THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I saw this on Pro Hockey Talk a few minutes ago. Great news.

Ejecting fighters <> ending fighting
Suspending fighters <> ending fighting

Those penalties are levied at the player level...prices players will be happy to pay to be able to draw an NHL paycheck.

If you want to end fighting at the NHL level, you have to levy penalties at the team level. Any player penalized for fighting is ejected from the game and must serve a 5 minute major penalty at the start of the next game. Institute that, and the only time you would see a fight is during the first game of a home and home series.

The other sports don’t “end fighting”, be it basketball or baseball or soccer.  Nor do European hockey leagues “end fighting”.

Now, the NHL does have harsh penalties for bench-clearing brawls, which is something like a 10-game suspension for the player and 5-game for the coach.  That eliminated bench-clearing brawls immediately.

You could institute harsh penalties like that.  If you make it a 5-game suspension for fighting for the player and a 2 or 3 game for the coach, that will eliminate fighting immediately.  NO PLAYER is going to want to fight if it means the coach will be suspended.  (Well, unless the player has it in for the coach, but, at that point, the coach wouldn’t be playing him anyway.)

I’m torn. Back when I didn’t watch much hockey at all I thought fighting was incredibly stupid (or, if I’d had a few beers and was at a game, totally awesome) and thought the NHL totally hypocritical for discussing player safety concerns while allowing it to continue.

In the last couple of years, when I’ve watched much, much more hockey and followed it somewhat obsessively, I’ve come around a bit. I can see the argument that fighting is the only mechanism with which the players can protect each other on the ice. No other sport moves as fast as hockey, and I don’t think any other sport-- even football-- presents the opportunity to do such grave danger.

Sure, supplemental discipline can go a long way to tamping things down and helping better the game, but all of that’s after the fact and isn’t going to help someone in the heat of the moment. It may be too little too late.

Although, on the other hand, hockey players really don’t seem to care about getting in fights and I’m not sure it acts as the deterrent that pro-fighting people claim it does.

I think if you remove fighting, you have to slow the game down a bit-- the two-line pass, or something. There needs to be something else there to act as a check on things.

I grew up a Bruins fan from 67 on and fighting was the spice that made the sport the greatest. When a fight broke out everyone got excited, and bench clearing brawls got even more attention.  The Bruins had their minor league team play at the Garden for a few years and they played a similar style and almost sold out since Bruins tickets were so hard to get.

I have stopped following hockey much for the last 20 years, the glass shields and stricter rules against fighting, not to mention less scoring make it pretty much unwatchable for me.  Maybe if I had not seen the sport when it was at it’s best I would enjoy the game as it is played today, but every time I try, I remember what it used to be.  Pretty sad really.

Also, I suspect the helmets and shields make concussions more likely.  No data to support that, just a gut feeling that players don’t defend themselves as well as they used to against hits to the head, and player are more likely to slam your head against the glass or elbow you to the face than they were.  Maybe I am wrong and don’t watch enough to tell.

Players are probably stronger today than they were years ago what with steroids and better weight training, so that might play a role.

The NHL will eventually follow the NBA path. Weirdly (it seems now), the NBA apparently used to have fights all the time in the early days, and it was still pretty common until Tomjonavich was nearly killed. Fighting still happens, but it’s an automatic ejection. That is, fighting happens when people are actually angry at each other about actual things, not just as a one-off sideshow like the majority of fights NHL has now.

The argument I make is simple:
1) Hockey games are at their best in the playoffs (this is rarely disputed by hockey fans, aside from those of teams that never make the playoffs).
2) There is less fighting in the playoffs (very true).
3) Players are not, historically, in notably more danger in the playoffs due to the lack of fighting.
4) SO why fighting again?

Now, obviously, this isn’t a perfect argument, but I don’t often hear the argument that the playoffs would be even better with more fighting, or that the playoffs aren’t “real hockey”. It isolates the argument for fighting to “I like the fights”, or so I find. This is not something to dismiss out of hand for an entertainment source. But I personally flip away from the fights, which are essentially a long delay in the game I was watching. So you can’t argue that everyone likes the fights either.

2 points:
- fighting in hockey is certainly entertaining to some people. Boxing and MMA are fighting, people like watching other people beat each other up. That doesn’t mean hockey needs fighting to be entertaining.
- the arguments about how hockey needs fighting to police the game are bs: how do they police the game in Europe, in the Olympics, in the NCAA?

The playoff argument is the one I constantly make.

As for policing the game in Europe: stick fouls.  Whereas fighting is limited to mostly the non-star players, stick fouls would be prevalent among all classes of players.

The Olympics: they are all star players.  It’s a different mindset when guys who are fighting for their jobs need to prove themselves to the coach, compared to the guys who are there for two weeks, and are pretty much guaranteed to play every game.

Regardless though, the biggest argument is that this is a safety issue, and concussions and brain injuries is all you have to keep using to win the argument.  You don’t have to belittle the other arguments just because you are taking a political view, and so, are going to be one-sided about it.

The brain issue has no defense, so, it’s a guaranteed win… eventually.

I will support whatever rules help get fighting and other aggressive, dangerous practices out of the game.  Hitting should be confined to between the arm-pits and mid-thigh and within 60 degrees of either side of the target player’s line of sight, eliminating hits from behind and blind-side hits.  The old charging and boarding rules need to be enforced with some modification:  You can’t take more than one stride before applying a check into the boards. The onus must be on the player applying the check to avoid contact.

When I watch hockey, I want to see skating, passing and scoring, and these are the skills that should determine success and failure in the sport, not sheer size or intimidation.  I want to see the highly skilled players able to play.

And let’s stop the defense that the players have tacitly agreed to subject themselves to that abuse.  I don’t buy that at all.

For those that want a blood sport, let UFC bring out a version on ice, if they can get insurance for it.

Another way to end fighting (as well as other unsafe practices) through suspensions is not to allow the team to dress a replacement player for the games a player is suspended. If a player is suspended for any on ice infraction such as fighting or an illegal hit, they can only dress 19 players while he’s out.

In the event of multiple suspensions, teams would never have to dress fewer than 18 players, but the penalty for additional suspensions would kick in after a current one has ended, much as on-ice penalties do now. This would prevent teams from bringing thugs up from the minors solely to commit suspendable offenses, such as the Islanders did last year against Pittsburgh. Suspensions were handed out, but the suspended players were on their back to Binghampton already. Forcing th team to dress fewer players avoids this.

The Times had a related piece the next day on fighting in youth hockey leagues in Saskatchewan. The title alone suggests inertia is part of the problem: In Saskatchewan’s Leagues, Fisticuffs Are a Tradition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/sports/hockey/fighting-has-deep-roots-in-saskatchewan-hockey.html?pagewanted=all

Losing a player for suspension is a great idea.  I’ll go one step further, and say you lose two guys.  So, 16 skaters and 2 goalies.

Or, you can graduate it, so you start with 17 and 2 the first time player X is suspended.  Then 16 and 2 on his second suspension, then 15 and 2 and so on.

Hurting your team, or your coach, is a huge disincentive.

I think that is getting too fancy, and punishes the whole team a little too much. Simply ban it, and make it an automatic ejection and game suspension (with league discretion for more and increasing penalties over time). The ejection leaves a team shorthanded during the game anyway. Make the teams pay the salary of suspended players into a concussion research fund, or something. Teams wil respond to financial incentives quicker than coaches will try and change existing cultures.

Fighting definitely has deep roots in various Canadian leagues (and American ones). That article (@11) is not surprising. Of course teenage boys will fight each other if you give them a chance, but the description of the “appointment fights”, where players politely remove equipment from one another because doing it yourself is not allowed, is horrifying. The parents and officials should be ashamed of themselves, but won’t be. I’ve been to enough CHL games over the years to see more than a few 5-on-5 or 6-on-6 team fights, it’s actively encouraged and celebrated.

I expect it to take a “Tomjonvich” incident in the NHL, with someone either dying or coming damn close (during the game) to get a push for a ban taken up. Apparently a series of premature deaths among this very small group of specialists isn’t enough for immediate action. Head injuries are hard enough to deal with without having designated players on each team to punch each other in the head.

It’s really a shame that things in hockey evolved the way they did, such that hitting someone after the puck is gone is acceptable (go ahead and nitpick that statement, but fundamentally it’s true). 

In soccer, if you make a reckless challenge that doesn’t get the ball, and you follow through on the player, you get either a foul, a yellow card or a red card.  The in-game consequences and potential future match consequences are severe enough to disincentivize that behavior, and thus, for the most part, soccer remains a sport where the players must best each other with skill and not intimidation/violence.

There are no goons in top-flight soccer, nor will there ever be…

Maybe another way to disincentivize fighting is to change the penalty for engaging in that behavior.

Right now, after you fight, you get… exactly what a person who has just engaged in a fight needs:  stitches/butterfly bandaids, smelling salts and a 5 minute rest, with no other sanction that harms your team in any way.

What if instead of a toothless (ha) 5-minute major penalty, a player who insigated a fight (and usually there is one, whether the refs choose to call that out or not) was required to remain on the ice for the next 10 minutes of game time, i.e. you can’t take them off?

So, go ahead and send out your goon, but know that after he beats up someone (and maybe takes a few shots himself), you’re stuck with his woozy self on the ice for the next 1/6 of the game, while the other team gets to send out a fresh player and skate circles around him.  Or, skip the goons, but have your tough defenseman drop the gloves to uphold the tradition, and then watch how his performance drains away for the next 10 minutes…

Game officials are supposed to officiate
Standing by and watching pre-planned fisticuffs just to please a few demented fans has to stop.  Grow up fans, Don Cherry’s hate for skilled Euro players is so stale, we now know we don’t need this garbage.  Hockey follower since Foster Hewitt/Danny Galavin (radio).  Its been a long time, so play the game.

Dana (10) and Tom (12):

I had suggested something along those lines in a conversation with friends and one of them rightly pointed out that that could actually endanger the teammates, because they would be overtaxed during the suspension, putting them at greater risk for injury.  The obvious counter-argument is that most of the players making suspendable hits don’t log a lot of minutes, so the impact would be quite marginal.

I have another suggestion, when a player is hurt by an illegal hit.  I’m sure there is a metric like WAR for hockey players.  Let’s suppose Gord Goalscorer is a 6 WAR player and due to a shoulder injury received while being boarded, misses 41 games, half a season.  The team of the offending player would lose 6 points in the standings, the equivalent of 3 wins (6 WAR x 1/2 season).  If playoff games are lost to the injury, the penalty doubles, and gets subtracted in the subsequent season.  Also, the offending team’s seeding for draft purposes is based on the points they would have earned before the lose of points in the standings.

Taking points away in the standings is a huge disincentive, that’s for sure.

And, no, the ice time thing is NOT as issue.  There’s about 170 minutes of ice time for 12 forwards and 120 for the 6 defensemen.

The top defensemen of each team logs close to 25 minutes, and the top forward logs 20 minutes.

It’s ENTIRELY possible to play with 5 defensemen and 9 forwards.  The only reason the 4th line players play 12 minutes and not 20 is not because they don’t have the energy, but rather they don’t have the talent.

The standings might be the way to go. That’s how NASCAR handles a lot of discipline, by taking points away from drivers and/or owners. Say the first fight costs your team one point in the standings, second costs two, third costs three, etc.

The only issue I can see is teams running away at the top of the standings trying to goad teams hanging around 6th-10th into fights that could cost those teams a playoff spot whereas the good team isn’t so worried about that.

I’ve always liked the idea of forcing a team to dress one fewer player for the next game after a fight, but they’re essentially already dressing one fewer player when they put a uniform on Colton Orr or Eric Godard so they can see the ice for 1:30 that night.

Ultimately, it’s going to take teams realizing that the enforcer’s roster spot is a major inefficiency.

They realize that inefficiency in the playoffs already.  Now, it’s a matter of putting that inefficiency in the regular season as well.

I also love the card system in soccer.  If we’re worried that stick fouls will go up, then you can “card” stick fouls.  Say, after X number of stick fouls, 5 let’s say, it’s a one game suspension.

Or, you can increase penalties for stick fouls to either 3 minutes, or serve the full 2 minutes (i.e., PP goal does not remove the penalty).

There’s plenty of possibilities here.

They realize that inefficiency in the playoffs already.  Now, it’s a matter of putting that inefficiency in the regular season as well.

Right, because every game is so important. You can ill afford to lose one because you dressed Donald Brashear that night, when the same consideration doesn’t seem to come up when you’re playing a bad team in October. Which is why the standings might be the way to go. It’s the one thing that everybody in the organization is invested in.

I think a soccer-esque card system would be a good way to limit stick fouls, too. We sort of have a de facto one with Shanahan and head hits now, but something more systematic would at least offer some transparency, too. Plus, I’d love to see Stephane Auger waving a yellow card at Alex Burrows!

I’ve long thought that you should have to serve the entire penalty, regardless of a PP goal being scored.

As a casual hockey fan in 93-94, playing baseball in college at Aurora, IL we went to a lot of Hawk games at Old Chicago Stadium ... those were the days of JR, Chelly, Eagle, and the host of players that Keenan took with him wherever he went.

I loved fighting in hockey (hell I was 21) and really enjoys Tie Domi, Probie, Ulf, Marty Mac, and so.

But, really the focus on that aspect of the game caused me to miss the more important aspect ... the skill.

It really is past the time for hockey to remove the goons and the fighting and to let the skill shine through.

We’re talking about penalties/cards and things of that nature, but in no other sport is it commonplace for two guys to look it other up, square off, have the refs back away, and then brawl until they fall to the ground, being cheered by the teams, fans, etc. It’s like for a minute, the sport stops, and we’re just entertained with some good old fashioned street fighting, and then the sport resumes.

I’ve been an advocate of fighting in hockey form the perspective that it’s better to have one bully on the playground than it is to have 10 smartass cheapshot artists, but that doesn’t really seem to reflect reality.

The NBA has cleaned up its goonery and it’s still very popular because the quick speed players are now free to go about doing incredibly athletic and entertaining things without the Dale Davis’s and Charles Oakley’s putting them through the floor when they come into the lane. MLB has done away with its tradtitions of beanbrawl justice, and the NFL is cracking down on a lot of its type of hits and timing of hits.

Everyone else is cleaning up their sports because the fans of the sports (not just the casual fans) want to see the skill players actually playing and playing without all of the garbage play.

"MLB has done away with its tradtitions of beanbrawl justice”

What are you talking about here?

#17 - “Dana (10) and Tom (12):

I had suggested something along those lines in a conversation with friends and one of them rightly pointed out that that could actually endanger the teammates, because they would be overtaxed during the suspension, putting them at greater risk for injury.  The obvious counter-argument is that most of the players making suspendable hits don’t log a lot of minutes, so the impact would be quite marginal.”

But isn’t that the point? It wouldn’t take too many of these suspensions/man-down rulings (I came into this thread to suggest something similar, but also to add a huge 7-figure fine for player *and* coach/team) for the thugs, the cheap-shot artists, etc. to be legislated from the league.

How many times will Goon X be allowed to force his teammates to play a man or two down before no team is willing to sign him? Hockey teams will instead find tough guys who hit hard, but clean, guys who aren’t out there to maim opponents.

Teaching it from the ground up is a good idea, but it wouldn’t hurt to institute legislation that effectively removes those guys from the league.

If the NHL *really* wanted to clean this up, they could. I mean, you could ban for life any player who does it. You could say “If your team engages in this behavior once, you’re playoff ineligible.” Those are really extreme moves, but they could do it. They could also do something less extreme that would have the same positive effect. Right now, the occasional 1 or 2 game suspensions aren’t cutting it.