Yeah I am officially done with fighting in the NHL

[dash]

Dreger Report: Some NHL GMs say it's time to lose fighting

 

[Darkstone42]

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!

10 and 90% are nice numbers, so let's look at the math and assess the relative risks of hitting and fighting when it comes to concussions.

I have gleaned that there were 327 fights last year. There were at least 32,000 credited hits. I didn't add everyone's up, I just took an approximate average of the top half hitters in the league. So I didn't even count half the league's hitting stats, and I came up with a number in excess of 32,000.

There were 118 concussions last year according to a blog on concussions. Of course, this number doesn't really matter all that much when it comes to demonstrating the point.

So here's what we have:

There were about 8 concussion incidents in 327 fights last year.
There were about 106 concussion incidents in over 32,000 credited hits last year.

So this means that fights produced 1 concussion per 17 events, and hits 1 concussion per 300 events.

That is significant.

Fighting is more dangerous than hitting. It's also already illegal. The numbers do indeed support phasing it out.

 

[forty_three]

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.

Yeah, I'd love to see this as well. Ask the players what they think will happen if fighting is removed. Ask the overwhelming majority of players who think it needs to stay WHY it does not IF it does.

I started playing when I was six, and have coached for 20 years, and I think it has it's place. I try to provide logic and my motivations, but since I can't provide chartable results I get dismissed as 100% wrong.

I also can't provide stats on how a winger needs to go to the half wall to be an outlet to a D man with the puck behind his net to start a breakout works, but I know from experience that it does. I've seen it millions of times.

 

[elocomotive]

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.

One can certainly disagree and say it would. It's not what I've observed from laws of social mechanics that I've been trained on and studied. And the reason to focus on the 10% is because they are 100% preventable with a simple rule change.

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.

You don't have to agree with me, but that doesn't mean I may not be right. You're not arguing the points I made though with my examples or with the logic. You're saying the same thing in every post...

They players know best and they play the game, so their opinion is good enough for me.

I just don't agree with that statement for many of the reasons Darkstone pointed out earlier in the thread when he addressed that idea.

 

[forty_three]

10 and 90% are nice numbers, so let's look at the math and assess the relative risks of hitting and fighting when it comes to concussions.

I have gleaned that there were 327 fights last year. There were at least 32,000 credited hits. I didn't add everyone's up, I just took an approximate average of the top half hitters in the league. So I didn't even count half the league's hitting stats, and I came up with a number in excess of 32,000.

There were 118 concussions last year according to a blog on concussions. Of course, this number doesn't really matter all that much when it comes to demonstrating the point.

So here's what we have:

There were about 8 concussion incidents in 327 fights last year.
There were about 106 concussion incidents in over 32,000 credited hits last year.

So this means that fights produced 1 concussion per 17 events, and hits 1 concussion per 300 events.

That is significant.

Fighting is more dangerous than hitting. It's also already illegal. The numbers do indeed support phasing it out.

How many concussion events happened per penalized hit? How many per non penalized hit? How many fight concussions resulted from the fight itself, and how many from the aftermath like Parros last night? How many hit concussions are the second or third for the recipient? Let's use numbers. Let's use all the numbers, not just the ones we want.

A greater percentage of people die per airplane crash event than die per automobile crash event. Doesn't mean plane crashes are inherently more risky.

Risk is threat times impact divided by the likelihood of an event. If you are on a plane that goes down, there is an almost 100% likelihood you will die. You calculate that risk, deem it acceptable and get to LA in six hours from New York.

And let's stop saying fighting is "illegal". It's a penalty. Performance enhancing drugs are "illegal", and if you get caught with them, you get kicked out of the league for a while. You don't go sit down for five minutes.

 

[elocomotive]

Yeah, I'd love to see this as well. Ask the players what they think will happen if fighting is removed. Ask the overwhelming majority of players who think it needs to stay WHY it does not IF it does.

I started playing when I was six, and have coached for 20 years, and I think it has it's place. I try to provide logic and my motivations, but since I can't provide chartable results I get dismissed as 100% wrong.

I also can't provide stats on how a winger needs to go to the half wall to be an outlet to a D man with the puck behind his net to start a breakout works, but I know from experience that it does. I've seen it millions of times.

I probably shouldn't have said it the way I did - my apologies. You made good posts, 43, and we disagree on the issue.

 

[IPostedWhat]

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.

So how else do you get a feel for how the fans feel about something in a sport? If a guy was standing out side a game, and asked every person if they though fighting should be banned, are you saying the opinions of all 15+ thousand fans means nothing? That it's irrelevant somehow?

Why is a poll not looked at seriously in this case? Why are the opinions of 30,000 hockey fans not an indication of how fans feel about this issue?

So what you are basically saying is that anything that mentions how a group of fans feel about something is worthless because the only want to really know is by asking them, and that means forming a poll. So you're opinions on fighting are therefore worthless and everyone else who chimed in on this discussion.

10 and 90% are nice numbers, so let's look at the math and assess the relative risks of hitting and fighting when it comes to concussions.

I have gleaned that there were 327 fights last year. There were at least 32,000 credited hits. I didn't add everyone's up, I just took an approximate average of the top half hitters in the league. So I didn't even count half the league's hitting stats, and I came up with a number in excess of 32,000.

There were 118 concussions last year according to a blog on concussions. Of course, this number doesn't really matter all that much when it comes to demonstrating the point.

So here's what we have:

There were about 8 concussion incidents in 327 fights last year.
There were about 106 concussion incidents in over 32,000 credited hits last year.

So this means that fights produced 1 concussion per 17 events, and hits 1 concussion per 300 events.

That is significant.

Fighting is more dangerous than hitting. It's also already illegal. The numbers do indeed support phasing it out.

So what you are saying is that the sport will be much better off if you got rid of a potential 8 concussions from fighting, instead of trying to address or reduce the 106 that didn't happen from fighting? Makes sense.

At least with the players that fight, it's their choice. They enter the fight willingly and know the risks involved. The same can't be said for the poor player that is concussed after a cheap shot to the head.

How many of those 327 fights were a result of responding to a cheap shot or something dirty that happened to another player?

What about injuries that are not concussions? How many serious injuries did players get from fighting as opposed to not fighting? How many players have had their careers ended from fighting as opposed to something that wasn't related to fighting?

If anything, you showed that over the course of a Season that had 1440 Regular Season games, only 327 fights occurred. That means a fight happened on average once every 4.4 games, but a hit occurred 22.22 times a game. But yeah, fighting is simply taking up too much of the game itself now.

 

[forty_three]

One can certainly disagree and say it would. It's not what I've observed from laws of social mechanics that I've been trained on and studied. And the reason to focus on the 10% is because they are 100% preventable with a simple rule change.

Doesn't the slippery slope that presents worry you? What's the next "easily fixable" 10%?

 

[IPostedWhat]

They players know best and they play the game, so their opinion is good enough for me.

I just don't agree with that statement for many of the reasons Darkstone pointed out earlier in the thread when he addressed that idea.

So what you're saying is, is that if you had a job that most people don't have, and they try to tell you the things wrong with it, you wouldn't look at them like their crazy?

So 98% of NHL players don't understand the game or what goes on as well as you or Darkstone? The very people who are actually out there game after game, who deal with the issues and the players directly on the ice, have no clue at all about what they are talking about?

Sounds like you guys need a job as consultants for the NHL concerning player safety. The fact that you refuse to do so is negligent in my opinion.

 

[forty_three]

I probably shouldn't have said it the way I did - my apologies. You made good posts, 43, and we disagree on the issue.

I don't think we disagree as much as you think. I just happen to feel you can't legislate problems away, and when it's tried it can create bigger problems. I would be just fine if fighting as it's deployed now was gone, because it is stupid to have two goons box two shifts after something happened. But the way to handle it is to progress the game to a level that the pure goon is obsolete.

And I believe the cheap-shotter/agitator is a bigger problem.

 

[DaBoltsNIsles]

My only concern is if they get rid of fighting there will be a lot of stick work & cheapshots because players won't be allowed to defend themselves or their teammates anymore.

 

[Darkstone42]

The counterexample to players and coaches best understanding the game is the sacrifice bunt in baseball. There is decisive evidence that the sacrifice bunt actually reduces your odds of winning a baseball game, but managers continue to call that play, and the players support it. Players and coaches don't always know best, contrary to popular belief.

As for targeting the 10% and not the 90%, I am not arguing that we should ignore the 90%. We should absolutely be addressing it, and the league is making efforts to address it. But we should be addressing the full 100%, and fights contribute a full tenth of that. Fighting should not be difficult to phase out, so we can take care of 10% of concussions just like that.

And why not reduce the odds of concussion-related injuries across the board if we can without changing the fundamental play of the game of hockey? These guys are professional athletes. No matter what the other guy does, they should be able to avoid contact to the head when they throw a check. Intentional or not, any blow to the head is at the very least negligent and therefore punishable. And there should also be penalties for putting yourself into a dangerous position, turning your back or ducking your head suddenly. There is no reason for any player to ever be hit anywhere but between the waist and the shoulders on the front of their body.

Eliminating fighting and targeting other sources of risk are not mutually exclusive goals.

 

[IPostedWhat]

These guys are professional athletes. No matter what the other guy does, they should be able to avoid contact to the head when they throw a check. Intentional or not, any blow to the head is at the very least negligent and therefore punishable. And there should also be penalties for putting yourself into a dangerous position, turning your back or ducking your head suddenly. There is no reason for any player to ever be hit anywhere but between the waist and the shoulders on the front of their body.

Didn't you hear? Players and coaches don't always know best, contrary to popular belief.

 

[elocomotive]

So what you're saying is, is that if you had a job that most people don't have, and they try to tell you the things wrong with it, you wouldn't look at them like their crazy?

So 98% of NHL players don't understand the game or what goes on as well as you or Darkstone? The very people who are actually out there game after game, who deal with the issues and the players directly on the ice, have no clue at all about what they are talking about?

Sounds like you guys need a job as consultants for the NHL concerning player safety. The fact that you refuse to do so is negligent in my opinion.

You're taking this a little personal.

And yes, if the problem is addressing player safety, I personally would give more weight to what Darkstone is saying than say, Steven Stamkos. Especially when those same players resisted helmets.... and then visors for those helmets.... and almost any "change" that someone suggested. They aren't paid to think about long-term health consequences nor, frankly, do I think that most of them are as smart as myslef, D'stone, and many others. Because while they were spending 24/7 perfecting hip checks, saucer passes, and slap shots, others were studying physics, social dynamics, etc.

Darkstone was one of the first people I saw mention that players don't do something as simple as strap on their helmets correctly. Something he's maintained is a cause of concussion problems. And yet, the players who play the game go out their with those straps hanging loose all the time and we've seen that cause problems. So yes, I think people outside a situation can sometimes have a better opinion because they've studied physics, health, sociology, psychology, etc. Applicable fields that can solve the problems being faced by people versed in how to solve social and health problems, not on how to play hockey good.

 

[Darkstone42]

Didn't you hear? Players and coaches don't always know best, contrary to popular belief.

What does that have to do with knowing best? The fact that players repeatedly fail to do these things is evidence in my support, that they can't be trusted with these decisions.

An idiot turns his back to a check to draw a penalty, risking injury in the process. A lot of players do it. Thus, they're idiots.

My point is they have the physical capabilities to do these things. They should be forced to use that ability through stringent rules.

 

[TiLoBrown]

The amount numbers/facts being spun... Its like an election year

 

[IPostedWhat]

As for targeting the 10% and not the 90%, I am not arguing that we should ignore the 90%. We should absolutely be addressing it, and the league is making efforts to address it. But we should be addressing the full 100%, and fights contribute a full tenth of that. Fighting should not be difficult to phase out, so we can take care of 10% of concussions just like that.

Why is not possible that the 10% will reduce itself on its own as a result of them addressing the 90% first?

Why do people think that taking fighting out of the game first and foremost will somehow magically make the game better and safer for all the players? That's like building a house by constructing the roof first.

 

[Darkstone42]

Don't even get me started on the chinstraps!

 

[Darkstone42]

Why is not possible that the 10% will reduce itself on its own as a result of them addressing the 90% first?

Why do people think that taking fighting out of the game first and foremost will somehow magically make the game better and safer for all the players? That's like building a house by constructing the roof first.

It very well may reduce as a result of attacking the 90%. I'm not arguing to the contrary. But ignoring an entire 10% is unproductive.

 

[IPostedWhat]

You're taking this a little personal.

And yes, if the problem is addressing player safety, I personally would give more weight to what Darkstone is saying than say, Steven Stamkos. Especially when those same players resisted helmets.... and then visors for those helmets.... and almost any "change" that someone suggested. They aren't paid to think about long-term health consequences nor, frankly, do I think that most of them are as smart as myslef, D'stone, and many others. Because while they were spending 24/7 perfecting hip checks, saucer passes, and slap shots, others were studying physics, social dynamics, etc.

Darkstone was one of the first people I saw mention that players don't do something as simple as strap on their helmets correctly. Something he's maintained is a cause of concussion problems. And yet, the players who play the game go out their with those straps hanging loose all the time and we've seen that cause problems. So yes, I think people outside a situation can sometimes have a better opinion because they've studied physics, health, sociology, psychology, etc. Applicable fields that can solve the problems being faced by people versed in how to solve social and health problems, not on how to play hockey good.

Well in that case I can solve all the problems by facing Hockey by just getting rid of the sport altogether.

Ok, but in all seriousness, show me hard data, not just "educated" opinions, and I'll be more willing to listen. To say that an average hockey fan with an above average IQ knows all the problems facing the game and how to fix them, yet chooses not to do anything with his "research" is negligent.

To say that an average fan has access to data and information that the League itself or the players don't know about is laughable.

Not trying to be a dick, but it comes across as vastly smug in my opinion.