Did Fighting Really Benefit the New Jersey Devils in 2010-11?

good post. I think if the nhl did a consumer research poll they could get a better grasp on this. lets say the polled every fan the entered an arean for a game for a month just to see how they felt about fighting. They could have three answers dont like it, like it, and dont care. They could use this to help see if fighting is really needed in the game. Its obvious they dont really want it since they crack down on it a lot more in the playoffs, when a larger audience is watching.

Disclaimer: i enjoy fighting in hockey, but i do support the notion that it may not be needed in the game.

Getting rid of it will cause more problems than solve. You take away, granted an illegal, but “allowed” aspect of a game where 12 men are skating around a limited area, with sticks, beating and banging themselves, then the safest avenue to release those frustrations is completely disallowed rather than simply harshly penalized, and you’re going to see the frustrations come out by more stick swinging, slashing, cross-checking, etc. Very few significant injuries occur from fighting, other than the injury inflicted upon ones self. I’d be willing to bet breaking your own hand is the most common injury caused by a fight. You slash someone with a two hander across the wrists, that’s definitely worse than anything you could do to hurt yourself in a fight.

Take fighting away and say hello to more injuries inflicted out of frustration.

Now, as far as statistically whether a fight turns the momentum of a game and has a positive impact – throw away all the fights that occur later than halfway through the third period when your team is behind by 3 or more, and any that occur when your team is behind by 4 or more. The intent of those fights is not to turn the momentum of a game that is still winnable, but rather to send a message to the other team. Also, more than the current score as far as the situation has to enter into the equation. Sure you may be up 3-2 when the fight occurred, but if you were up 3-0 46 seconds earlier, the fight is an attempt to stop the momentum train the other team has just boarded. And since the fight DID happen, there’s no way of knowing how things would have occurred without the fight, so too much analysis is moot.

Like it or not, fighting has its place in the game. If you don’t have someone on your team that you won’t miss being off the ice for 5 minutes, you’re shorthanded even at even strength.

Let me ask everybody a question about those 2 Kovalchuk fights. How many here would have preferred Eric Boulton was on the team and took those fights and let Kovy still be available to score goals?

First, the idea that getting rid of fighting will make the NHL more popular is a logical phalicy. That’s the same arguement they used when they stuck in the instigator penalty and popularity didn’t rise significantly. Those people that say they won’t watch hockey because of fighting would find another reason to not watch hockey if the NHL got rid of fighting.

Second, if hockey is THRIVING in Europe, then why do all their best players come to this league to play. The idea of THRIVING means that there is money in other markets to pay them a competitive salary, and there is enough prestige associated with those teams that players want to stay and play for them. Also, the only reason non-hockey fans watched hockey in the Olympics is the same reason non-soccer fans watched the women’s world cup, the USA is involved. We are a patriotic people and we root for our country. Don’t tell me that non-hockey fans would have watched a Russia vs Canada Olympic finals, because that is just not true.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think fighting is essential. I do enjoy it though. I enjoy it alot. I would be very upset if they removed fighting and for the first year I might go to less games. (I go to 10 games a year on average, more if I can afford it) However, I wouldn’t stop watching hockey if they got rid of it. I feel that fighting is unique to hockey, its one of the things that turned me on to the sport. I’ll never forget the first game I went to when I was 4 years old. I thought it was so cool that they would just stop the game and let 2 guys punch each other in the face and then go on afterwards like it wasn’t a big deal. I for one don’t want to see it go and I would miss it.

You could selectively ignore some games like that, sure.

zing!

That’s kinda ridiculous, the Flames had the momentum to tie that game up because of the already huge deficit they were facing, having to tie it up did take momentum as well as Montreal taking it easy as they had a 4-0 lead. Of course momentum exists in sports, it’s part of the flow of the game.

I remember one fight that stands out, in the Philly Penguins series (I believe the 2008 one) the Flyers had the whole game wrapped up to take it to 7 until Carcillo got into a dumb fight with Max Talbot. Suddenly the tables turned and the Penguin stars went and scored a few goals to beat the Flyers and win the series. At the time all Flyer fans were calling for Carcillo’s head.

This post is so full of logical fallacies that I don’t even know where to begin, so I’ll just point out the delicious irony of accusing someone of not being sophisticated and then proceeding to Cam Janssenize the basic rules of grammar and spelling.

I’m guessing that since using a lot of words that actually say nothing, piling logical fallacy upon logical fallacy, and providing anecdotes and opinions as facts isn’t working, you’re attempting to resort to petty insults as a means to advance your argument—or at least discredit me and thus mine—and can’t even do that right.

Come back and give it another shot when you’ve learned how to converse like a grown-up.

This is an unintentionally hilarious comment.

Why have people started to argue just for the sake of arguing on here >.<

The “reply” button is your friend

We could do this forever. You cite some random piece of anecdotal evidence to support your argument and it gets torn to shreds, which you then completely ignore and post some other piece of anecdotal evidence to support the same argument.

Let’s do this one last time, since it’s become increasingly evident that you believe what you believe and no amount of contrary evidence or discrediting your argument will change your mind.

During the 2011 Stanley Cup run, Shawn Thornton was a healthy scratch for several games as the Bruins chose to play Tyler Seguin to gain more offense.

Several is a slight understatement. He played in 18 of Boston’s 25 playoff games.

However, many credit the insertion of Thornton into the lineup during Game 3 of the Finals as the turning point for the series.

Who does this? Who are “many” exactly?

Do they credit Game 3 being played in Boston as having anything to do with it? Or that they went into Game 3 down 2-0 in the series and, for all intents and purposes, it was a must-win game? Do these people credit Thornton’s presence as important to all of Boston’s 8 goals that day, or just some of them?

His physical play changed the tone of the series and the Bruins went on to win four of the last 5 games with him in the lineup.

How so? This statement suggests that Shawn Thornton—he of 9.6 shifts per game in the playoffs, 6:57 TOI/G; one of only 2 guys on the team to finish with a negative +/- on a team that outscored its opposition while he was on the roster by a count of 21-4; zero fighting majors; and a 0% shooting percentage—changed the entire series by throwing hits and “being physical.”

It almost seems like it might be a viable theory until one looks at the roster of the Boston Bruins and realizes that it’s not exactly like they were hurting for physical presences without him.

I can’t break down who threw what individual hits without sorting through every game’s play-by-play, something I have no intention of doing, but in both Games 1 and 2, without Thornton, Boston was credited with 31 hits (compared to 30 and 40 for VAN). With Thornton from Game 3 on they were credited with 39, 27, 27, 43, 29 (average 33). In the same games, Vancouver was credited with 31, 27, 47, 38, 47 (average 38), so if hitting = winning, they should have won, especially Game 7 at home where they vastly outhit Boston 47-29.

In the end, what you have is a coincidence that Shawn Thornton was inserted into the line-up in Game 3 and the team started winning. No matter how badly you want there to be, there is no apparent correlation between those two things, and to continue to suggest there was deliberately overlooks other, more likely, factors.