Cracking down on staged fights

by James Mirtle on Feb 4, 2009 10:11 PM CST Comment 99 comments

353859529_48a117e861_medium

"I'm not advocating elimination of their jobs, I'm talking about the question of safety. If those guys can hold a roster spot and skate on a fourth line and play and engage in fights which arise from the emotion of the game, great. But if they're only there for one purpose, then I think that's at least one issue our competition committee will take a hard look at."

— NHLPA executive director Paul Kelly

A hard look at eliminating their jobs?

This is a tough spot for Kelly to argue from, but you better believe there are established NHL stars who would like to see one-dimensional goons out of the game. What you won't hear, however, is them speak publically on the matter.

I wouldn't want Derek Boogaard to know my thoughts either.

The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of players "only there for one purpose." All you have to do is look at the league's leaders in penalty minutes per minute per game on the ice, a smörgåsbord of players that can't "skate on a fourth line and play."

RK	NAME	POS	GP	G	A	PTS	+/-	PIM	ATOI
1	Riley Cote, PHI	LW	37	0	1	1	-5	114	4:03
2	Eric Godard, PIT	RW	46	1	1	2	-4	121	4:30
3	Andrew Peters, BUF	LW	26	0	1	1	-2	81	4:09
4	Cam Janssen, STL	RW	40	1	3	4	-5	97	5:29
5	Zack Stortini, EDM	RW	30	1	2	3	-5	116	6:38
6	David Koci, STL/TB	D	14	0	0	0	0	66	3:56
7	W. Brookbank, CAR	LW	27	1	0	1	0	40	2:29
8	Mike Brown, VAN	RW	20	0	1	1	-5	85	5:29
9	Arron Asham, PHI	RW	45	3	4	7	-1	127	8:21
10	Raitis Ivanans, LA	LW	48	2	0	2	-7	97	6:31
11	Eric Boulton, ATL	LW	48	2	7	9	2	111	7:29
12	Derek Boogaard, MIN	LW	39	0	3	3	4	71	4:51
13	Darcy Hordichuk, VAN	LW	47	4	1	5	4	85	5:50
14	Colton Orr, NYR	RW	52	1	3	4	-8	100	7:00
15	Jared Boll, CLS	RW	44	3	6	9	-5	118	8:42
16	Daniel Carcillo, PHO	LW	45	3	3	6	-11	153	11:37
17	Krys Barch, DAL	LW	49	3	5	8	0	84	6:32
18	George Parros, ANH	RW	47	4	5	9	9	79	6:17
19	Brandon Prust, CGY	RW	21	1	1	2	-4	75	5:58
20	Chris Neil, OTT	RW	42	2	4	6	-13	127	10:50
21	Ben Eager, CHI	LW	45	8	3	11	4	91	8:10
22	D. Brashear, WAS	LW	47	1	3	4	-3	96	8:37
23	Wade Belak, FLA/NSH	RW	40	0	1	1	1	59	5:19
24	Jody Shelley, SJ	LW	42	1	2	3	-3	63	5:55
25	Andre Deveaux, TOR	C	20	0	1	1	-2	75	7:07
26	Cody McLeod, COL	LW	51	11	4	15	4	110	10:33
27	Mike Rupp, NJ	LW	49	3	5	8	0	91	8:53
28	Derek Dorsett, CLS	RW	32	2	1	3	-4	89	8:43
29	Shawn Thornton, BOS	LW	51	5	4	9	1	98	9:47
30	Josh Gratton, PHI	LW	19	1	2	3	-2	57	6:14

With a few exceptions, there's really not a lot of value there, and that's one player per team.

Here's a rule that might work if the NHLPA is serious about pursuing this: Mandate that after five fighting majors, any player who has played less than 10 minutes a game gets a sizable suspension and his team is fined.

Goodbye Koci.

0 recs | Comment 99 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

How about

1st fight = 5 and a game and a 1-game suspension
2nd fight = 5 and a game and a 2-game suspension
3rd fight = 5 and a a game and a 4-game suspension
4th fight = 5 and a game and an 8-game suspension

That way, fights are still “allowed,” players can “police themselves,” but the only fights that occur will happen after egregious cheapshots or when “emotions run high”. There will be no more staged fights. No more unnecessary fights following clean hits.

That oughta satisfy everybody.

by Dr Van Nostrum on Feb 4, 2009 10:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

If European experiences are anything to go by, that just leads to goons jumping better players and the good players getting suspended along with the goon if they respond (and who the heck just stands there getting punched in a situation like that). That’s just overwhelmingly nice in a playoff series – especially since you can always call up a new goon.

Granted, Euro leagues have gotten better in interpreting these situations, but I don’t like any new rule that leads to more room for interpretation.

Also, would it have been nice to see, say, Iginla and Lecavalier thrown out and suspended one game after their Finals scrap? I think it would have been anticlimactic.

by Malurous on Feb 5, 2009 4:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Also, would it have been nice to see, say, Iginla and Lecavalier thrown out and suspended one game after their Finals scrap? I think it would have been anticlimactic.

They wouldn’t have been thrown out, though, because based on prior Pronger suspension experince a playoff game counts for more than a regular season game, so all suspensions are reduced accordingly. They would just have to sit in the box for the first two minutes of the next game. :)

But I think tthe fact hat everyone brings up this one fight points out how rare it is. It was what, five years ago? I just wonder about making rules (or not making them) based on possibly affecting a situation that is so uncommon. Worry about the more common situation first, since that has vastly more effect on the game. At least it would have been fair to the two teams if both players sat, as there is not a vast difference in skill between the two – the impact would have been comparable.

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on Feb 5, 2009 4:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure, it’s uncommon, but overall I don’t see the point of heavy suspensions etc. for single fights especially concerning quality players. If the point is eliminating the hockey-talentless goon, that is. If the point is eliminating fighting then it’s a great idea.

Mike Richards would have racked up 15 games in suspensions this year with this system, so would Sheldon Souray. Getzlaf, Iginla, Ohlund seven games. And I’m only mentioning the best guys there, there are lots of other non-enforcers with fights. Heck, Milan Lucic would have 63 games in suspensions and he plays on the first line of the first place team in the league. So I prefer what James suggested as it separates the roles.

by Malurous on Feb 5, 2009 5:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I should have mentioned that if there were suspensions like these then guys of this caliber wouldn’t be fighting of course, they wouldn’t want to and they wouldn’t be allowed to. Hence, they wouldn’t miss these amounts of games. However, how is that good? I don’t want to see the Iginlas of the world start toning it down.

by Malurous on Feb 5, 2009 5:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think that a penalty for fighting would be a lesser deterent than their own coach’s advice to not expose themselves to unnecessary risk of injury or sitting in the box for five minutes and hurting their team that way, though. Probably much more pressure comes from their own bosses than any dictate from the league.

I guess I don’t see the big appeal of hockey fighting. Usually it’s two guys circling and posturing each other like two crabs on the beach comparing claw sizes, then some wild flailing until they both fall over, then the officials separate them and clean up the gloves and sticks like a parent picking up outerwear after a kid gets home from school. Meanwhile the other players are all waiting for the sideshow to finish and I take advantage of the stoppage in play to visit the kitchen or put a load of laundry in the dryer. I don’t hate fighting – I just don’t think it’s all that interesting, and most players look pretty stupid in the process and all they do is slow down the game. If I want to see a fight between people who actually know what they are doing, I’ll watch a boxing match. If fighting disappeared from the game tomorrow, I doubt I’d really notice as it never struck me as particularly noteworthy.

To each his own, I guess. But these staged performances of sideshow bears are ridiculous.

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on Feb 5, 2009 6:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

(And I should clarify that I don’t mind James’ idea at all. If the league is going to start handing out suspensions, I can think of about a dozen other situations in a minute or two that I’d rather they look at first. Fighting is nowhere near the problem that blatant headshots are – at least usually the other guy knows it’s coming and can prepare himself in the case of a fight.)

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on Feb 5, 2009 6:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with everything you said in this post and the one just before it – although I have to say that I like the fights when I’m attending games (not that often with my budget) because of the audience reaction. On TV, not so much. Anyway, I just don’t like the idea of quality players getting suspended for something that isn’t a problem of the same magnitude as, say, headshots.

by Malurous on Feb 5, 2009 9:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I might see the point of fights in person, too. But on television it’s bo-ring.

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on Feb 5, 2009 1:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That oughta satisfy everybody.

Umm, I find myself pretty unsatisfied.

Seriously, I think there are two mechanisms in place. If owners thought these fights were costing them fans, they would go away on their own. If coaches thought these fights were costing them wins, they would go away on their own.

Apparently more penalties/incentives need to be introduced to curtail fighting as it exists, but I really can’t tell you why it seems so important. And I won’t lie — I enjoy heavyweight fights still. I wish people would leave it alone, frankly.

http://www.battleofcali.com/

by Earl Sleek on Feb 5, 2009 1:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Didn’t Cody McLeod play a lot in the playoffs last year? I think a few of these guys are wrongly convicted!

by Hawerchuk on Feb 5, 2009 1:24 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

MCLEOAD IS A BEAST

From the middle of last season until now, he has been by far the Avs’ most consistently hardworking player on the ice, and he’s either 4th or tied for 3rd on the team in goals.

softpillowcase

by Selanne on Feb 5, 2009 9:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

On a sidenote, an Avs fan using Selanne as a nick and an avatar is quite interesting.

by Malurous on Feb 5, 2009 9:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It does note “with a few exceptions.” Plus he’s over the 10 minutes a game threshold anyway.

by James Mirtle on Feb 5, 2009 11:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I like your suggestion a lot James as it adequately separates players of different roles, but I would draw the line at eight minutes a game. That would let off the hook guys who would probably play more on a worse team (Eager, Asham, Brashear, Thornton…) and guys who are defensive forwards as much as (or more than) enforcers: there have been quite a few defensive forwards who play under ten minutes a game and are ready to defend their teammates even though they aren’t actual enforcers. The number is still low enough that nobody will play a Koci that much.

Hawerchuk: James said “with a few exceptions”. The table’s just NHL stats ranked by PIM/TOI, and I’m sure everyone agrees that McLeod, Carcillo, Neil and the guys I mentioned earlier can do much more than fight.

by Malurous on Feb 5, 2009 4:21 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

With a few exceptions, there’s really not a lot of value there, and that’s one player per team.

Ah, one of the few lists that Detroit is no where near the top on.

Baroque: you should remember, there were some times that Shanny dropped the gloves. A lot of teams have similar guys. The difference is that most of them aren’t necessarily between two franchise players, and certainly not on the sport’s biggest stage. Iggy/Lecavalier is just the easiest popular example. I think Mirtle’s idea is pretty good, it allows guys like Shanahan, Iginla, etc to do their thing and keep on shining (and dishing out a few shiners), while helping move towards phasing out the worthless goons. That, or for a team to keep such a player, they’ll have to handicap themselves somewhat, by making sure he plays the requisite time on ice.

by IAmJoe on Feb 5, 2009 5:38 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Or force the “enforcers” to pay the penalty by spending five straight minutes on the ice instead of off it. :)

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on Feb 5, 2009 6:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

now THAT is an idea!

by IAmJoe on Feb 5, 2009 7:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It does have potential. :)

The “enforcer” on the ice for five straight minutes, his teammates and the opposition making normal changes, and the poor soul getting worn out. Even if he wanted to he wouldn’t have the energy to fight too many times in the game because he’d be too pooped!

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on Feb 5, 2009 1:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s harsh though. It’s very close to a 5 minute penalty kill for the enforcer’s team…

by Habs on Feb 5, 2009 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Detroit was there, though – look at the picture!

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on Feb 5, 2009 6:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Peters was the perfect picture for this…..and that was even before I looked at the actual stats.

by Afino on Feb 5, 2009 7:45 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Yes, though I love the look on the Detroit player’s face…“why am I doing this again?”.

I would be okay with this, as long as the Sabres have guys like Rivet, Gaustad and Mair who are willing the drop the gloves for the right reason.

Honk if you love Justice!
"I'm betting that I'm just abnormal enough to survive. "

by TheTick on Feb 5, 2009 8:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

1) Can we stop the “Stop Fighting Insanity” already!?! If a team feels it needs to have a player take up a roster spot/cap space and doesn’t do much more than have a scrap every now and then its their choice
2) They are already penalized for the loss of cap space and a useable player so why add to that with what we regard this silly suspension if a player has a minimal of ice time AND major penalties.
3) The whole discussion of “curbing fighting” is getting ridiculous. Either make it totally illegal or just stop with these half (dumb) measures to “curb” the number of scraps.

by Fauxrumors on Feb 5, 2009 8:54 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

exactly

you’re dead on. Kelly’s comments are useless. You can’t stop “staged” fights. Who’s the say when the fight is “staged?” When two goons line up at a faceoff and immediately drop the gloves, that’s obvious. But what about when they skate around for half a shift first? what about when one goon goes out and starts a fight with the other goon to “change the momentum?”

You either eliminate fighting, or you dont.

by poploser on Feb 5, 2009 11:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What about James's suggestion?

It is the topic of the post, and it is surely a reasonable way of reducing the number of fights by pugilists who can’t play.

You can’t pick out which fight is “staged” and which isn’t, but you can get rid of the predictable ones in favour of the spontaneous ones by keeping the non-players off the ice.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Feb 5, 2009 12:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I see some logic in all of this.

That said… if this rule comes into place and some first-liner breaks his hand in a fight, you know we’re going to hear a flood of “He shouldn’t have been fighting, he’s too important, there should have been a fourth-liner there to do it for him!”

Down Goes Brown - Unapologetically nostalgic for the past. Brutally realistic about the present. Grudgingly optimistic about the future.

by Down Goes Brown on Feb 5, 2009 9:06 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Exactly what Iginla has done in the past. He’s broken his hand fighting, and he sprained something in 2002-03. But it is part of his game, and we take the good with the bad.

All of these measures to “stop” fighting are ridiculous. As was mentioned, either ban it or leave it alone. All of these half measures are nothing more than hypocrites trying to pay lip service to a percieved problem that simply does not exist. The day an NHL arena doesn’t break out into wild cheering at a fight is the day fighting should be banned. Until then, everybody in the game knows that fighting sells. The biggest problem here is that you either have mediots whining about the “need” to remove fighting, and people within hockey who lack the courage to stand up for their own game.

by Resolute on Feb 5, 2009 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This is far from a media driven issue any more. Colin Campbell’s talking about it, and Paul Kelly is, too, which is why I thought it worthwhile to revisit the topic. Kelly speaks entirely on behalf of his membership, and as I said, you better believe there are plenty of players who don’t want the goon shows any more.

That’s what this means.

And just because it sells doesn’t mean it should stay.

by James Mirtle on Feb 5, 2009 12:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And just because it sells doesn’t mean it should stay.

I don’t understand, in this already tough economic climate, there are certain teams (Phoenix) struggling to make ends meet.

So now the NHL/NHLPA are discussing to change one way casual fans (and therefore revenue streams) tune into and show up to hockey games??

by Afino on Feb 5, 2009 1:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Are fans honestly going to stop going to games if there aren’t the 25 or so guys I mentioned above? Fights are already at about .65 per game; if you’re going just for the scraps, you’re likely to be disappointed more often than not.

by James Mirtle on Feb 5, 2009 1:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, James, there are fans who love fighting. Sometimes a fight can be the most exciting part of a boring trap-fest game. You might yawn at the notion of “another” Parros-Shelley fight (or whatever). A lot of fans find that to be the highlight of a 60-minute yawn fest.

http://www.battleofcali.com/

by Earl Sleek on Feb 5, 2009 1:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The significance here that I think many are missing is that this is the players talking about eliminating these fights. That’s all Kelly is, a mouthpiece for his membership.

Will the fans revolt if there’s some sort of helmet rule put in as the request of the NHLPA?

by James Mirtle on Feb 5, 2009 1:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I certainly wouldn’t revolt and I’m sure the casual fans wouldn’t even notice a “helmet rule” if it is ever put into place.

by Afino on Feb 5, 2009 1:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I assume the helmet issue is a separate issue — I don’t know how they’d handle visors, but I don’t know if I have a huge issue there.

I just think everybody needs to be very careful here. If somehow we’re left with nothing but Crosby fights, that’d be a tragedy for a lot of fans.

http://www.battleofcali.com/

by Earl Sleek on Feb 5, 2009 1:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Kelly is talking about eliminating the goons with no other purpose, that is hardly the same as eliminating fights. As it is, the traditional goon is a dying breed already due to changes in the game, and massive increase in talent from the heyday of the fighting 70s to today.

What it really is is lip service. Kelly is focusing on eliminating an already disappearing player archetype so that he, and the union, can create the appearance that they are on board with “saving” the game from fighting. In the end though, it is just as hypocritical as David Branch’s rule changes in the OHL were. If you are opposed to fighting, then call for, and work for, a ban on fighting. If you aren’t, then have the courage to say that. But don’t try to sell me on these half-measures that are nothing more than pissing in the wind.

As to your comments above about how people going for fighting alone will be disappointed, I wouldn’t disagree. It is, however, disingenuous to try and claim that people who support fighting are going for that alone. Fighting is a part of the game. So is hitting, scoring, passing, goaltending. Every game is unique, and not every game has a great deal of all of these aspects. Some games feature great offence. Some great goaltending. Some games have that massive hit that people talk about for months. And some have that fight or brawl that gets people buzzing.

It is all of these aspects of the game that makes the sport what it is. Fighting certainly is not the most significant part of the game, but at the same time, there is a damn good reason why Don Cherry’s Rockem Sockem series has been so popular for some two decades now.

by Resolute on Feb 5, 2009 5:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t want to eliminate fighting. I want to eliminate Koci and company.

by James Mirtle on Feb 5, 2009 5:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There’s 25 goons on the list above, plus another tier in the minors. I don’t see how you can suddenly claim they’re a “dying breed”.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Feb 5, 2009 8:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My comparing them to the traditional goon of the 1970s.

Every single one of these players is a better hockey player than their counterparts of that generation. Certainly most of them know their role is still to be an “energy” player for their teams, using fights to generate momentum for their squad, but at the same time, many of the players on this list won’t hurt you too badly if you throw them out on the ice for something other than fighting.

Now, James is absolutely correct in that some of these guys – notablly Koci, Janssen, Stortini, MacIntyre, and (based on his recent play), Andre Roy – have no place in the league. But Cody McLeod, Ben Eager and Shawn Thornton? There aren’t 25 goons on that list. Just 25 guys with a lot of penalty minutes. Other guys, like Brandon Prust, are trying to fill that energy role – to go out and make things happen. In Prust’s case, that often has led to fights in his 20 games, but at the same time, he very rarely went out with no other purpose other than to fight.

Hell, even given how goofy Stortini is, or how cheap Janssen is, I still find them nowhere near as embarrassing to the game as the likes of Matt Cooke and Jarko Ruutu.

by Resolute on Feb 6, 2009 3:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Personally, I’d rather see the Eagers and Thorntons play more and not get stuck fighting Kocis so much. You’re right, some of these guys can contribute beyond fighting, and if you toss the real dead weight out of the league, you’ll see what’s what.

by James Mirtle on Feb 6, 2009 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

For every media talking head that talks about banning fighting, there’s someone over at Hockeyfights.com eagerly anticipating the next Sharks-Ducks matchup just for the chance of a Shelley-Parros fight.

by Afino on Feb 5, 2009 2:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

dead on again James. I want to see a study done of fans who will walk away from the game is fighting is not involved. I want to see studies showing me that playoff games where fighting decreases (and everyone knows it will going into the playoffs in advance) and ticket sales and ratings drop.

I also want to see studies showing me what, if any, revenue and long-term growth potential the league is not taking advantage of. Im not saying there is any, but I would like someone to actually study the issue so the league and the players can make informed choices about whats best for the business of the sport.

by poploser on Feb 5, 2009 5:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I want to see studies showing me that playoff games where fighting decreases (and everyone knows it will going into the playoffs in advance) and ticket sales and ratings drop.

I want to see studies that show that fans stop going to games when they are the most important ones of the season.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Feb 5, 2009 6:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I want to see the fighting fan who will admit that the fighting in the playoffs drops because its not integral to the game.

by poploser on Feb 5, 2009 9:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I want to see the anti-fighting fan who will admit that the fans keep going to playoff hockey despite the decrease in fighting because the games are the most important of the year.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Feb 6, 2009 11:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I want to see you two square off in a hockey fight.

by James Mirtle on Feb 6, 2009 2:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you realize you’re agreeing with my point, right? I am arguing that fighting is not important to the game. Im arguing that people will still go to games when there is no fighting. You are agreeing with me. Thanks for that.

by poploser on Feb 6, 2009 11:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You should have seen the Battle of Alberta in the 80s. ;)

by Resolute on Feb 6, 2009 3:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Are fans honestly going to stop going to games if there aren’t the 25 or so guys I mentioned above?

Come on James, you’re way too smart to play the “real fans won’t stop watching” card. Leave that to the veteran media guys who have been mailing it in for years.

Being a fan of a sport is not an either/or deal, where you’re either a hardcore fan or you never watch at all. There are all sorts of degrees. The question isn’t “are fans going to stop going to games”. It’s “are fans going to go to fewer games”, or watch fewer games, or be a little less interested in the highlights, or a little more likely to flip the channel over to the NBA or NFL or UFC or who knows what.

And the answer to that sure seems to be “yes”. I doubt there’s anybody here who doesn’t know some fans who talk about how much more they enjoyed hockey in the old days.

Now the other half of the question is “will other fans who were kept away by fighting take their place?” That’s a fair question and we don’t know the answer yet. It would be a big risk to take for the NHL, though.

Down Goes Brown - Unapologetically nostalgic for the past. Brutally realistic about the present. Grudgingly optimistic about the future.

by Down Goes Brown on Feb 5, 2009 7:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ahhh...

it actually took longer than usual, but we have our first “anyone who doesnt like fighting is a wimp” comment! ANGRY GOON FAN SMASH!

I don’t know know the league has survived with all these wimpy players who don’t have the courage to stand up for their own game! All those years that Wayne Gretzky was playing all scared of the big bad goons! Its amazing he was able to survive!

by poploser on Feb 5, 2009 5:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He was able to survive because of Dave Semenko, whose one job was to protect Wayne Gretzky

by Afino on Feb 6, 2009 7:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I believe thats one of the most overblown legends in hockey. Semenko didnt many games on Gretzky’s line. And he was more than a fighter actually a decently talented player who was able to do some damage in front of the net. THAT is the toughness we should be promoting, not a guy who is going to jump a guy who through a clean check.

by poploser on Feb 6, 2009 10:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It didn’t matter if Semenko was on Gretzky’s line. It mattered that he was in the lineup. Anyone who took liberties with Gretzky answered for it at some point.

by Resolute on Feb 6, 2009 3:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But....

According to Don Cherry, if he were coaching, all of these players would be able to score 15-20 goals!

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Feb 5, 2009 9:22 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

1) …and we’re/the NHL/NHLPA are talking about these silly measures because some poor guy got killed in a amatuer league game???
2) We wonder if Mr. Sanderson had died from a fall after a shoulder check if they’d be calling for the NHL to end all body contact?

by Fauxrumors on Feb 5, 2009 9:28 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

your attempt at humor highlights the key issue – a guy dying from a shoulder check has an obvious direct relationship to the game of hockey. does a fight? I would argue it doesnt.

by poploser on Feb 5, 2009 11:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

1) Many would argue that intimidation/fighting does have an effect/is part of the game. The comment wasn’t intended to be humorous as much as to point out the fallacy of the discussion.
2) The poor guy who died shouldn’t have even been fighting in the first place. There shouldn’t be fighting OR body contact in amateur games. However the pros are a different animal.

by Fauxrumors on Feb 5, 2009 11:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I have no doubt that intimidation has an effect, but I am not the least bit convinced that fighting = intimidation.

Watching Parros and Jannsen fight doesnt mean one team is more intimidating than the other. Is Henrik Zetterberg not intimidating cause he doesnt throw punches? Players who play the game tough and are hard to play against – I believe THEY create space for themselves. But Im willing to bet you ask players in the league if they are “intimidated” by Colton Orr being on the ice, and they will laugh.

by poploser on Feb 5, 2009 5:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve been arguing this point on goons for years. It doesn’t have to do with Sanderson’s death other than the fact people like Kelly are bringing it up finally.

by James Mirtle on Feb 5, 2009 11:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The eliminating jobs angle is silly for what I hope are obvious reasons. Allowing goons to play the game takes jobs away from more skilled hockey players the exact same way that forcing goons out of the game takes the jobs away from them.

The reason this is a harder issue to change than it looks is because there really aren’t many fourth-line players in the league that add more value than that list. Unless your opponent can ice a respectable fourth line, there’s no reason for any time to even try to build a decent fourth line of their own. The ideal solution is to contract the league or reduce roster size (perhaps in line with reducing season length) until there’s enough talent to go around, but that’s obviously off the table.

So maybe a somewhat arbitrary rule like the one you suggested is the best way to go. I know I sure wouldn’t miss the goons.

(Trivia: Koci has more PIM than total ice time. That’s pretty impressive. I didn’t check everyone on that list, but I think he’s the only one.)

by RyanV on Feb 5, 2009 9:39 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Very good points, but

Unless your opponent can ice a respectable fourth line, there’s no reason for any time to even try to build a decent fourth line of their own.

how about either being able to roll four lines against three, thus having more energy, or alternatively building a fourth line that will outscore a goon squad like mad?

by Malurous on Feb 5, 2009 9:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I can only speak to the team I follow, but on the Rangers, the 4th line has been consistently the same for all but a handful of games. Blair Betts centering Colton Orr and Fred Sjostrom. Betts and Sjorstom are the Rangers # 1 PK pair (a PK that is near top in the league). Sjostrom is regularly in the Rangers top 3 in a shootout. Orr skates 7 minutes a game. Two of the players have value game in game out. One does not.

by poploser on Feb 5, 2009 11:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

(Trivia: Koci has more PIM than total ice time. That’s pretty impressive. I didn’t check everyone on that list, but I think he’s the only one.)

I checked everyone, and he is the only guy who spends more time in a game in the penalty box that skating to and from it. By 0.78 minutes each game.

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on Feb 5, 2009 1:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think another great stat to include would have been shots on goal…Cote has 15 all season long. Godard has 12 and Koci has just 1.

These guys do know there is a little puck out there that they’re supposed to swat at, right?

by Hooks Orpik on Feb 5, 2009 10:31 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Heh, you’re right, I should have done that.

by James Mirtle on Feb 5, 2009 11:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I like the fact that Montreal doesn’t have a player on this list. Admittedly if Laraque had been healthy all season he probably would rank up there, but I’d like to think he also can play hockey, to an extent.

by Habs on Feb 5, 2009 10:42 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Laraque’s definitely an exception.

by Afino on Feb 5, 2009 11:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There’s no doubt the big guy can cycle the puck a little and tries to be more of a hockey player than simply and enforcer…But if the Cote’s and Orr’s and Boogaard’s of the league vanished, what would be Laraque’s point?

He’s there to deter pesty no heavy-weight players (like Chris Neil, Jarkko Ruutu, Steve Downie, etc) don’t be too much of menance…But do you think any of those guys would ever drop gloves with BGL?

If the enforcers were to suddenely be outlawed, I think that would about do in the more noble heavyweights like BGL and Brashear who geniunely want to play hockey and not run around like maniacs trying to make a name for themselves.

by Hooks Orpik on Feb 5, 2009 12:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I’d love to simply see tough guys like Laraque and Brashear play hockey a lot more than they do. Either they can contribute beyond fighting or they can’t.

by James Mirtle on Feb 5, 2009 12:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Totally agree with what Kelly is trying to do. Iginla vs Lecavalier and all those intense, “in the moment” explosion of violence are good for the game and a good way to avoid bench clearing brawls.

But it becomes meaningless and boring when the fighting is done by players who cannot do anything else, players who you know will drop the gloves as soon as they come over the bench for their one shift of the game.

by AwkwardMoment on Feb 5, 2009 11:14 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I’d agree that maybe it shouldn’t be in the game, but I don’t know if it is meaningless…

For example, last week Tom Renney put Colton Orr in the starting lineup, Michel Therrien responded by lining Eric Godard up against him.

Both coaches had their reasons to give a boost and set the tone (NYR just lost 3-0 in Pittsburgh days earlier, Pitt has been in a slump lately at home).

So they fight right off the bat…Godard drops Orr, the bench (and crowd) gets fired up and the Penguins go on to win 6-2. More immediately, both teams scored about 6 minutes within the fight.

Like I said, whether or not there should be a place for it is a whole different debate, but sometimes heavyweight clashes can be meaningful.

by Hooks Orpik on Feb 5, 2009 11:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think you’re picking a good example. If the Pitts team was so “fired up” how come the Rangers scored 2 minutes later? And if it was such a boost to the Penguins, how come it was a 1-1 game going into the third? And how come the Rangers managed to get 18 shots on goal in the 2nd?

People see what they want to see with fighting. People who think its enjoyable find examples where the “fight” was “energizing” to the “bench” and it “turned” the momentum. Im willing to bet you could find just as many examples of times when a fight didn’t appear to have any effect. For instance, in the Rangers last game (against the Thrashers), one of the Rangers n ewest players went out, a few minutes in, and got into a fight. The crowd was fired up, the team stood up and tapped their sticks on the board as they always do…and the Rangers went out and played 2 periods of horrible hockey.

Its just too hard to see any real causal relationship exists.

by poploser on Feb 5, 2009 5:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So poploser, why do coaches persist in dressing fighters? Are they all idiots, or is it possible that there is a benefit?

http://www.battleofcali.com/

by Earl Sleek on Feb 5, 2009 6:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Are you going to hang your hat on coaches seeing a benefit that the players don’t?

Coaches dress goons because they’re copycats, and Anaheim won the Cup two years ago. They do it because they’re slow to innovate and it doesn’t cost them enough to provide incentive to change (before the shootout, I yelled at the TV when Pat Quinn didn’t think to pull his goalie in the last minute of overtime with the free point guaranteed). And they do it for the reason Hooks gives above: so that the other team’s Colton Orr has something better to do than try and elbow Ryan Whitney during his 5 minutes of ice time.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Feb 5, 2009 8:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You may be right. I do hear a lot of stories about how the team goon is often the “best” team guy. You hear stories about how nice (and smart) a guy like Laraque is off the ice. Maybe they are the best guys in the locker room and on the bench. It may not be possible to quantify that value.

But I would guess that if you have 20 skaters on a team, the majority of them will not feel better “protected” if the goon isnt in the lineup. I would also guess that just as many players would get “energized” by a 4th line guy who spent that 7 minutes per game getting in on the forecheck and throwing a big hit. Or who put in the extra effort on a PK that got the crowd “enegized”.

As far as the coaches go – coaches are the least “forward-thinking” group in the league. They will all come back to the lowest common denominator because the prevailing wisdom in the league is that you need a goon to survive during a long 82 game season. In the playoffs, though, the game tends to reduce the role of the goon. I doubt that’s coincidental.

by poploser on Feb 5, 2009 9:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You can’t draw the line at how many minutes they play. Some teams just roll 3 lines, then throw the 4th line every once in a while. I think we know who has some value on this list.

Guys like Parros, Barch, Orr and Hordichuk have value, even though their ice time is limited.

Don't be afraid to take a few steps back, but you better keep moving forward.

by wlittle on Feb 5, 2009 11:42 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

+1 for “smörgåsbord”

Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world

by J.P. on Feb 5, 2009 11:43 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

For our Swedish readers.

by James Mirtle on Feb 5, 2009 11:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

A Møøse once bit my sister...

Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti…

The population of Pominville keeps rising!

by Blackcapricorn on Feb 5, 2009 12:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Smorgasbord = DEF – a luncheon or supper buffet offering a variety of foods and dishes (…) Nice word but it’s out of context :P

by Fred Poulin on Feb 5, 2009 11:59 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I hope you’re kidding Fred:

1. A buffet meal featuring a varied number of dishes
2. A varied collection: "a smorgasbord of fashionable paranormal beliefs"

by James Mirtle on Feb 5, 2009 12:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fred Poulin got pwnd.

Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world

by J.P. on Feb 5, 2009 1:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep. Sometimes you need to check definitions other than the first one. ;)

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on Feb 5, 2009 1:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Goddam online dictionary of the Translation Bureau of Canada giving me only one definition!! My bad James. Anyway fighting rules, so let’s talk about something else!

by Fred Poulin on Feb 5, 2009 1:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Next time try www.answers.com. Dictionary, thesaurus – love it. But I’m a nerd, so …

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on Feb 5, 2009 2:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't want to see a suspension simply for fighting

Still I’ve never supported giving roster spots to pure fighters, or the stagged fights.

So maybe being willing to start susspending after the eighth fight of the year would be reasonable. The league already suspends if you have three fights in a single game…

Fighting though still is one of the benifits that hockey brings to the table, and honestly a few other sports would be better off with more liberal fighting rules.

Blue and Gold (of Buffalo)

by Ebscer on Feb 5, 2009 12:37 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

1) Another suggestion to limit ’goons as some like to call them. Limit the active roster. Its what 23 right now? Reduce it by one. OR Reduce the number of players a team can dress for a game by one.
2) Chances are players with limited value will be the first to be paired. This process has already started with the advent of the salary cap. That way no silly new rules have to be enacted to get much the same result

by Fauxrumors on Feb 5, 2009 12:53 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

That certainly is one thing that comes up in the blogosphere every once in a while, and I’m not alone in thinking that would be a very good thing for the game. However, the NHLPA would never accept just flat-out removing 30 jobs from the field.

by Malurous on Feb 5, 2009 3:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

With regard to the staged fights, just levy an ejection and one-game suspension for those players who drop the gloves right off a faceoff (e.g., Laraque vs. Ivanans). That way they’d at least have to skate a little bit.

"Without good hard work, it is impossible to reach the pinnacle of success." - Anatoli Tarasov

by PRC on Feb 5, 2009 2:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

How about penalizing the coach?

Perhaps the way to go is to penalize the people that determine ice-time, namely the coaches. If one wanted to reduce fighting (personally, not me, but whatever), and they wanted to eliminate “senseless” or “stage” fighting, maybe the best thing is to link the fighting player’s ice-time (or lack thereof) with a suspension (of fine) of the coach.

For example, if Fighter A gets into a fight at any point in the game, and plays less than X amount throughout that game, the Coach is fined a certain amount based on a scale of those X minutes. Under 5 minutes played by Fighter A could be a $20,000 fine, between 5-10 minutes could be $10K or something like that. Obviously if Fighter A gets hurt (real or not) would have to be taken into consideration.

But if someone like Belak knows ahead of time he’s going after Janssen (or Mayers vs. Kostopolous etc), then Maurice then (or Wilson now) would have to play Belak or Mayers more throughout the game to keep his money. If these fines add up throughout the season, the coach could face a suspension himself or something.

Just a thought a little outside the box.

by lordosis on Feb 5, 2009 3:34 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think it’s fair to limit a coach’s possibility to bench someone who plays like crap. Very good players get benched for shifts or periods every year when they aren’t playing up to snuff. Someone like Carbonneau shouldn’t have to think “oh dear, I have to play him two more minutes or I’ll get fined” before stapling Kovalev to the bench (in the hypothetical situation that Kovalev had a fight earlier in the game :P )

by Malurous on Feb 5, 2009 4:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. It only happens if said person gets in a fight. If you fight AND play less than 10 minutes (or however many), then the coach could be penalized.

by lordosis on Feb 5, 2009 4:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, that’s my point exactly, cleared in the parentheses in the end. I mean, should getting into a fight give any player a free pass to ten minutes of ice time now matter how badly he plays?

by Malurous on Feb 5, 2009 4:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I have to laugh a little

about you putting the Avs Cody McLeod on this list. Especially after he scores the game winner tonight against Dallas. With 12 goals (on 78 shots = 15.4%) and 16 pts he is becoming a very good physical 3rd/4th liner for the Avs. He gives them a good amount of grit, will drop the gloves when needed, has gotten much better about not taking bad penalties, gets under the opposition’s skin, and is scoring some very good goals for his club, while averaging just over 10:00 of ice time.

I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.

Now and then we had the hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be PIRATES.
-Mark Twain-

by Americanario on Feb 5, 2009 10:32 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

The list is a purely statistical one. I’m unsure why it would make you laugh.

by James Mirtle on Feb 5, 2009 10:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

With a few exceptions, there’s really not a lot of value there, and that’s one player per team.

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on Feb 5, 2009 11:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Untalented enforcers is something that has changed in the NHL over the past 30 years.

Some facts on past enforcers.

Dave “the Hammer” Schultz a 20 goal scorer in 73-74
“Battleship” Bob Kelly 1974-75 27 goals, 24 assists.
Dave "Tiger " Williams starting in 1975-76 21, 18, 19, 19, 30, 35, 17 goal seasons and one season in LA with 20 goals and 29 assists.

Don Cherry alluded to getting rid of goons a few weeks ago, and stated that his guys that could fight, could play as well, so for the record
John Wesink 77-78 , 16 goals, 20 assists 78-79 28 goals, 18 assists.
Stan Johnathan, 411 NHL games, 91 goals, 110 assists, about a point every second game.
Terry O’Reilly 891 NHL games, 204 goals, 402 assists.

Some more facts on fighting, last season Detroit had 21 fighting major penalties, and 1 during the playoffs. As a side note they won the Presidents Cup and the other Cup as well.

With the growth of UFC, MMA, and that extreme mess the CBS trotted out a few times on Saturday nights, I have to believe that the number of fans that attend hockey to see fights has dwindled.

by cubanpuckstopper on Feb 6, 2009 10:43 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Care to tell me how many fights the 2007 Ducks had?

by Resolute on Feb 6, 2009 4:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Regular season the Ducks were among the leaders for fighting majors.

In the series where they eliminated the Red Wings there were two majors, one for boarding (Niedeymeyer), and none in the Cup clinching series against Ottawa. I don’t recall the other series that year. Player suspensions were memorable in that Cup run.

I heard another spin on the issue from Don Cherry Saturday night. “Don’t take 2 minutes, and put me down, take 5 and take someone off with you” (loosely quoted)

by cubanpuckstopper on Feb 9, 2009 8:10 AM CST reply actions 0 recs