The statistical argument against fighting

[The Underboss]

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/thn-analytics-the-statistical-argument-against-fighting/

As the debate over fighting continues, it certainly appears that the anti-fighting crowd has gained the upper hand.

While the debate has often been framed around a series of defenses for fighting, including the concepts of providing a boost, deterring harm against a team, and the idea that you’ll lose fans if you phase fighting out of the game, all of these issues can be addressed by looking into statistical evidence. I also think there’s a fourth point that hasn’t really been discussed: the difference between employing a fighter that can’t play the game particularly well, and a regular 4th liner. Let’s take a look at these arguments point-by-point....:

Click to read more...

 

[IslesNorway]

If people goto hockey games just to watch the fighting then something is seriously wrong and they should turn to martial arts instead.

Personally I'm not against fighting per se, but I don't really see the point of an enforcer. If you can have 4th liners who can actually play and throw a punch if needed then that is fine.

 

[LeapOnOver]

All for fighting. Gives the fans a lift, causes teammates to rally behind each other and adds excitement. That's only three reasons of many. Talk about trying to inject a statistical argument into something that can't be statistically verified lol...

You want to measure statistics, measure the crowd noise in decibels when a fight breaks out. That's all the statistical evidence you need. (unless you want to measure the crowd noise when a 4th liner scores, but it's a lousy example because only the home team is going to cheer for a 4th liners goal when the whole crowd cheers during a fight.)

As a fan I enjoy it.

 

[lazycop]

It's funny, I used to enjoy the fights but they're just not the same. Most of the fights these days don't go anywhere, what with guys grabbing a death-grip on each others non-punching arm and holding each other away. It's more of a dance than a fight.
Here's a thought, how about making it an added penalty to grab and hold a players jersey with your non-punching hand during a fight('holding', if you will). The fights would certainly be more entertaining, and probably be over quicker. I mean if your gonna have a fight, make it a real fight! You'd probably cut down on the number of fights because guys would know they might really get clocked.

 

[stranger34]

All for fighting. Gives the fans a lift, causes teammates to rally behind each other and adds excitement. That's only three reasons of many. Talk about trying to inject a statistical argument into something that can't be statistically verified lol...

You want to measure statistics, measure the crowd noise in decibels when a fight breaks out. That's all the statistical evidence you need. (unless you want to measure the crowd noise when a 4th liner scores, but it's a lousy example because only the home team is going to cheer for a 4th liners goal when the whole crowd cheers during a fight.)

As a fan I enjoy it.

agree completely

 

[A Pointed Stick]

Why not beat the crap out of Steve Downie?

/argument

 

[Jester9881]

This article is another example of someone who bought into analytics (which is absolutely fine), and went overboard with it's implementation. You cannot use numbers to measure something that is not quantifiable, period.

 

[charlie1]

I like the idea but there are so many holes in that anlaysis. I could pick it apart but nobody even cares.

 

[majormet]

I think fighting is necessary in the game... when it is warranted not choreographed, it should happen naturally like Stewart v Lucic the other night or when Toews fights Backes... it is silly when 2 guys who generally like each other decide to fight because there is no hatred in the fight... to me it seemed different in the days when Bob Propert fought because Probert could actually play the game and when he fought a guy like Nylund it was part of the Chicago/Detroit heat.... today seeing Eric Boulton fight Tim Jackman doesn't seem intense, it seems staged.

I do feel the Isles need a top 9 guy who will fight just like Hamonic will fight... otherwise teams like Boston and Philly who carry physical forwards will maul us, part of the reason why we don't matchup well against Winnipeg (who is a very good team believe it or not)....

 

[frankieboy]

I am in favor of fighting staying in the game, but I started watching hockey in the 70s and really grew up on hockey in the 80s when bench clearing brawls still happened. I was actually at a game between the Caps and Flyers where the benches cleared in the 80s. Times change, although I really hope they don't get rid of fighting. The d*** instigator penalty really hampered the fighting aspect. One thing I HATE with fighting these days is when a fight starts after a valid, clean hit. I think that sucks. Guys used to get plowed all the time in the 70s and 80s. The only time you'd see a fight start after those types of hits was when a finesse player got hit. Otherwise, I think the players understood it was a physical game. If there is one thing that gets me going more than a nice goal (or a good fight), its a really good, clean hit. I used to love guys like Dave Langevin (an awesome hitter for those who don't remember him) who really could crunch guys. I hope that Mayfield can develop into a guy like him. Speaking of Langevin, he had some awesome battles with Mel Bridgman in the 70s. Youtube it!

 

[MattMartin]

I love the scraps, even the appointment ones.



I believe the Islanders were down a goal and wound up winning the game. This fight really woke the team up that night.

 

[stranger34]

I am in favor of fighting staying in the game, but I started watching hockey in the 70s and really grew up on hockey in the 80s when bench clearing brawls still happened. I was actually at a game between the Caps and Flyers where the benches cleared in the 80s. Times change, although I really hope they don't get rid of fighting. The d*** instigator penalty really hampered the fighting aspect. One thing I HATE with fighting these days is when a fight starts after a valid, clean hit. I think that sucks. Guys used to get plowed all the time in the 70s and 80s. The only time you'd see a fight start after those types of hits was when a finesse player got hit. Otherwise, I think the players understood it was a physical game. If there is one thing that gets me going more than a nice goal (or a good fight), its a really good, clean hit. I used to love guys like Dave Langevin (an awesome hitter for those who don't remember him) who really could crunch guys. I hope that Mayfield can develop into a guy like him. Speaking of Langevin, he had some awesome battles with Mel Bridgman in the 70s. Youtube it!

agree and not sure why the over-policing of clean hits developed.

 

[ScaredStreit]

I was at a wedding last weekend and somehow we started talking about fighting. This lady said she's been to one game in her entire life (recently)....and that the fight was the most exciting part. Just saying.

I am in favor of fighting staying in the game, but I started watching hockey in the 70s and really grew up on hockey in the 80s when bench clearing brawls still happened. I was actually at a game between the Caps and Flyers where the benches cleared in the 80s. Times change, although I really hope they don't get rid of fighting. The d*** instigator penalty really hampered the fighting aspect. One thing I HATE with fighting these days is when a fight starts after a valid, clean hit. I think that sucks. Guys used to get plowed all the time in the 70s and 80s. The only time you'd see a fight start after those types of hits was when a finesse player got hit. Otherwise, I think the players understood it was a physical game. If there is one thing that gets me going more than a nice goal (or a good fight), its a really good, clean hit. I used to love guys like Dave Langevin (an awesome hitter for those who don't remember him) who really could crunch guys. I hope that Mayfield can develop into a guy like him. Speaking of Langevin, he had some awesome battles with Mel Bridgman in the 70s. Youtube it!

Two things:

1) Players don't have the luxury of having time to analyze whether a big hit was clean or hit. They see it in real time (sometimes partially obstructed), and don't have the luxury of a playback as we do. The game is much faster than it was in the 70s/80s.

2) If Tavares was getting hit by hard (but clean) hits every shift shouldn't the Isles do something about that?

 

[frankieboy]

I was at a wedding last weekend and somehow we started talking about fighting. This lady said she's been to one game in her entire life (recently)....and that the fight was the most exciting part. Just saying.



Two things:

1) Players don't have the luxury of having time to analyze whether a big hit was clean or hit. They see it in real time (sometimes partially obstructed), and don't have the luxury of a playback as we do. The game is much faster than it was in the 70s/80s.

2) If Tavares was getting hit by hard (but clean) hits every shift shouldn't the Isles do something about that?

Regarding #1, I just think attitudes have changed. If a guy gets blown up, even legally, someone is looking for him. I am sure speed plays a part, but I think attitudes have changed.

Regarding #2, yes, I do think someone should respond if Tavares gets blown up. See my post above where I indicated that, even in the 70s, a guy would have to respond if a finesse player took a hit. The big difference between now and the 70s/80s is that, back in the 70s and 80s, guys could not hide behind the instigator penalty. If someone landed a dirty hit, someone was coming for them and would fight them regardless of whether they wanted to or not (or they just got pummeled).

 

[lazycop]

I agree completely about the fights after a clean hit being BS. Perfect example is PK Subbans freight train hit on Brad Marchand from a few years back.(if you don't know what I'm talking about YouTube it. Too lazy too post the video). A perfectly legal hit, and half the bruin team immediately went after Subban.

 

[ScaredStreit]

Regarding #1, I just think attitudes have changed. If a guy gets blown up, even legally, someone is looking for him. I am sure speed plays a part, but I think attitudes have changed.

Regarding #2, yes, I do think someone should respond if Tavares gets blown up. See my post above where I indicated that, even in the 70s, a guy would have to respond if a finesse player took a hit. The big difference between now and the 70s/80s is that, back in the 70s and 80s, guys could not hide behind the instigator penalty. If someone landed a dirty hit, someone was coming for them and would fight them regardless of whether they wanted to or not (or they just got pummeled).

I'm all for getting rid of the instigator.