Obligatory fighting in hockey debate thread #84, version 3

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Brian Burke stated that the Flames got hit less last year after the Westgarth acquisition - and having both Westgarth and McGrattan in the lineup. If true, then this is SOME evidence that these types of players help your team win (less injuries, can make better plays as you aren't getting 'hammered' all the time, etc). I would love to have this confirmed or proven wrong.

I've seen it mentioned before, and I would also love to see the data for myself.

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

When you have guys like Backlund (and I forgot whom else) stating that the team feels 2" taller...

I already agreed that this is the powerful affect of hockey voodoo that produces real, but arguably negligible results.

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I do know that players do love the fights. I still remember the quote from Titov saying how he loves it when McCarthy fought, going on how the whole team gets pumped and excited. To me, this does tell me that it does provide some sort of 'energy' to the team, or some kind of momentum lift. Every time? No idea, but like the poster above stated, it has resulted in slightly more goals.

But not necessarily more goals for the "right" team. According to the study, it is just as often when the other team fights, or their player "wins" a fight that they surrender a goal. So while there is a very slight increase in offence following a fight, there is also seemingly no way to predict nor to control this as either a positive or negative effect for one's team. In other words, the same data could be construed to mean that a fight is liable to result in more goals against for your team.

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I do think sending out a good enforcer (NOT a goon who is going to rampage and do stupid things out there) telling the other team to 'keep it clean or else' does help. I really couldn't stand Hordichuk because he would continually run guys into the boards. McGrattan gets sent out, and it changes. The Canucks followed-up with Hordichuk's physicality often it seemed. Was it just my perceptional bias? Maybe.

Which is all the more reason to commit to studying the effect of enforcers on the game, the opposing team, and his own team mates. The ONLY way to tell how much our own perceptional biases affect these sorts of anecdotal reflections is with the accumulation of lots of data that produces reliable results.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

...I do think it provides a lift, momentum, and some form of protection from 'dirty plays' somewhat. Why do I believe this? Because the players seem to believe it. If the players believe it, then I do think it gives them courage, or energy, or excitement, or whatever other emotions that help them perform. How do you measure it? Is it a good enough reason? I have no idea, but the people much closer to the game mostly feel it is important.

I have mentioned this in other threads on this topic, but I think it is likely that players, coaches and those who are closest to the game believe what they do because this is what has been claimed for decades now. When we were teenagers, we were all told that a fight was necessary to shift momentum, or to send a message. Since we were kids we have all been told that without "enforcers" patrolling the ice, the game would be more dangerous because there would be no deterrent against "dirty" play. When people are told the same thing over and over again; when they grow up hearing the same message at a formative age it becomes real. Then, when a fight does seem to create a momentum lift, or when it does seem to send a message, it will have the greatest emotional impact on the people who are closest to it, and this is liable to enforce a confirmation bias.

Furthermore, it bears mention that we are neurologically conditioned to recall certain events with higher frequency than others, and to imbue them with greater meaning. In other words, players are more prone to remember those fights that seemed to produce a tangible positive result than those fights that did not. This is why the accumulation of data is so important, and why I don't think it is just enough to accept that the players and coaches always have the best idea of what they are talking about.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'm not qualified, which is why I depend on the expertise of others who will hopefully undertake the necessary study.

Clearly, I am not alone however. As we continue to see, the questions that I am raising are being echoed by others, and there are an increasing number of studies on the matter.

Yet, you (and many others) discount REPEATEDLY those closest to the game that say what effects that a well timed fight can have on the game..... The players themselves, the coaches on the bench who know when attitude/momentum changes, and the very people that are paid vast amounts of money to cobble together teams using every single piece of information they have from their own experiences.

If they are not the experts on the game and what does and does not work, then that means there is no such thing as an expert on hockey. Period. The game is not played in labs and petrie dishes or in algorythyms on some super powerful computer. Hockey is not static. Its an always evolving game that can change from minute to minute nevermind year to year.

The only real reason there is a vocal minority that wants fighting eliminated is because there are serious injuries (both long and short term as well as possible psychological damage) that can result from them. That's a legitimate and very honorable concern. When taken into context however, its a miniscule amount of players that this occurs to when compared to the amount of fighting that occurs. No question there are some really sad stories out there, but that's no different than any walk of life nor any occupation in life.


Im not trying to single you or anyone out about this, nor do I think anyone from either viewpoint will change their mind in any significant manner. However if we are going to ignore those closest to the actual topic and look for answers from some imaginary/nebulous expert who cant know any better, then the whole discussion is moot IMO.

[nik-]

I personally can't wait for the day that fighting is gone. Losing out on legitimate fights from passion and scrums will suck, but if that's the cost of the game being held up so two useless goons can punch each other and then shake hands, so be it. Personally I don't really care about player opinion on it. They were opposed to visors and helmets too.

Such a waste of time.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yet, you (and many others) discount REPEATEDLY those closest to the game that say what effects that a well timed fight can have on the game..... The players themselves, the coaches on the bench who know when attitude/momentum changes, and the very people that are paid vast amounts of money to cobble together teams using every single piece of information they have from their own experiences.

And I have already explained precisely WHY I don't find the opinion of hockey experts in this one instance altogether very useful or convincing. Furthermore, I will repeat here that I have affirmed the short-term but somewhat negligible effect of hockey voodoo on play within a game, but do also think that it is not meaningful enough that it qualifies fighting to be an indispensable element of hockey.

Originally Posted by transplant99

If they are not the experts on the game and what does and does not work, then that means there is no such thing as an expert on hockey. Period. The game is not played in labs and petrie dishes or in algorythyms on some super powerful computer. Hockey is not static. Its an always evolving game that can change from minute to minute nevermind year to year.

This is a restatement of the same arguments made by indes above, which Street Pharmacist rightly dismissed as a copout. Regardless of how the game unfolds or why, one should be able to detect the meaningful effect of hockey fights ice they do in fact produce any meaningful effect.

Originally Posted by transplant99

The only real reason there is a vocal minority that wants fighting eliminated is because there are serious injuries (both long and short term as well as possible psychological damage) that can result from them. That's a legitimate and very honorable concern. When taken into context however, its a miniscule amount of players that this occurs to when compared to the amount of fighting that occurs. No question there are some really sad stories out there, but that's no different than any walk of life nor any occupation in life.

It is a significant reason, but not the only one. I for one don't much like hockey fights because they strike me as cliched and boring. That is a reason. Furthermore, I don't think that the small incidence of injury and long term damage is a good enough reason to just accept fighting as a part of hockey, and DO think that the danger absolutely prompts further attention and study.

Originally Posted by transplant99

Im not trying to single you or anyone out about this, nor do I think anyone from either viewpoint will change their mind in any significant manner. However if we are going to ignore those closest to the actual topic and look for answers from some imaginary/nebulous expert who cant know any better, then the whole discussion is moot IMO.

I never meant to suggest that the opinions of coaches and players should be ignored. I have said that they should be weighed as either valid or misguided based on the results of empirical evidence. Furthermore, the experts that I have in mind who can conceivably supply the necessary corroborative data are neither "nebulous" nor "imaginary." Some of them are already working on this project, and have already produced compelling results that DO suggest that the players and coaches feelings on this matter are not reflective of reality.

[CliffFletcher]

How many enforcers do the Blackhawks have? None. Bollig was the closest thing last year, and he had only 92 PIM and 6 majors. So why aren't Kane and Toews ran all the time? I imagine it's because they know how to get out of the way of hits, rather than opposing players worried that Bollig was going to punch them in the face.

How many enforcers do the Kings have? None. Kyle Clifford led the team in PIM with 81, fighting majors with 9. Did those fights really act as a deterrent to running Kopitar, Williams, and Quick?

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

How many enforcers do the Blackhawks have? None. Bollig was the closest thing last year, and he had only 92 PIM and 6 majors. So why aren't Kane and Toews ran all the time? I imagine it's because they know how to get out of the way of hits, rather than opposing players worried that Bollig was going to punch them in the face.

Adam Burish, David Koci, Ben Eager, John Scott, Jamal Mayers, Daniel Carcillo

Took a while for the Hawks to feel comfortable with Toews maturing to the player he is

[badger89]

I find it embarrassing when kids stand up and cheer a fight (along with everyone else). Is this what we should be teaching children? Personally, I'm teaching my kids to address disagreements without violence. I used to think fighting was entertaining at one point, but now I'm just embarrassed by it, especially the barbaric way fans react to it.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by badger89

I find it embarrassing when kids stand up and cheer a fight (along with everyone else). Is this what we should be teaching children? Personally, I'm teaching my kids to address disagreements without violence. I used to think fighting was entertaining at one point, but now I'm just embarrassed by it, especially the barbaric way fans react to it.

What about when two 16 year olds are punching each others faces in a WHL game? Kind of embarrassing IMO

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by badger89

I find it embarrassing when kids stand up and cheer a fight (along with everyone else). Is this what we should be teaching children? Personally, I'm teaching my kids to address disagreements without violence. I used to think fighting was entertaining at one point, but now I'm just embarrassed by it, especially the barbaric way fans react to it.

Hopefully I get seats behind you this way if a fight breaks out I'll have no one blocking my view

[badger89]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

Hopefully I get seats behind you this way if a fight breaks out I'll have no one blocking my view

Fair enough. But if it's fighting you want to see, why don't you just go watch UFC... and leave the kids at home.

[Textcritic]

Milbury says "it's time."

Considering who Mike Milbury is, and his history with the game, this seems pretty significant to me.

[Resolute 14]

I actually see no reason to treat Milbury's opinion as being any more significant than anyone else's.

It's also not the first time he's said this, nor the first time Wyshnyski has latched on to it.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Milbury says "it's time."

Considering who Mike Milbury is, and his history with the game, this seems pretty significant to me.

"Considering who Mike Milbury is", LOL.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

"Considering who Mike Milbury is", LOL.

This was not meant to suggest that Milbury himself or his opinion are anything special. Rather, the "significance" stems from his past reputation as a player.

[rohara66]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

"Considering who Mike Milbury is", LOL.

[morgin]

Wait, Calgary is loaded with fighters?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/is-this...ters-1.2046158

When newly-named Leafs general manager Brian Burke held his inaugural press conference in November 2008, he listed three qualities he expected from his team: pugnacity, testosterone and truculence.

Burke was only a few years removed from winning a Stanley Cup as manager of the Anaheim Ducks, who triumphed despite leading the league in fighting penalties. He said he could transplant Anaheim's same black-and-blue blueprint to Toronto by signing players like Colton Orr. But the Leafs never made the playoffs under his watch and he was fired in 2013.

Now Burke is the boss of the Calgary Flames, a team loaded with fighters and expected to finish near the bottom of the league standings this season.

Meanwhile, the fighting trend seems to be passing Burke by.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I actually see no reason to treat Milbury's opinion as being any more significant than anyone else's.

It's also not the first time he's said this, nor the first time Wyshnyski has latched on to it.

I never meant to suggest that his opinion is what carries any special weight, but I do find it significant that—given his history—he has become somewhat vocal about this issue.

Sorry about missing this in earlier reports; I seem to have missed or forgotten these.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This was not meant to suggest that Milbury himself or his opinion are anything special. Rather, the "significance" stems from his past reputation as a player.

s

I'll counter with Gretzky.

Having said that, The Great One, the NHL's career leading scorer, begrudgingly admitted yesterday that fighting does have a place in the sport.

The unique thing about our sport is that we play with hockey sticks that potentially can be used as weapons. This is a game that is very emotional and guys are only human. Fighting gives them an outlet to release (energy and frustrations) instead of slashing, cross checking and high sticking. "You almost never see a tough guy grab a small skilled guy and start (punching) either. There is still a code."

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL...06629-sun.html

We can go back and forth on this topic all month but I like fighting. I like that hockey is partly a game of intimidation and you need to be tough to survive. Even the little guys are tough in their own way.

[mhsyyc]

Hockey is a game of intimidation as Vulcan says. But intimidation comes in many forms. You can be physically intimidated by Big Ern sticking his mitt into your jaw. You can be physically intimidated by Lance Bouma running your face into the glass. You can be psychologically intimidated as Patrick Kane stickhandles his way around making you look like a pylon and you can be scared sh*tless by Shea Weber loading up on a slapshot that you know will be headed straight for you.

Guys like Kane and Weber take awhile to develop and they're rare. Guys like Bouma are easier to find and are numerous. Guys who fight are cheap and easy to find. That's why the exist. If you can't intimidate your opponent with skill you do it physically.