Yeah I am officially done with fighting in the NHL

[dash]

Insulting people who like sports you don't follow is bush league and immature.

GROW UP!

fix both your sarcasm and irony meters

Yup, just a little ribbing from jstew, let's move along, nothing to see here (lol)

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

Yeah it would be good for Detroit now, but what about as the team aged? You can't succeed with a bunch of... old... FUCK



And Illitch would name it the Stanley Stanley Crazy Bread Dipper Dipper.

 

[IPostedWhat]

The first article provides evidence contrary to its point. 8-10% of concussions come from fights? That's negligible? No, that's not negligible, that's a decent chunk. 8-10% of concussions are produced by something which, on average, occurs what, once every other game? Those numbers prove the connection between fighting and CTE.

No, it shows that only 8-10% of concussions are linked to fighting, but the VAST MAJORITY of concussions come from other aspects of the game that have nothing to do with fighting.

Let's say fighting is banned, now what? So roughly 10% of concussions are now removed from the game, but what do you do about the other 90%? Are you saying that it's not possible that even though they reduced concussions 10% by banning fighting, that concussions from cheap shots and other things wouldn't go up by 10% or more now? I believe for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so what would be accomplished by this train of thought?

How about addressing the reason why fighting is needed in the first place, or the other aspects of the game that cause 90% of all concussions, and the vast majority of injuries to players? Why not start there? If you address those issues first, then as a result, fighting will start to be phased out as well.

2 Birds 1 Stone Yo!

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

Humphrey Bogart asks, "Tennis, anyone?"

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

2 Birds 1 Stone Yo!

Just don't google two birds one cup.

 

[IPostedWhat]

Just don't google two birds one cup.

Shit, I looked it up.

That's some ducked up shit.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

Humphrey Bogart asks, "Tennis, anyone?"

Mischa is a big tennis fan ... she likes smacking balls ... sometimes her own

 

[dash]

Humphrey Bogart asks, "Tennis, anyone?"

That looks more like a badminton racquet than a tennis racquet to me...

/nitpicky
//badminton, another great game

 

[jstewismybastardson]

That looks more like a badminton racquet than a tennis racquet to me...

/nitpicky
//badminton, another great game

Mischa asks: "shuttlecock anyone"

 

[elocomotive]

Okay, then show me evidence that removing fighting from the game will reduce injuries and take away cheap shots.

The presupposition that fighting reduces cheap shots is the largest logical fallacy in all of sports. I've talked before about the different types of hits that occur during games - retaliation, planned, unlucky, etc. I've gone into it in detail before so I won't again here. But the fact remains that many bad hits are the product of either (1) a moment of passion or (2) a planned activity where the consequences of fighting did not persuade the player to not pursue the action itself. This is why fighting is an ineffective tool in combating injury and violence in the game beyond what the rules allow - because it dissuades a person in only a small number of instances and obviously fighting itself produces additional injuries and health concerns. The net gain to player safety is either zero or negative.

This is largely because the system of justice (retaliation) is unknown to the players. A clean hit might bring a fight one night while a dirty one might not on another. When players have no consistent rules to gauge and judge their own actions, you create a culture without any rules. In economics, you need expectations and certainties to make decisions. The same goes with our own personal assessments of risk in a given situation. As I noted above, many of these decisions are not rationale and no system (fighting, suspensions, etc.) will change the behavior. But for the ones that are, you have to establish a system of consequences that motivates players for their long-term interests and creates a culture around which that motivation is to be considerate and mindful of the safety of those around you and your own interest in being able to pursue a career in hockey.

In sum, fighting has (1) failed to establish reasonable expectations for players of the consequences of their actions and (2) not motivated them to change their behavior in regards to dangerous hits, cheap shots, etc. We have decades of history on this.

A well-constructed and consistent system of punishment dolled out by the league can accomplish both of these things. First, it can do a better job of determining when violations have occurred. For all the criticism of the NHL's suspensions and such, they do a better job than players making poor judgment calls in the game and doling out fights on guys that make clean hits. Neither system is 100%, but the league-based one is going to be closer to it. What it needs to do is to continue to bolster the expectations and expand the rapidity with which violations move to more serious suspensions. Videos explaining those suspensions have been a great step in the right direction - improving players expectations of what is okay and what is not. Second, it can serve as a better motivator for changing behavior. Having to answer the bell on one night once in awhile (and often having someone else do it for you) does not change my pattern of behavior. Knowing my career and my team's success might be impacted is FAR more behavior shaping.

You want evidence, well, it's limited. But I offer two examples...

(1) Matt Cooke - Cooke has been known as an antagonist and a cheap shot guy for much of his career. He was finally suspended for the first time in 2009, but only given two slap-on-the-wrist 2 game suspensions. Finally, towards the end of 2011, he was handed a 4-game suspension in February and a suspension for the rest of the season and the entirety of the playoffs for two incidents that put him in the spotlight. I did some calculations and here are Cooke's numbers before and after the suspension...
Prior to 2011 suspension - 1.23 PIM per game
After 2011 suspension - 0.62 PIM per game
It wasn't years of fear from fights that changed the way Matt Cooke behaved, it was league action.

(2) Alex Ovechkin - Unlike Cooke, Ovechkin has never been deemed a dirty player, but many saw him as someone who was reckless, careless, or dangerous on the ice. This came to a head in 2009-2010 when Ovechkin made a few dangerous plays and was suspended twice. After the second suspension, here is what his coach had to say about him... "I think he changed the way he played after the suspension," Boudreau said. "Even last year. He was so worried about it, he didn't play with reckless abandon. He hated -- and I'm sure he still does -- the media being negative about him because he's not a dirty player. He tries not to be. He's just bigger and stronger than most people. But there was a definite change. He's very more careful." Did this show up in the numbers?...
Prior to 09-10 suspension - 0.77 PIM per game
After 09-10 suspension - 0.50 PIM per game
It wasn't fear of reprisal that changed the way Alex Ovechkin behaved, it was league action.

A serious, consistent, and fast-escalating system of punishment from the league is how you bring down cheap shots and recklessness, NOT with fighting. It has shown it can work even in the very small and recent doses we've seen delivered. Decades of fighting has failed. Time to try something else.

 

[IPostedWhat]

The presupposition that fighting reduces cheap shots is the largest logical fallacy in all of sports. I've talked before about the different types of hits that occur during games - retaliation, planned, unlucky, etc. I've gone into it in detail before so I won't again here. But the fact remains that many bad hits are the product of either (1) a moment of passion or (2) a planned activity where the consequences of fighting did not persuade the player to not pursue the action itself. This is why fighting is an ineffective tool in combating injury and violence in the game beyond what the rules allow - because it dissuades a person in only a small number of instances and obviously fighting itself produces additional injuries and health concerns. The net gain to player safety is either zero or negative.

This is largely because the system of justice (retaliation) is unknown to the players. A clean hit might bring a fight one night while a dirty one might not on another. When players have no consistent rules to gauge and judge their own actions, you create a culture without any rules. In economics, you need expectations and certainties to make decisions. The same goes with our own personal assessments of risk in a given situation. As I noted above, many of these decisions are not rationale and no system (fighting, suspensions, etc.) will change the behavior. But for the ones that are, you have to establish a system of consequences that motivates players for their long-term interests and creates a culture around which that motivation is to be considerate and mindful of the safety of those around you and your own interest in being able to pursue a career in hockey.

In sum, fighting has (1) failed to establish reasonable expectations for players of the consequences of their actions and (2) not motivated them to change their behavior in regards to dangerous hits, cheap shots, etc. We have decades of history on this.

A well-constructed and consistent system of punishment dolled out by the league can accomplish both of these things. First, it can do a better job of determining when violations have occurred. For all the criticism of the NHL's suspensions and such, they do a better job than players making poor judgment calls in the game and doling out fights on guys that make clean hits. Neither system is 100%, but the league-based one is going to be closer to it. What it needs to do is to continue to bolster the expectations and expand the rapidity with which violations move to more serious suspensions. Videos explaining those suspensions have been a great step in the right direction - improving players expectations of what is okay and what is not. Second, it can serve as a better motivator for changing behavior. Having to answer the bell on one night once in awhile (and often having someone else do it for you) does not change my pattern of behavior. Knowing my career and my team's success might be impacted is FAR more behavior shaping.

You want evidence, well, it's limited. But I offer two examples...

(1) Matt Cooke - Cooke has been known as an antagonist and a cheap shot guy for much of his career. He was finally suspended for the first time in 2009, but only given two slap-on-the-wrist 2 game suspensions. Finally, towards the end of 2011, he was handed a 4-game suspension in February and a suspension for the rest of the season and the entirety of the playoffs for two incidents that put him in the spotlight. I did some calculations and here are Cooke's numbers before and after the suspension...
Prior to 2011 suspension - 1.23 PIM per game
After 2011 suspension - 0.62 PIM per game
It wasn't years of fear from fights that changed the way Matt Cooke behaved, it was league action.

(2) Alex Ovechkin - Unlike Cooke, Ovechkin has never been deemed a dirty player, but many saw him as someone who was reckless, careless, or dangerous on the ice. This came to a head in 2009-2010 when Ovechkin made a few dangerous plays and was suspended twice. After the second suspension, here is what his coach had to say about him... "I think he changed the way he played after the suspension," Boudreau said. "Even last year. He was so worried about it, he didn't play with reckless abandon. He hated -- and I'm sure he still does -- the media being negative about him because he's not a dirty player. He tries not to be. He's just bigger and stronger than most people. But there was a definite change. He's very more careful." Did this show up in the numbers?...
Prior to 09-10 suspension - 0.77 PIM per game
After 09-10 suspension - 0.50 PIM per game
It wasn't fear of reprisal that changed the way Alex Ovechkin behaved, it was league action.

A serious, consistent, and fast-escalating system of punishment from the league is how you bring down cheap shots and recklessness, NOT with fighting. It has shown it can work even in the very small and recent doses we've seen delivered. Decades of fighting has failed. Time to try something else.

So just say that you agree with me then that the League needs to do a better job of addressing the reasons why players feel the need to police themselves and why they fight in the first place. You start with the foundation of a problem, not the end result of it. To simply say that just by banning fighting will make all the problems go away is simply asinine.

Like I said many times now...Once they take better measures to prevent and reduce all the cheap stuff, and other aspects of the game that cause the vast majority of concussions of injuries, you will see that fighting will slowly get phased out as well. But until that happens, the players will overwhelmingly support fighting in the League, as they do every year this is brought up after people lose their shit over it.

Fighting is the end result and the player's way of dealing with the League's ineffectiveness and ability to control the game and protect the players on a larger level. 90% > 10%

 

[forty_three]

The presupposition that fighting reduces cheap shots is the largest logical fallacy in all of sports. I've talked before about the different types of hits that occur during games - retaliation, planned, unlucky, etc. I've gone into it in detail before so I won't again here. But the fact remains that many bad hits are the product of either (1) a moment of passion or (2) a planned activity where the consequences of fighting did not persuade the player to not pursue the action itself. This is why fighting is an ineffective tool in combating injury and violence in the game beyond what the rules allow - because it dissuades a person in only a small number of instances and obviously fighting itself produces additional injuries and health concerns. The net gain to player safety is either zero or negative.

This is largely because the system of justice (retaliation) is unknown to the players. A clean hit might bring a fight one night while a dirty one might not on another. When players have no consistent rules to gauge and judge their own actions, you create a culture without any rules. In economics, you need expectations and certainties to make decisions. The same goes with our own personal assessments of risk in a given situation. As I noted above, many of these decisions are not rationale and no system (fighting, suspensions, etc.) will change the behavior. But for the ones that are, you have to establish a system of consequences that motivates players for their long-term interests and creates a culture around which that motivation is to be considerate and mindful of the safety of those around you and your own interest in being able to pursue a career in hockey.

In sum, fighting has (1) failed to establish reasonable expectations for players of the consequences of their actions and (2) not motivated them to change their behavior in regards to dangerous hits, cheap shots, etc. We have decades of history on this.

A well-constructed and consistent system of punishment dolled out by the league can accomplish both of these things. First, it can do a better job of determining when violations have occurred. For all the criticism of the NHL's suspensions and such, they do a better job than players making poor judgment calls in the game and doling out fights on guys that make clean hits. Neither system is 100%, but the league-based one is going to be closer to it. What it needs to do is to continue to bolster the expectations and expand the rapidity with which violations move to more serious suspensions. Videos explaining those suspensions have been a great step in the right direction - improving players expectations of what is okay and what is not. Second, it can serve as a better motivator for changing behavior. Having to answer the bell on one night once in awhile (and often having someone else do it for you) does not change my pattern of behavior. Knowing my career and my team's success might be impacted is FAR more behavior shaping.

You want evidence, well, it's limited. But I offer two examples...

(1) Matt Cooke - Cooke has been known as an antagonist and a cheap shot guy for much of his career. He was finally suspended for the first time in 2009, but only given two slap-on-the-wrist 2 game suspensions. Finally, towards the end of 2011, he was handed a 4-game suspension in February and a suspension for the rest of the season and the entirety of the playoffs for two incidents that put him in the spotlight. I did some calculations and here are Cooke's numbers before and after the suspension...
Prior to 2011 suspension - 1.23 PIM per game
After 2011 suspension - 0.62 PIM per game
It wasn't years of fear from fights that changed the way Matt Cooke behaved, it was league action.

(2) Alex Ovechkin - Unlike Cooke, Ovechkin has never been deemed a dirty player, but many saw him as someone who was reckless, careless, or dangerous on the ice. This came to a head in 2009-2010 when Ovechkin made a few dangerous plays and was suspended twice. After the second suspension, here is what his coach had to say about him... "I think he changed the way he played after the suspension," Boudreau said. "Even last year. He was so worried about it, he didn't play with reckless abandon. He hated -- and I'm sure he still does -- the media being negative about him because he's not a dirty player. He tries not to be. He's just bigger and stronger than most people. But there was a definite change. He's very more careful." Did this show up in the numbers?...
Prior to 09-10 suspension - 0.77 PIM per game
After 09-10 suspension - 0.50 PIM per game
It wasn't fear of reprisal that changed the way Alex Ovechkin behaved, it was league action.

A serious, consistent, and fast-escalating system of punishment from the league is how you bring down cheap shots and recklessness, NOT with fighting. It has shown it can work even in the very small and recent doses we've seen delivered. Decades of fighting has failed. Time to try something else.

Still unclear on how you can type that and still call me "100% Wrong". Sounds to me like we agree in principle, just not execution.

We need the league to be more consistent with the chippiness and cheap shit that some guys are doing. And when that happens, staged fighting as a means of stopping the flow of a game will cease. There will be no need for it.

Then when you have large men on a fast surface competing inside a box and they lose their tempers and settle it between themselves, there should be no issue. It's not grandstanding. It's not premeditated. It's organic. It's passion. It's what hockey is.

I guess some people are latching on to my old statement that the existence of fighting deters cheap play with the leap that it stops ALL cheap play. I can see where my stance might be unclear, but clearly it doesn't, or Brad Marchand doesn't have a job.

My point has been, the threat of a fight is not going to stop a little shit head like Cal Clutterbuck. Nothing will, and that's who we need the league to address. But who's to say that Patrick Kane (just as an example) wasn't a hotheaded little kid and talked all kinds of shit out there? And the instant checking and fighting came into the game, he decided to shape up and focused on the skill game. I see it every year with kids who are real assholes in squirt, and the instant someone can hit them in PeeWee, they change. And I truly believe it trickles down into why hockey players are some of the most respectful people out there. Because no other sport has such decisive and immediate consequences for disrespect. You grow up that way and it becomes part of you as a person.

Sociopaths like Clutterbuck and Avery will never be stopped by fighting alone. Especially when they never have to answer for anything personally on or off the ice. A blanket action like getting rid if fighting will do nothing but embolden the assholes. And deter fewer of them from being created.

Perhaps one of the differences is, I am talking about fighting in Hockey. And a lot of others are talking about fighting in the NHL.

 

[elocomotive]

So just say that you agree with me then that the League needs to do a better job of addressing the reasons why players feel the need to police themselves and why they fight in the first place. You start with the foundation of a problem, not the end result of it. To simply say that just by banning fighting will make all the problems go away is simply asinine.

Yeah, I never said that. I said certain problems will always exist and no system will change them. And then I said certain problems could be effectively dealt with by league management of them where "player policing" has failed.

Like I said many times now...Once they take better measures to prevent and reduce all the cheap stuff, and other aspects of the game that cause the vast majority of concussions of injuries, you will see that fighting will slowly get phased out as well. But until that happens, the players will overwhelmingly support fighting in the League, as they do every year this is brought up after people lose their shit over it.

So, you agree that fighting will be phased out and isn't the best answer, but that we shouldn't take that step now because the players don't agree with it in some unscientific poll? I'm lost.

I'm not losing my shit over anything - I've had this position on fighting for almost 20 years.

 

[elocomotive]

My point has been, the threat of a fight is not going to stop a little shit head like Cal Clutterbuck. Nothing will, and that's who we need the league to address. But who's to say that Patrick Kane (just as an example) wasn't a hotheaded little kid and talked all kinds of shit out there? And the instant checking and fighting came into the game, he decided to shape up and focused on the skill game. I see it every year with kids who are real assholes in squirt, and the instant someone can hit them in PeeWee, they change. And I truly believe it trickles down into why hockey players are some of the most respectful people out there. Because no other sport has such decisive and immediate consequences for disrespect. You grow up that way and it becomes part of you as a person.

If hockey players are more respectful (I have no idea how you measure that or even if that's true - they beat up girlfriends, drive drunk, etc. just like any other group of athletes), it's because they come from well-to-do homes and have many of the traits of asceticism and manners common to people of middle- and upper-class upbringings because, by and large, it is a sport participated in largely by middle and upper class children whose parents can afford gear, rinktime, etc.

I don't know how to address your Kane argument. Are you saying hit them with checks? Or with fists?

 

[IPostedWhat]

So, you agree that fighting will be phased out and isn't the best answer, but that we shouldn't take that step now because the players don't agree with it in some unscientific poll? I'm lost.

No, I'm saying that people shouldn't be focusing all their energy on blaming fighting for all the problems with the way the game is played right now, or saying it's the reason why the sport can't attract fans.

What I'm saying is that if the League does a better job of reducing and eliminating the things that happen on the ice that cause the vast majority of problems or injuries, or does a better job of disciplining the players that are agitators or instigators, then fighting as a result will start to be phased out.

I don't think you can completely take fighting out of the game, or that it should be, but you should see a lot less staged and unnecessary fighting that results from players retaliating against something that happened on the ice that was "cheap" and uncalled for.

You need to address the main issue for fighting, not just the action itself. That will solve nothing, and make the players very unhappy.

 

[IPostedWhat]

but that we shouldn't take that step now because the players don't agree with it in some unscientific poll?

Wait, why does a poll asking players in the League if fighting should be banned have to be scientific?

Seems pretty straight forward to me....

Random Guy - Do you think fighting should be banned from the NHL?

NHL Player - No

Move on to next player, repeat question, and mark down answer.

 

[elocomotive]

No, I'm saying that people shouldn't be focusing all their energy on blaming fighting for all the problems with the way the game is played right now, or saying it's the reason why the sport can't attract fans.

I didn't see anyone that said that. I saw a lot of people that said injury will happen regardless, but fighting is causing additional injuries that (1) aren't necessary and outside the "game" itself and (2) not preventing the non-fighting injuries.

What I'm saying is that if the League does a better job of reducing and eliminating the things that happen on the ice that cause the vast majority of problems or injuries, or does a better job of disciplining the players that are agitators or instigators, then fighting as a result will start to be phased out.

I don't think you can completely take fighting out of the game, or that it should be, but you should see a lot less staged and unnecessary fighting that results from players retaliating against something that happened on the ice that was "cheap" and uncalled for.

I don't believe that fighting helps one bit with reducing injuries while causing others. As such, a gradual reduction or focusing on the instigators does not interest me. It may take those steps to get there.

You need to address the main issue for fighting, not just the action itself. That will solve nothing, and make the players very unhappy.

The players get paid millions to play a kid's game anyone of us would love to play for $50K a year. As D'stone eloquently said, 20 somethings full of testosterone inside the game might not be the best people to judge and might not be best at considering the long-term consequences of their actions.

 

[elocomotive]

Wait, why does a poll asking players in the League if fighting should be banned have to be scientific?

I was talking about the fan poll you mentioned, not the player poll.

I any case, I'm interested in actions/consequences, logic, motivations, and results - not impressions and opinions from polls.

 

[IPostedWhat]

1) I didn't see anyone that said that. I saw a lot of people that said injury will happen regardless, but fighting is causing additional injuries that (1) aren't necessary and outside the "game" itself and (2) not preventing the non-fighting injuries.


2) I don't believe that fighting helps one bit with reducing injuries while causing others. As such, a gradual reduction or focusing on the instigators does not interest me. It may take those steps to get there.


3) The players get paid millions to play a kid's game anyone of us would love to play for $50K a year. As D'stone eloquently said, 20 somethings full of testosterone inside the game might not be the best people to judge and might not be best at considering the long-term consequences of their actions.

1) Fighting is causing additional injuries for sure, but in the end it only attributes to around 10% of serious or concussion related injuries. Why focus on the 10% instead of finding ways to reduce the 90% that will in turn also help reduce the 10%? And who's to say that getting rid of fighting won't increase the amount of injuries to players as a result? That has to remain a strong possibility of happening if the main issues aren't dealt with first.

2) So as a fan that watches the game from his couch, YOU don't believe fighting helps one bit. I'm sure I'll take your opinion over the very players that actually play the game and do believe it does.

3) They get paid a lot but it's not like any Joe off the street can play in the NHL. Besides, that doesn't make a player feel any better about having their career ended by a cheap hit that could have been prevented. Don't blame the players for how much they get paid. It's not like they demand an amount and get it.

 

[forty_three]

If hockey players are more respectful (I have no idea how you measure that or even if that's true - they beat up girlfriends, drive drunk, etc. just like any other group of athletes), it's because they come from well-to-do homes and have many of the traits of asceticism and manners common to people of middle- and upper-class upbringings because, by and large, it is a sport participated in largely by middle and upper class children whose parents can afford gear, rinktime, etc.

I don't know how to address your Kane argument. Are you saying hit them with checks? Or with fists?

The landscape of the sport has changed. It is still predominantly upper and middle class homes, but the game is far more accessible than it ever was, and has been for a while with equipment banks and such. So is that the solution? Make it more exclusive like the good old days and stop poor kids from playing? What exactly are you saying?

And I don't care what kind of argument you are building, you should never lump hockey players in with "any other group of athletes". That idea is so wrong it's laughable. Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann wrote in "The Big Show" that just about every sportswriter would rather hang around hockey players than any other athletes because they are down to earth, not full of themselves, respectful and generally more loose and fun. I would think rich kids would not just be that way. Quite the opposite I imagine. I'd think you'd expect rich kids to be entitled, selfish and arrogant on more often than not. But the rich kids who play hockey are different, usually, than rich kids who play other sports. But that can't be measured, so we should just discount it completely rather than examine reasons why that might be. If We can't put it on a graph, it doesn't exist.

And in my experience, it typically only takes one or two heavy checks to straighten about half the obnoxious kids out. Of the ones that remain, most deal with one or two fights and decide this stuff ain't for them. It's the ones that continue destructive behavior past that that are the problem. Every level of hockey needs to work to address it, not just the NHL.