What premise are you disagreeing with? I asked a simple set of questions related to the proposition that there's a cost/benefit scenario at play.
It goes beyond the "data" and is not dependent on it. We are accepting incomplete and inconclusive "data". So...
Can you answer?
- ...let's consider the protection effect to be "hypothetical" as well. In both cases an assumption is being made based entirely on observation and experience, but without empirical evidence. Agree?
- So why not err on the side of caution given that analysis?
- In the absence of quantifiable data, what would most coaches and players choose?
- Isn't that essentially the same as playing a guy with 1% better (insert fancy stat) over another guy...because you perceive better odds/chances/etc?
- can you show me data that proves your (insert family member) loves you? Not a personal attack, just a hypothetical. Doesn't exist if there's no quantifiable data, right?
I'm disagreeing with the premise that tough guys, or enforcers, act as a deterrent. A lot of other people also disagree, including many current coaches who decide not to dress enforcers because they believe the cost/benefit scenario works out in favor of not dressing a tough guy, so I think it's fair to say that the deterrent factor is in question. I think it's reasonable that when something is disputed or in question and there's no consensus, then we should try to analyze it in as an objective way as possible.
The data presented shows, at best, that the deterrent factor is inconclusive, and more likely that dressing enforcers is correlated with more fights and more injuries.
So the cost/benefit analysis of dressing an enforcer is as follows:
COST: Be less likely to win the game. Be less likely to win future games due to an increased risk of injury, causing players to miss future games.
BENEFIT: None.
If you want to take the more inconclusive version of the data, and assuming injuries are relatively equal dressing or not dressing an enforcer:
COST: Be less likely to win the game.
BENEFIT: None.
Neither of these analyses lead me to want to dress an enforcer as a deterrent.
To answer your questions:
1. There is some data to indicate enforcers as deterrents don't work, and likely cause more injuries to your team. Please see the links I posted. So no, I don't agree. The assumption that deterrents don't work is based on data, and the assumption that deterrents do work is not based on data. Unless you have some other data to suggest enforcers reduce injuries? You mentioned that there is evidence that support both sides of the argument.
2. The side of caution would be to follow the data when in doubt. One side has data, the other doesn't
3. They'd choose whatever they feel is right, probably based on past experience. Of course that does not apply here. Currently, most coaches do not dress enforcers because the collective experience and data support "enforcers and deterrents are of little value."
4. Yes. Again, under the assumption that there is a deterrent effect, it is reasonable to play an enforcer in this role. But the assumption is false, in my opinion.
5. Of course I can't: none of my family loves me.
So now that I've gone through answering some of your questions, I'd like to ask again: if Laviolette doesn't put Tom Wilson alongside Alex Ovechkin, or if someone doesn't fight Trent Frederic to "deter" him, would you say Laviolette and the team is making a mistake?