It really does seem to have no effect. Or maybe even the opposite effect intended - there was a study run a couple years ago, and if memory serves when a player clearly won a fight, his team only scored the next goal 46% of the time. Less than 50% in any case.
Although, since Dorsett and Prust lose most of their fights, maybe this is some sort of advanced stat geniusness from Benning.
The problem with this, is that it's presupposing that "winning" or "losing" the fight matters. Whereas it's really more the
act of fighting that can swing the momentum. The message that dropping the gloves sends.
Players aren't sitting there on the bench going, "oh yeah, here we go Dorsy...oh wait, he lost? Booooooo, nevermind, i'm no longer interested".
Of course, those fights last night...
The Dorsett thing with Ferland to kick things off was extremely dumb to watch for us as fans. But inside that locker room...you know he's been in their heads all summer long and win or lose the fight, it sends a clear message, and sets a tone.
The Prust fight...it's hard to imagine that did anything for anyone other than blow a bit of airtime.
But i don't really think pegging anything as far as results to "winning" and "losing" is a meaningful way of looking at it. That's extremely vague on the "outcome", and extremely specific on a particular "detail" that doesn't exactly matter.
I think you've gotta remember...an awful lot of hockey players are kind of "meatheads". One thing they
do understand, is violence and ideas like "manning up" and "answering the bell". Seems kind of naive to think fighting has no impact on the game. What that impact
is and how it's decided, is very unpredictable, open to debate, and obviously very difficult to quantify and boil down to a statistic.