since McGrattan arrived I don't know what to tell you. To me when a goalie is able to do his job with little interference that's a plus. This goes for our skill players as well.

I have a rock that keeps tigers away.

I don't see any tigers around.

Would you like to buy my rock?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

If fighting isn't hockey voodoo, then the correlation between the outcome of the event (the individual fight) and the game itself would be the same every time: you win a fight, your team wins the game.

As tired as this argument has become, I don't really want to get down on you for simply expressing (yet again) your opinion. But man, garbage like this only makes you look dumb.

[Flames89]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I have a rock that keeps tigers away.

I don't see any tigers around.

Would you like to buy my rock?

I have an electrified fence that keeps predators out.

I don't see any predators near me

Would you like to buy my fence?

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Every study, eh?

Google it, there are several articles on it on various stat sites.

[Point Blank]

This has always been kind of on my mind. I like the fighting only because it's entertaining but I do find the current culture of it to be a bit odd.
For example if I was pissed at player A because he hooked me or something, I don't see how my goon fighting the other team's goon would dissipate my frustration at player A. My understanding is fighting is supposed to help players alleviate their frustration by directly dealing with the source. But with 5 minute penalties, I suppose it's inevitable that players who can't play take that time instead of the star players.

If the team's goon wins they get a morale boost. But if the team's goon loses it's not a big deal for them either (at least it doesn't seem that way). I don't really see the point of it as it doesn't seem to swing the game one way or the other, nor do anyone regularly participate in fighting besides players hired to fight.

I dunno it never really made sense to me. I just like watching the fights anyways.

[burn_baby_burn]

Did anyone see the Flames fourth line play last season? How much room did McGratton and Westgarth have out there? Nobody wanted to go anywhere near them. They had all the room in the world and scored a few goals along the way.

Did anyone see Johnny Hockey get an illegal cheap shot from behind in Penticton? How many times is that going to happen this season to him and Bennett? Enforcers will protect these young players and allow them to do what they do best with the confidence that they won't be on the recieving end of cheap shots every game.

[Ashasx]

What? The Flames fourth line was amongst the worst in the league last season, exactly due to players like McGrattan and Westgarth.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

So basically what I'm hearing is that if you are unable to provide a hard statistic/facts on something, then it's 'hockey voodoo'?

Do you remember when Feaster iced the 2nd smallest team in the NHL? Because I do, and they weren't fond memories.

I could tell the goalies felt helpless and knew that it would continue. The next season I noticed the other team getting trounced and various Flames keeping order. Good times were had by all and we weren't riddled with injuries compared to the year prior.