tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692148900807779.post3619459409265610008..comments2024-03-28T03:30:37.681-04:00Comments on It's Not Part of the Game...: The Code by Ross Bernstein (Part 2)Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06422548471006288988noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692148900807779.post-91020843077668268752013-02-17T01:53:54.758-05:002013-02-17T01:53:54.758-05:00Most fighting is done by players who only play a f...Most fighting is done by players who only play a few minutes per game, so the need to cover their shifts is trivial, and not a deterrent.<br /><br />Moreover, fighting is a series of headshots. So saying "focus on headshots, not fighting" is misdirective, because FIGHTING IS HEADSHOTS.Iain Fyffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692148900807779.post-15238453201172336172013-01-08T17:21:09.335-05:002013-01-08T17:21:09.335-05:00One thing you aren’t considering in your analysis ...One thing you aren’t considering in your analysis of Edmonton is the division they played in. For example, in ‘83/’84, Edmonton landed in the middle of the pack for fights. But, in the whole Smythe division of EDM, CGY, WPG, VAN, LAK, there was only a total of 475 fights. Compare that to the Norris division of MIN, STL, DET, CHI, TOR, where there were a whopping combined 540 fights. (As an aside, where did you get your fight statistics? I find that Edmonton was 11th in fights for ‘83/’84.). As a second comparison, the Patrick division of 6 teams combined for only 473 fights. While the Edmonton team lead the league in points and goals, Boston (Norris) and NY Isles (Patrick) were tied for second in points. Since most games occur within a teams division, the nature of opposing teams is a huge consideration. The Big Bad Bruins of the 80s had intimidation (a viable strategy in any hockey league, across any era) in spades, and the Canadiens, Nordiques, North Stars, and Sabres responded in kind, and all five teams placed higher on fight totals than the Oilers. <br /><br />Unfortunately, “intimidation” is not quantifiable. So for teams like the Bullies who would hit you for looking at Bobby Clarke the wrong way, the Bruins who would hit you for wearing a Canadiens jersey, there is no data showing the success of your intimidation against the success of any other team. By the same token, while Grimson and McSorley have very little determinable data showing that Selanne/Kariya and Gretzky were better players with henchmen (and yes, Gretzky was and would have been great with or without McSorley. He’s freaking Wayne Gretzky.), if an opposing player says “I shouldn’t hit the star player, or I’ll get knocked out”, the henchman’s job is done without having to drop the gloves, and his fight totals will go down (as you yourself have said, Grimson’s totals went down on the Ducks, and Semenko mostly fought other enforcers.). <br /><br />As for bad blood, every sport involves personal and teamwide rivalries, including football, basketball, and baseball, where in fact the benches can clear if a pitcher intentionally throws up and in on a star hitter (sounds like a cheap shot to me). Baseball doesn’t love dugout clearing incidents, but it happens, gets dealt with between the players, and is not quickly forgotten by either team. <br /><br />I still agree with you that hockey needs to be safer, however I think a total abolition of fighting is short sighted and dangerous. In my opinion, fighting needs to have a heavier penalty than just a five minute major, for example a one period misconduct (players sit out the remainder of the period, then the full next period). Fighting is still an option as a deterrent or a means of retribution, but you would be setting your team at a severe disadvantage by forcing your teammates to skate and cover your missing shifts. A better way to make the game safer would be to focus on headshots and other dangerous hits.ThirdLineHeronoreply@blogger.com