What is the Benefit of Andrew Peters Fighting for the New Jersey Devils?

by John Fischer on Jun 2, 2010 10:00 AM EDT in What Do You Think?

ASIDE: Hey, you have less than 5 days to submit an audition post to become a ILWT writer. Get them in soon! Especially if you're interested in the minor leagues or prospects. And now for something completely different, here's a smattering of thoughts on Andrew Peters.

Some still hold that teams today need an enforcer. A big man to do the dirty work of upholding codes and honor and whatever else by punching another, willing man in the face on the ice. To stick up for a teammate. To show that he and his team will not be intimidated. To do the one thing they're largely paid to do, drop the gloves, have all the hockey stop so they can tussle, and then be done with it by sitting in the box whilst both teams at their benches bang their sticks against the boards to show support or something.

Admittedly, I'm not a fan of fighting in hockey. But we'll agree to disagree on all of that. More importantly, I'm not a fan of Andrew Peters' performance last season. From my eye, he was quite slow, he didn't play much, and didn't do much hitting like Pierre-Luc Letourneau-Leblond or "energy" play like streaking into corners like Vladimir Zharkov. He's drawn no calls and taken 5 at even strength this past season according to Behind the Net. Also, Peters' GVT last season was dead last on the team at -1.5, below replacement level. In fact, he's always been below replacement level as a contributor to his teams throughout his career per Tom Awad's all-time GVT list. On top of and he put up this glorious stat-line for the New Jersey Devils in 2009-10.

	GP	G	A	P	+/-	PIM	PPG	SHG	GWG	GTG	SOG	PCT
2009-10 - Andrew Peters	29	0	0	0	-5	93	0	0	0	0	15	0.0

Let us be frank, Peters has one purpose: to bust up dudes with his massive fists. He's an enforcer, a goon, a fighter, &c. That is his role.

Mind you, I've met Peters, I have no personal issue with Mr. Peters, and I never want to have one since his biceps are bigger than my fat head. He's a genial enough fellow and I bear no ill will towards Andrew Peters, the man. Still, let me raise this question: What benefit does Andrew Peters' fighting provide to the team? Did the Devils perform any better after each of the 9 fights Peters had in this past season?

Here's a quick and simple way. What was the score before the fight, how many goals were scored and conceded by New Jersey in the period after the fight, and what was the final score of the game? If Peters' fights led to, say, the team scoring more goals, then I'd say that would suggest a benefit. The team gets pumped up, momentum goes their way, and so forth. That momentum should lead to goals for it to have a true impact on the game, no? (Note: I'm limiting it to within the period since attitudes and momentum can change during intermission.)

To find out, I went through Peters' game log at NHL.com to find out the answers. The results come after the jump.

Key: T.o.F. = Time of Fight within the period; GF in Per. A.F. = Goals For in Period After Fight; GA in Per. A.F. = Goals Against in Period After Fight. Dates in italics are the fights that Peters won per the users of hockeyfights.com.

What I discovered was the following.

The Devils are ~~3-4-2~~ 3-3-2 when Andrew Peters fought in a game. (Thanks to ILWT user acasser for the correction.)
Andrew Peters was 3-4-2 per the users of hockeyfights.com. In Peters' 3 wins, the Devils only won once. In that game, neither team scored in the period after the fight, the Devils lost the lead later in the game, and the Devils only got a second point through the shootout.
Andrew Peters will tend to fight really early in the game. Only once did he drop the mitts after halfway through the game.
The Devils outscored their opposition only twice this past season in the same period after a Peters fight. They only won one of those games; the 3/18 goal was a game-tying goal that resulted to a shootout loss.
The Devils got outscored by their opposition twice this past season in the same period after a Peters fight. The Devils lost both games.
Only once did the Devils manage to win after a Peters fight was held while the Devils were losing. Even then, the Devils didn't do their scoring in the same period as the fight.

I will admit that perhaps that looking at the shot counts before and after the fight may be more fruitful. All the same, the scoring didn't pick up after a Peters fight for either team more often than not. A big part of that could come from how early he fought in a game, and so the game was still up in the air. Therefore, a team may not have broken down an opponent to get a goal or get that lucky bounce that finds the biscuit in the basket. Still, wouldn't that mean that Peters' fights do not get the team going to produce something on the scoreboard?

I will also admit that the Devils being 3-5-1 in games where Peters fight may very well be a coincidental statistic. If that's the case, then wouldn't that make Peters fighting even more pointless? That Peters' fights have no effect on the Devils' or opponent's performance?

Since he's got a one-way contract for the league minimum ($500,000) that ends in 2011 according to CapGeek, it's likely he's in New Jersey for another season. So let me ask you all this question: What is the benefit of Andrew Peters fighting for the New Jersey Devils? Does it only apply to Peters or to others who drop gloves on the Devils?

Maybe I'm missing something crucial, but I'm not really seeing any real benefit based on scoring after Peters' fights. Let me know what you think about Andrew Peters and his fights in the comments.

Tweet Comment 52 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

What’s the benefit of signing the worse player in the NHL to a 2 year contract?

by MoonDragn on Jun 2, 2010 10:17 AM EDT reply actions

Wait, Lou’s signing Vesa Toskala to a contract?

Cheers, Complaints, homerism and bashing of mediocre pop musicians in 140 Characters
"DO NOT get stuck behind Kyle Wellwood in the buffet line. This isn't really etiquette, but it will prevent you from starving to death"- Down Goes Brown on Etiquette for Jason Spezza's wedding

by Kevin Sellathamby on Jun 2, 2010 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions

You never know.

Stranger things have happened than Vesa being our backup next season.

Yankees in baseball, Giants in football and Devils in hockey. It's that simple. I have no off-season.

by DownGoesAvery on Jun 9, 2010 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions

One correction, John. Two of those fights were in the same game (Feb. 6), so things aren’t quite as bad as they first seem given the Devils lost that one. Doesn’t make them very good, even after the fix, but just trying to be fair to the guy.

I don’t think the stats tell us anything we didn’t already sense by the “eye test”. Andrew Peters simply doesn’t fit in with this team very well and doesn’t seem to have much of a role. Personally, I’d either cut him or stash him at Lowell to get him off the cap, because he wastes a roster spot that can be better filled by one of the prospects. There are other guys who can handle the fighting (Clarkson, Leblond, Pelley, Fraser just to name four), and there aren’t enough “true” enforcers out there anymore to justify keeping Peters around.

by acasser on Jun 2, 2010 10:30 AM EDT reply actions

Ah, you’re absolutely right. I double counted the record when I wrote this last night. Ill correct it when I have access, but for those who can’t wait:

Devils record when Peters fights: 3-3-2

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 Jun 2, 2010 11:29 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions

stashing him in Albany (no longer Lowell) doesn’t get him off the cap, his $500K counts either way.

Go Jets
Go Devils

by FrankG929 on Jun 2, 2010 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions

The point of sending him to Albany would be that a younger, better, faster player could take his place, whether it was another fighter or someone else. It’s such a miniscule salary that since he’d count against the cap anyway, at least we could put his roster spot to far better use.

Players Currently in My Doghouse: Brian Rolston, Dean McAmmond, Andrew Peters

by thejerseydevil on Jun 2, 2010 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions

It’s the league minimum, but I’d honestly consider just waiving him. Even if someone picks him up and the Devils have to eat half of that, the saved cap space could be used in part of keeping other cheap players (e.g. retaining Danis, new deal for Fraser). Every little bit counts, even if the cap ceiling is raised.

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 Jun 2, 2010 12:39 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

two things:

A: peters’ cap hit does not count if he is in the minor leagues.

B: the devils would only have to take on half the salary if peters were re-called and claimed by another team on re-entry waivers.

i doubt the devils are signing both kovalchuk and martin, and that’s the only scenario where new jersey has to start throwing a guy like peters into the minors.

by Triumph44 on Jun 2, 2010 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions

i actually think if the devils were tight against the cap after signing expensive free agents, they would be more likely to keep peters on the big club, because he’s playing for the league minimum salary. any young player they bring in to replace him would be more expensive.

but yes, let’s waive him. can we trade him to the khl for a bag of pucks and a bottle of vodka?

by dr(d)evil on Jun 2, 2010 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions

No. The KHL doesn’t have an export license, they only import things (players)

Go Jets
Go Devils

by FrankG929 on Jun 2, 2010 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions

BUT

Lou would have to eat the fact that he signed a player for 2 years and bought him out. That’s why he won’t buy out Rolston (besides the obvious, the hefty dollar figure involved with him) and likely won’t do anything with Pandolfo. Face it, Peters will be a Devil next year, and probably play 35 games or so.

Yankees in baseball, Giants in football and Devils in hockey. It's that simple. I have no off-season.

by DownGoesAvery on Jun 9, 2010 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Are you sure?

I am pretty sure stashing him in Albany would take his cap hit off, even if he has a one-way contract.

by banstyk on Jun 2, 2010 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions

since he has a one-way contract, he has to be paid his $500K regardless of whether he is riding the NHL plane or the AHL bus. i don’t believe that money counts for the cap, though, unless he is signed after the age of 35. he plays at the pace of a 53-year-old, but i don’t think he’s hit 35 yet. rolston is an example of a player who was over 35 when he signed his contract and who would count against the cap even if he was waived and sent to the minors.

by dr(d)evil on Jun 2, 2010 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree with everything said here. There’s no need anymore to waste a roster spot on someone who can only fight, even if they’re only paid league minimum. Having guys who can fight is a plus, but they need to be good hockey players as well, ideally like Clarkson. Peters is definitely a nice guy, but that has no bearing on anything. It’s the truth, certain players clearly don’t belong, and I think Lou’s reasoning was after losing Mike Rupp (who does have some skill) he felt he was missing the “heavyweight” fighter, the giant one who takes on the other giants. It’s a waste though, we have plenty of guys who can fight, and oddly enough Leblond actually handled the bigger guys better than Peters did. Plus Leblond was a sparkplug, while Peters skates like a third grader.

Players Currently in My Doghouse: Brian Rolston, Dean McAmmond, Andrew Peters

by thejerseydevil on Jun 2, 2010 11:15 AM EDT reply actions

to me, peters is only here because he’s a good locker room guy and can throw a few punches. signing him to a two year deal was pretty idiotic when it was clear that no one else wanted him, though.

by Triumph44 on Jun 2, 2010 11:22 AM EDT reply actions

The role of enforcer is dead. No longer can a guy who can only punch fit in onto a team without detracting from their overall effectiveness. The days of Laraque and Brashear and Peters are all but over.

That’s not to say that fighting is going anywhere, though. Based solely on the number of major penalties taken (not the most accurate method, but the best one I could figure out), the number of fights each year is actually going up.

There was a severe drop off after the lockout (959 major penalties taken [MPT] in 05-06, down from 1611 MPT in 03-04), but since then it has increased, and not exactly slowly, to just under pre-lockout levels:

1509/year average in four pre-lockout seasons this decade
959 MPT in 05-06
1014 MPT in 06-07
1351 MPT in 07-08
1491 MPT in 08-09
1469 MPT in 09-10

So, it seems that the fighting itself isn’t going away, just the enforcer. Like just about everything else since the lockout, the enforcer role has become more offensive (in both senses of the word). Guys like Clarkson and Pelley, who hark back to guys like Gordie Howe who could put the fear of God into players on multiple levels, are going to find their services more in demand than ever because, like it or not, agree with it or not, understand it or not, fighting is a part of hockey and always will be.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)

by elesias on Jun 2, 2010 11:31 AM EDT reply actions

laraque and brashear are two of the most skilled-at-hockey fighters there have been in the last 15 years. both have scored over 10 goals in a season, and brashear was routinely getting 13+ minutes of ice time for both vancouver and philadelphia. i have no doubt if both were in their prime that both would be in demand.

by Triumph44 on Jun 2, 2010 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions

Depends on your defintion of “skilled”. Yes, Laraque and Brashear both scored 10 goals in a season… exactly once each. They’re also a career +1 and -93, respectively.

In his 11 seasons, Laraque managed 40 goals (3.64 per year). In the other 16 seasons, Brashear managed 74 goals (4.63 per year).

That puts them a step ahead of George Parros (2.6), but behind such “all around” players as Mike Rupp (5.7), Daniel Carcillo (8.0) and the legendary Marty McSorley (6.35).

The most telling fact that the demand for enforcers (even as “skilled” as those two) is that there is no “next generation” Donald Brashear or George Laraque. Guys that can only fight (Cam Janssen, et al) are being phased out, and the kids who follow in those footsteps and hope to punch their way into a roster spot are finding it harder and harder to make it into the league.

If either were just coming up now, I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that one, if not both, would fail to make a final roster on an NHL team.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)

by elesias on Jun 2, 2010 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions

you’re comparing players across roles and eras.

brashear in his prime was almost certainly overused – it’s unlikely that he deserved to play 13 minutes a game, and his +/- reflects that. regardless, i find it hard to believe that he couldn’t be valuable on a 4th line in his prime.

there are no brashear and laraques because A: fighting in junior seems to have gone way down (at least in the Q, where both of these guys graduated from) and B: there’s not players as skilled as these anymore coming up as fighters. these guys were putting up 15 points season in the dead puck era – players like derek boogaard, peters, parros, colton orr, or even zack stortini who’s had 3 10 point seasons in a row, would struggle mightily to do that.

i agree that the heavyweight is slowly being phased out of the league, but i doubt very much that a player like brashear, who put up 50 goals in 150 AHL games, or laraque, who was a point-every-other-game player at the minor league level, would struggle to be admitted to the NHL. when you compare them with the sorts of fighters who are coming up now like leblond and janssen and boogaard and orr, who don’t even score at the AHL level, it’s not even a debate.

by Triumph44 on Jun 2, 2010 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Different eras? Outside of McSorley, these guys are all colleagues. Different roles? They’re all enforcers known for, relied on and expected to fight… no?

Yes, they were among the best of the enforcers, but that doesn’t make them particularly skilled. Take away their ability to fight, and their 15 points and $1.50 will get them a cup of coffee. (Brashear averaged 12.8, and Laraque 12.75, btw)

To the rest, you’re talking about the AHL. The perfect counter to show that success in one doesn’t equal success in another are your own examples of Donald Brashear (50 goals in 150 AHL games, 85 goals in 1025 in the NHL) and George Laraque (a point every other game player in the AHL, a point every 5 games player in the NHL).

I don’t know about you, but if I had to choose between calling up a guy like Clarkson (who put up pretty similar numbers in the AHL) and Brashear, I’d take Clarkson 100 times out of 100 because he’s got more upside, and I suspect most GM’s would as well. No one really looks for a guy who can fight first, and maybe chip in 15 points, that just doesn’t cut it anymore… and considering the mounting evidence showing a lack of any measurable positive impact by fighting, I think it explains, not only why the role of enforcer is on its way out, but also why you see less of it in the juniors.

Sure there are a handful of remnants of the past around, like the few you mention, but nothing like there were when Laraque and Brashear were entering the league. To say they’re better than a few guys cut from the same cloth who play now isn’t saying much, especially when there are so many playing now who have expanded on their one-dimensionality and adjusted to the changing sport.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)

by elesias on Jun 2, 2010 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions

“Yes, they were among the best of the enforcers, but that doesn’t make them particularly skilled. Take away their ability to fight, and their 15 points and $1.50 will get them a cup of coffee. (Brashear averaged 12.8, and Laraque 12.75, btw)”

huh? so teams don’t employ players who play a physical game on the 4th line? even if fighting were taken out of the league these guys still at least make it into the league for someone. same with someone like rupp, who’s basically become a fighter because that was his way to ensure he’d stay in the NHL. it’s pretty clear he doesn’t like doing it and he’s not particularly good at it.

“To the rest, you’re talking about the AHL. The perfect counter to show that success in one doesn’t equal success in another are your own examples of Donald Brashear (50 goals in 150 AHL games, 85 goals in 1025 in the NHL) and George Laraque (a point every other game player in the AHL, a point every 5 games player in the NHL).”

success in the minor leagues is very heavily correlated with success in the NHL. a point every other game in the AHL and a point every 5 games in the NHL are pretty close to what we would expect.

“I don’t know about you, but if I had to choose between calling up a guy like Clarkson (who put up pretty similar numbers in the AHL) and Brashear, I’d take Clarkson 100 times out of 100 because he’s got more upside, and I suspect most GM’s would as well. No one really looks for a guy who can fight first, and maybe chip in 15 points, that just doesn’t cut it anymore… and considering the mounting evidence showing a lack of any measurable positive impact by fighting, I think it explains, not only why the role of enforcer is on its way out, but also why you see less of it in the juniors.”

this is a pretty false dichotomy. the problem is that there aren’t players who can do what you are asking anymore. the true heavyweights who come up now have been enforcers since junior hockey. players like leblond and boogaard don’t even have good junior hockey stats, if it weren’t for fighting, they wouldn’t’ve even made their junior teams.

teams would absolutely jump on a guy who can fight first and has 15 points – he’d get a lot of money on the free agent market. i don’t see how you can possibly say this in a league where leblond, peters, boogaard, parros, barch, orr, shelley, brashear, cote, ivanans, and laraque all drew an NHL paycheck last season.

i agree the heavyweight is going away. i think that laraque and brashear are the worst possible examples you could have picked – both were horrendous last season, but both had fairly respectable NHL careers.

by Triumph44 on Jun 2, 2010 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions

huh? so teams don’t employ players who play a physical game on the 4th line? even if fighting were taken out of the league these guys still at least make it into the league for someone. same with someone like rupp, who’s basically become a fighter because that was his way to ensure he’d stay in the NHL. it’s pretty clear he doesn’t like doing it and he’s not particularly good at it.

Not at all what I said. What I said was that if you took away their ability to fight, they’re 15 point scorers (which they aren’t even that) and that’s about worthless in todays NHL. The trend is toward more scoring (when isn’t it?), but now GM’s and coaches are trying to milk all the goals out of even the fourth line, so guys that can’t score also are obsolete. 15 points may have at one time been admirable, but it’s not any more. Look at some of the Devils’ players this past season who spent time on the fourth line like Pandolfo, Pelley, Zharkov and Halischuk… none of them had more than 10 points and are all widely considered to be ineffective and expendable. But if they can punch a guy in the face and contribute the same amount of offense, they’d be quality players?

success in the minor leagues is very heavily correlated with success in the NHL. a point every other game in the AHL and a point every 5 games in the NHL are pretty close to what we would expect.

Point being, scoring a point every 5 games or so isn’t really “successful” anymore.

this is a pretty false dichotomy. the problem is that there aren’t players who can do what you are asking anymore. the true heavyweights who come up now have been enforcers since junior hockey. players like leblond and boogaard don’t even have good junior hockey stats, if it weren’t for fighting, they wouldn’t’ve even made their junior teams.

That’s not a “problem”, it’s symptomatic of the shift in the dynamic of the enforcer role. It’s not that teams can’t find those players, it’s that they don’t want them. Guys that can only fight aren’t making it up into the minors and finding their way onto the radar of GMs because there is less and less call for them. There are a few, due perhaps to old school GMs like Burke who still subscribe to that formula in a player, or whatever other reason (and I suspect there will always be a few), but if you’re arguing that the pool of guys who can ice skate and throw punches at the same time is drying up, you’re being ridiculous.

teams would absolutely jump on a guy who can fight first and has 15 points – he’d get a lot of money on the free agent market. i don’t see how you can possibly say this in a league where leblond, peters, boogaard, parros, barch, orr, shelley, brashear, cote, ivanans, and laraque all drew an NHL paycheck last season.

But there are less and less teams that would, is my point.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)

by elesias on Jun 2, 2010 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions

i agree the heavyweight is going away. i think that laraque and brashear are the worst possible examples you could have picked – both were horrendous last season, but both had fairly respectable NHL careers.

How so? I brought them up to say that the “…days of Laraque and Brashear and Peters are all but over.” A sentiment you agree with.

The only difference is that you believe a guy who can score 15 points a year is worth having on the team, whereas I feel 15 points is a disappointing season I’d expect out of a rookie but hope they improved upon.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)

by elesias on Jun 2, 2010 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Not at all what I said. What I said was that if you took away their ability to fight, they’re 15 point scorers (which they aren’t even that) and that’s about worthless in todays NHL. The trend is toward more scoring (when isn’t it?), but now GM’s and coaches are trying to milk all the goals out of even the fourth line, so guys that can’t score also are obsolete. 15 points may have at one time been admirable, but it’s not any more. Look at some of the Devils’ players this past season who spent time on the fourth line like Pandolfo, Pelley, Zharkov and Halischuk… none of them had more than 10 points and are all widely considered to be ineffective and expendable. But if they can punch a guy in the face and contribute the same amount of offense, they’d be quality players?

without a doubt, they would be paid 1.5 million or more. whether that makes them quality players is up for debate, it almost certainly doesn’t, but that’s not really important, is it?

That’s not a "problem", it’s symptomatic of the shift in the dynamic of the enforcer role. It’s not that teams can’t find those players, it’s that they don’t want them. Guys that can only fight aren’t making it up into the minors and finding their way onto the radar of GMs because there is less and less call for them. There are a few, due perhaps to old school GMs like Burke who still subscribe to that formula in a player, or whatever other reason (and I suspect there will always be a few), but if you’re arguing that the pool of guys who can ice skate and throw punches at the same time is drying up, you’re being ridiculous.

i am arguing that the pool of guys over, say, 6’3" 215 who can skate and throw punches is completely drying up, yes. there are smaller middleweight/lightweight types like tootoo and clarkson and carcillo who can play hockey as well as fight.

i think your assertion that players who get 15 points a season are worthless is ludicrous. i’m not sure what hockey statistics you are looking at (from the 1980s perhaps?), but 15 points is a pretty good season on the 4th line. the devils probably haven’t had a player score 15 points on the 4th line since turner stevenson’s fluky 2004 season – i’d absolutely welcome a 4th line where all 3 players scored 15 points, at the rate that someone like laraque was doing pre-lockout (around .2 to .25 points per game). that’d be a large step up.

by Triumph44 on Jun 2, 2010 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions

i am arguing that the pool of guys over, say, 6’3" 215 who can skate and throw punches is completely drying up, yes

It’s hardly a lost art. It hasn’t dried up, there are just less teams drinking at the pool.

Hell, teach me to skate and I could meet those lofty qualifications.

i think your assertion that players who get 15 points a season are worthless is ludicrous.

My assertion is that a guy who can only score 15 points a season is a disappointment. And if his only other function is to punch someone in the face every few games, then he’s obsolete… and the trend is that he’ll be replaced by a guy who can fill a more well-rounded role (and score more goals) than a niche, one-dimensional enforcer.

the devils probably haven’t had a player score 15 points on the 4th line since turner stevenson’s fluky 2004 season

Dean McAmmond scored 17 just this past season.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)

by elesias on Jun 2, 2010 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions

dean mcammond scored the majority of those points with the 2nd line while zubrus and niedermayer were out. once he went to the 4th line his scoring naturally went back into the toilet.

there will always be a call in the NHL for physical players – 15 points and can play on the 4th line? these guys will be in the NHL even if fighting is banned.

by Triumph44 on Jun 2, 2010 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions

And you can vouch that Brashear and Laraque never benefited from playing on a higher line?

there will always be a call in the NHL for physical players

You misinterpret my entire stance. I never anywhere even implied that I thought any differently. In fact, the last sentence in my original post was:

Guys like Clarkson and Pelley, who hark back to guys like Gordie Howe who could put the fear of God into players on multiple levels, are going to find their services more in demand than ever because, like it or not, agree with it or not, understand it or not, fighting is a part of hockey and always will be.

My entire point was that the days of the one-dimensional enforcer, guys like Brashear and Laraque, are done. Your beef seems to be that you feel they were acceptable on-ice contributors. In that we’ll just have to agree to disagree…

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)

by elesias on Jun 2, 2010 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions

Truth be told, I think you both agree on the larger point; but are stuck on specifics. I think we all can agree that it isn’t clear as to what benefit Peters brings to the Devils.

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 Jun 2, 2010 10:30 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

laraque is ranked 1938 in tom awad’s GVT ranking for his career. there are over 5000 players on this list. calling him a one-dimensional enforcer is just absurd, and that GVT speaks for itself. brashear is ranked far, far lower, so you may be right there (i think he was just overused and has overstayed his welcome in the NHL). my point was that you just picked the two worst examples of ‘one-dimensional enforcers’. you could have picked any two other guys who tend to get a lot of fighting majors and don’t score very often.

by Triumph44 on Jun 2, 2010 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions

I can’t load the page so I can’t see what kind of company a ranking of 1938 puts him in, but regardless, it’s one stat and you can’t judge a player on one stat.

I’ll admit that they guy had more of a scoring touch than I originally gave him credit for, and one might be able to eventually convince me that he was more than just a boxer in skates, but for now we’ll just have to agree to disagree about Laraque.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)

by elesias on Jun 3, 2010 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions

yeah this has gone on too long, so this will be my last reply. i just cannot believe that someone would claim that laraque, of all people, is a boxer on skates, and not castigate barch and boogaard and tony twist or any of the 50 other pure fighters that have been worse hockey players than laraque who have come and gone since laraque entered the league as ‘boxers on skates’. why choose laraque and brashear as the players who will thankfully be gone from the league?

1938 puts him around players like jon sim and niclas wallin.

by Triumph44 on Jun 3, 2010 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions

Leblond is not a very good fighter. He would often tire and just hang on to his opponent. Peters at least was able to score some very good shots in most of his fights

by DDJ on Jun 2, 2010 3:10 PM EDT reply actions

I think of him as the Riley Cote of the team.

"Hockey is a sport for white men. Basketball is a sport for black men. Golf is a sport for white men dressed like black pimps."- Tiger Woods

by RolliePollieKovy on Jun 2, 2010 3:12 PM EDT reply actions

Maybe Lou should trade him to the Blues for a Defensemen

oh wait…Anyway,

Clarkson can fight. He went 5-1-3 per hockeyfights . Devils went 5-3 (2 fights in 1 game) when Clarkson drops the gloves. Pelley can fight too and I would take him over Peters any day. Pelley went 2-1-2 in bouts and the Devils went 4-1. I don’t know about goals, but the biggest result is the wins-loss column. Also, keep TOI in mind; Peters is a waste of roster spot with a 5:11 TOI/60 in 29 GP, which is last among players over 25 GP on the Devils (PL3 was no better at 5:31 TOI/60 in 27 GP. Pelley had a 7:51 and Clarkson a 14:26 TOI/60.

by Matthew Ventolo on Jun 2, 2010 4:58 PM EDT reply actions

Referring to Bryce Salvador and Cammy....

Peters for Jackman
Boom

"Hockey is a sport for white men. Basketball is a sport for black men. Golf is a sport for white men dressed like black pimps."- Tiger Woods

by RolliePollieKovy on Jun 2, 2010 6:52 PM EDT reply actions

They’re not trading Backman. Maybe Brewer if he waives his NTC

by Kevin Sellathamby on Jun 3, 2010 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions

It was a joke.

"Hockey is a sport for white men. Basketball is a sport for black men. Golf is a sport for white men dressed like black pimps."- Tiger Woods

by RolliePollieKovy on Jun 3, 2010 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions

I don’t know why Lou signed Peters when we had PL3. Atleast Lou’s bad signing last year was only a player that cost $500,000 instead of $5 million though

by C.J. Richey on Jun 2, 2010 8:02 PM EDT reply actions

fighting seems like a waste of time,atleast i dont really like it.

i liked that there was no fighting in the olyimpics i kindda hope the nhl gets rid of it some day.

by Imperator_Celtic on Jun 3, 2010 10:38 AM EDT reply actions

I have a few friends who follow other sports, but not hockey, whom I’ve tried to get into hockey more than a few times over the years and their biggest criticism is that they don’t get the fighting… which always struck me as ironic because they follow MMA and the like.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)

by elesias on Jun 3, 2010 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions

not all that ironic because mma is were id go if i liked to watch fighting(or boxing).i have played hockey all my life,i understand getting frustrated and am aware hockey will always have fighting a little i just think the players should get a match penalty right away.

by Imperator_Celtic on Jun 3, 2010 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions

Fighting is the biggest part of the game.. When your down by a couple goals that team needs to send a message by fighting. No way that will ever come out of the game.

"Hockey is a sport for white men. Basketball is a sport for black men. Golf is a sport for white men dressed like black pimps."- Tiger Woods

by RolliePollieKovy on Jun 3, 2010 2:52 PM EDT reply actions

How can you say it’s the biggest when the very act stops all play, it isn’t counted on the scoreboard, and in the case of Peters doesn’t appear that they help win games?

How, I ask you, how could this be said seriously?

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 Jun 3, 2010 3:17 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

Fighting

i think of it more as making something for the fans to cheer about when the home team is a few goals down.a goal would do alot more to send a message and build momentum..

by Imperator_Celtic on Jun 3, 2010 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Thats just Peters fighting...

It revs up the players SOMETIMES when their game gets away. Your saying you would rather see your team lose and not show some grit… Thats not a team that can win the stanley cup.

"Hockey is a sport for white men. Basketball is a sport for black men. Golf is a sport for white men dressed like black pimps."- Tiger Woods

by RolliePollieKovy on Jun 3, 2010 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions

in case u guys cant tell

im not in for more peters,even if he plays for free nothing personal to peters but his salary would be better spent on just about anything.mabey they should use it to make better bobble heads everyone seemed up in arms about this years editions.

by Imperator_Celtic on Jun 3, 2010 3:41 PM EDT reply actions

i maintain

that we still need a hard hitting defensemen to backup our players. whether fighting is the right way to do that, we still need a guy who will make the other team pay for picking on our players. a great example is in the playoffs when the fliers player whose name i cannot remember, back checked parise, sat on him, and then punched him several times in the face. a fight isnt necessary, but i would have been nice to see someone hit that guy so hard he forgets basic math.

עם ישראל חי

by nodisrespect on Jun 3, 2010 4:48 PM EDT reply actions

The Flyer you speak of is Mike Richards. A player you could punch in the face a 100 times and likely still does the same thing.

I have no beef with a big hitter for a fourth line role, but how does one determine who is such a player? Size? Reputation?

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 Jun 3, 2010 4:53 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

there are a lot of guys who are big but don’t hit particularly well. there’s a lot of intangible skills when it comes to making a big hit…balance, posture, and above all else, timing. nothing that can be measured by stats so yes…i would go largely with reputation.

i love it when a team has that physical edge that makes them difficult to play against. i think physical play is still effective in the NHL in wearing players down and forcing them to make a poor decision with the puck on their stick. and the devils do need a more physical edge – guys who are not just big, but also a little nasty.

that said, i think that the era where another team can be intimidated by fighting or by the big hit is over. players these days are such good, slippery skaters and seem to be better at keeping their head up than they used to be. and there’s a large majority of players who simply don’t fight and won’t be expected to pay for their transgressions via fisticuffs. trash-talking, it seems, is more effective in the new NHL than fighting and the best revenge has always been to just win the game.

by dr(d)evil on Jun 3, 2010 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Fighting is a great part of the game, and always will be. Peters is the best fighter on the team, period. Prust, and Thornton fights were direct results of Peters hitting someone, or someone going after a devils player.

by DDJ on Jun 3, 2010 5:56 PM EDT reply actions

His ability to fight isn’t really in question, it’s the relevance of it.

The couple of minutes per game he patrols the ice looking to punch someone would probably be better used by someone who can contribute more to the effort; plus it’d cut down the minutes of the guys who have to play more to accommodate his limited TOI.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)

by elesias on Jun 3, 2010 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions