[PGT] Flames win 6-3 in Revenge Match

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Why do you need studies or stats to prove anything? If a Calgary Flame or any other NHL player says the fight changed the tide of the game, then it changed the tide of the game. It's as black and white as that. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. 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. Not everything needs to be charted or made into some statistic. Sometimes players see a fight, their teammate wins it, and something in their brains just clicks to give them that extra adrenaline push. Who cares about measuring it. It happens.

Itse's point here is that there is a big difference in what someone believes and what actually is. We are required—all of us—to form beliefs about everything every day. A great number of them align perfectly with reality, but a surprising number do not, and this is true of everyone, including NHL defensemen.

What Kris Russell believes is not necessarily the same thing as what actually happened. Russell clearly believes that Engelland's fight "changed the tide of the game." It might have, or it might not have. We can't know apart from developing a useful metric to systematically measure, analyse, and evaluate these events within a game. What Itse and others are getting at is that 1) there is not any evidence one way or the other to suggest that a fight will have any measurable impact on a hockey game. And 2) any impact that occurs in a hockey game that is attributed to a fight is inescapably an instance of unwarranted correlation without proof of causation. No one questions whether or not players believe in the affect of fighting—this is well established. There are some of us who raise legitimate questions about whether those beliefs are justified. Until there is corroborative, testable, repeatable evidence one way or the other, these remain unsubstantiated beliefs whether they belong to a player, a coach, an analyst, the Dalai Lama, or a fan.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Itse's point here is that there is a big difference in what someone believes and what actually is. We are required—all of us—to form beliefs about everything every day. A great number of them align perfectly with reality, but a surprising number do not, and this is true of everyone, including NHL defensemen.

What Kris Russell believes is not necessarily the same thing as what actually happened. Russell clearly believes that Engelland's fight "changed the tide of the game." It might have, or it might not have. We can't know apart from developing a useful metric to systematically measure, analyse, and evaluate these events within a game. What Itse and others are getting at is that 1) there is not any evidence one way or the other to suggest that a fight will have any measurable impact on a hockey game. And 2) any impact that occurs in a hockey game that is attributed to a fight is inescapably an instance of unwarranted correlation without proof of causation. No one questions whether or not players believe in the affect of fighting—this is well established. There are some of us who raise legitimate questions about whether those beliefs are justified. Until there is corroborative, testable, repeatable evidence one way or the other, these remain unsubstantiated beliefs whether they belong to a player, a coach, an analyst, the Dalai Lama, or a fan.

Actually, the only thing that matters is what Russell and rest of the Flames believe in this situation. And lets, for arguments sake say Russell's belief represents the belief of the rest of the team.

If they believe it turned the tied, it's likely because of the emotional reaction they felt to it during the game. While I agree, it doesn't mean previous fights in other games or future fights in upcoming games will have the same effect, if Russell is saying it worked the other night, it likely did. He has a pulse on what that did emotionally for the team in that moment, if it gave them momentum then it likely did, and in this case we saw the results on the ice to back it up, not only in visible play but also goals.

I'd say it's tough to argue that given the result on the ice, and the comments from Russell that in this case, the fight sparked the comeback. I agree on a holistic level, a correlation to fights and results could be made to see just how often the "fight" technique works.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Actually, the only thing that matters is what Russell and rest of the Flames believe in this situation. And lets, for arguments sake say Russell's belief represents the belief of the rest of the team.

If they believe it turned the tied, it's likely because of the emotional reaction they felt to it during the game. While I agree, it doesn't mean previous fights in other games or future fights in upcoming games will have the same effect, if Russell is saying it worked the other night, it likely did. He has a pulse on what that did emotionally for the team in that moment, if it gave them momentum then it likely did, and in this case we saw the results on the ice to back it up, not only in visible play but also goals.

I'd say it's tough to argue that given the result on the ice, and the comments from Russell that in this case, the fight sparked the comeback. I agree on a holistic level, a correlation to fights and results could be made to see just how often the "fight" technique works.

I was just about to come back and type something similar. I agree with you generally. And that is to say that I recognise the incredible power of beliefs, especially those that are formed within groups.

However, even whether we might agree that this fight had an impact on the play of the Flames that followed, this is not evidence of the positive effect of fighting in hockey. It is only evidence for the positive effect of beliefs about fighting in hockey. Even then, the studies that have been conducted show rather consistently that the usefulness of fighting in hockey is pretty negligible.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I was just about to come back and type something similar. I agree with you generally. And that is to say that I recognise the incredible power of beliefs, especially those that are formed within groups.

However, even whether we might agree that this fight had an impact on the play of the Flames that followed, this is not evidence of the positive effect of fighting in hockey. It is only evidence for the positive effect of beliefs about fighting in hockey. Even then, the studies that have been conducted show rather consistently that the usefulness of fighting in hockey is pretty negligible.

I would suggest however, that all that matters is what the players belief is, because it's what turns a fight into something meaningful. 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.

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. 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. For example, if you work in a sales environment, if you had a tool in your tool kit that when you used it, you got the sale or desired result 20% of the time........it's likely the best tool you've got and you'd rave about it's effectiveness. To use a hockey example, people are going on and on about the Flames shooting % and how un-sustainable it is. Our best shooting % on the team is what, about 20%. Would we then say that shooting a puck on net doesn't result in a goal 80% of the time, so it's not an effective thing to do in a game? Obviously not.

Understood that neither of those comparisons is perfect, as there is no "perfect" comparison. But the point is what is "good" when it comes to a success rate for a fight on ice. I'd argue, just like almost everything else in sports, it doesn't need to even have an over 50% success rate to be an effective tool.

Not to mention, that what statistic analysis of fights can't measure is just how effectively this "tool" get's used. Again, just like anything, there is an execution component that impacts its effectiveness. Pick a fight at the wrong time, with the wrong person, or don't do well in it might mean it will fail, but a well timed and executed fight might often yield results. Unfortunately, no way to every measure that properly.

[CroFlames]

Like the other posters said if Russell felt a boost or felt that it turned the tide, then it did. Guys who have been there will also attest. When you see your teammate drop the mitts, you get a boost no matter what. (Unless said teammate is just being a goon).

Whether or not that boost gives the desired result (a win) is arguable. What isn't arguable is that it gives the boys on the bench and ice a boost. This is not a perceived notion, it is a fact.

But like I said, that boost, or rally, or firing up of the team may or may not lead to the desired result of a win.

[DJones]

Jesus stats guys are arguing that mental states don't affect the game now?

Just mind numbing haha. Anyone whose played the game can tell you that a big hit or fight can completely change your mindset, make you forget about being tired or hurt.

To deny that seems hilariously ignorant.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I was just about to come back and type something similar. I agree with you generally. And that is to say that I recognise the incredible power of beliefs, especially those that are formed within groups.

However, even whether we might agree that this fight had an impact on the play of the Flames that followed, this is not evidence of the positive effect of fighting in hockey. It is only evidence for the positive effect of beliefs about fighting in hockey. Even then, the studies that have been conducted show rather consistently that the usefulness of fighting in hockey is pretty negligible.

But if the power of belief is bought into, who cares if the actual event of a fight had anything to do with the following events directly? It seems to work sometimes and many hockey types would have you believe that the effects of a well timed fight are residual and go beyond the game they take place in.

I've come off my fighting stance somewhat recently, but I do still think they're a part of hockey player's mentality, and can be effective but only if they are timed well. I don't think that a stat will ever measure the effectiveness of a fight within a game or beyond, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And also, I take people's opinions about things they've spent their entire lives doing seriously. It's not gospel, but to ignore what they say because of something being unquantifiable I feel is dismissive. When Treliving says that he brought Engelland in because of his reputation in the room, I give that credibility and we may be seeing just that down the stretch. If he can play ~18-20 a night and be quietly effective, being a standup teammate, and keeping us in the playoffs, his contract all of a sudden looks pretty reasonable.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

... 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)...To use a hockey example, people are going on and on about the Flames shooting % and how un-sustainable it is. Our best shooting % on the team is what, about 20%. Would we then say that shooting a puck on net doesn't result in a goal 80% of the time, so it's not an effective thing to do in a game? Obviously not.

This is all good. Thanks for your carefully considered and articulate response.

I understand what you are saying, and it is possibly correct. However, studies that have been conducted on the subject tend to produce results that the effect of a fight in a hockey game is entirely random. There is usually a change in momentum that follows a fight, and this has something to do with what Russell believes (like I expect all players believe) about the impact of fighting. However, the catch here is that there are always two players involved—one from each team—in every fight, and the outcome of a fight impacts each team: when there is a momentum shift, it tends to shift in one direction. The problem is that there is virtually no correlation to which direction momentum does turn. Fights are won, lost, or end in a draw, and there is virtually no perceivable, even remotely consistent pattern to what follows.

I have long been a proponent of eliminating—or at least substantially minimising fighting in hockey. I am of the opinion that it is dangerous and barbaric, and produces no quantifiable result from which to justify its continued existence. Having said that, I am also not so naïve as to not recognise that the players want it, and they believe in it. This on its own is powerful, even if the rusts of this belief are not measurable. But here is my point: even if there is a correlation between fighting and performance, it is not a necessary correlation. In other words, if there was no fighting in hockey, there would still be rallying cries and momentum swings.

As I see it, the only purpose that fighting serves in hockey today is for entertainment. I find that distasteful, and am in no way sorry to see the Flames playing a style of game this year in which fisticuffs are a rarity.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Like the other posters said if Russell felt a boost or felt that it turned the tide, then it did. Guys who have been there will also attest. When you see your teammate drop the mitts, you get a boost no matter what. (Unless said teammate is just being a goon).

Whether or not that boost gives the desired result (a win) is arguable. What isn't arguable is that it gives the boys on the bench and ice a boost. This is not a perceived notion, it is a fact.

But like I said, that boost, or rally, or firing up of the team may or may not lead to the desired result of a win.

So, what's the point of it then? I mean, if it provides a "boost" (whatever that means), but the effect of that boost is completely unpredictable, then why fight? After all, it might just as well result in a bigger "boost" for the other team, no?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DJones

Jesus stats guys are arguing that mental states don't affect the game now?

Just mind numbing haha. Anyone whose played the game can tell you that a big hit or fight can completely change your mindset, make you forget about being tired or hurt.

To deny that seems hilariously ignorant.

Read more carefully. No one is denying that.

What I and one or two others have challenged is the notion that fighting has a measurable positive impact that makes it a necessary component in today's game. In my opinion, there would be virtually no difference in the quality of play, nor in the on-ice results in the absence of fighting in hockey.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, what's the point of it then? I mean, if it provides a "boost" (whatever that means), but the effect of that boost is completely unpredictable, then why fight? After all, it might just as well result in a bigger "boost" for the other team, no?

If your team is playing without energy, getting dominated, and generally in a rut that game, then if it works against you, it really doesn't matter. Your in more or less the same place you were before the fight. If you get the boost however, it could spark a comeback that may have been more improbable before the fight occurred. As such, if the other team is willing to fight you, why not. If it works to your benefit even 10% of the time in that situation, it's probably worth doing.

The flip side is why players are generally encouraged to not fight when leading by a small margin and the team is carrying the play. Your already dominating, there's not a lot to gain by fighting, and a lot to lose if it affects the other team positively and your team negatively.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Read more carefully. No one is denying that.

What I and one or two others have challenged is the notion that fighting has a measurable positive impact that makes it a necessary component in today's game. In my opinion, there would be virtually no difference in the quality of play, nor in the on-ice results in the absence of fighting in hockey.

Well ya because the only thing that you could possibly quantify about a fight is that it happened and maybe who won. There is a 100 different variables that could go into a fight that would determine it's affect.

Just because stats don't have the capacity to understand those affects doesn't mean they're not there. Just such a logical fallacy haha.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is all good. Thanks for your carefully considered and articulate response.

I understand what you are saying, and it is possibly correct. However, studies that have been conducted on the subject tend to produce results that the effect of a fight in a hockey game is entirely random. There is usually a change in momentum that follows a fight, and this has something to do with what Russell believes (like I expect all players believe) about the impact of fighting. However, the catch here is that there are always two players involved—one from each team—in every fight, and the outcome of a fight impacts each team: when there is a momentum shift, it tends to shift in one direction. The problem is that there is virtually no correlation to which direction momentum does turn. Fights are won, lost, or end in a draw, and there is virtually no perceivable, even remotely consistent pattern to what follows.

I have long been a proponent of eliminating—or at least substantially minimising fighting in hockey. I am of the opinion that it is dangerous and barbaric, and produces no quantifiable result from which to justify its continued existence. Having said that, I am also not so naïve as to not recognise that the players want it, and they believe in it. This on its own is powerful, even if the rusts of this belief are not measurable. But here is my point: even if there is a correlation between fighting and performance, it is not a necessary correlation. In other words, if there was no fighting in hockey, there would still be rallying cries and momentum swings.

As I see it, the only purpose that fighting serves in hockey today is for entertainment. I find that distasteful, and am in no way sorry to see the Flames playing a style of game this year in which fisticuffs are a rarity.

I'll fully admit, that I enjoy the fighting in the game. I'm glad we are moving away from the staged fights, but a inprompt scuffle sparked by emotion in the game, I'm entertained. I'll also admit, my gut feel on the matter is, well timed fight by the right person does often result in a positive momentum shift for the team. That said, I will also admit that I'm far from convinced that my opinion on this is actually correct.

That said, I think the problem with all the analytics on this, and the two players involved thing is also what constitutes a "win" in a fight is different everytime, because as you articulate well, it's all about the emotional state or interpretation based on the players on the ice. To try to articulate what I mean I'll use some fake examples:

- For example, a player taking on Chara in a fight, might technically lose the fight to the big man. But if he hangs in there with him, does alright, and shows his team that we can compete with Chara and the Bruins physically, that might be the win in that fight.
- Or using an old school 04 Flames theory, when if you win your fights and against a more skilled team, maybe you show your guys we might not have the skill, but if we can beat them in the ally could give you confidence and lessen theirs.

Anyway, the point being, because fighting and technically winning a fight doesn't directly give you points on the scoreboard, all it does is impact the "mentality or emotion" on the ice for a brief time frame, what winning a fight means has very little to with actually winning it. And as you can see, isn't measurable when looking at a stat sheet. In fact it's only measureable truly by the people on the ice at that moment in time.

Which is why, no matter how hard anyone tries, you can't actually conduct a completely scientific study on the matter that is free of bias ect.... The topic is completely intangible and beyond strong measurement IMO.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Major Major

But if the power of belief is bought into, who cares if the actual event of a fight had anything to do with the following events directly? It seems to work sometimes and many hockey types would have you believe that the effects of a well timed fight are residual and go beyond the game they take place in.

Fighting is dangerous. I care because I also believe that removing fighting (or at least greatly minimising it's incidence) will result in a safer game, and also carry with it fewer harmful residual effects for players. I am also troubled by fighting in hockey on a more broadly cultural level, but that's a whole other issue.

Originally Posted by Major Major

I've come off my fighting stance somewhat recently, but I do still think they're a part of hockey player's mentality, and can be effective but only if they are timed well. I don't think that a stat will ever measure the effectiveness of a fight within a game or beyond, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

First, I have never denied the impact of fighting on a player's "mentality." I merely question the level of its effectiveness, and its overall value. Again, I believe that removing fighting from hockey would produce no change to the flow of the game or the results, but it would go a long way to improving player safey and well being. It feels like a worthwhile tradeoff.

Originally Posted by Major Major

And also, I take people's opinions about things they've spent their entire lives doing seriously. It's not gospel, but to ignore what they say because of something being unquantifiable I feel is dismissive. When Treliving says that he brought Engelland in because of his reputation in the room, I give that credibility and we may be seeing just that down the stretch. If he can play ~18-20 a night and be quietly effective, being a standup teammate, and keeping us in the playoffs, his contract all of a sudden looks pretty reasonable.

I think you are mixing up a couple of things here. First, while I agree with you about the value of expert opinions, I don't think this qualifies for a couple of reasons. Most notably, all of the cited experts don't know any differently, and are products of a deeply engrained hockey culture which is fiercely controlled by an irrationally justified belief in the necessity of fighting. So, I don't mean to be dismissive, but on the other hand, I'm also not convinced about the quality of expertise among those who have played the game, and "just know" about the value of fighting because of it.

Second, your example I think addresses the importance of an expert opinion in a viable context—in this instance with regards to character and group dynamics. But that is not the same thing as what I am getting at with regards to the serious reservations I hold for expert opinions about fighting in hockey, which are deeply affected by cultural biases.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, what's the point of it then? I mean, if it provides a "boost" (whatever that means), but the effect of that boost is completely unpredictable, then why fight? After all, it might just as well result in a bigger "boost" for the other team, no?

If a guy agrees to a fight while his team is up 2-0, he is in a no win situation. He does so out of impulsive emotion, defending his own honor, or out of respect for the other player involved. Prust did a great job of illustrating this in his player's Tribune article. If a player takes advantage of one of these reasons and has a well-timed fight (Engelland's was perfect), than he has demonstrated a hockey based skill which effected the belief of his team and changed momentum within the game.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Major Major

If a guy agrees to a fight while his team is up 2-0, he is in a no win situation. He does so out of impulsive emotion, defending his own honor, or out of respect for the other player involved. Prust did a great job of illustrating this in his player's Tribune article. If a player takes advantage of one of these reasons and has a well-timed fight (Engelland's was perfect), than he has demonstrated a hockey based skill which effected the belief of his team and changed momentum within the game.

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.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Major Major

If a guy agrees to a fight while his team is up 2-0, he is in a no win situation. He does so out of impulsive emotion, defending his own honor, or out of respect for the other player involved. Prust did a great job of illustrating this in his player's Tribune article. If a player takes advantage of one of these reasons and has a well-timed fight (Engelland's was perfect), than he has demonstrated a hockey based skill which effected the belief of his team and changed momentum within the game.

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.

[DJones]

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.

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

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

If your team is playing without energy, getting dominated, and generally in a rut that game, then if it works against you, it really doesn't matter. Your in more or less the same place you were before the fight. If you get the boost however, it could spark a comeback that may have been more improbable before the fight occurred. As such, if the other team is willing to fight you, why not. If it works to your benefit even 10% of the time in that situation, it's probably worth doing.

The flip side is why players are generally encouraged to not fight when leading by a small margin and the team is carrying the play. Your already dominating, there's not a lot to gain by fighting, and a lot to lose if it affects the other team positively and your team negatively.

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.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DJones

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

I recognise that, and I have already explained why that is. It doesn't make them right, and me wrong. It simply reflects the power of a collective belief. History has shown that when our collective beliefs are abandoned in favour of rational thinking, we tend to be better off for it. I'm willing to bet that this is another instance which would produce the same effect.