Do the Habs go into the season "Goonless"? Part 2

[Hoople]

This is your problem, in a nutshell. No-one is arguing that enforcers should prevent all injuries to be worthwhile. No-one is arguing that anyone has said they do. And like I said before if indeed "it helps" then I'm interested in the idea. But how much does it help? How many less injuries, on average, will the team suffer? Which enforcers are better than others at preventing injuries? Those are the questions I would want to find answers to. I can't, and you won't even try to answer them, because you can't either. But, if it was true, I should be able to see that effect in the stats, just like I can with the wearing of a seatbelt. The figures can't show that a specific accident would have been different if a person had been wearing a seatbelt when they weren't or hadn't been wearing a seatbelt when they were. But they show clearly that, in the long run, people wearing seatbelts suffer fewer and less serious injuries in an accident that people who don't. So I don't expect proof of what would have happened if Parros hasn't been playing when Orr decided to lip at Subban or if we would have had a goon sitting on the pench when Bourque decided to go for Orr. But there should be figures that show that, in the long run, teams with a goon playing suffer less injuries than teams without. And, just like any other part of the game, some goons should be better at preventing injuries than others, and that should show up too.



Problem is, in about a months time, you'll be the guy wanting to claim every single goon that gets put on waivers.

The stats you are looking for are there. I showed you them on the last thread by using the Boston Bruins.

You bring up seat belts and how you can measure whether people suffer fewer serious injuries.

The same can be made for the Bruins. EVERY single game that the Bruins play, there is checking and contact and hitting from both teams. Just like your seat belt analogy.

Does that hitting escalate into dirty cheap shots from other teams playing the Bruins? The stats are there. Look at every incident of a dirty cheap shot against the Bruins that resulted in an injury and tally that total. Next, look at every game (when players engaged in body checking) where there were no incidents of dirty cheap shots against the Bruins that resulted in an injury.

There is your statistic. There is your %.

You conveniently choose to ignore that stat though.

 

[Lions999]

It's not all about injuries it's about intimidating some players off their game and it works.

 

[Corncob]

The stats you are looking for are there. I showed you them on the last thread by using the Boston Bruins.

You bring up seat belts and how you can measure whether people suffer fewer serious injuries.

The same can be made for the Bruins. EVERY single game that the Bruins play, there is checking and contact and hitting from both teams. Just like your seat belt analogy.

Does that hitting escalate into dirty cheap shots from other teams playing the Bruins? The stats are there. Look at every incident of a dirty cheap shot against the Bruins that resulted in an injury and tally that total. Next, look at every game (when players engaged in body checking) where there were no incidents of dirty cheap shots against the Bruins that resulted in an injury.

There is your statistic. There is your %.

You conveniently choose to ignore that stat though.

I didn't ignore it, I completely destroyed it. You have to compare it to something for it to be meaningful. The only reason the seatbelt statistic is meaningful is because it's compared to accidents where no seatbelt is worn. So, you could compare the Bruins to teams with no goons to show that those teams suffer more injuries/cheapshots. Or you could show that the Bruins themselves suffered more injuries/cheapshots in games where they didn't dress Thornton than when they did. Either of those would be a legitimate line of argument. Saying a goon played in a game, no cheapshots happened, therefore the goon prevented cheapshots is not.

Your current argument goes along the lines of "I made ten journeys in my car, each time wearing my seatbelt. During the first nine I didn't crash and suffered no injuries. On the tenth occasion, someone ran into the back of me and I broke my neck. This proves that seatbelts work because there were nine times when I didn't break my neck"

This is a bit worrying, I normally assume you are just trolling deliberately, little bit scared you might have actually thought you had a real argument here....

 

[Hoople]

I didn't ignore it, I completely destroyed it. You have to compare it to something for it to be meaningful. The only reason the seatbelt statistic is meaningful is because it's compared to accidents where no seatbelt is worn. So, you could compare the Bruins to teams with no goons to show that those teams suffer more injuries/cheapshots. Or you could show that the Bruins themselves suffered more injuries/cheapshots in games where they didn't dress Thornton than when they did. Either of those would be a legitimate line of argument. Saying a goon played in a game, no cheapshots happened, therefore the goon prevented cheapshots is not.

Your current argument goes along the lines of "I made ten journeys in my car, each time wearing my seatbelt. During the first nine I didn't crash and suffered no injuries. On the tenth occasion, someone ran into the back of me and I broke my neck. This proves that seatbelts work because there were nine times when I didn't break my neck"

This is a bit worrying, I normally assume you are just trolling deliberately, little bit scared you might have actually thought you had a real argument here....

In your response to another poster, you asked this question.......

"Which enforcers are better than others at preventing injuries?"

You want to talk about trolling???

 

[Corncob]

In your response to another poster, you asked this question.......

"Which enforcers are better than others at preventing injuries?"

You want to talk about trolling???

It's a reasonable question. In every other facet of the game, you get differentials between players. Some players whose job is to score goals are much better at it than others whose job is to score goals. It's easy to show who these are. Some players whose job is to involves taking faceoffs are consistently better at it than others whose job involves taking faceoffs. Some players are better at killing penalties than others.

It's not logical to think that if part of an enforcers role is preventing injuries, that there won't be some that are better than it than others. What we should see, if the argument is correct, is long term differences in number of player games lost to injury between teams that carry an enforcer and those that don't. And amongst the teams carrying an enforcer we should see differences between them so we can identify which enforcers are better at this part of their job.

 

[Hoople]

It's a reasonable question. In every other facet of the game, you get differentials between players. Some players whose job is to score goals are much better at it than others whose job is to score goals. It's easy to show who these are. Some players whose job is to involves taking faceoffs are consistently better at it than others whose job involves taking faceoffs. Some players are better at killing penalties than others.

It's not logical to think that if part of an enforcers role is preventing injuries, that there won't be some that are better than it than others. What we should see, if the argument is correct, is long term differences in number of player games lost to injury between teams that carry an enforcer and those that don't. And amongst the teams carrying an enforcer we should see differences between them so we can identify which enforcers are better at this part of their job.

I had a great round of golf today. 5 shots below my posted handicap.

 

[Corncob]

You know, you'd draw less attention to yourself when you get brutalised like Lucic's girlfriend if you just ran away and hid like MaxPac did

 

[Hoople]

I reply to absurdity with absurdity.

I know your method. So carry on.

Speaking of carry, I've started playing with the Titleist SoLo instead of the ProV1. Pleased with the distance and sticking to the green. And a lot less expensive. Win-win.

 

[Brainiac]

I like how the pro-goon crowd pretend that goons do bring something in today's NHL. This something is impossible to measure and impossible to assess. But we should believe they do bring it and thus, we need a goon. End of the discussion.

It's like arguing with some religious folks. Goons work in mysterious ways and all.

 

[Kriss E]

I like how the pro-goon crowd pretend that goons do bring something in today's NHL. This something is impossible to measure and impossible to assess. But we should believe they do bring it and thus, we need a goon. End of the discussion.

It's like arguing with some religious folks. Goons work in mysterious ways and all.

There is a few stats available to them but they ignore them. The number of fights and enforcers in the NHL has been on a decline since mid-90s. Last year, there were half the number of enforcers than just 10 years ago.
Every thing points towards the enforcers slowly dying out. They play for 5min, sometimes not even, most of their fights are staged, the NHL has made fighting a tougher thing to do than in the 80s and early 90s.
But they obviously can't look at that because it's against their belief.

 

[Dominator13]

You know, you'd draw less attention to yourself when you get brutalised like Lucic's girlfriend if you just ran away and hid like MaxPac did

You talking about me son?

I just got tired of the same lame excuses and word twisting over and over again. It's opinions that are mostly based on personality traits anyways. It's probably the same kind of "men" that are too scared to defend their girlfriends.

It's either 1) fights are on the decline (EVEN THOUGH WE HAD 16 MORE FIGHTS LAST SEASON!!!)

0r 2) The game magicaly changed for some unknown reason because teams carry 1 heavyweight fighter over the 2,3 goons teams had in the 80's.

It's an absolute joke, and it's certaintly not the majority opinion. Proof is that 98% of players want fights, and crowds erupt when a fight start, they don't cry on intenet boards like the 5,6 guys that pretend they know how players think.

 

[Dominator13]

There is a few stats available to them but they ignore them. The number of fights and enforcers in the NHL has been on a decline since mid-90s. Last year, there were half the number of enforcers than just 10 years ago.
Every thing points towards the enforcers slowly dying out. They play for 5min, sometimes not even, most of their fights are staged, the NHL has made fighting a tougher thing to do than in the 80s and early 90s.
But they obviously can't look at that because it's against their belief.

Kriss let's get something straight, NOBODY ignores facts like you do. Some of the responses are just mind-boggling. You know what my belief is? Until they're not gone, they're not gone. We had a fight once every 2 games and was waaayyy more respected than previous seasons, those are facts too buddy. Prust posted on Twitter how happy he was Parros joined the Habs, Plekanec asked for help on camera 3 years ago, those are facts.

A "stage fight" also has purpose, weather you want to believe, or not. Sometimes it's a momentum changer, sometimes it's a message to your adverasry. Have you ever seen one of your friends fight? Have you ever defended anyone? If you can stay cool-headed, good for you, but most humans aren't programed that way.

 

[Kriss E]

Kriss let's get something straight, NOBODY ignores facts like you do. Some of the responses are just mind-boggling. You know what my belief is? Until they're not gone, they're not gone. We had a fight once every 2 games and was waaayyy more respected than previous seasons, those are facts too buddy. Prust posted on Twitter how happy he was Parros joined the Habs, Plekanec asked for help on camera 3 years ago, those are facts.

Ignore facts?? What?
Here's another fact for you, we had 43 major penalties this year. Last year, in 48 games, we had 26. Over an 82 game period, that's 48 majors.
Us being more respected is your personal belief that is clearly biased. I remember a Bruins player a few years ago mentioned that a lot of people in the media poke fun of Mtl's size and think they're easy push overs but that it's far from the truth.
You have a few beatdowns imprinted in your brain and you don't want it to happen again, so it clouds your judgment.

Prust had a worse season with Parros around. Did you notice any difference in Plekanec's game when Laraque was here? or Staubitz? or Parros? I certainly didn't.

A "stage fight" also has purpose, weather you want to believe, or not. Sometimes it's a momentum changer, sometimes it's a message to your adverasry. Have you ever seen one of your friends fight? Have you ever defended anyone? If you can stay cool-headed, good for you, but most humans aren't programed that way.

Sure you get riled up when it's happening but I'm not stupid. Seeing my friend get KO or doing the KO himself is not going to make me shoot the puck harder, improve my hockey sense or vision, turn me into a better passer, or anything of the sort. Would be interesting to see the number of goals that were scored on the play following a fight.
And if you need a fight to get your troops motivated, you're in some serious freaking crap.

 

[habsfanatics*]

It's a reasonable question. In every other facet of the game, you get differentials between players. Some players whose job is to score goals are much better at it than others whose job is to score goals. It's easy to show who these are. Some players whose job is to involves taking faceoffs are consistently better at it than others whose job involves taking faceoffs. Some players are better at killing penalties than others.

It's not logical to think that if part of an enforcers role is preventing injuries, that there won't be some that are better than it than others. What we should see, if the argument is correct, is long term differences in number of player games lost to injury between teams that carry an enforcer and those that don't. And amongst the teams carrying an enforcer we should see differences between them so we can identify which enforcers are better at this part of their job.

I don't think this is true and/or should be expected. Most injuries are incidental contact or freak injuries, even if a enforcer does have a net positive on preventing injuries, ie resulting from dirty plays, it's highly unlikely to ever show up in the data, that's the very nature of the sport. I tend to believe that if fighting is removed, stick swinging and other tactics to seek retribution will be used. These are people playing at the highest level with crazy amounts of emotion. No one ever suggested that goons would prevent the game from being played.

Our former captain when asked about it said that the stickwork in NCAA hockey was much worse, for example. You're asking for the impossible, the only way to prove your hypothesis correct, is to try it, I think you'd end up disappointed with the results.

My two cents.

 

[Kriss E]

I don't think this is true and/or should be expected. Most injuries are incidental contact or freak injuries, even if a enforcer does have a net positive on preventing injuries, ie resulting from dirty plays, it's highly unlikely to ever show up in the data, that's the very nature of the sport. I tend to believe that if fighting is removed, stick swinging and other tactics to seek retribution will be used. These are people playing at the highest level with crazy amounts of emotion. No one ever suggested that goons would prevent the game from being played.

Our former captain when asked about it said that the stickwork in NCAA hockey was much worse, for example. You're asking for the impossible, the only way to prove your hypothesis correct, is to try it, I think you'd end up disappointed with the results.

My two cents.

That could be observable. Detroit-NJ-Car only had 10 or less majors last year. Were more stick swinging and dirty tactics used more on them than other teams?

If it really would lead to more dirty hits, there's only one way to control them and that's with harsher suspensions. If they don't want that they should remove the instigator rule, but that's never going to happen.

 

[Hoople]

That could be observable. Detroit-NJ-Car only had 10 or less majors last year. Were more stick swinging and dirty tactics used more on them than other teams?

If it really would lead to more dirty hits, there's only one way to control them and that's with harsher suspensions. If they don't want that they should remove the instigator rule, but that's never going to happen.

Kriss, the world is not black and white. Apples are not oranges, even if you paint them the same color.

Is Boston, Ottawa and Toronto engaged in a very heated/hated rivalry with Detroit-NJ-Car? No, they are not. Could change this season or not.

The reality, and you can like it or not-----or you can accept it or not-----does not matter since you are irrelevant-----, is that the Bruins, Sens and Leafs absolutely hate everything about the Habs. And I do not see that changing anytime soon.

 

[Kriss E]

Kriss, the world is not black and white. Apples are not oranges, even if you paint them the same color.

Is Boston, Ottawa and Toronto engaged in a very heated/hated rivalry with Detroit-NJ-Car? No, they are not. Could change this season or not.

The reality, and you can like it or not-----or you can accept it or not-----does not matter since you are irrelevant-----, is that the Bruins, Sens and Leafs absolutely hate everything about the Habs. And I do not see that changing anytime soon.

So?..

What does this have anything to do with not wanting a player that completely sucks and can only be used for 5min for not even the whole season?

We have rivalries, okay, then get bigger with top 9.

 

[Brainiac]

Sounds like you were bullied as a kid, and you are the ones with issues....

Well, actually it's a little more complicated.

100% honest here: I often got into fights to defend friends/acquaintances who got bullied. I'm not that big, but I was the youngest in my family, so I sort of learned to fight against guys bigger than me early on. Almost sent a guy to the hospital when I was 11 or 12. Fought a 14 yo drug dealer when I was 13. Police got there and all (true story, my mom was crying all over). But that is long gone.

Got out of that pattern just in time when I was 13 or 14. Now I just talk out any problem I come across. And believe me, I do get out of a lot of trouble just by talking. I can defuse a lot of stuff when I get my bull**** going.

And you want to know the funniest part? One of my cousins was playing in the Q at that time, 3 or 4 years older than me. Big guy and all. Got some skill, was my idol at the time. But he was told his only 100% sure way to get to the NHL was to fight. Did it for a time and then realized he didn't want to end with mashed potatoes for a brain. I sort of subconsciously realized that was the wise thing to do. Just concentrate on more productive stuff.

And yes, that was quite some time ago. I'm fuzzy with the details because that happened in the 80s.

 

[VirginiaMtlExpat]

Kriss, the world is not black and white. Apples are not oranges, even if you paint them the same color.

Is Boston, Ottawa and Toronto engaged in a very heated/hated rivalry with Detroit-NJ-Car? No, they are not. Could change this season or not.

The reality, and you can like it or not-----or you can accept it or not-----does not matter since you are irrelevant-----, is that the Bruins, Sens and Leafs absolutely hate everything about the Habs. And I do not see that changing anytime soon.

I was about to point out the same thing. The needs of the Montreal Canadiens, specifically, are somewhat different from those of other teams, because of these rivalries. Detroit could develop, or rekindle, a rivalry with Toronto, but it does not have an adversarial relationship as pronounced with both the Leafs and the Bruins, both of who stake their strategic approach on intimidation and, worst still, systematic attempts to injure. Not to mention the Sens.

 

[Brainiac]

Sounds like the plot of Good Will Hunting....

Hey man, I did end up getting some degrees. But no, I'm not that smart. You have to get in the system (grad studies and all) to understand that they don't select for smart people. I'd say I'm perserverant and that's it. Will Hunting was smart. Big difference. And that's why it was realistic in the movie to have that guy completely outside of academia.

By the time I was 18-20 I was a "full patch" nerd and everything. Good Will Hunting was funny. But nothing I'd relate to.

 

[habsfanatics*]

That could be observable. Detroit-NJ-Car only had 10 or less majors last year. Were more stick swinging and dirty tactics used more on them than other teams?

If it really would lead to more dirty hits, there's only one way to control them and that's with harsher suspensions. If they don't want that they should remove the instigator rule, but that's never going to happen.

The option to fight was still there kriss, whether they used it or not is irrelevant, besides, by your own admission, they did at some point.

 

[VirginiaMtlExpat]

Hey man, I did end up getting some degrees. But no, I'm not that smart. You have to get in the system (grad studies and all) to understand that they don't select for smart people. I'd say I'm perserverant and that's it...

That is exactly what you need to get through grad studies (plus a minimum level of talent); this is particularly true if you end up with a tyrant as a thesis advisor, as was the case for me during my Master's (I chose better the next time around).

 

[Kriss E]

The option to fight was still there kriss, whether they used it or not is irrelevant, besides, by your own admission, they did at some point.

Yes but if you're a team that doesn't carry these aggressive fighters to the point where you're not even going to fight more than 10 times in 82 games, I think it's fair to say we should be able to observe more stick work and dirty hits versus them rather than the most fighting teams.

 

[Kriss E]

I was about to point out the same thing. The needs of the Montreal Canadiens, specifically, are somewhat different from those of other teams, because of these rivalries. Detroit could develop, or rekindle, a rivalry with Toronto, but it does not have an adversarial relationship as pronounced with both the Leafs and the Bruins, both of who stake their strategic approach on intimidation and, worst still, systematic attempts to injure. Not to mention the Sens.

Rivalries stem from good teams facing each other often.

 

[VirginiaMtlExpat]

Rivalries stem from good teams facing each other often.

Yes, but there is something specific about Toronto and Boston, as they were #1-2 in fighting majors last year, at 47 and 46. Ottawa is not far behind tied for #7. Toronto was at the top the previous year, with Boston #4 and Ottawa #7.

If Montreal were geographically closer to say Chicago, Minnesota (#27 and #21 in fighting majors last year), and the Habs had a disproportionate number of games with those teams, or in an alternate universe if the Leafs and Bruins were to forego intimidation as a foundation of their gameplan, the impetus for a goon would be a lot less significant than is the case currently. A rivalry emerging with the Hawks and Wild would be mostly about high-level hockey, not dealing with intimidation and attempts to injure.

However in this universe, you can count on the Leafs and Bruins gooning it up, as well as the Sens to an extent, so that this goes beyond a rivalry narrowly defined based on skill. This is war, at least during the regular season.