Can someone explain this to me...

[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.

 

[wr50l]

Probability of scoring a goal during a fight: 0 (because play stops, right?)

Probability of scoring a goal doing pretty much anything else that has to do with hockey that isn't archaic and lame: more than 0.

The math works. :runaway:

Correlation between lefty34's presence in a thread and one dimensional thought - strong positive.

Please forgive me for not replying to every single post anyone has ever made. Get real. I'll respond in due time

Bull effin shit. You were thanking your lucky stars that no one had called you out on ignoring that post.

 

[Ravin]

So what if they know more about the history of hockey, that does not imply ANYTHING (read: ANY-fucking-THING) about the legitimacy of fighting in hockey. None have them have done ANYTHING to show that there is a legitimate correlation between fighting and scoring goals. Just because you don't like my observations and you want so bad for their points to actually PROVE something (they don't) does not make me wrong.

Actually we have shown you time and time again. We gave you the example of Gretzky, Crosby, the Ducks and now the Flyers. Examples from four different seasons. What more do you want? You haven't made any point so far. Why is it that we need to provide stats that fighting does help goals, and you can get away without providing anything? Where is your hard evidence? You have 3-4 pure hockey fans giving you sound evidence for where it has helped in the past, and yet you, as a hockey fan just returning to the sport, are not willing to accept it. All this shows is your ignorance towards the sport. Maybe you need to brush up on your history and you will realize why the great one had so many points. That is a FACT. Not an assumption or theory.

People can talk all they want about the relationship on ice a talented star has with a goon, 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).

Thing is, as said again, we have shown their is a correlation. It isn't 100%, because some people don't need protection to score, but the 'best hockey player in history' needed protection and that is why he had so many points. You can't debate against that, it is simply fact. And if you say it isn't, then you might as well leave this hockey forum now because it is clear you know nothing of the sport and are only talking out of your ass.

Just because fighting has been a part of hockey for years does nothing to disprove its silliness in the sport today, absolutely nothing. I don't care about the "culture" of the game and all that garbage: in this modern era (and in such a contact sport) there is no place for senseless fighting, especially when you look at the game through the perspective of an owner (multi-million dollar investments, and all that).

It has always been multi-million dollar investments. It has been like that since Gretzky's day. So this idea is flawed. You play hockey, you assume the risk that a) it is a contact sport and b) because it is a contact sport, if you are a good player, you will be a target. Nothing different then someone double covering a good WR in the NFL. You are the only one saying their is no place for fighting in hockey. You, a "returned to the sport" fan, and clearly have not watched enough hockey. Where as you have hardcore hockey fans who do not want to see it removed. I am glad the NHL isn't ran by casual fans who know nothing, or the league would be ruined.

And the fact you don't care about the culture of the sport is a little off-setting. The culture of the game is the sport. If you don't care for the culture of the game, keep your mouth shut on matters that have to do with it. That would be like saying "I think the Queen should be removed from England, but I don't give a shit about English culture". Why would anyone care then what you say?

Plus with your investments, lets look at this for just a second. You go out and invest your money is something. What do you do to protect that investment? You get insurance or security. Can you remove theift from culture of society? No, you can't. So you take procations. Well these "goons" are the insurance of the team. They are brought in and paid money to protect the investment of the team. Like anything normal, that insurance is well less then the investment, but is well worth the money if it protects your investment.

The practice of fighting in hockey is archaic and stupid and should be seen as a black eye (get it?) on the game, there is no reason for it (I have read everyone's posts in this thread, and even one of the lowest common denominator fans admitted to not proving or showing any correlation) and in fact hinders a teams ability to score goals and WIN (unlike what others want to believe, there IS a correlation between fighting and penalties issued).

How does fighting stop goals from being scored. Seems to me like a lot of goals are being scored and not that many fights are happening when compared. Lets look at some stats since you care so much for it.

Last season there was a total of 1230 games played and 734 fights, averaging .60 fights per game. Of the 1230 games, 509 games had fights (41%).
Last year there was a total of 7006 goals scored. Averaging 5.7 goals per game.

So look at these stats. In 1230 games you have 7006 goals and 734 fights. I'll do the math for you since I doubt you can do it.
Goals/Fights = 9.5goals/1fight

And I will put an * beside the total fights because if you take out all the multiple game fights (21) where like 4-8 fights happen because of a massive blow out, then that number would be much smaller. So for evey ten goals scored in the NHL, there is one fight. Is that really not enough for you? This is what tells me you are a stupid and ignorant hockey fan, because no pure hockey fan wants to be seeing hockey game scores that are 9-6, 10-7, etc. We appreciate the tough battles of 2-1, 1-0, 3-2, etc.

And I am telling you this now. If you remove the "goons" from the game, then you are going to be seeing these star goal scorers going down with injuries more often then not. Because if you as a player had the chance to take out a star and knew nothing would happen to you, would you do it? Most cases you would. Thing is, there is a difference between when the league can suspend a player for and what they can't. That is where players police themselves. You didn't hit Wayne Gretzky. That is any kind of hit, no just cheap shots. He had the 'goons' to enforce that. And because of that, he scored more goals then any player in history.

 

[Ravin]

Probability of scoring a goal during a fight: 0 (because play stops, right?)

Probability of scoring a goal doing pretty much anything else that has to do with hockey that isn't archaic and lame: more than 0.

The math works. :runaway:

Probability of Wayne Gretzky scoring a goal while he is injured = 0 (because he's hurt, right?)

Probability of Wayne Gretzky scoring and leading the NHL in history because he has protection from players around him = more than 0.

Kthx.


Just thought I would add one more thing to this.

Probability of a goal being scored on an offside? - 0 (it's a stop in play right?)
Probability of a goal being scored after play resumes? - more than 0

WE NEED TO REMOVE OFFSIDES FROM HOCKEY. THEY ARE LOWERING SCORING CHANCES!
Because they are kind of pointless right. Grown men can't step over a line painted on ice. What is that about?

 

[wr50l]

WE NEED TO REMOVE OFFSIDES FROM HOCKEY. THEY ARE LOWERING SCORING CHANCES!
Because they are kind of pointless right. Grown men can't step over a line painted on ice. What is that about?

Probability of scoring while offside - 0

Yeah you're right, offsides have to go.

 

[FirstTimer]

I love how when this topic comes up you have guys like first timer come in post a couple times (obviously trolling) then just get up and leave. So fuckin useless.

Yeah God forbid I don't sit at my computer all weekend and am actually busy doing shit......

So honestly shut the fuck up.

Moving on..... All this "protecting the scorers" bull crap is backwards logic. Sure, with fighting in the game it may occur but the point is IF fighting were to be taken out and the officials and NHL levy hefty penalties, suspensions, fines, etc for cheap shots on guys like Crosby, etc then fighting would become a thing of the past for the simple fact that no moron is going to go out and take a cheap shot at another teams best player knowing that (without fighting) there would be no recourse to protect his own star player.

Plus honestly, this "body guard" bullshit is hilarious. If someone wants to take out Crosby for a game or a series with a cheap shot there's really nothing stopping them. Go ahead. Dive at his knee, take a swipe at his face. Fuck him up. He's gone and all the goons team has lost is a goon that is in no way nearly as valuable as Crosby. Is "fighting" going to heal Crosby's torn ACL or broken orbital bone after the fact? No. Mission accomplished. The Pens lose one of the 3 best players in the NHL and team X loses Mike Tyson on skates. Whoopty doo.

Take a look at a perennially good to great team like Detroit. Where do they rank on a yearly basis in fighting and penalty minutes usually? Up near the top? Nope...You know why Detroit is always one of the best teams in hockey?...because they are actually really damn good at hockey...not fighting on skates.

Oh and Leaf, just so you know. I have work and am unable to post from work so I'm not trolling and leaving I simply don't have access to VSN from work to respond to your ass backwards "pro-fighting, culture of hockey" bullshit.

Maybe I'll be on a computer where I can access VSN in a few days.

Until then...

Your team spells it's name wrong. Is poor english a long standing hockey tradition too?

 

[leaffan]

el o el.

He lives in Iowa.

We got a bunch of real winners here don't we.

 

[FirstTimer]

He lives in Iowa.

I also live in America. When was the last time a Canadian team won the Stanley Cup?

Hoser.

 

[leaffan]

I also live in America. When was the last time a Canadian team won the Stanley Cup?

Hoser.

Nice try.

 

[FirstTimer]

Nice try.

Odd, that's what teams from the south and western US have been saying to Canadian teams the last 3 times a Canadian team has made it to the Stanley Cup Finals.

 

[FirstTimer]

Around the same time Notre Dame won anything important I believe...

Hawai'i Bowl>>>> 2007 Eastern Conference Finals