Why We Fight - Article by Brandon Prust

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Fine. When Prust said "I knew it was a late hit," I took him to mean that he knew it was a late hit when it happened. But maybe that's just me.

I don't have a problem with your interpretation of his report of the events. What I have a problem with is your insistence about his mentality or intent.

In fairness, all I said was that Prust did not state an intention to hit late. The only statements I made with certainty were directly from what Prust did say himself. Namely that he wanted to create energy, that he felt he needed to make a big hit to do so, and that he admitted he ultimately hit his opponent late.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Oh, please do follow your own advice and bring actual evidence of the two statements that you are "almost certain" about. You may be right, but lets see if you are going to back something up for once, or if this is just going to be yet another typical Tinordi self-serving drive-by.

I'm not the one constantly making the baseless claim that fighting reduces the amount of cheap shots and "rats."

Who am I driving by? Brandon Prust for making a ridiculous claim that he undermines in his own argument?

A very cursory scan would suggest that in the 70s and 80s there were far more cheap shot artists and cheap shots while also having much more fighters. They seem to correlate.

Please prove me wrong. The pro-fighting people are the ones who consistently make the argument. I'm listening, lets see the proof.

*whistle*

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

In fairness, all I said was that Prust did not state an intention to hit late. The only statements I made with certainty were directly from what Prust did say himself. Namely that he wanted to create energy, that he felt he needed to make a big hit to do so, and that he admitted he ultimately hit his opponent late.

Okay, that's fair. But I still think saillias makes a solid point about the hypocrisy in Prust's characterisation of "rats" who jeopardise player safety by their refusal to fight, while simultaneously describing an instance in which he actually seriously hurt a player as a a direct result of his inability to draw a fight.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

A very cursory scan would suggest that in the 70s and 80s there were far more cheap shot artists and cheap shots while also having much more fighters. They seem to correlate.

Another claim. Please support it with data.

Please prove me wrong. The pro-fighting people are the ones who consistently make the argument. I'm listening, lets see the proof.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong at the moment. But you are trying to prove the world wrong.

Back up your argument, Tinordi.

And remember, the plural of anecdote is not data.

[genetic_phreek]

I'm a huge advocate for having enforcers in the NHL to keep everyone honest on the ice.

It's ironic that Prust is an advocate for enforcers to prevent guys from doing the very same thing that he does. By his own admission, he'll go take runs at guys if he knows that nobody on the other team will fight him. With that being said, he is no better than a "rat".

[Huntingwhale]

That site is awesome. Definitely needs more hockey articles. Kind of off topic but I found this article by Brendan Shanahan buried in the site that's pretty cool.

http://www.theplayerstribune.com/bre...-younger-self/

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Guys, you're missing the best part. He forgot that the guy he fought in his first year, Jacques' initials were JF, not JS. If that doesn't tell you something about head injuries and enforcers, I don't know what does.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Well, I guess this hinges on an accepted definition, but it seems pretty widely accepted that a "hockey enforcer" is a player who has a single skill-set that holds his place on the team, at the expense of his inability to play the game at the NHL level. An enforcer is a player who receives ice time because he fights. An enforcer is a player who when not fighting, is virtually entirely ineffective or detrimental to his team's success.

There are fighters in the NHL who can also play the game. I don't think anyone would consider them "enforcers." While I agree that there will likely always be fighters in the game—barring an outright ban on fighting, I think it is fairly abundantly clear that the enforcer's role (according to the definition I provided above) is presently obsolete, and not likely to be reprised.

But that is not my definition of a enforcer. You don't get to define its role and the use that definition as the reason why role obsolete.

[undercoverbrother]

This is obviously a contentious topic, but I wonder if after reading this:

When I was an 18-year-old kid in the Ontario Hockey League, I had a big problem. I was a walk-on for the London Knights and I wasn’t as good as the skill players, but I also wasn’t much of a fighter. I realized that I had to add something to my game in order to stand out.
First I tried lining guys up for big hits. The problem was I’d be instantly jumped by the tough guys. After a few times of having my lunch served to me

If Prust would be in the league but for fighting.

I don't agree with fighting in the league, and I don't agree with enforcers.

One of the problems I have with the sport is the need to fight after a clean check is made.

The content of the article isn't really surprising considering that Prust would be looking for work in another industry if there wasn't fighting.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

But that is not my definition of a enforcer. You don't get to define its role and the use that definition as the reason why role obsolete.

No, I don't. Which I why I was careful to provide a definition that reflects the more widely accepted idea of what an NHL enforcer is. In virtually every discussion I see or hear on this topic, that is how the word is employed.

[CSharp]

Just brings back the glory days of the Flames and Oilers in the 80's where the Flames have Tim Hunter and later, Nick Fotiu. The Oiler have Dave Semenko and McSorley. It was like the cold war and anything can erupt at any moment. Take a run at Gretzky and a nuclear war would break out! LOL

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No, I don't. Which I why I was careful to provide a definition that reflects the more widely accepted idea of what an NHL enforcer is. In virtually every discussion I see or hear on this topic, that is how the word is employed.

No you didn't, you filled your perception of what you think is the widely accepted idea of what a NHL enforcer is and then trying to pass it off as indeed a well know fact..... it's just your perception of what an enforcer is and therefore understandable why you think it's obsolete... Since you are strongly against and biased towards the enforcer role you have created an definition that only reflects a negative outlook of the enforcer

I was watched a telecast when Denis Potvin was asked on air if he was an enforcer when he played the game and to my amazement he answered the question yes. He then went on to detail why he was and how he felt the need to protect his teammates. Now I would never call Dennis Potvin and enforcer, maybe one the the all time greats defenders, but not an enforcer... But whom am I to correct him.

You definition of an enforcer is heavily tainted and biased

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

No you didn't, you filled your perception of what you think is the widely accepted idea of what a NHL enforcer is and then trying to pass it off as indeed a well know fact..... it's just your perception of what an enforcer is and therefore understandable why you think it's obsolete... Since you are strongly against and biased towards the enforcer role you have created an definition that only reflects a negative outlook of the enforcer

I was watched a telecast when Denis Potvin was asked on air if he was an enforcer when he played the game and to my amazement he answered the question yes. He then went on to detail why he was and how he felt the need to protect his teammates. Now I would never call Dennis Potvin and enforcer, maybe one the the all time greats defenders, but not an enforcer... But whom am I to correct him.

You definition of an enforcer is heavily tainted and biased

So what then is your definition of "enforcer"? Not saying that I completely agree with TextCritic's definition either, but it's pretty close to what I (as a hockey fan) would agree with.

[troutman]

Why does CP fight?

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So what then is your definition of "enforcer"? Not saying that I completely agree with TextCritic's definition either, but it's pretty close to what I (as a hockey fan) would agree with.

The minute you throw labels on something and difine something that is always evolving then your just being arrogant.. At one time the prwerforard was the Cam neely, the player that played the power game and fought and he was the face of that term. As years passed the term power forward was often used to describe Peter Forsberg (which was nothing like (neely, Shanahan, Iggy, Clark) but yet the term power forward evolved..

The defensive specialist of years gone Gainey's, guy carbonneau so evolved to become skilled offensive forces like datsyuk and Toews

In the article stated above Prust describe himself as an enforcer, but yet is not the player that falss within TextCritic definition.

If I was to label a definition to the enforcer (which is pointless as it's an always evolving thing and by doing so I will be guilty of exactly what TextCritic as it is only my perception of what defines the term and has zero fact or absolute rule) is a player that takes it upon himself to defend his teammates on a regular bases upholding the players code. A self police of the players (themselves) without relying on the referees or league to enforce/not- enforce their safety

[crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

The minute you throw labels on something and difine something that is always evolving then your just being arrogant.. At one time the prwerforard was the Cam neely, the player that played the power game and fought and he was the face of that term. As years passed the term power forward was often used to describe Peter Forsberg (which was nothing like (neely, Shanahan, Iggy, Clark) but yet the term power forward evolved..

The defensive specialist of years gone Gainey's, guy carbonneau so evolved to become skilled offensive forces like datsyuk and Toews

In the article stated above Prust describe himself as an enforcer, but yet is not the player that falss within TextCritic definition.

If I was to label a definition to the enforcer (which is pointless as it's an always evolving thing and by doing so I will be guilty of exactly what TextCritic as it is only my perception of what defines the term and has zero fact or absolute rule) is a player that takes it upon himself to defend his teammates on a regular bases upholding the players code. A self police of the players (themselves) without relying on the referees or league to enforce/not- enforce their safety

So what's the argument about again? You wanna keep the term "enforcer" around by painting the definition with the broadest brush available? How is that important?

[Tinordi]

Interesting analysis of how having an enforcer is insignificant to reducing cheap shots.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-e...don-1442618145

I went back over the last two years and looked at every team that was on the receiving end of a hit that resulted in a suspension, fine, or match penalty (I excluded match penalties that were later rescinded by the league, as well as any fines or suspensions for other incidents, including verbal abuse, hand gestures, etc.) and looked at whether or not they had fighter in the lineup on that night.

The results were not surprising. Of the 106 incidents since the start of the 2011-12 season that resulted in some sort of supplemental discipline from the league, 54 of them involved the team on the receiving end having a fighter dressed in the lineup that particular game. Fifty-two teams did not have a fighter dressed. The rate per game with an enforcer dressed was once every 36.9 games, and without an enforcer once every 36.1 games. Hardly a huge difference one way or the other, and it doesn’t really do much to suggest that enforcers really serve as any sort of a deterrent from other players doing something dumb.

Another one:

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/20...ness-in-hockey

What I figured is that if fighting deterred naughty behavior, then teams who fought more would draw less naughty behavior penalties. The penalties which I classified as "non-obstruction penalties" were: boarding, charging, checking from behind, clipping, cross-checking, elbowing, illegal check to the head, kneeing, roughing, slashing, and spearing. Pretty much the type of behavior that could get you an invitation to eat fists from the Colton Orr's of the league if 'The Code' is to be followed. (Which it never is because there is no code.)

If it looks like you don't see a pattern, it's because there is none. I ran a correlation study between fighting majors taken and non-obstruction penalties drawn and the r^2 value came back 0.0257; non-obstruction penalties actually increased with fighting majors though there's hardly any correlation there.

Well maybe if fighting has no effect whatsoever on reducing the amount of cheap shots maybe it helps with swinging the momentum? Yeah maybe not:

If a player destroys an opposing player in a fight, it is largely accepted in the hockey world that that team will use the physical victory to motivate itself, and raise its level of play as a result.

This assumption is so common and ingrained in hockey culture that it can even be seen in NHL video games, where winning a fight provides energy to the winning team after the fight and boosts the in-game ratings for the players on that team. Of course, as with any assumption in professional sports, it is important to determine whether or not it holds up in practice. Do losing teams tend to win more fights by sending out goons to turn the tide of the game? Does winning a fight actually result in a change in the game’s “momentum” and a better result for the more successful combatant?

We can see in all four of these data sets that there is no evidence that winning a fight leads to better results in the immediate aftermath of the fight. In fact, it appears that the team winning the fight will score slightly less goals in the game than they did previously. In all four groups, the percentage of goals scored by the winning team is within 1.96 standard deviations of the percentage of its total goals scored, indicating that the results are negligible. Thus, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that winning a fight has no impact on a team’s momentum and goal differential.

Surprisingly, what we can best draw from this particular data set is the idea that teams that have a better goal differential tend to win more fights. In fact, in all of these data sets, the percentage of goals scored by the fight winner’s team by the end of the period is slightly outside the 95% confidence interval from the null hypothesis that fighting is independent of goal scoring (that the fight winner would score 50% of all goals, and the fight loser would score 50% of all goals).

https://georgetownsportsanalysis.wor...-hockey-fight/

On my larger point, the data doesn't exist to the adequate resolution to pinpoint cheap shots in the 1970s and 80s so we're left with conjecture. But just think to yourself if you watched games in the 80s, doesn't it appear as though there were more high sticks, spears, sucker punches and match penalties in the high fighting 80s than now?

Parroting this argument that fighting has some worthwhile merit to the on ice performance of a team is simply not supported by the evidence. But hey don't let the ugly facts get in the way of a beautiful theory.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by crapshoot

So what's the argument about again? You wanna keep the term "enforcer" around by painting the definition with the broadest brush available? How is that important?

No, if its a sincere question the I would suggest you go back and my initial postas its all there

I was only giving rouge an answer to his question since he did indeed ask and I don't want to dodge it as he was adding to the discussion. your response to me i doubt was as sincere but I answered regardless

how was that important?, it wasn't i was just respecting rouges question with a reply. I do wonder how yours was impoart

[crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

No, if its a sincere question the I would suggest you go back and my initial postas its all there

I was only giving rouge an answer to his question since he did indeed ask and I don't want to dodge it as he was adding to the discussion. your response to me i doubt was as sincere but I answered regardless

how was that important?, it wasn't i was just respecting rouges question with a reply. I do wonder how yours was impoart

You got me there. It wasn't.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Interesting analysis of how having an enforcer is insignificant to reducing cheap shots.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-e...don-1442618145



Another one:

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/20...ness-in-hockey



Well maybe if fighting has no effect whatsoever on reducing the amount of cheap shots maybe it helps with swinging the momentum? Yeah maybe not:



https://georgetownsportsanalysis.wor...-hockey-fight/

On my larger point, the data doesn't exist to the adequate resolution to pinpoint cheap shots in the 1970s and 80s so we're left with conjecture. But just think to yourself if you watched games in the 80s, doesn't it appear as though there were more high sticks, spears, sucker punches and match penalties in the high fighting 80s than now?

Parroting this argument that fighting has some worthwhile merit to the on ice performance of a team is simply not supported by the evidence. But hey don't let the ugly facts get in the way of a beautiful theory.

The reffing and the rules have changed since the 70s and 80s. The reffing was a lot looser and the players were allowed to enforce the level of aggression that the game was played at. With the instigator rule and the two refs calling the game much stricter, there isn't the amount of flagrant fouls. I like that there is some fighting as it's a game of aggression and intimidation as well as skill.

That there has been an increase in skilled players is eliminating the one trick enforcer but there are still skilled enforcers around and they are highly valued. That's why we have high hopes for Ferland and Wolf to make our team. For me, fighting is part of hockey and if you don't like it, go watch the SHL or basketball.