Sunday, 3 February 2013

The Rats Are Taking Over The Game

A little over a year ago there was a press conference where Brian Burke complained that the rats were taking over the game.  At the time there was considerable press coverage that fights per game had declined over the previous year and the pro-fight contingent used Burke’s comments to point how the game featured more cheap shots as a result.  Except the facts show the opposite is true.

This is a familiar and popular argument, that enforcers somehow make the game safer and the “rats” play a different game when they are in the line-up.   Several of my previous posts provided statistics that showed that argument was false.  As fights per game increase the number of non-fight related PIM also increased.   Feedback from the pro-fight fans refused to believe the research or stated that there wasn’t enough detail in the types of penalties to make a conclusive statement.

So I started looking for another way to present my theory that fighting actually encourages more cheap shots.   Using detailed penalty minute data from the past 4 seasons (all that was available).  I compared fights per game to a complied statistic called “Rat PIM”.  Rat penalties are those combined minutes that you would assume would be called on a team's cheap shot artists.  I included the following types of penalties in my Rat PIM:


  • Roughing
  • Slashing
  • Cross Checking
  • Major Penalties (excluding fighting majors)
  • Boarding
  • Unsportsmanlike

I took each of the teams and compared the fights/game data against the combined Rat PIMs that those teams incurred for the past 4 years. 

Teams with enforcers, and/or teams that fought the most, should have the lowest RAT PIM stats.  I mean those teams have made a commitment to cleaning up the game by investing in players with very specialized expertise.  When those players are in the line-up I can imagine all the Rats suddenly sitting up straight and being very polite as they take their shifts.   Teams who do not make the same commitment to fighting, like the misguided Detroit Red Wings, would be playing in a constant state of chaos.  Rats would be running free, hacking, slashing and driving players head first into the boards at every opportunity.  That’s the perception that you would take away from interviews with most general managers, coaches and players.

Except it’s all bullshit.  Below is a chart that has the average of Fights/Game and Rat PIM for the top 5 teams, middle 5 and bottom 5 – sorted by highest Fights/Game to the lowest and showing the last 4 years of Rat PIM data.   There is a clear progression shown – the teams that drop the gloves the most will also incur more Rat type penalties.   If you have an enforcer, or the mentality of “protecting your players”, then your team is more likely to also engage in boarding, roughing, cross checking and slashing.  That’s all the stuff that fighting is supposed to remove from the game.   But if your team fights less then it’s obvious that they play considerably cleaner and that they will take far less Rat PIMs.


2011-122010-112009-102008-09
Ft/Gm
Rat PIM
Ft/Gm
Rat PIM
Ft/Gm
Rat PIM
Ft/Gm
Rat PIM
Top 5
0.716
229.8
0.868
248.4
0.912
293.8
0.852
281.4
Mid 5
0.424
193.0
0.502
190.2
0.584
213.8
0.600
217.2
Bottom 5
0.248
170.2
0.238
162.0
0.288
181.6
0.318
187.2

Data from ESPN, with the numbers provided by Elias Sports Bureau).
If you want the detail by team there is a chart at the bottom of this post.

I don’t think that the general managers, coaches and players are consciously trying to mislead hockey fans.  I would be certain that none of them have actually studied this aspect of the game beyond their gut feelings about the impact that fighting has on the game.   Most of them have played the game and have always had an enforcer or two as a teammate, from their junior hockey days forward.   Therefore they look at the schedule and know which teams are likely to dress the role players with the loose gloves.  Both teams will then have enforcers on the ice and they are motivated to play on the edge in order to prove their worth.  I would also guess that the Rats on the team would feel safe to hand out cheap shots because  they know the big guy is there to take care of business if needed.  After the game the coach confidently tells the assembled media that it was good thing they dressed Boomer McHammer because it was a rough game and they needed someone in the line-up to keep the game from getting out of control. 

Perception is not reality.  Hockey fans need to stop believing in quotes from enforcers about how they keep the rats honest and rely instead on facts.  Yes real experience at the professional level matters but you still have to apply common sense and real facts.  Based on real data, less fighting would result in fewer penalties, including those not related to dropping the gloves.  Less enforcers would result in a cleaner game and more skilled players getting a chance at the NHL level.  The game would be faster and more exciting.   Who would want that?  


Team Detail - Average Over Past 4 Years


2008-09 To 2011-12
Team
Ft/Gm
Rat PIM
Anaheim
0.828
258.0
Philadelphia
0.778
293.5
St. Louis
0.775
277.8
NY Rangers
0.723
229.5
Boston
0.685
206.5
Columbus
0.653
219.5
Edmonton
0.640
248.0
Calgary
0.625
215.5
Toronto
0.593
217.3
Vancouver
0.583
241.8
Pittsburgh
0.580
273.0
Colorado
0.570
193.8
San Jose
0.558
192.0
Ottawa
0.555
245.3
NY Islanders
0.548
227.5
New Jersey
0.545
166.5
Dallas
0.530
224.8
Los Angeles
0.510
235.0
Tampa Bay
0.510
229.8
Winnipeg
0.493
228.8
Chicago
0.485
174.5
Minnesota
0.438
205.0
Florida
0.423
148.5
Montreal
0.418
237.8
Phoenix
0.415
182.3
Buffalo
0.408
223.0
Washington
0.363
173.3
Carolina
0.315
204.0
Nashville
0.310
167.8
Detroit
0.175
143.5

3 comments:

  1. great article. thanks for putting it together. wondering what the data would look like for rat penalties taken AGAINST teams with enforcers... aka, do they prevent other teams from taking cheap shots. (I would assume not, but would be cool too actually see the data).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Paul you really are on to something here. but both "Rat PIM for" and "Rat PIM Against" would help the illustration.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A rebuttal, though: Of the “Rat Penalties” you outline above, Roughing and Unsportsmanlike Conduct are closely tied to fighting majors. Frequently (I don’t have a stat, it’s just something I’ve noticed), the players involved in a fight will also be called for matching roughing calls, though neither of them engaged in Rat Practices. The same can be said to a lesser extent with cross checking and slashing. Unfortunately, I could find no way to separate these penalties out of my analysis, so the accuracy isn’t great. If you found a way to pull these out, I would be curious to hear it.

    This is the excel data of the six different types of penalties we are considering, with teams ordered by the number of fighting majors: http://i.imgur.com/vGz3jlc.jpg

    First thing that jumps out at me: while roughing, slashing, and unsportsmanlike do trend similarly toward that of fighting majors (slope of -1.1), boarding and nonfighting majors are pretty steady across the board. As discussed before, the four groups where penalties related to fighting cannot be fully trusted to indicate anything, so I would contest that Rat Practices are not nearly so rampant among high fighting teams as your presentation suggests.

    Second thing I notice: Consider some of the teams that fall significantly below the trendline in most of the penalty groups in question: New Jersey Devils, New York Rangers, Ottawa Senators, Boston Bruins, Vancouver Canucks, Nashville Predators, Detroit Red Wings, Phoenix Coyotes, Chicago Blackhawks. These teams are found across the board in terms of fighting majors; the Rangers led the league in fights, and the Red Wings were in last. But these are, for the most part, perennial playoff teams within the past few years, and all of them were playoff teams in ‘11-’12, when this data is from.

    So what separated the Devils and the Rangers from the Flyers, who were significantly above the trendline in 5 of the 6 categories? What separated the Red Wings and the Predators from the Blue Jackets, who were above the trendline in half of the categories? The answer is the same one that you’ve seen me give before. Players who can drop the gloves without being a liability on the ice. David Clarkson was a 30 goal scorer and was one of the Devil’s leaders in fights last year, and Brandon Prust killed penalties, including potting a few shorthanded goals, for the Rangers and had the ability to chip in offensively when given the opportunity, but Jody Shelley could only drop the gloves for the Flyers, having never put up more than 10 points in a season for his 12 year NHL career. In the Central division, fighting was less rampant than in the Atlantic division, from top to bottom. The top fighter for the Red Wings was Justin Abdelkader with 6 fights and 22 points. In Nashville, the top fighter was Brian McGrattan with 6 fights, but he only dressed for 30 games (he sounds like a player we both agree does not belong in the NHL). Jordin Tootoo, on the other hand, dressed for 77 games, contributing 5 fights and 30 points. The Blue Jackets had three players with at least 5 fights, and they combined for a whopping 43 fights and 24 points, 20 of which came from Derek Dorsett.

    Top to bottom, the best teams can roll four lines for a full game, regardless of the number of fighting majors they incur. The teams that cannot keep up in the standings are those who employ hockey players that cannot perform at the NHL level. It is these players who exaggerate your statistics, playing dirty because they have no other way to contain the skill players like Kovalchuk, Gaborik, and Datsyuk. The conclusion: we have the same goal, but approach the problem from two very different angles. And, I’ve said it before, I believe that in today’s NHL, a call to completely ban fighting is shortsighted and dangerous. As the worthless players get phased out of the league, we can and should see a decrease in dirty plays as well as fighting, with no intervention from the upper offices.

    ReplyDelete