Ken Baumgartner's 1998 Season

[MS]

Enforcers definitely had a purpose. I wish there were more enforcers nowadays. You wouldn't see a guy like Tom Wilson lining up headshots left and right if he had to deal with someone who can handle him in a fight.

Hockey has become more boring without that element of the game.

Hockey was far more violent and dirty in the 1980s and 1990s, with most of the worst cheapshots actually performed by the ultra-violent enforcers who were there supposedly to protect guys.

The notion of the noble enforcer who prevented violence by sticking up for teammates is a total myth. Almost all of these guys were violent goons running around trying to hurt people.

Oh really? So all the GMs in the league back then were idiots for dressing players that didn't score, when they could have replaced them with non-fighters who could at least contribute offensively?

Yes, essentially.

 

[sr edler]

But, but. The solution then is to have goons to protect players from goons who protect players from other goons who protect players from cheap shots from Pelle Eklund type of players.

 

[sr edler]

Regarding players "policing themselves", I was searching on the Bure/Churla incident and found this clip from around the same time (93–94) of Teemu Selänne giving (notorious cheap shot artist) Chris Chelios a glove in the face.



Selänne also had this crazy two-handed baseball slash at Mironov (as the announcer says, his first penalty of the season).

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Oh really? So all the GMs in the league back then were idiots for dressing players that didn't score, when they could have replaced them with non-fighters who could at least contribute offensively?

Nope. Fighting served the purpose of momentum and changing the tone in a team’s favor. Enforcers pretty much always fought enforcers.

You’ve been conditioned by current rhetoric to think that dirty play is a result of a “non-enforcer league”. Tony Granato smacked a dude over the head with his stick. Good thing the enforcers were around to prevent that. 5’10 Tony Granato.

There are so so so many examples which prove the theory of “enforcers prevent cheap shots” false. It’s foolish that people choose to ignore it, or even simply think about it. If you’ve been watching hockey for any more than ten or fifteen years, you can easily see it’s not a real phenomenon

 

[GMR]

Nope. Fighting served the purpose of momentum and changing the tone in a team’s favor. Enforcers pretty much always fought enforcers.

You’ve been conditioned by current rhetoric to think that dirty play is a result of a “non-enforcer league”. Tony Granato smacked a dude over the head with his stick. Good thing the enforcers were around to prevent that. 5’10 Tony Granato.

There are so so so many examples which prove the theory of “enforcers prevent cheap shots” false. It’s foolish that people choose to ignore it, or even simply think about it. If you’ve been watching hockey for any more than ten or fifteen years, you can easily see it’s not a real phenomenon

Isn't that what goals are for? To change momentum in a team's favor. I doubt the Oilers carried Semenko on their roster for his fights to change momentum. I doubt the Bruins cared about Baumgartner's ability to change momentum with his fights. These players were on a roster for another reason. You can't tell me that all GMs for decades were idiots who were wasting their time with enforcers.

These players were there to protect the superstars in case anyone wanted to take liberties with them. Star players have always come out and talked about how appreciative they were of that enforcer being there for that reason.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Isn't that what goals are for? To change momentum in a team's favor. I doubt the Oilers carried Semenko on their roster for his fights to change momentum. I doubt the Bruins cared about Baumgartner's ability to change momentum with his fights. These players were on a roster for another reason. You can't tell me that all GMs for decades were idiots who were wasting their time with enforcers.

These players were there to protect the superstars in case anyone wanted to take liberties with them. Star players have always come out and talked about how appreciative they were of that enforcer being there for that reason.

So how do you explain the countless examples of cheap shots that existed when enforcers were commonplace? Isn’t your whole theory that somehow enforcers prevented dirty plays? Both enforcers themselves and other hockey players have always committed dirty acts. Hey, let me name another one off the top of my head: Tie Domi on Scott Niedermayer. It’s just so easy. These are all right off the top of my head and I’m not some hockey history buff.

What statistical or visual evidence do you have to show that enforcers prevented dirty play? Because there is a mountain of examples which completely contradicts that. Until you, or someone else, can give me a real legitimate argument, why would I accept it? It’s been nothing more than a theory for years with zero proof provided.

And you’re going to have to do better than “GM’s must have had them out there for a reason”. For all I know, GM’s May have believed this false theory as well. Or perhaps fighting was simply hockey tradition and they used it to attract fans and manipulate overall game energy.

To make such a claim, you should at least have the decency to hold yourself to a standard of providing proof. And so far, I’ve gone back and forth with you numerous times and you are yet to provide any.

 

[GMR]

So how do you explain the countless examples of cheap shots that existed when enforcers were commonplace? Isn’t your whole theory that somehow enforcers prevented dirty plays? Both enforcers themselves and other hockey players have always committed dirty acts. Hey, let me name another one off the top of my head: Tie Domi on Scott Niedermayer. It’s just so easy. These are all right off the top of my head and I’m not some hockey history buff.

What statistical or visual evidence do you have to show that enforcers prevented dirty play? Because there is a mountain of examples which completely contradicts that. Until you, or someone else, can give me a real legitimate argument, why would I accept it? It’s been nothing more than a theory for years with zero proof provided.

And you’re going to have to do better than “GM’s must have had them out there for a reason”. For all I know, GM’s May have believed this false theory as well. Or perhaps fighting was simply hockey tradition and they used it to attract fans and manipulate overall game energy.

To make such a claim, you should at least have the decency to hold yourself to a standard of providing proof. And so far, I’ve gone back and forth with you numerous times and you are yet to provide any.

Proof? How about the countless players who have stated that they felt better having a tough guy in the lineup to watch their backs? That's why I brought up a guy like Semenko. Don't tell me this is the first time you're hearing this rhetoric. I trust the players when they say that more than fans who talk about the "myth of enforcers". If you ever played organized hockey, you'd see the importance of having players on the team that can stick up for teammates and make others think twice about running a goalie or a star player.

And yes, there will always be cheapshots. Just like having the police doesn't altogether eliminate crime. Hockey is a sport that presents more opportunities for violence than other team sports. Nobody said having enforcers completely eliminates dirty hits. However, it's just basic psychology that someone is more likely to act aggressive when they know the other person (or in this case) team, won't fight back much. If I'm a Tom Wilson, I'd be more likely to headhunt against today's teams than I would against say the 1989 Flyers team.

Also, there's nothing wrong with bringing up GMs of the 1970's, 80's and 90's. My point was that it's hard to convince me that all these teams were fools for decades. Apparently, internet posters are smarter.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Proof? How about the countless players who have stated that they felt better having a tough guy in the lineup to watch their backs? That's why I brought up a guy like Semenko. Don't tell me this is the first time you're hearing this rhetoric. I trust the players when they say that more than fans who talk about the "myth of enforcers". If you ever played organized hockey, you'd see the importance of having players on the team that can stick up for teammates and make others think twice about running a goalie or a star player.

And yes, there will always be cheapshots. Just like having the police doesn't altogether eliminate crime. Hockey is a sport that presents more opportunities for violence than other team sports. Nobody said having enforcers completely eliminates dirty hits. However, it's just basic psychology that someone is more likely to act aggressive when they know the other person (or in this case) team, won't fight back much. If I'm a Tom Wilson, I'd be more likely to headhunt against today's teams than I would against say the 1989 Flyers team.

Also, there's nothing wrong with bringing up GMs of the 1970's, 80's and 90's. My point was that it's hard to convince me that all these teams were fools for decades. Apparently, internet posters are smarter.

I guess my final post on this is that I can dig up tons of examples of dirty play from the past, along with dirty play from present time. The biggest difference is they hand out frequent, and sometimes long, suspensions for it now.

Maybe it felt better for those star players to see non-star players do the dirty work but 95% of fights (yes, I’m estimating) were enforcer on enforcer. And like I said, tons of players who didn’t fight, yet still played dirty, existed in the past.

The theory that you offer...to me at least...is nothing more than a basic “good ol’ days” theory which has no discernible proof behind it.

 

[sr edler]

Isn't that what goals are for? To change momentum in a team's favor. I doubt the Oilers carried Semenko on their roster for his fights to change momentum.

Watch Odjick interview with Landsberg on YT where he says he would fight Laraque "to spark his team". Whether or not he actually believed that though or just said it to legitimize/justify his own place in hockey is hard to say, but I think he was already retired at the time of the interview.

Group/team dynamics/tradition are peculiar things though. Some players could believe in the spark theory, and some players could feel safer with goons on their team. Or both at the same time.

One point made above though is that goons themselves committed dirty plays outside the context of protecting other players. Domi, McSorley, Brashear, etc. did.

Anaheim carried Mark Janssens on Feb. 1, 1998 but it didn't stop Gary Suter from cross-checking Anaheim's captain and star forward right in the face, taking him out for the season. Apparently Suter wasn't afraid enough of Janssens.

Buffalo carried goon Rob Ray on Oct. 17, 1996 but it didn't stop another goon (6'6 Francois Leroux) from trucking Sabres star forward right in the head with his forearm, concussing him and helping putting an end to his season (and effectively also helping cutting his career short).

Those are two examples off the top of my head.

Why would Leroux be scared of fighting Ray when that is why he was in the lineup in the first place? Leroux was in the NHL to fight goons like Twist and Ray, but somehow having Ray in the lineup would hold him back from injuring Lafontaine becaue's he's scared of having to fight Ray?

 

[GMR]

Watch Odjick interview with Landsberg on YT where he says he would fight Laraque "to spark his team". Whether or not he actually believed that though or just said it to legitimize/justify his own place in hockey is hard to say, but I think he was already retired at the time of the interview.

Group/team dynamics/tradition are peculiar things though. Some players could believe in the spark theory, and some players could feel safer with goons on their team. Or both at the same time.

One point made above though is that goons themselves committed dirty plays outside the context of protecting other players. Domi, McSorley, Brashear, etc. did.

Anaheim carried Mark Janssens on Feb. 1, 1998 but it didn't stop Gary Suter from cross-checking Anaheim's captain and star forward right in the face, taking him out for the season. Apparently Suter wasn't afraid enough of Janssens.

Buffalo carried goon Rob Ray on Oct. 17, 1996 but it didn't stop another goon (6'6 Francois Leroux) from trucking Sabres star forward right in the head with his forearm, concussing him and helping putting an end to his season (and effectively also helping cutting his career short).

Those are two examples off the top of my head.

Why would Leroux be scared of fighting Ray when that is why he was in the lineup in the first place? Leroux was in the NHL to fight goons like Twist and Ray, but somehow having Ray in the lineup would hold him back from injuring Lafontaine becaue's he's scared of having to fight Ray?

Here's the problem. For all you know, there are hundreds of instances where having enforcers in the lineup prevented dirty hits from happening. Unfortunately, it is harder to measure that than to point out instances where having a tough guy out there didn't save someone from getting clobbered. That's why I brought up the police argument. Police presence doesn't eliminate crime, but that doesn't mean they don't frequently prevent crimes that could have happened.

Also, Leroux was a POS.

 

[sr edler]

Matt Cooke was taking cheap shots from the beginning to the end of his career.

Cooke's antics escalated when he left Vancouver for Washington and then Pittsburgh, most likely a combination of trying to stay relevant with an edgy game and being encouraged by the Penguins management to do so. Cooke was always an annoying pest who played occasionally dirty but I think he had one short suspension during 9 seasons in Vancouver. He was hardly a notorious cheap shot artist from the beginning to the end of his career.

Kinda same with Torres. His moronic head-hunting antics escalated towards the end of his career while he was trying to stay relevant.

 

[Albatros]

Here's the problem. For all you know, there are hundreds of instances where having enforcers in the lineup prevented dirty hits from happening. Unfortunately, it is harder to measure that than to point out instances where having a tough guy out there didn't save someone from getting clobbered. That's why I brought up the police argument. Police presence doesn't eliminate crime, but that doesn't mean they don't frequently prevent crimes that could have happened.

How does that explain the fact that the league is significantly cleaner today with this policing abolished?

Having a Kocur in the roster didn't keep a Marchment from going after a Gartner, but not having Kocurs or Marchments at all does that very effectively.

 

[GMR]

How does that explain the fact that the league is significantly cleaner today with this policing abolished?

Having a Kocur in the roster didn't keep a Marchment from going after a Gartner, but not having Kocurs or Marchments at all does that very effectively.

The league nowadays has virtually outlawed fighting, hitting, and any kind of excitement related to that part of the game. That's why rivalries are practically gone now. It did so with lengthy suspensions more than with anything else.

A few years ago, before that happened, you still had guys like Torres and Cooke running around trying to take players' heads off. Eventually, the 30 game suspensions pretty much ended that. Cooke's dirty ways basically ended after he got KO'd by Evander Kane in a fight.

In any case, this thread was about whether anyone has had a worse offensive season in a full season than Baumgartner did. It doesn't sound like anyone has.

 

[Stephen]

This is a pretty funny video at 1:50.

"It really hurts when a guy like Ken Baumgartner scores a goal against you."

 

[wetcoast]

82 GP
0 goals
1 assist


How many other players have scored either 1 point or 0 points in a full season?

For what it's worth, he also didn't register a point in six playoff games. I understand that wasn't his role. I love enforcers but it's hard to fathom he only scored one point in 88 games played. With the secondary assist, you'd think the puck would bounce off someone's skate or stick for at least two points in 88 games.

I saw this title about 8 hours ago and was trying to figure out who the hell he was without looking him up, he was just so forgettable.

 

[GMR]

I saw this title about 8 hours ago and was trying to figure out who the hell he was without looking him up, he was just so forgettable.

You're missing out. Dude had one of the best haircuts in the league for many years. He played almost 700 games. Not exactly a guy who flamed out after a few years. Obviously, his offensive numbers were terrible if you look at his career stats. Not just during that season.

 

[Blade Runner]

Baumgartner was already over the hill at that time, he was good at fighting in the late 80's / early 90's. Getting 4 minutes / game doesn't help anyone to create many scoring opportunities.

 

[psycat]

This is such a false theory. And it’s pushed all around this board and amongst fans throughout the league.

Bad hits have always occurred. There is just more focus on it now and it’s sensationalized. And no, I’m not trying to take away from how serious this league needs to take dirty play.

A guy like Wilson, who can both play and fight very well, would not be any different in decades past than he is now. If anything, it’s only because he was suspended for a very long length of time now that he seems to be chilling out with the antics...a suspension that most likely would have never occurred in the past.

Guys like Claude Lemieux and Ult Samuelson, neither of whom could really fight, were dirty and enjoyed successful careers in the NHL of the past. Those two players alone, and there are countless other examples, smash your theory.

Matt Cooke was taking cheap shots from the beginning to the end of his career. The “threat” of a fight doesn’t change anything.

Enforcers set a tone and they got guys to answer who wanted to try to set their own tone (usually other enforcers). But the idea that it eliminated, or even prevented, dirty play is incorrect.

Agreed. Also dirty piece of shits like Clarke and Messier whom by all accounts both belong on life sentences was allowed to continue assaulting people with the league(s) looking away. Bullshit that "enforcers" in anyway mitigated such acts.