Can someone explain this to me...

[killgod]

dude is never gonna understand it.

it can't make the connection and hardly knows the sport. sports should be simplified to the point where if you aren't trying to score then what you are doing shouldn't be part of the game.

[leaffan]

Yes, you did post statistics, but they in no way proved anything about the correlation between "enforcers" or "bodyguards" and the increase/decrease in time on ice, penalty minutes or goals scored. Like I said, there are probably many other things that went into Crosby's stats (and had more of an impact on said stats) than what you are trying to prove.

Here's what you are saying, in a nutshell:

Crosby's stats were X in his first year

Crosby's stats increased (or got better) in the next three years

Jarkko Ruutu was signed by the Penguins in 2006

Conclusion: Ruutu allowed for the increase in Crosby's stats

That is a huge leap in logic on your part, and the stats you provided do not prove any point of your conclusion, other than Crosby's stats did increase, or get better.

I wasn't saying anything like that at all. Please read my post.

I stated in the first year crosby was brought in he had over 100pims and his TOI was fairly low.

I'm pretty sure we can agree the more time on ice means more chances to score.

Once Ruutu was brought in his TOI was brought up. Hell if the first year Ruutu was brought in Crosby had 120 points and missed a couple games whereas the year before he he had 102 points and over 100pims. His plus/minus was shit. Mainly because his ass was in the box for so many goals against.

Yzerman had Probert
Gretzky usually always had someone watching over him.

The only people that break this rule are guys like Ovechkin, Ignla, Lecavalier who tend to stand up for themselves. But even then Ovey has Brashear watching him.

[killgod]

Fine then, what is the minimum number of hockey games one must watch or attend before any point or observation they make about the game of hockey is considered legitimate. This "doesn't know the game and culture" crap is so utterly stupid it shouldn't even be responded to. Give me a break.

You've never played the sport at any legitmate level correct?

You live in a country that overall has zero respect or care for the sport, correct?

You just started a passing interest in something you haven't paid attention to in years, correct?

You are a bigger idiot that I first figured if you can't realize why what I'm saying isn't utterly stupid and that you are a whack ass peice of shit that doesn't deserve to be answered any longer.

You are someone inexperienced who's asking the questions in the first place, then disputing with people who would be much more qualified to understand the answer to which you are seeking.

Seriously, you just said I don't know the game and culture of hockey yet I can dispute someone who does when I ask for advice on hockey?

You are american, your argument is invalid. Stop wasting people's fucking time if you're going to act like that.


Ignore listed. I'll let Ravin and Leaf argue with you until the end of time since they enjoy doing that so much.

[wr50l]

The question was more rhetorical than anything, as it is absolutely stupid to have multi-million dollar investments in a business such as the NHL throwing down on the ice when doing so does not help your team score goals, and may in fact hinder that quest in the form of penalties, injuries etc.

This is a rarity, there are few exceptions. The only superstar players who regularly fight are the ones who are renowned for being tough as nails anyway. The multi-million dollar investments are the players being protected by the fights. Of course this idea is archaic, to you. I would challenge you to come up with one of these multi-million dollar investments who has been injured fighting. You may bring up someone such as Milan Lucic or Ryan Getzlaf, but should take note that many of these guys are multi-million dollar investments partly because of their intimidating presence. The skill players such as Malkin and Ovechkin get injured either by legal check or hockey play, or rarely by an illegal play such as as a slash or roughing. Be under no illusion that these illegal plays would not be more common without fighting.

It should also be considered that the NHL is a multi-million dollar business, and fighting is a part of its success. Why change something that works? Purely to please the naysayers who can't accept the phenomenal sport of hockey as it is ... no thanks.

[Ravin]

Lefty so you know, the Gretzky thing is a widely suggested thing among hockey fans. Because of the enforcers he had, people didn't touch him. That is a fact. Sorry I don't have a stat to show you on that because there isn't one, but most serious hockey fans know that is the case with Wayne. You didn't touch him because if you did, you were going to get beat. Now because of that, Wayne had so much time to himself. There is a reason behind the net is called his "office" because he would go behind the net and sit there and wait and wait till something happened. No one would go around and touch him because they just knew "you do not hit Wayne Gretzky".

As I said, I can't provide you a stat for all this because there is no way I could. But using logic, one would figure had he been hammered all the time, and roughed up as badly as any other player, he wouldn't have had nearly as many points as he would have. That is just something hockey fans know. Leaf and killgod will probably agree with this because it is a generally accepted theory among hockey fans and broadcasters.

The Crosby example is a new example of it. Crosby is basically the next Gretzky in terms of marketing value and you just do not touch him. In the first season EVERYONE went after him and as leaf pointed out, his TOI was low and PIM was high for a star first line centre. But now with guys like Letang, Orpik, Talbot, Kennedy, and so on, he and Malkin both have protection from getting ran over all the time.

Do I think every fight in the NHL is ok? No, some of them are pointless and worthless to have. But they are entertainment and apart of the game. Any person who has played hockey seriously in the past knows of the code of conduct on the ice.

Let me give you a real life example. Leaf and myself. When we played hockey on the same team, we generally were on the same line. Out of us two, I normally had more goals and points then he did. And yes, you could say it was "older brother looking out for the younger brother" but it is also an enforcer, looking out for a goal scorer. It basically got known that if you hit #8, #7 was going to be right behind you. So here you see a real life example of the value of the enforcer. If players were just allowed to teeoff on me all game, what value do I have as a player anymore? I'm a goal scorer, and if I can't score goals, what is the point of me being on the ice? Put someone out there to protect me, and I get more chances because yeah, players do take a second guess before hitting certain guys. Granted this is minor hockey, but the premise is still the exact same.

[leaffan]

There's a lot of typing in this thread.

[leaffan]

BTW lefty please do not use the NBA as an example of a league that "elimates cheap shots".

Its basketball. Give me a break.

[Ravin]

Please, these teams (and the players that make up these teams) are investments toward some end-goal, and more often than not that goal is the Stanley Cup. How does one win the Cup? Well the most common route is WINNING, and specifically winning by scoring more goals than the other team. There are no points awarded to "enforcers" or "bodyguards" be they multi-million dollar superstars or guys making the league minimum.

For the love of god, do you even both to read the thread.

How does one win the Stanley Cup? Win a lot of games.
How does one win a lot of games? Score a lot of goals.
How does one score a lot of goals? By protecting the players that score.

Again, I use the Wayne Gretzky example. He played during the Oilers dynasty years. You know, those same years we talked about a number of times where he wasn't touched because of those big bad "enforces" on the team. I am not going to say they are the very reason they won all those cups, but one cannot be so naive as to say they didn't have some kind of an impact.

Here is an example. I love watch this video and it shows 100% what the enforcer can do. I give you Brooks Orpik. (yes I am a biased pens fan here)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXsk_qZTvLo"]YouTube - Brooks Orpik hits in stanley cup finals game 3[/ame]

Look how lively that crowd just got from all those crushing hits. Blast that stupid goon for hitting all those players and charging the crowd and giving them energy. Because we all know when at home, you don't want your crowd to be in a frenzy.

So basically to sum this up, I think you really need to just take a better look at the game. In fact, maybe sports in general. Sure, it is simplest form, sports is nothing more then who can get the most points. But anyway will tell you in every sport there is so much more to that. Granted no other sport has fighting in it, except lacrose, but I assure you, more hockey fans are ok with a fight in a game, then those who are not. And as can be seen here, you are in the complete minority of those who think it should be removed.

[Ravin]

First off, how is a professional sport eliminating cheap-shots in their respective sport not an affirmation of how the same is more than possible in the NHL?

Secondly, the NBA has had its fair share of the "enforcer" types, just like hockey. Is it the same sport? No. Is it of the same physicality? Of course not. But that does not preclude the example of the NBA cleaning up its sport from being a window as to how it is possible for the NHL to do the same.

I think the NBA is a terrible example to use, because hockey is a full contact sport. Basketball is not a contact sport. Football is a contact sport, but the thing with football is, I would argue that because of the stop-start design of the game, it basically does not allow for things such as what happens in a hockey fight. A play happens, tempers may flair up a little. But then they have to get back into formation and be ready for the next play. Plus since we talk about scoring, I would argue that a 15yrd unsportsmanlike in football is probably worse then a 2min penalty in hockey. Players don't take 'cheapshots' in football because it will cost their team 15yrds or so, depending on the call. Where as in hockey, two guys will fight it out and take 5minutes each because it helps boost the energy on the team.

[wr50l]

Please, these teams (and the players that make up these teams) are investments toward some end-goal, and more often than not that goal is the Stanley Cup. How does one win the Cup? Well the most common route is WINNING, and specifically winning by scoring more goals than the other team. There are no points awarded to "enforcers" or "bodyguards" be they multi-million dollar superstars or guys making the league minimum.

Anaheim Ducks 2006-7 Stanley Cup champions, notorious for being tough. With star players who you don't mess with (Getzlaf, Pronger and Perry) and other lesser skilled players (Beauchemin, Moen, Kunitz, Parros) all happy to drop the gloves. If ever there is an example of a goon team this was it, and they won the Cup. Try as you might to deny the physicality of that team as a reason for their victory, everyone who watched knows that team won because their opposition were more timid around them than anyone else.

By this I assume you mean fighting being a guilty pleasure of sorts for fans, which I agree with.

Fighting is in part a guilty pleasure, but it is not window dressing. It serves a real purpose, much to your chagrin.

Because it is archaic and stupid, to say the least. There are many other professional sports I can point you to in which the culture (at some point in time) created something that "works", but intelligent people realized that the satus quo was quite...well, stupid, and needed changing.

All the intelligent people support fighting. Every old school coach, every new school coach. Every GM, every player. Every colour commentator, every play by play commentator. Every knowledgeable fan, every dumbass fan. The only people against fighting are hockey moms, and people who fail miserably at grasping the nature of the game. Fighting is not stupid, thus it should not be changed.

Hockey IS a phenomenal sport, one that requires great hand-eye coordination, fast reflexes and athleticism to boot....fighting does nothing to highlight those attributes, or effect the means they are meant to accomplish: SCORING GOALS.

Fighting does effect the ability of the goal scorers to score goals. It's not fact, it's conventional wisdom, and I along with millions of others believe it. You cannot ask me to prove it, because I will just ask you to do the same in reverse. Which you cannot do either.

Please, that is an easy cop-out. There are plenty of ways the NHL could eliminate fighting, and even cheap-shots, without sacrificing the amount of points scored or games attended/viewed significantly.

You're aiming to turn one of the hardest most physical sporting leagues I can think of into a game for pussies. How is it that leagues such as the NFL have done such a great job - in muddying the waters of the rule book, creating inequalities between positions and creating an incredibly thin line between great legal hit and terrible 15 yard penalty. Fighting in hockey is not a sideshow, it is not unnecessary, it is efficient at controlling tempers and limiting injuries.

[Spidey]

In the words of Barney Stinson...

Lefty, not only are you wrong, but you are belligerently sticking to your guns and ... Lefty, you are an American!


Seriously dude, these guys who clearly know the game 10000000000x more than you do have laid about about every explanation possible and you just ignore the point. It's one thing to not like fighting in hockey, thats fine. But to not acknowledge why its there and to not acknowledge these guys points and make your self look retarded in the process is not.

Give it up dude. You don't have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. Its clear you aren't here to actually debate this. Give it up and go talk about a sport you know even a fragment about.

[Ravin]

More people come to the games to see the fights than stay away because of them.






I made that up.

I forget where I heard that before, probably on TSN. But yeah, that basically sums it up. I don't know a single person who will say "I am not watching hockey because of the fighting." Hell even my mom watches games, goes to junior games where there is tons of fighting and she doesn't give a shit.

[wr50l]

or a team full of "goons" that won the Stanley Cup, but none of that has done anything to prove or even hint at a correlation between fighting and something significant like goal scoring. I don't know how you can infer correlation between two things when clearly there is none (or it hasn't been showed).

The aim is to score goals, the better team scores the most goals, teams assert themselves as better through various tactics, such as intimidation in the case of the successful Anaheim Ducks. Thus there is a "correlation" (I hate using this word because hockey is not mathematics and should not be judged as so)

Another example of this toughness to win games would be the current Philadelphia Flyers. The Flyers have toughness through their superstars (Richards, Carter, Pronger) and their lesser players (Hartnell, Carcillo) this is perhaps even more important as two of their top skill players (Briere and Gagne) are both made of glass and French Canadian, therefore without the element of toughness throughout the team these two would be injured even more often.


The simple fact of the matter is this. You're the one with the outlandish views, you're the one who has to ...

actually PROVE something

You can start with ...

there is no reason for it

Be sure to point out correlations now, we want scientific statistics, because following your mantra that's the only way you can possibly judge a subjective thought.

[wr50l]

Why fighting permitted to a certain degree in hockey and not in baseball, football, and basketball? The first, and most abvious answer is they are all different games.

Hockey is the only one of the four where the play can continue for than a couple of minutes. In fact, there are many instances through out a season where a game goes 5-8 minutes - in PLAYING time - between stoppages. Baseball is much more of a plodding game, with each play lasting a few seconds at most. Same goes with football, there's a stoppage in play every 5-10 seconds. Play in basketball can be sustained much longer, but there is more interruptions in game play than there is in hockey. This difference between hockey and the other three is MAJOR because in hockey momentum, emotion, and energy have a chance to build more. Some times that emotion and energy results in a fight. In the other three sports this is not as much of a factor.

In baseball it is seen as a legitimate tactic to throw inside at a batter, and to even some times intentionally hit a bitter with a pitch - why is this allowed? Shouldn't this be banned? I mean, surely some one is going to be crippled or killed some day due to a beaning in the head / face. Yet, the culture of baseball still permits this.

Same goes with hard a slide where a base runner swerves out of the base path and slides with his cleats in the air to try and disrupt a fielder - why is this allowed? In many case the base runner isn't even making an attempt to make a play on the bag, and is instead trying to disrupt the fielder. Regardless, spiking some one in the shins, or throwing a ball at their body intentionally, seems far more viscous and cowardly than dropping your gloves and throwing your fists at a willing combatant.

Same goes with football, some of the hits and blind side blocks are viscous, border line savage - when you think about it - and in some cases down right cowardly. Yet, in many instances, they are seen as perfectly legal football plays. Further, if football was more like rugby, where play can continue unabated for more than a few seconds, and the players weren't wearing massive head protection and face masks, I guarantee there would be more fighting - like there is in rugby. Therefore, equipment is a factor also.

Also consider hockey is the only one of the four where EVERY player is carrying a piece of equipment that could be used as a weapon - a stick. That is another factor, because many athletes first instinct in the heat of the battle is to strike out an opponent - in hockey this is a legit concern, and more of an issue, because each player is actually armed with a potential weapon - this is not the case in the other three sports. In many ways, they are fundamentally different.

I could go on, and may add more later, but hopefully this info will give some insight as to why comparing basketball, football, and baseball to hockey isn't as simple as saying - "fightings not allowed in baseball - why should it be in hockey!?!?"

Also, this post if any deserves a response. Failure to do so is just further evidence that you're out of your depth.

[Spidey]

This is like arguing witha 5 year old. Prove it? They have laid out stats that back up their argument. They laid out widely held belief that is not only believed amongst fans but also most hockey players. What more could you want.

Why don't we try this. You PROVE that there is no correlation between fighting and scoring. When you come up with something (read: SOME-fucking-THING) whether it be stats or insight from hockey players, maybe someone in this thread will take you as something more than moron who is so far out of his element its amusing. I hate to break it to you but no one is going to be dumb enough to buy into the opinion of someone who clearly doesn't understand hockey. PROVE it. Back up your statements.