Penalties Drawn and Taken Analysis of the 2009-10 New Jersey Devils
A little over a week and a half ago, I wrote about the New Jersey Devils power play and offered some suggestions on what they can do to improve it. While their overall success rate looked pretty good, the numbers underneath told a different tale. I think it's fair to say that the Devils' miserable 4-for-32 postseason performance hammered home the point that special teams can be a crucial component of success.
However, I briefly touched on a point that I didn't highlight among areas where the Devils can improve: drawing penalties.
The Devils finished 26th in power play opportunities with 273 and tied for 21st with Atlanta with only 51 power play goals scored.
In retrospect, I should have brought up a suggestion to draw more calls. I don't think it's an issue of Devils need to just get more PPs and they'll be OK there. The playoffs proved that to be incorrect. Still, the Devils weren't strong on the power play in both the regular season and playoffs, and they'll still need to improve in various aspects in how they're set up and how the players approach the power play. Though. as far as the playoffs go, as Capitals fans and statisticians will tell you, bad things happen to good teams and a cold streak is one of those things.
Nevertheless, getting some more calls certainly wouldn't hurt. Fortunately, for you and I, Behind the Net actually compiles these numbers at the even strength level. The even strength situation is the most important since a majority of each game is played at 5-on-5 hockey and, of course, drawing a call there would lead to a power play. Plus, determining who took the most penalties at this level can help identify which Devil needs to work on his discipline and further help out the penalty kill. Let's take a closer look at the New Jersey Devils' penalties drawn and taken from the 2009-10 season and see if there's anyone on the market who could help out in this regard.
Introductory Notes
As a quick note, when you see a penalty "taken," I believe this is referring to a player who took a penalty drawn by someone else. It's not the same as the player taking any kind of call - as I understand it, this counts penalties they were forced to take by an opposing player. A penalty "drawn" happens when the opposing player is forced to take a penalty by said player. If I have this wrong, I will make the appropriate corrections to my observations.
Again, all numbers are from Behind the Net's Penalties and Drawn Taken module - here's the link for the whole NHL and click here for the New Jersey Devils' numbers. They are all from the 2009-10 season; I'm not including the playoffs due to it's smaller population size (where randomness really can have a strong effect). Besides, I think decisions for 2010-11 should be made with the season's performance in mind, knowing how well a player performed over a far larger population size of games.
The Top Penalty Drawers on the 2009-10 Devils
Here are the top 10 New Jersey Devils in terms of number of penalties drawn in 5-on-5 hockey. Of all 217 penalties drawn, these contributed 150 of them - 69.1% of all drawn penalties on the team.

By the way, Ilya Kovalchuk is grayed out because Behind the Net doesn't split up numbers for players who were traded. If you must have the tenth guy be a full-time Devil, it's Jamie Langenbrunner who took 13 and drew 9 calls.
Zach Parise clearly leads the way on the team and it should surprise no one who's seen him play. His constant motion on the ice along his tendency to take the puck down low and to the net often forces opposition players to impede him via infraction. Incidentally, in terms of number of penalties drawn, Parise finished third in the league behind The Actor, Daniel Carcillo (42) and Dustin Brown (46). Parise's not just good at drawing calls, he's exceptional.
I don't know what's more surprising, that Vladimir Zharkov drew 15 calls while only taking 1, that two defensemen made this list, or that Mike Mottau is one of those defensemen.
Honestly, I don't think going by number of drawn penalties alone makes someone the best at drawing calls. For example, Mike Mottau and David Clarkson both drew 11 penalties but got goaded into taking more penalties. Looking at the league as a whole, Alexander Burrows did well to draw 32 calls but undercut himself by taking 37. How can one say he benefits the Canucks in this aspect of the game; as he's ninth in drawing calls, but first in taking calls? On the whole, I don't think he does from a penalty standpoint.
With that in mind, I took the numbers at Behind the Net and calculated a drawn/taken ratio for the Devils. The best drawers of penalties should be the ones who don't necessarily take calls, in my opinion. Here are the top ten Devils from this past season by drawn/taken ratio:

By ratio, your best penalty drawer really is Vladimir Zharkov. And why not? Drawing 15 calls and only taking one largely on a fourth line role is impressive. It's even more impressive that his ratio of 15 is the highest among all 717 NHL players in 2009-10 who have taken at least one penalty (#2 is Milan Michalek with 13 drawn and 1 taken) Yes, Zharkov leads the league in an advanced stat. I'm sure his agent has already printed this out upon reading this. His speed, work ethic, and mindset on the ice, I think, have contributed to such a high ratio. He had a knack for catching his opposition off base be it on the rush, in the corners, or along the boards - regardless of their relative quality of competition. Again, I must emphasize that he needs to work on his shot because if he improves there, then he's got a great shot at enjoying a long NHL career.
In fact, there are a number of fourth liners on this list: Dean McAmmond, Jay Pandolfo, and Pierre-Luc Letourneau-Leblond all move up here and show some worth in terms of drawing calls over taking them. You'd like to see a little more, but for players who haven't seen a whole lot of ice time, it definitely helps on the back end when the opposition may be resting their top defenders.
And Parise still stands out. In fact, looking at the whole league, Parise is 11th in the drawn/taken ratio among players who have drawn at least 20 calls. Incidentally, who's first in the league? Pavel Datsyuk with a 9.67 ratio (29 drawn, 3 taken) - further proof that Datsyuk is an amazing player.
If Andy Greene needs another feather to stick into his cap for his 2009-10 season, then he should check out this chart. Drawing 10 calls as a defensemen while only taking four is pretty impressive by itself. It's exceptional among his peers. Only Paul Martin (4 drawn, 1 taken, 21 games), Tyson Strachan (3 drawn, 1 taken, 8 games), and Andrej Sekera (8 drawn, 3 taken, 48 games) had higher drawn/taken ratios than Greene among defensemen and they didn't play nearly as much as Greene.
Yes, Kovalchuk is still on this list, Cory Murphy is pushed up quite high and Paul Martin's shortened season comes in second. If you ignore those three, then add Dainius Zubrus (see the first chart for his numbers), Colin White (took 7, drew 8, ratio of 1.143), Travis Zajac (see first chart - he's the only regular who's even) as the next Devils on the list.
Knowing this, I would suggest that Devils on the top 6 who aren't high up on this chart Zajac, Patrik Elias, Jamie Langenbrunner, and Dainius Zubrus take a look not just at Parise but also Zharkov to see what they do to draw calls. Is it just by being quick? Is it just by imposing themselves in positions that draw opposing players to do something dumb? I'm not saying that they all have to be penalty drawing machines, but an improvement by even a few penalties. Bottom six players like David Clarkson, Leblond, Rod Pelley, and any incoming rookies would also benefit from examining this phenomenon further.
The Top Penalty Takers on the 2009-10 Devils
The above established who was the best at drawing penalties on the 2009-10 Devils. Who are the worst? Who's been getting the Devils into trouble by being forced to make an infraction? Here are the "leaders" in the number of penalties taken:

Oh, Bryce Salvador. 20 penalties puts you in a big tie for 17th in the NHL among defensemen in terms of taking calls. Leading the team here is definitely not desirable. Given that Salvador isn't fast in his own zone combined with his physical style, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised he leads this list. I am a bit disappointed. You may say the same goes for Mottau, but he isn't physical or slow as Salvador. He just made a few too many dumb errors and got caught behind a few too many times, it seems. Both need to improve their discipline.
I'm also quite disappointed in some of the other names on this list. 5 of the top 6 forwards are on this list! Given that Parise draws so many more calls, I'm not so unhappy about him. Yet, I'd like to know why in the world Jamie Langenbrunner, Dainius Zubrus, and Patrik Elias are so high up here? OK, Zubrus is usually seen along the boards and he could be caught with an infraction in the fracas. Any explanations for Langenbrunner and Elias? I don't have any that come to mind.
David Clarkson and Rob Niedermayer should also spend their summers understanding the rulebook. If Clarkson is supposed to be a pest, then shouldn't he be drawing more calls than taking them? Sure, he's gritty and physical, but definitely to a fault from this standpoint. Niedermayer's ratio is miserable. As a checking center, I can see why some penalties have to be taken at times, but this is just poor. I hope his replacement will be more disciplined or at least better at not getting caught.
By the way, Salmela is grayed out because he's played in both New Jersey and Atlanta. If you need to know who 11th place is, it's Mark Fraser with a head-shaking 8 taken calls with only 1 drawn. You'll see him in this chart, the worst drawn/taken ratio by Devils who have at least drew one call in 2009-10.

Again, Skoula and Salmela are grayed out so if you must know who the next regular Devils are on this list, it's Davis Clarkson (see above chart) and Rod Pelley (5 drawn, 6 taken).
Mark Fraser being first on this list clearly shows that one of the areas he can improve upon for his second season of NHL hockey is discipline. I'm not expecting a defensive defenseman like him to draw too many calls, but he can stand to avoid taking some. His limited ice time makes that ratio even worse, in my opinion.
We have an Ilkka Pikkarainen and a Matthew Corrente sighting, but the most of the main offenders on the list are from the other chart. This tells me that Bryce Salvador, David Clarkson, Jamie Langenbrunner, Patrik Elias, David Clarkson, and Mark Fraser all need to work on their game. Not just in terms of discipline and controlling emotions, but also in their positioning and decision making so they aren't in the position where they have to take a penalty
As for Mike Mottau, Rob Niedermayer, and Martin Skoula, well, if they're not re-signed, the Devils will improve in this regard. Provided that the organization should be sure that their replacements aren't prone to taking calls.
By the way, there were five Devils with a drawn/taken ratio of zero (meaning: they drew no calls at even strength) and one with an undefined ratio (one taken, none drawn) Most were call-ups but one sticks out like a sore thumb.

At last, some means of stating that Andrew Peters actually hurt the team.
As an aside, Patrick Davis' lack of penalties taken puts him in exclusive company of 39 NHL players who have not been goaded into taking a call at even strength. The vast majority are call-ups and only played part of a season, so the king of this group was the lone regular: Carolina's Brandon Sutter. He drew 15 calls but did not get forced to take one in 5-on-5 hockey. Impressive.
Available Penalty Drawers?
OK, so the Devils players can help themselves by studying how Parise and Zharkov drew their calls and other players can improve the team by taking fewer calls themselves. Is there anyone on the upcoming market who can significantly help the Devils draw more penalties in 5-on-5 situations?
Based on last season's numbers at Behind the Net, not really.
Among all 62 players who have drawn 20 penalties, only 5 are unrestricted free agents. Jon Sim (26 drawn, 13 taken); Ruslan Fedotenko (24 drawn, 16 taken); Paul Kariya (20 drawn, 14 taken); Maxim Afinogenov (21 drawn, 15 taken); and Scott Nichol (21 drawn, 16 taken). Only one of those five is a center, and it's the bottom six center 35-year old Nichol. Not exactly an enticing player, though he could be had for cheap.
Even if the Devils aren't able to sign Kovalchuk, the Devils are still pretty set at wing - they really don't need another winger at this juncture. Therefore, I don't think the Devils should jump at the chance at going after any of those five. Not even to get more penalties drawn if only because we know they're going to take a considerable amount over time. Besides, I don't think the Devils should make their personnel decisions for the upcoming offseason based on penalties drawn/taken alone. It's not as if a high ratio will lead a team to success. Toronto had two of the best on their team in Niklas Hagman (29 drawn, 5 taken) and Nikolai Kulemin (23 drawn, 3 taken) and it didn't exactly make the difference for the Maple Leafs.
But I will say that it is a positive. Enough to be considered as it can show whether the player in question could be a liability or not when it comes to taking calls. Manny Malhotra, for example, also has a drawn/taken ratio below 1 with 7 drawn and 10 taken. Not a great ratio, yet, it's an considerable improvement over Rob Niedermayer from a penalty standpoint because it's an improved ratio and because it is fewer calls. The key word there is "improved." The player in question doesn't necessarily need to be among league leaders in penalties drawn or taken (leader as in fewer calls) from 2009-10, but ideally would be better than the players they would replace. It would think it would be more reasonable to take into account when the Devils are evaluating potential free agents.
Conclusion
To that end, I cannot emphasize enough that looking at players in this way is only to see how they are from a penalty standpoint. If the Devils can get a few players who can have more calls drawn, then that would at least give the Devils power play more opportunities. If the Devils can reduce the numbers of calls taken - even just by subtraction of a few 09-10 players - then the penalty kill will benefit from reduced shorthanded situations. Again, improvement should be seen as the goal. I'd like to see players added who would improve the Devils in either case.
In terms of free agency, The Devils should avoid exacerbating either situation in a negative direction by signing players who take more penalties than the players they replaced and/or draw fewer penalties than the players they replaced. Yes, special teams does need improvement in their strategy and execution, where they will need new tactics and personnel. However, creating more power play opportunities and/or reducing penalty killing situations would also benefit the team and the organization should look to do that in conjunction with improving special teams performance.
Have Your Say
Thanks for reading. Hopefully, you found all of this interesting as much as I did while researching it. Thanks to Behind the Net for compiling and storing penalties drawn and taken numbers. Now it's time for your opinion.
What do you think of how the Devils draw penalties? Surprised to see Vladimir Zharkov stick out so much along with Zach Parise? How about how the Devils took penalties? Were you more disappointed seeing Salvador and Mottau so high or that Clarkson, Langenbrunner, Elias, and Niedermayer made that penalties taken list? Glad to see some statistical basis proving that Andrew Peters hasn't helped the Devils?
How about the free agent market? Would seeing their penalties taken/drawn count and ratio change your opinion on some pending free agents? Lastly, do you think the Devils can really improve in this area or is it more of a uncontrollable/unrepeatable than anything else? Please leave your thoughts in the comments.
0 recs |
29 comments
|
Comments
Yikes. Lots of work put into this one John. Good work, interesting read. One question this raises is of those penalties taken, how many were “good” penalties to take? I.E. if the penalty wasn’t taken a good scoring chance would have happened? Obviously in general, it’s not a good idea to put the team down a man, but there are occasionally situations where that may be the preferred path. Oh, and I’ve found another statistic that shows how Peters hurt the team, 0 takeaways, 5 giveaways. See my recent post on statistical manipulation.
Go Jets
Go Devils
One question this raises is of those penalties taken, how many were "good" penalties to take?
The answer is, I don’t know. At least, not by the numbers. Only that they happened or not.
I’m not disputing that there’s a time to take a penalty, there are. Better to take one than to allow an excellent scoring chance or even a goal. Better to take one while holding onto a lead late instead of icing it in some rare cases since you can make lineup changes after a call. I agree with that. However, in general, you don’t want to put yourself in a position to have to do that – that’s much more desirable.
But to determine that, you’d have to review each one on a case-by-case basis and I don’t have access to that kind of video. Nor would I necessarily be willing to watch each one.
Still, I doubt that Bryce Salvador or Mike Mottau only took “good” penalties.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
The elephant in the room when considering this type of stuff is the completely arbitrary nature of penalties.
What one ref may consider hooking may differ from another (meaning there’s little consistency from game to game), and will be (sub)consciously influenced by things like: the ratio of penalties taken by each team (there’s a reason the Devils are at the bottom of the league in drawing penalties, because they’re at the top of the league in not taking them); the time the infraction occurs (late in a close game or OT, etc.); the circumstances involved (less likely to be called for a restraining penalty when killing a penalty or if your team is down 3 goals); the need for a make-up call (which often goes to an undeserving player and not the one it should have); and reputational calls or non-calls (Avery takes more than he deserves, Datsyuk takes less than he deserves, and actors like Carcillo throw the whole thing off).
It’s common sense to anyone who’s watched a guy like Parise play that his speed and skill is going to put the opposition into situations where they may need to commit a penalty more often than he will himself be forced to take one, so it’s a case of the data statistically confirming what we already knew. But on the flip side, there is a danger of taking this data at face value because there are a lot of outside forces that can directly impact them.
I think it’s safe to say that a sample size like a season or three is sufficient to get an idea of how a player plays, as far as taking and drawing penalties, but using it as anything more than a rough guide is asking for trouble. There’s just too much wiggle room.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)
This article is extremely pointless. Not to mention your extreme hate for Peters. The Devils blew for many more reasons, not their enforcer.
This
articlepost is extremely pointless.
Fixed.
Feel free to disagree, but bring something to the table beyond a not-so-thinly-veiled insult to the author and an inexplicable defense of the worst player on the Devils roster (Is that you, Andrew?!).
How you got, not only that the author was claiming the subject of the article was the only reason the team struggled, but also that he was pinning it all on Andrew Peters, is mind boggling. But even more puzzling is how you went through the effort of registering just to publicize your misinterpretation.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)
I don’t have an extreme hate for Peters. I met him. I respect his massive arms and sociable attitude. He seems like a good guy, but he doesn’t help the Devils win games.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on May 9, 2010 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Well I’ve seen this blog, and it surely wasn’t the first time. I took time to register because it was about the 3rd post blaming things on him. The guy has a job that he was fine at. He’s not out there to score. He’s a good community/locker room guy yet gets blamed for some failures.
I’ve read and reread the article several times and frequent the boards daily, and I’ve never seen anyone blame Peters as anything more than but a small piece of the problems the team displayed. In fact, he played so infrequently, I doubt he tops anyone’s list of priorities to address during the off-season.
There’ve been plenty of instances of people pointing out how ineffective he is as an enforcer. Or how he fails at even the most basic functions of his duties, like tieing his jersey down or actually fighting when it’s called for. Or how when he skates for ~3 minutes per game he’s taking up a roster spot that could be used more effectively.
There is plenty of both anecdotal and empirical data to back up that consensus that he not only isn’t a good fit, but actually hurt the team. If you have more than personal opinions to dispute that, everyone here is open-minded enough to listen and be swayed, but leading off with insults and suggesting something counter to common perception (i.e. that he was fine at his job) without explaining how or why, isn’t going to get you anything but ridicule.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)
Incidentally, you can reply to particular comments by hitting reply and then filling out the comment box.
Anyway, I appreciate the time you took to register. However, I’ve put the blame on much more than just one player. Besides, all I have to say about Peters is that he doesn’t help the team win games. His GVT is below replacement level, he didn’t draw any extra calls, and for all talk about how he can punch dudes in the face, none of his 9 fights led to anything.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on May 10, 2010 7:26 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I’m guessing you’re a one trick pony, and am becoming more and more convinced that you’re either Andrew Peters himself, or a family member.
The role of enforcer isn’t what it once was and the days of guys that can drop the gloves but not contribute much else are done. Peters is no spring chicken and isn’t about to develop a scoring touch or learn to play an energy or checking role, so when it comes time to trimming the fat, he’s the first up against the wall.
Leblond isn’t the best representative in the league of what the enforcer has become, but he’s certainly closer to it than Peters. And cheaper. Of the two, I’ll take Leblond every time.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)
For 2010-11
Peters salary is 500k; PL3 salary is 525k. PL3 has a 2 way contract then a 1 way in 2011-12. 25k isn’t a big difference and I agree PL3 is a better overall player than Peters.
Depending on who Lou (re)signs and how much youth comes up, I wouldn’t expect seeing both of these guys on the roster at the same time for the next 2 years (good thing). Also, I couldn’t agree more than your take on enforcers in the NHL nowadays. Clarkson might be the closest thing to that. He fights decent, checks well, and does have the potential to be a decent scorer. He was involved in 25 penalties (14T-11D) with 12 TOI/60 while missing a good amount of games this season. If he matures a little bit more, he could be a really pest.
by Matthew Ventolo on May 10, 2010 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, he did draw 4 calls. That’s more than Peters’ 0 at even strength.
I don’t think Leblond does a lot either, but he did do more than Peters did in 09-10.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on May 10, 2010 2:52 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Blah blah blah. First off, calling people family members or the athlete himself would be expected by some puck bunny on her first blog post. Secondly, IMO PL3 didn’t really ever spark the team…he did really well in that 1:44 in game 6 especially. At least Peters would fire ‘em up from time to time….that’s basically my point.
…calling people family members or [sic] the athlete himself would be expected…
…when someone callously dismisses actual evidence and vehemently defends a waste of bench space with nothing but opinions. In a post that hardly concerns him and only mentions him in passing.
So, in summary:
The general consensus by Devils fans is that Andrew Peters is not effective. There is data that not only backs this up, but actually shows that he was a detriment to the team. You disagree, but offer no data or analysis except an opinion that he’s better than Leblond.
Does this sum it up? Do you actually have an argument here, or are you going to just continue to be unnecessarily abrasive?
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)
And, if you’re going to reply, please use the reply function.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)
The point is that PL3 while supposedly being an enforcer rarely did anything to pump up or impact his team. Yet supposedly because of a taken/drawn calls opinion, he is more valuable to a team. To me, that is non sense. Peters showed with some of his fights and hits that he was out to wake the team up, or defend linemates.
The taken/drawn penalties is just one statbit to help define a player. No one is condemning the guy because he takes more penalties then he draws, but it can and is being used to show how the guy just doesn’t help when he’s on the ice.
Have a look at some other data then:
GF/60 when he’s off the ice is 2.07. When he jumps over the boards, it plummets to 0.40. GA/60 goes from 2.41 to 2.40 when he steps onto the ice… meaning he has, literally, no effect on defense, and a negative impact on offense.
But he’s not a scorer. He’s an energy guy, I hear you say in defense. It’s his job to spark the team. Fair enough. However, the team takes more shots when he’s not on the ice (26.8 off 24.0 on) and gives up more when he’s out there (25.2 on 24.7 off). Not exactly a ringing endorsement for his ability to get the team going considering he spends more time in the defensive zone.
But he’s just a scrapper, I hear you say. His job is to fight and spark the team. Well, in 29 games he took 9 majors (as did Clarkson, who also managed 24 points, btw) and, even assuming each one sparked the team (a debate unto itself, but one I’m not about to research right now), the positive energy was probably spoiled by the 9 minors, 2 misc and 1 game misc he also took.
He was with the Sabres for 5 years prior to the Devils, and Lemaire and Ruff have combined to play him exactly 0 times in the playoffs. Telling? You betcha.
The guy is a one-dimensional player, and the team is, at best, marginally worse for his participation. His roster spot needs to go to someone who can actually contribute in a tangible, positive way.
And, Leblond’s numbers are little better, which is why no one is suggesting he’s a great player. Just that he’s the lesser of the two evils. My hope is to see as little as possible of both of them going forward.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)
Ok, seriously…enough with the statistics. Basing the impact of an energy player based on stats is worthless. Can you caculate team morale? Can you calculate the number of times he was turned down for a fight? Can you calculate opinions of teammates? No, no and no.
His impact is obvious: he’s a detriment to the team.
You’re ignoring the obvious because it doesn’t mesh with your personal opinion and that just makes you stubborn.
These are professional hockey players who have been playing since they could walk. They’ve, every one of them, had some success on their way up through the ranks to joining the best players in the world playing at the highest level. And you’re going to tell me that Andrew Peters lumbering out onto the ice, dropping his gloves and trading punches with some other goon who takes up a roster spot inspires them?
No one can quantify things like morale, which is why it’s a useless method of judging a players performance. You can no more argue his positive impact on it than I could his negative impact on it. All we have are the numbers that are gathered, and deductions from them. Like the blow to morale it must be when a guy gets kicked out of a game for not tying his jersey down. Or having to kill a penalty because a guy who plays 4 minutes per game and contributes nothing offensively is sitting in the penalty box for some minor infraction he’s more apt to take than draw. Or that since he only plays 4 minutes, everyone else has to put in more shifts to make up the difference.
Argue the ethereal and mysterious “impact of an energy player” all you want, but anyone that can throw a punch can do what he does. And, based on the stats, there are many who can do it better.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)
+1
I thought someone had investigated a quantifiable impact of fights – do they actually fire up a team – and Gabe at BTN did it last July.
Turns out winning fights has a negligible quantifiable impact on the game – teams are just marginally more likely to score in the 10 minutes after winning a fight. Even if Andrew Peters won every fight he entered into and remembered to fasten his &^$%# fight strap every game he’d be worth at a MAXIMUM one win in the standings.
I’m all for a guy dropping the gloves to protect his teammates, or to fire up a dead crowd, but the Devils already have guys who can do that and can also contribute elsewhere on the ice.
Sorry but things like fighting in hockey and it’s player’s value to a team cannot be calculated unless you’re talking to/surveying those players. The end.
By that logic, how can you argue it has any value at all?
If you want to ignore evidence and common sense, that’s fine, but don’t attempt to refute it with opinion. Come back when you actually have a defensible stance on something.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)
umm… yeah it can. if you say fights and boost morale – which is difficult to quantify – surely there will be some tangible effect of that good morale in the period following the fight. if I drink a cup of coffee, I’ll feel more energetic. exactly HOW energetic is difficult to quantify, but I could measure my performance at work in concrete terms – papers graded, typing speed, amount of time spent on ILWT, etc. – and if my performance/efficiency goes up in the period of time immediately after I drink a cup of coffee, I can say that coffee has a tangible, CALCULABLE effect on my job performance.
as for hockey players, there are lots of things that might boost team morale that have the same CALCULABLE effect on team performance as a fight during a game – it could be their favorite pregame snack, or locker room music, or vintage 1980s jerseys on st. patty’s day. however, those things don’t cost $500K a year and take up a roster spot.
You know what would put an end to the debate?
Do a WOWY for Peters and Leblond. Then opinions get shoved aside. I don’t know how long it takes John to do them, it may be too much effort to prove something that most of us already know. Like John, elesias, and others have said; Peters isn’t effective in his role and his roster spot (and salary) could be used by a player who would help the Devils more than he does. Oh, and by the way DDJ:
At least Peters would fire ‘em up from time to time….that’s basically my point.
Feel free to point out some evidence. We’d all love to see it and I for one, would admit that Peters does bring something to the team if you do. Until then, debate nicely and maybe you won’t get attacked as much.
Go Jets
Go Devils
It’s going to take me some time because they’ve played so intermittently. This may be a “Until August comes and I literally have nothing to say today” thing. I’ll think about it.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on May 11, 2010 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions

by 

















