[PGT] Flames win 6-3 in Revenge Match

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DJones

And it's not completely unpredictable at all. It's just a subjective thing. Sometimes your team can win the fight but it can be completely detrimental. If they made a dirty play or hurt a guy or took a stupid penalty the win is meaningless.

Ugh at this rate in ten years each team is going to assigned a heart and endurance rating out of 100 to try to make the stats appear closer to reality.

Like go watch the UFC and tell me that the intangibles don't matter. Hockey is a physical sport and anyone that doesn't think that confidence and mindset is important is living in a fairy tale.

There are lots of physical sports which do not tolerate fighting.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DJones

The vast majority of fans as well as hockey players disagree with you.

What part of my response would you say that you disagree with?

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

What part of my response would you say that you disagree with?

That you aren't convinced that it is essential. I've actually never met a hardcore fan(well whatever someone who posts on a forum like this is) that didn't like fighting haha. I thought that was to appeal to a wider audience.

I've been in fights and I've had teammates that fight and I love it. I'm a big believer in the placebo and confidence effect so someone saying fighting has no tangible effect is mind boggling to me.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

If a player who is actually on the ice and plays the game says it made a difference, then it just bloody does. I'll take Kris Russell's word over internet stats any day. There's nothing to debate really.

You might try calming down and reading what I wrote. It might answer your questions.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I understand and accept that, thanks. And yes, I do tend to think that England's fight the other night worked out in the Flames favour. It certainly feels like it did.

I find that more recently I am framing the questions differently. It's less about whether or not a fight can impact a game—there do seem to be instances in which it does. My question is much more with regards to the necessity of fighting in hockey; with measuring its value against the consequences.

The title of Prust's article was "Why we fight." He answered it with a string of clichés that we have been hearing for a couple of decades now, but the whole piece, in my opinion, missed the point.

The title should have been "Should we fight?" And the answer to that question is only if it is necessary. Is it necessary in hockey? I am convinced that it is not.

I didn't read the article, but what types of cliches? Like the stuff we heard from the Flames after the game about the "boost" or "feeling" it gave the team?

If you're looking for something to define that in statistics, it just won't show up, probably ever. The same reason we can't quantify love or hate, you can't quantify the affect one person or event has on another person emotionally. The only way you could get close to this is to have each player fill out a psych survey after each shift.

I think the thing that a lot of the stats miss (not just with fighting but overall) is that most sports are highly emotional, especially those where you and/or your teammates are putting their physical well-being on the line. The emotions of one player can completely swing a game in the favor (or vice versa) of the team. Why does it seem like stupid penalties get scored against more than effort-based penalties, or those that save goals? Why does a guy like Iginla have a reputation that says "don't piss him off, he'll take the game over"?

Now you could lay out stats that show that (numbers from my butt) Iginla scores in 20% of the games in which he fights, and use that to say that it obviously doesn't affect him because he scores in 30-40% of games anyways. Maybe it has a negative impact? But what this doesn't tell you is what exactly DOES get Iginla going? Maybe a fight doesn't boost him but a fight against a certain player, or in a certain rink gets him more jacked than others. What pisses off Iginla to the point that he impacts the game?

All players react differently to different things, and these emotional factors (IMO) can have the greatest impact on the overall game. The Flames comebacks are a perfect example. They have put in the minds of not just themselves, but the opponents as well, that they can and will come back. You can throw as many Adv Stats at it as you want, but you won't be able to quantify that psychological impact, which undeniably exists.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Of course, all of this is valid only within a culture in which fighting is not merely tolerated, it is encouraged. That is the bit that troubles me.

Why do you think that someone fighting someone else has to be encouraged rather than accepted to have this affect. Even if it is grudgingly tolerated by players, it would still help the team that is down, by dragging down the players on the other team as they look on with disappointment.

Until frustration stops being a thing, highly competitive people will take it out in physically violent ways. A frustrated, highly competitive CEO might beat a punching bag or yell at a subordinate, while a carpenter may throw a hammer, and a hockey player will fight or 2 hand slash someone.

I think it's completely unrealistic to expect competitive behavior including the incidental violence that results to disappear, and I'm not sure that society, business, or hockey would be better if it did.

[dammage79]

Here's what I believe when it comes to fighting in hockey.
It has a tangible effect in a game or on a teams psyche.

The one and only point I will make on how it can effect a teams fortunes long term is "The Brawl" last season against Vancouver. Anyone who did not see the foundation being solidified for this team long term from that incident is turning a blind eye to help their opinion.

That bonded the team, gave us what we are seeing today in some part.

I hope fighting in hockey stays. Much to the chagrin of the anti-fighting lobbyists.

[handgroen]

in the red corner!!
Calgarypuck
in the blue corner!!
textcritic

reading you address and respond (rationally and politely) to multiple points by multiple posters reminds me of those wrestling matches, where one wrestler fights 6 or 7 little people. Which i also think ought to be a part of our game and by extension, our heritage.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Why do you think that someone fighting someone else has to be encouraged rather than accepted to have this affect. Even if it is grudgingly tolerated by players, it would still help the team that is down, by dragging down the players on the other team as they look on with disappointment.

Until frustration stops being a thing, highly competitive people will take it out in physically violent ways. A frustrated, highly competitive CEO might beat a punching bag or yell at a subordinate, while a carpenter may throw a hammer, and a hockey player will fight or 2 hand slash someone.

I think it's completely unrealistic to expect competitive behavior including the incidental violence that results to disappear, and I'm not sure that society, business, or hockey would be better if it did.

Preposterous. As already pointed out:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

There are lots of physical sports which do not tolerate fighting.

It is rubbish to think that competitive hockey could not thrive in the absence of fighting.

[Robbob]

I see fighting similar to home advantage. Big plays and hits feed the crowd and the teams feed off the crowd. As mentioned there really is metric or value you can put to it as it is a emotional or psychological value.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Here's what I believe when it comes to fighting in hockey.
It has a tangible effect in a game or on a teams psyche.

I agree.

Originally Posted by dammage79

The one and only point I will make on how it can effect a teams fortunes long term is "The Brawl" last season against Vancouver. Anyone who did not see the foundation being solidified for this team long term from that incident is turning a blind eye to help their opinion.

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. Sometimes, that belief is so strong that it can have long term effects on behaviour, or induce other beliefs.

Originally Posted by dammage79

That bonded the team, gave us what we are seeing today in some part.

Possibly. But I am willing to bet that with or without "The Brawl" this team is likely still in a playoff position today.

Originally Posted by dammage79

I hope fighting in hockey stays. Much to the chagrin of the anti-fighting lobbyists.

Of course, but this is not because of how badly hockey needs fighting so much as it is about how it entertains you.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by handgroen

in the red corner!!
Calgarypuck
in the blue corner!!
textcritic

reading you address and respond (rationally and politely) to multiple points by multiple posters reminds me of those wrestling matches, where one wrestler fights 6 or 7 little people. Which i also think ought to be a part of our game and by extension, our heritage.

Im giving him a pass because he is in Norway. Having been to Norway many many times visiting relatives. I found their veiws towards any sort of aggression is highly shunned.

[dammage79]

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.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Im giving him a pass because he is in Norway. Having been to Norway many many times visiting relatives. I found their veiws towards any sort of aggression is highly shunned.

I'm not Norwegian. I'm Canadian, have lived my entire life in Canada (minus a brief stint in New Zealand), and only happen to have been working in Norway for the last couple of years.

For the record, I used to love fighting in hockey. I once believed that it was an indispensable element of the game—practically sacred. I have since changed my mind rather dramatically.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'm not Norwegian. I'm Canadian, have lived my entire life in Canada (minus a brief stint in New Zealand), and only happen to have been working in Norway for the last couple of years.

For the record, I used to love fighting in hockey. I once believed that it was an indispensable element of the game—practically sacred. I have since changed my mind rather dramatically.

I didn't say your Norwegian. I said you in Norway. Your just assimilating.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by dammage79

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.

It is the precise definition of a confirmation bias. It's impossible to know the long term effect of something like that, it's impossible to measure, and all we have to go on are our own intuitions. That is precisely what a confirmation bias is—an intuitive cause and effect connection between events that validate one's pre-existing beliefs.

Nevertheless, I am more interested in your conviction here: are you really prepared to say that there is no other possible explanation for the Flames' success today? If so, how so? I'm afraid I am just not convinced, even by your use of a word like "undoubtedly."

Originally Posted by dammage79

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.

I've never denied that. (Only I would add that fighting is the only such event that has no direct impact on the flow or outcome of a game. Unlike a big goal or a save, if the fight doesn't happen, there is no change in the score). But yes, fighting induces an emotional response from players. What I have been arguing is that it is unnecessary. Fighting is dangerous. It's effect is not indispensable. It's absence will have no impact on the game. Fans will miss it (for a time), but in my opinion that is a small price to pay for the potential gains provided to players' overall well being.

Originally Posted by dammage79

But to disregard fighting as one piece to a puzzle in this sport is a bias towards your personal preferences.

You're right. I don't like fighting. And I have not once "disregarded" its potential to seemingly impact a game. What I have consistently argued is that it is unnecessary.

Originally Posted by dammage79

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.

I have no idea what this means.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

I didn't say your Norwegian. I said you in Norway. Your just assimilating.

There is probably some truth to that (although I would deny that my time in Europe has induced my feelings on the subject. I was well on my way to believing as I do long before I arrived here).

Norwegians and other Europeans whom I have met, and many of whom love hockey do not understand the Canadian and American fascination with fighting. I find myself apologetic, and even a little collectively embarrassed in my attempts to explain why players feel they must fight, and why it is so popular.

[Madrox]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Why does a guy like Iginla have a reputation that says "don't piss him off, he'll take the game over"?

Now you could lay out stats that show that (numbers from my butt) Iginla scores in 20% of the games in which he fights, and use that to say that it obviously doesn't affect him because he scores in 30-40% of games anyways. Maybe it has a negative impact? But what this doesn't tell you is what exactly DOES get Iginla going? Maybe a fight doesn't boost him but a fight against a certain player, or in a certain rink gets him more jacked than others. What pisses off Iginla to the point that he impacts the game?

Just as an aside, I was curious, so I went and pulled up game logs going back to 2000 (as far as they were available) and pulled together Iggy's stats when he fights and when he doesn't. I made the assumption that 5 or more PIM in one game signified a fight, and there were 53 games out of the 979 I pulled that qualified. In games in which he fought, he scored at a rate of .509 G/G, .943 P/G. In games in which he didn't, he scored at a rate of .470 G/G, and .980 P/G.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

There is no arguing, that there is 0 correlation between fighting and scoring a goal (obviously) because you can't score while fighting, but the belief or the creation of another emotional state for the team is all that matters when a fight occurs.

The above makes no sense.

I think the problem with the analysis of trying to correlate the effectiveness or lack of in fighting on a game, is there is no base line for what "good" is.

Actually sports is a rare place where we have completely universally accepted measurements for "good". Such as goals and wins. This is why sports analytics is so popular, it's so black and white.

The anti fighting crowd will look at some stats and say, less than half the time (for example), when a team that's down fights, it doesn't spark a comeback. To them that proves fighting and results are not correlated.

I would suggest however, regardless of where you sit on the fence of this debate, that, that is false logic. Fighting is a tool in a team or a players tool kit of things they can use to influence the game (supposedly). Let's say for a second that a correlation could be made that said, 20% of the time when a fight occurs, the team mounts a comeback (fake stat, don't know the actuals). Anti fighting crowd will go, 80% of the time it doesn't work, fighting doesn't impact. Like I said, in my opinion that's flawed logic.

What you are saying here is the rough equivalent of claiming that calculators are not good for discovering the sum of two numbers.

Studying these kinds of phenomenons is essentially what statistical analysis was developed for. If fights worked in the way you described, statistics would probably show it. Statistics should not only tell us that the correlation exists, but it also put some kind of a number on how common the connection is.


Also, again, I'm not arguing that fights never have an effect on games. Arguing against that is arguing against a straw man. I'm just saying that
1) they very probably don't ALWAYS rally the troops, or even close to that
2) it seems IMO likely that fights very, very rarely actually have an effect on games.


It's also worth noting that nobody is asking for anything even resembling definite proof. What people are asking is some evidence beyond the anecdotal that there's a possibility this phenomenon exists. This is an extremely low bar to set. It's like asking "could you show me the car before I buy it" and getting "no that's impossible, but trust me it exists" for an answer. Should be understandable that such an answer creates some scepticism.

(What I mean by "low bar" is that a statistical correlation doesn't actually prove cause and effect, it just implies that a connection might exist. Even if fights and comeback wins DID correlate, this might just be because both comeback wins and fights are often caused by teams being pissed off about being down in a game.)

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I for one enjoy the odd fight, but from an argument perspective, it seems like Itse and Textcritic are kicking butt in this discussion (figuratively, of course). If there was a correlation between fighting and winning, it would surely be noted. And as described above, correlation does not mean causation.