Obligatory fighting in hockey debate thread #84, version 3

[Enoch Root]

I think everyone agrees that a big save would help towards winning.

However, if you attempt to correlate future results with a save made (or pretty much any other aspect of a game other than goals) you will find no correlation with winning.

Conclusion: nothing in a game has any impact (other than goals)

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

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

I struggle with this as well. But I think to add a wrinkle to the argument about McGrattan's value to the team, do players get a psychological boost from his on-ice presence because he is a tough enforcer, or is the effect also tied to the fact that he is a very popular player?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I think everyone agrees that a big save would help towards winning.

However, if you attempt to correlate future results with a save made (or pretty much any other aspect of a game other than goals) you will find no correlation with winning.

Conclusion: nothing in a game has any impact (other than goals)

Is that the right way to frame the question? I think that shots, hits, saves all make a perceptible difference to the outcome by their occurrence v. non-occurrence in a much stronger sense than fighting:

· If a goalie fails to make a save he surrenders a goal.
· If a player loses a fight, what is the assured outcome?
· If a player does not engage in a fight, what is the assured outcome?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Is that the right way to frame the question? I think that shots, hits, saves all make a perceptible difference to the outcome by their occurrence v. non-occurrence in a much stronger sense than fighting:

· If a goalie fails to make a save he surrenders a goal.
· If a player loses a fight, what is the assured outcome?
· If a player does not engage in a fight, what is the assured outcome?

This is a different event.

I quoted a save, and by extension, a hit, or a good defensive play - or a fight. A goal clearly has an impact on the outcome. None of these other things can be demonstrated to have a clear impact on outcome (via a measurable correlation with a goal or a win).

Yet I think everyone would agree that they do affect the game. Certainly a save does. As would a good defensive play.

My argument was that, just because you can't demonstrate a clear, measurable correlation with winning, doesn't mean they don't have an impact.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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.

Rather than reply to your typical counter arguments and waste hours of my day going over old video footage of what I as a dedicated flames fan witnessed, I'll just reply to this.

If you believe this bolded statement, than the opposing team must also have a negative psychological effect. If McGrattan's teammates are getting a confidence boost then there must be a reason for it. These are experienced NHL players who are playing the game, not talking about it.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yet I think everyone would agree that they do affect the game. Certainly a save does. As would a good defensive play.

My argument was that, just because you can't demonstrate a clear, measurable correlation with winning, doesn't mean they don't have an impact.

I think the proper argument is that a great save doesn't effect the game any more then stopping a 90 foot floater.

They are both one save and the goalie who makes more wins the game. As much as a big save night boost the team, someone could take a high sticking penalty in the next minute and they get scored on anyway. Hockey is so random.

Look at how many times a team wins a game against the grain of play. It happens all the time. Catching a break has such a big impact on hockey that I can't see how momentum can have any real importance.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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.

Placebo is a poor analogy because it refers to the effectiveness of positive psychology on medicinal processes. This is a contentious issue, and while there are studies out there that say that mentality can contribute to physiological health, it's pretty wishy washy stuff.

Mentality in sports, however, is one of the biggest contributor towards success. Of that, there is no doubt.

So you want to take it out with the argument being that if you take it away from all teams, there won't be any impact on player's psychology on the ice because fighting is in the past, right?

Maybe... Maybe, but I'm not sure that you respect the psychology of sport enough in your argument. I partly think this because you started your argument by saying that fighting is voodoo magic or that it doesn't have any inspirational effect. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how psychology in sports works. Saying a good fight does or does not lead to a goal is a red herring. Psychology in sports is much more about fear and fearlessness.

You conceded that the Flames players do play 'bigger' with Big Ern and his cronies. Anyone can see that if they watched the Flames last year. They play with less fear, and therefore it is a psychological advantage to have a goon on the ice. Logic would dictate that if it alleviates fear from one side, it strikes it into the other. You can't come up with stats for this, and you can come up with dirty hits against the Flames with Mcgratten in the lineup, no doubt, but the Flames were feared after the Vancouver game. The Flames are feared when they have a guy in the lineup who no one in the NHL can spar with.

Does that fear = less dirty hits attempted or a more tentative nature from the other team? I sure think so, but again, you can't take fear and plot it on a graph... yet.

It makes sense though. And it also makes sense that if the fear is taken away, that it would manifest itself in more dirty hockey. So taking fighting away, while keeping everyone on one psychological plane, could allow for players to take advantage and try to inflect fear onto their opponent from the fear of being policed by playing enforcers to the fear of volatile and cheap players ruling the day. Players and coaches would recognize this fear as a powerful weapon to wield, and all other teams would be forced to do so to keep up.

Perhaps the league would regulate this through new rules and stiffer punishments, but it would take years.

Maybe you're right though and taking away fighting would result in a more gentlemanly league, letting the refs deal with unintentional cheap shots and try to beat them on the scoreboard, etc. but I doubt it and I certainly haven't heard any argument from anti-fighting crowd that would sway me from the status quo.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I struggle with this as well. But I think to add a wrinkle to the argument about McGrattan's value to the team, do players get a psychological boost from his on-ice presence because he is a tough enforcer, or is the effect also tied to the fact that he is a very popular player?

If you have an enforcer on your team who isn't popular, you're doing it wrong.

[heep223]

Honestly I feel bad for these guys, knowing that you have to fight (and who you're going to fight) every game would suck.

Big Ern though, what a beauty, he at least gets decent icetime.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

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

Careful, he might punch your face in. Then probably buy you a beer. Then maybe punch your face in again.

[Yrebmi]

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.

Fired up fans are relevant to wins. A fight excites the fans.
Like a big hit, a fight is a potentially momentum changing event.

IMO a good scrap can also reinforce team bonding and confidence.


Edit~ Quick Google search turns up a couple references to a Appleby study finding that NHL fighting can result in 0.1 goal increase or even 0.2 if strategically timed. The gain is of questionable worth seeing as both teams would assumedly gain the same momentum swing. I would provide a link except one reference is Oilers Nation and the other Jets.

Edit 2 ~ NHL stats shows starting a fight sure way to change momentum

This might be the last thing fans and critics on one side of the longest-running debate in hockey want to hear, especially in light of the rising number of concussions:
Fighting works.
The first-of-its-kind statistical analysis of the sport confirms the dirty little secret coaches and players have known since the dawn of the NHL. There's no more readily available, sure-fire way to shift the momentum of a game than to send a player out to start a fight.

[EldrickOnIce]

I thought this article/analysis summed up McGratton and his role on the Flames accurately
http://flamesnation.ca/2014/5/14/muc...rian-mcgrattan

That translates into a 2-7-2 record for the team when McGrattan fought. Expanding the face-punching analysis to the whole team, they fought 32 times (middle-of-the-pack for the league) and the club went 5-17-3 when a Flame player fought. Now, before we go out and claim correlation is causation, remember - oftentimes a fighter fights because the team's playing like hot garbage and needs a lift.

McGratton is a great teammate and a really good guy. I think he is a valuable member of the Flames, at this point in time - but teams that win do not employ guys like this as 4th line regulars.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Major Major

...So you want to take it out with the argument being that if you take it away from all teams, there won't be any impact on player's psychology on the ice because fighting is in the past, right?

No, not really. I would choose to remove tangential fighting from hockey because I don't enjoy it and I find it barbaric. Of course, I also recognise that I am in the vast minority, and that most hockey fans are entertained by hockey fights. Fighting in hockey is relevant and meaningful insofar as hockey is an entertainment business. Fine.

However, I take issue with those who wish to argue that tangential fighting in hockey contributes positively to protecting players, and to the longterm success of a team on the ice. This is an argument that emerged from intuition, and survives on a confirmation bias that has never been effectively empirically demonstrated. My argument is that it makes not such positive contributions, and that the elimination of tangential fighting would have no negative implications beyond the loss of its entertainment value.

Originally Posted by Major Major

Maybe... Maybe, but I'm not sure that you respect the psychology of sport enough in your argument. I partly think this because you started your argument by saying that fighting is voodoo magic or that it doesn't have any inspirational effect.

This is the precise opposite of what I was saying. I defined "hockey voodoo" as an event that is not directly connected to the in-game action on the ice, but that is believed to have a positive effect on the outcome of the game. In this respect, hockey voodoo is very much like real voodoo, which also depends on unrelated actions/events to have effect one's hopes.

Originally Posted by Major Major

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how psychology in sports works. Saying a good fight does or does not lead to a goal is a red herring. Psychology in sports is much more about fear and fearlessness.

Much like actual voodoo, which is also about empowerment.

Originally Posted by Major Major

You conceded that the Flames players do play 'bigger' with Big Ern and his cronies. Anyone can see that if they watched the Flames last year. They play with less fear, and therefore it is a psychological advantage to have a goon on the ice.

"Anyone" can see this effect? I have conceded that players and fans believe they play "bigger" in McGrattan's presence, but I remain highly dubious about declarations concerning players thoughts or feelings as they pertain to the outcome of the game. In my opinion—and this is an opinion that follows from scientific studies on the subject—our own powers of perception and our intuitions are extremely poor adjudicators of real cause and effect.

Originally Posted by Major Major

Logic would dictate that if it alleviates fear from one side, it strikes it into the other. You can't come up with stats for this, and you can come up with dirty hits against the Flames with Mcgratten in the lineup, no doubt, but the Flames were feared after the Vancouver game. The Flames are feared when they have a guy in the lineup who no one in the NHL can spar with.

The first sentence is a non-sequitur. And everything that follows is merely your interpretation of events that have been formed by your expectations. You have made claims about the psychological effect that McGrattan's presence has on players from rival teams, but how do you demonstrate this? I recognise that this is what you believe, but I'm afraid that is just not a good enough explanation for me to accept.

Originally Posted by Major Major

Does that fear = less dirty hits attempted or a more tentative nature from the other team? I sure think so, but again, you can't take fear and plot it on a graph... yet.

Well, there are actually empirical methods to measure levels of fear (pupil dilation, heart rate, pilomotor reflex, etc.), but that is besides the point. I would beg to differ by countering with the point that there ARE things that we CAN measure which would indicate either a positive, negative, or null effect of fighting in hockey, or the presence of an enforcer in the lineup relative to the outcome of a game or the success of a team. A handful of posters have already mentioned some of these data, and the results so far DO NOT seem to support what you are attempting to argue.

*EDIT* Now Yrebmi has linked to an article about studies that claim there is a clear relationship between a hockey fight and game "momentum" which is measured by an increase in offensive zone events for one or both teams. This is a fairly empirical confirmation of the psychological impact which then results in a temporary lift. However, the long term benefits of this to any team from this study seem to be pretty negligible, and I think that it still does not do much of anything to support the notion that there is any real value in fighting beyond the entertainment it provides for some of its viewers.

Originally Posted by Major Major

It makes sense though. And it also makes sense that if the fear is taken away, that it would manifest itself in more dirty hockey. So taking fighting away, while keeping everyone on one psychological plane, could allow for players to take advantage and try to inflect fear onto their opponent from the fear of being policed by playing enforcers to the fear of volatile and cheap players ruling the day. Players and coaches would recognize this fear as a powerful weapon to wield, and all other teams would be forced to do so to keep up.

I don't think this makes any sense at all, actually. Moreover, in light of what you claim about the absence of fighting in hockey, why not produce evidence for the detrimental effects in those hockey leagues where fighting is prohibited?

Originally Posted by Major Major

Maybe you're right though and taking away fighting would result in a more gentlemanly league, letting the refs deal with unintentional cheap shots and try to beat them on the scoreboard, etc. but I doubt it and I certainly haven't heard any argument from anti-fighting crowd that would sway me from the status quo.

Well, I don't think that the removal of tangential fighting from hockey would result in more "gentlemanly" play. I rather think that it will have almost no impact beyond the fact that there will be no more staged hockey fights. And this is certainly an outcome that I could live with.

[jemjey]

"hockey voodoo": an event that is not directly connected to the in-game action on the ice, but that is believed to have a positive effect on the outcome of the game.

"outcomes" of a game:
-win/lose
-injuries/suspensions?
-streak? ("momentum")
-locker room? ("chemistry")
-in the media? (good or bad)

Personally, i don't really think your definition of hockey voodoo works for fights. They happen on the ice, during the game. To say they have no effect on the players, coaches or fans seems forced. whether or not we can measure their effect is another matter. Your definition seems more suited to something like crowd involvement. Which brings up another point: fan involvement isn't directly connected to the on-ice action, but is believed (and empirically proven see: home win%) to have a positive effect on the outcome of the game.

Second, I think you run into trouble when you try to establish a clear, one-directional cause-effect relationship on something with a complex set of influences, like hockey. Sure, the explicit outcome of the game (win/loss) is only directly affected by goals, but there is an inter-connected and interactive web of influences/effects at play. an outcome such as a win or loss might be an influence for a fight in another game; the fans might influence a penalty call or vice-versa and so on. bi-causality my friend.

Basically what I'm saying is clearly a fight=/=win but to say that they have no influence on the game? I very much doubt that.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I thought this article/analysis summed up McGratton and his role on the Flames accurately
http://flamesnation.ca/2014/5/14/muc...rian-mcgrattan

McGratton is a great teammate and a really good guy. I think he is a valuable member of the Flames, at this point in time - but teams that win do not employ guys like this as 4th line regulars.

You're right, and when we're ready to contend, I have a feeling Brian McGrattan's role (or whoever happens to be the heavyweight by then) will be greatly reduced/nonexistent.

But by that point, your third and fourth lines should be full of big tough characters that can also take a regular shift.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

"Anyone" can see this effect? I have conceded that players and fans believe they play "bigger" in McGrattan's presence, but I remain highly dubious about declarations concerning players thoughts or feelings as they pertain to the outcome of the game. In my opinion—and this is an opinion that follows from scientific studies on the subject—our own powers of perception and our intuitions are extremely poor adjudicators of real cause and effect.

I'll only quote the one since I think our disagreement hinges directly on this. You concede that players believe they play bigger with good enforcers on the team, but you don't think this has anything to do with performance. As someone who has spent time working with high performance athletes, this is CRAZY to me. This flies in the face of absolutely every single scrap of research that is being done in the field of sports psychology. I'm not quite sure what science your opinions are following.

Just observationally and strictly as a spectator, watching sports my whole life, I can tell you that intimidation and fear has a massive impact on athletic performance. Look into Berbick's eyes before the bell rings and Tyson is unleashed upon him. Look at any golfer that had to tee it up in the final pairing on Sunday against Tiger in the early 2000's. Look at the Flyers against the Red Army in 76.

You have no idea what will happen if we took fighting out of hockey, and neither do I, but at least my assumptions are based on consensus theories in sports psychology. You have just said it's voodoo, quoted the bible, and presumed that nothing would happen if we just take out something that has a direct effect on both the psychology and physicality of a sport. It doesn't work that way.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Major Major

I'll only quote the one since I think our disagreement hinges directly on this. You concede that players believe they play bigger with good enforcers on the team, but you don't think this has anything to do with performance. As someone who has spent time working with high performance athletes, this is CRAZY to me. This flies in the face of absolutely every single scrap of research that is being done in the field of sports psychology. I'm not quite sure what science your opinions are following.

Just observationally and strictly as a spectator, watching sports my whole life, I can tell you that intimidation and fear has a massive impact on athletic performance. Look into Berbick's eyes before the bell rings and Tyson is unleashed upon him. Look at any golfer that had to tee it up in the final pairing on Sunday against Tiger in the early 2000's. Look at the Flyers against the Red Army in 76.

You have no idea what will happen if we took fighting out of hockey, and neither do I, but at least my assumptions are based on consensus theories in sports psychology. You have just said it's voodoo, quoted the bible, and presumed that nothing would happen if we just take out something that has a direct effect on both the psychology and physicality of a sport. It doesn't work that way.

It also doesn't work to just say "well it does" and "consensus". Neither of those are proof. You say there's studies. Where? All the ones I could find showed no effect

I don't doubt that intimidation had an effect on some levels of sport, but I don't see it happening in hockey. Is Cooke too intimidated by Chara to wreck Savard's career? Why aren't teams without goons worse off? Why is the team with the least or second least number of fights one if the best teams in recent memory?

[delayedreflex]

Originally Posted by Major Major

I'll only quote the one since I think our disagreement hinges directly on this. You concede that players believe they play bigger with good enforcers on the team, but you don't think this has anything to do with performance. As someone who has spent time working with high performance athletes, this is CRAZY to me. This flies in the face of absolutely every single scrap of research that is being done in the field of sports psychology. I'm not quite sure what science your opinions are following.

Just observationally and strictly as a spectator, watching sports my whole life, I can tell you that intimidation and fear has a massive impact on athletic performance. Look into Berbick's eyes before the bell rings and Tyson is unleashed upon him. Look at any golfer that had to tee it up in the final pairing on Sunday against Tiger in the early 2000's. Look at the Flyers against the Red Army in 76.

You have no idea what will happen if we took fighting out of hockey, and neither do I, but at least my assumptions are based on consensus theories in sports psychology. You have just said it's voodoo, quoted the bible, and presumed that nothing would happen if we just take out something that has a direct effect on both the psychology and physicality of a sport. It doesn't work that way.

The thing is, do most players on other teams actually fear enforcers? How often do enforcers actually fight non-enforcers? How often will the enforcers actually get a chance to enact retribution against the specific player who made a dirty play against their team? It happens sometimes, but it seems more common to me for the enforcers to just beat on each other.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Major Major

You have no idea what will happen if we took fighting out of hockey, and neither do I

There is no fighting in international hockey.
Or college hockey.
It is being removed from junior a hockey

I think we can get an idea from that

[combustiblefuel]

I would say fighting has an outcome.

Look at Vancouver last year. After the line brawl. 10 games with out your head coach. It even extended I believe to no contact with them even in practice . That's a huge difference .

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

There is no fighting in international hockey.
Or college hockey.
It is being removed from junior a hockey

I think we can get an idea from that

Yup the least looked at sport in each aspect. We should follow them . Hockey will flurish

More people attend track meets then hockey in college.