Obligatory fighting in hockey debate thread #84, version 3

[Zevo]

The vast majority of players, coaches, and G.M.s think that fighting is relevant in todays game. That says more to me than any article written by a reporter, or anyone, who's never played or been involved in high level professional hockey.

[St. Pats]

Fans like fighting. It's part of the entertainment. Professional sports are about entertainment. The game is filled with sideshow elements like the dufus shootout. Where a team sport is suddenly down to a handful of playes and a goalie who don't play hockey but just do a circus act. Too much of a circus apparently as they are now clamping down on how much of a sideshow it can be.

It's about butts in the seats. Very few teams wins championships. The league is all about entertaining fans. Those that don't like fights using some sort of hockey argument to rail against it are missing the point entirely. It's professional sports!

[Redrum]

The Canucks record after the line brawl...

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by 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'?

Pretty much. Although I will say that the term "hockey voodoo" is itself a bit of an extreme, although not at all unwarranted. What is the difference between a belief in the power of prayer to effect the impact in one's life and the power of a hockey fight to change "momentum"?

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

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

Yes. But "being big" is not the same thing as "fighting."

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

I could tell the goalies felt helpless and knew that it would continue.

How could you tell?

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

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.

So, here is a great illustration of the term "hockey voodoo": "A" happened and then "B," ergo, "A" was the cause of "B."

The question of the relationship of hockey fights to the on ice outcome of games is something I am absolutely interested in. But I'm not simply content to take one's word for it. This is something that should be measurable, and until someone figures out how to do so, I will remain sceptical. Give me a convincing argument from evidence, and I will believe.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Zevo

The vast majority of players, coaches, and G.M.s think that fighting is relevant in todays game. That says more to me than any article written by a reporter, or anyone, who's never played or been involved in high level professional hockey.

Of course it does. Similarly, a substantial majority of those who engage in the practice of prayer think that it is highly effective.

Coaches and players have an intuition about the relevance and effectiveness of fighting in hockey, but like all intuitions, it may or may not accurately reflect reality. The intuition itself—even when it is held by a huge majority—does not prove the validity of the claim.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Every study, eh?

Every one I've seen (that I remember anyways).

I've seen quite a few studies that aimed to examine the effects of fighting (momentum/deterrence etc. etc.) every one of them came to the conclusion that it has effectively no impact. Scoring rates within 5 minutes of a fight (indicator of momentum)? Effectively the same as other even strength minutes, Next goal scored (indicator of momentum)? No positive corrolation, Deterrence? No corralation between fighting and lesser drawn non-obstruction/bench penalties (the stuff that would be called "cheap shots"... charging/boarding/slashing etc.).

Thus far I haven't seen anything that demonstates that fighting actually does what it's proponents claim it does to say nothing of doing to the extent that it justifies having a guy, who by virtue of actual hockey talent, wouldn't hold down a roster spot or play any minutes.

If someone is entertained by it, good for them. I'm not going to tell someone what they should be entertained by... but there just isn't an argument in favor of it from a hockey perspective.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by 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.

Very few goals were scored along the way compared to those that went on the Flames net while they were on the ice

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.

If Enforcers would stop this from happening, why did it still happen? Seems to me Corrado didn't consider it care how Smith and Kanzig felt about the hit

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

...It's about butts in the seats. Very few teams wins championships. The league is all about entertaining fans. Those that don't like fights using some sort of hockey argument to rail against it are missing the point entirely. It's professional sports!

I totally agree with most of your post, except for this part. I completely understand the point of fighting in hockey (and I pretty much said as much in my first couple of posts in this thread). However, I also happen to think that "the point" is at best juvenile, and at worst barbaric; I also believe that he game will survive without it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I totally agree with most of your post, except for this part. I completely understand the point of fighting in hockey (and I pretty much said as much in my first couple of posts in this thread). However, I also happen to think that "the point" is at best juvenile, and at worst barbaric; I also believe that he game will survive without it.

You're probably right, but unfortunately, probably not until the people that remember hockey in the 60s/70s/80s(to a lesser degree) move on.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Redrum

The Canucks record after the line brawl...

The Canucks had lost three straight and had lost 7 of their prior 10 when that happened. They were already well on their way to sucking prior to the line brawl.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Pretty much. Although I will say that the term "hockey voodoo" is itself a bit of an extreme, although not at all unwarranted. What is the difference between a belief in the power of prayer to effect the impact in one's life and the power of a hockey fight to change "momentum"?

Yes it is extreme, almost to the point of losing credibility in your argument. I'm not even going to compare real in-game events to hopeful prayers. I'm assuming you've not played a competitive team sport before if you can't fathom the difference.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yes. But "being big" is not the same thing as "fighting."

Our goalies didn't grow and they stopped getting run over somehow.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

How could you tell?

I watched the games. It's not hard to see a self-defeated look on a goalies face. Not from being scored on, but from getting run over and not even seeing a scrum around the net afterwards. It was pathetic and a time where the flames had no identity.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, here is a great illustration of the term "hockey voodoo": "A" happened and then "B," ergo, "A" was the cause of "B."

Science must scare the crap out of you. Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean you should deny it's existence when you see consistent results.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The question of the relationship of hockey fights to the on ice outcome of games is something I am absolutely interested in. But I'm not simply content to take one's word for it. This is something that should be measurable, and until someone figures out how to do so, I will remain sceptical. Give me a convincing argument from evidence, and I will believe.

See above (any post really).

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Very few goals were scored along the way compared to those that went on the Flames net while they were on the ice



If Enforcers would stop this from happening, why did it still happen? Seems to me Corrado didn't consider it care how Smith and Kanzig felt about the hit

Well for one, you are assuming Corrado is a smart man, which he most certainly is not. He also got ejected from the game afterwards, so good luck retaliating in the dressing room.

Of course this kind of stuff happens regardless, as the game is played at a very quick pace. The enforcers are there to make the opposition think twice before making a play, it doesn't mean they give a magic aura of invincibility to their teammates.

There will always be rigged statistics to work in your favor, just like how the Oiler's prove how amazing their players are using warped advanced stats.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Well for one, you are assuming Corrado is a smart man, which he most certainly is not. He also got ejected from the game afterwards, so good luck retaliating in the dressing room.

Of course this kind of stuff happens regardless, as the game is played at a very quick pace. The enforcers are there to make the opposition think twice before making a play, it doesn't mean they give a magic aura of invincibility to their teammates.

There will always be rigged statistics to work in your favor, just like how the Oiler's prove how amazing their players are using warped advanced stats.

So I guess I'm asking where the proof is that enforcers protect anyone.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

...Our goalies didn't grow and they stopped getting run over somehow.

Can you quantify the difference? I watched the same games and I can't recall this being the case. It would be fantastic if you could provide some actual figures to demonstrate the overwhelming difference between the "pre-McGrattan" and the "post-McGrattan" period.

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

I watched the games. It's not hard to see a self-defeated look on a goalies face. Not from being scored on, but from getting run over and not even seeing a scrum around the net afterwards. It was pathetic and a time where the flames had no identity.

So, you can not only identify and interpret "self-defeat" from a goalie's facial features alone while he is amid game action, you can also determine that the source of said feelings was the constant abuse suffered by Flames' goalies as a result of being constantly run over. It would be fantastic if you could show me some "pre-McGrattan" and "post-McGrattan" period photos of these clearly identifiable features, so that I can also see what to look for in the future.

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Science must scare the crap out of you. Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean you should deny it's existence when you see consistent results.

Yes. how unscientific of me to base my conclusions on quantifiable data and externally sourced compendiums of evidence. Please elaborate further on these "consistent results" of which you speak.

To turn this around (in part, because I am dying to know how you might define "science"), should we alternatively accept everything that we intuit to be true as accurate in the absence of any proof?

Eagerly awaiting your definition of "science"...

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

So I guess I'm asking where the proof is that enforcers protect anyone.

It's pretty simple. Players believe that enforcers protect them, ipso facto.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Redrum

The Canucks record after the line brawl...

In fairness, the Canucks record immediately preceding the brawl was terrible too.

But the Flames side of that is interesting.

Prior to the brawl game, we were 16-26-6 .396 (and we had only three wins in the previous 15 games)
After the brawl game, we were 19-14-0 .576
(We, of course, lost the game itself in a shootout)

Following the season, that brawl was described by players and media as a galvanizing force for the team.

Coincidence? Don't think so. Nor do I discount the comments made by many players in appreciation of McGrattan where they said his presence helped them play bigger, or feel like they were given more space to play. These are all anecdotes, and the plural of anecdote is not "data", but in a sport where pyschology is important, if the players feel that a McGrattan doing what he does gives them an edge, it probably does.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Following the season, that brawl was described by players and media as a galvanizing force for the team.

Coincidence? Don't think so. Nor do I discount the comments made by many players in appreciation of McGrattan where they said his presence helped them play bigger, or feel like they were given more space to play. These are all anecdotes, and the plural of anecdote is not "data", but in a sport where pyschology is important, if the players feel that a McGrattan doing what he does gives them an edge, it probably does.

This is a good post, and I completely agree with you. I have already asserted that the presence of enforcers on a hockey team produces a powerful psychological effect, and that there seems to be a possible correlation between how players play (sometimes) and an in-game fight. But I also contend that it ends there. I suspect that the actual results are not significant enough to posit that fighting is an essential component of success in hockey, and that the removal of what I have identified as "tangential fighting" from the game will not have any negative effect.

*EDIT*
Maybe another way to think about the impact of fighting in hockey is as a placebo.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Every one I've seen (that I remember anyways).

I've seen quite a few studies that aimed to examine the effects of fighting (momentum/deterrence etc. etc.) every one of them came to the conclusion that it has effectively no impact. Scoring rates within 5 minutes of a fight (indicator of momentum)? Effectively the same as other even strength minutes, Next goal scored (indicator of momentum)? No positive corrolation, Deterrence? No corralation between fighting and lesser drawn non-obstruction/bench penalties (the stuff that would be called "cheap shots"... charging/boarding/slashing etc.).

Thus far I haven't seen anything that demonstates that fighting actually does what it's proponents claim it does to say nothing of doing to the extent that it justifies having a guy, who by virtue of actual hockey talent, wouldn't hold down a roster spot or play any minutes.

If someone is entertained by it, good for them. I'm not going to tell someone what they should be entertained by... but there just isn't an argument in favor of it from a hockey perspective.

To the first bold, that is the wrong conclusion to draw.

The studies attempt to find a correlation between a fight and a tangible result afterwards. They didn't. That doesn't mean that it had no impact, it simply means that they didn't see a correlation with the 'impact' that was tested.

The more plausible conclusion is that they have been unable to determine what the impact is, not that there is no impact.

As for the prior argument using Eakins (being a bad coach) to refute the argument that teams continue to utilize them, therefore they must have value...

Eakins is an individual example and one failed coach does not disprove that NHL coaches are worthy of being NHL coaches. It is not a valid example. The primary difference is the ongoing use, by multiple (most) teams.

Where the goal is winning and there are extremely limited resources to deploy in the pursuit of said goal, it speaks volumes that teams continue to deploy fairly significant resources in this way.

[Street Pharmacist]

"Science" and "data" show various things that point to fighting not really having an effect on winning.

One can argue for spontaneous fights, that the mere presence of a fighter instills something in a team, or that some "quality" of a fight matters as that hasn't been proven or disproven. For example, I would posit that McGrattan has had a beneficial effect on the team site to character irrespective of fighting.

However, it's clear that fighting itself doesn't equal winning. The number of fights a team has over the past twelve years (excluding last year as that wasn't included in the research) has a very slightly negative correlation with winning. The team with the most fights is not more likely to win more games. There's no correlation at all except for a very tenuous negative one.

Also, the team that has either been 29th or 30th in fighting majors for twelve straight years is also the winningest. That's either an astounding coincidence or forget proof. Your guess


Here's the link:

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...umbers-say-no/




Also, having a goon doesn't seem to prevent and man games lost due to injury. Admittedly, this is a weak bit of data, but it at least adds something more than opinion and innuendo to the debate

Link:

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...umbers-say-no/




People can talk about how a goon can help a team, but at this point it's all opinion. There was also a majority opinion that goalie masks would hinder a goalies performance or that helmets would lead to more reckless behaviour on the ice. Sorry, but I'm not buying an unsupported opinion by any "hockey guy" regardless of how decorated he may be

[undercoverbrother]

I don't support fighting in hockey, and I wish Brian McGratton wasn't such a great guy.