kipwinger

Yeah, good point. I concede. Fighting rulez cuz it makes the hockey good.

Other than the usual suspects, I was impressed with Kindl, Weiss, and Marchenko last night. Am I mistaken in saying that Weiss was moved back to center last night for while? If so, I think it's a smart move. He's got really good vision and play making skills, and he's a deft skater, but he's REALLY weak on the boards. In Babs' system the wingers usually do the board work, so I'd much rather see him played to his strengths and stuck back in the middle while Sheahan is up on the second. Kindl, still bad defensively (par for the course) but he's seemed really confident with the puck. He's looking to skate, pass, and make plays. Since skating, passing, and shooting are his best qualities, I hope he continues doing what he's doing. It might earn him a regular spot again...even if it's on another team. Marchenko shouldn't ever go back to GR. He's smart, reliable, and makes his partners better. At this point, I'd be confident putting him and any of Kindl, Ouellet, or Smith on the ice as a third pair. A testament to his play, and a hell of a option to have going into the trade deadline and playoff push.

You clearly know more about Soviet hockey than me, so I'm going to take your analysis at face value. I will say though, that I'm generally a little skeptical about comparisons in which you factor out too many variables. At some point it almost becomes meaningless. It's a little like saying "children are better athletes than adults if you don't count the adults' size, strength, speed, and coordination advantage". In the paragraph above you've basically said, if you don't count the Soviets' best teams and players, and you don't count the advantage they gain from being forced to play together all the time, and you don't count the junior hockey records, then it's clear the Soviet system is much worse. Which is probably true, but what does that really tell you?

Because he was pissed off and it was a rivalry game? I'm not sure why you think that's some sort of objective standard by which to measure fighting's impact on the game. Furthermore, as I've stated before, if you want to understand how one variable impacts another, you use science...not an interview with Claude Lemieux. Scientific research has consistently shown that fighting does not positively impact the game. The fact that a bunch of people say otherwise doesn't mean anything unless they're qualified to say so professionally and empirically. For quite a long time everybody just "knew" that the sun orbited the earth, and the world was flat. It was common knowledge...duh. Science says fighting is harmful for the individual and unnecessary for the game. I don't really give a s*** what the athletes say. These are the same types of guys who still regularly use sterdoids, chewing tobacco, etc. They're not exactly to be trusted for their keen insights and objective thinking.

I've always really liked Francois Beauchemin. I hate liking a duck, but that guys a stud.

I'm just happy that at least two people on LGW don't completely hate me. Look who's burning bridges now, Grandma...ya jerk!

Speaking of "ways", if anybody needs a "means" to a "way" they can shoot me a message and I'll provide the missing link. Edit: Or, in less obtuse speak, I know a really good way to watch the game for those having troubling viewing it.

Well as interesting as a bunch of anecdotal evidence is, actual scientific research suggests that fighting has no positive effect on the outcome of the game. The ol' eyeball test is good for finding a date on a Friday night, but if you want to find the truth about real world phenomena...you have to use science. Bummer. https://georgetownsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/the-true-impact-of-a-hockey-fight/ "We can see in all four of these data sets that there is no evidence that winning a fight leads to better results in the immediate aftermath of the fight. In fact, it appears that the team winning the fight will score slightly less goals in the game than they did previously. In all four groups, the percentage of goals scored by the winning team is within 1.96 standard deviations of the percentage of its total goals scored, indicating that the results are negligible. Thus, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that winning a fight has no impact on a team’s momentum and goal differential." http://blog.philbirnbaum.com/2012/01/do-hockey-fights-lift-teams-performance.html So, I guess, our overall conclusion from this study isn't completely certain. We wind up with a summary like: 1. The effect doesn't seem to exist for run-of-the-mill fights. 2. When a goon fighter on a goon team fights when his team is down, it seems to benefit that team by 1/8 of a goal, or a bit less than a normal power play. 3. But, that effect isn't statistically significant, so we have some doubts that it's real. 4. And, with only 364 such datapoints qualifying out of around 5,000, only a small percentage of fights match the criterion for that kind of boost. If you had to reduce that to one line, it might be: At best, there might be a small effect in certain specific circumstances ... but much, much less than sportscasters make it out to be.

But, I will add that its a moot point because its the type of system you can only acquire by treating human being like interchangeable parts. As machines. So its the kind of system that probably will never exist again. Soviet totalitarianism was able to accomplish some pretty remarkable feats by basically denying people their right to live their own lives, so the so called artistry accomplished by it is bittersweet I'd assume.

I'm on my phone, so I can't look it up right now...but I'm sure you can determine which type of hockey philosophy is superior. Look at all the times the Russian national and junior teams played north american teams and count the record, then weight that record based on the type of ice and rules they played under in eaach instance. My guess is the soviet team is a clear winner, but I'm just speculating.

A couple of things. First, nobody is talking about reducing "all injuries". We're talking about reducing injuries due to totally avoidable dirty plays, cheapshots, and fights. Secondly, nobody is saying that hitting should be taken out of the game. As I've already pointed out today, the NFL has the biggest, strongest, fastest players in the world and yet has managed to seriously reduce (all types) of dirty hits and cheapshots. All without allowing guys to fight and all without getting rid of hitting. Third, even if it is REALLY super duper hard to do. We still need to try everything possible. Because players shouldn't have to chose between playing the sport they love, and facing depression, alcoholism, degenerative brain disease, domestic violence, and suicide later in life.

So? Like a union has never been wrong before. Ask...I don't know...pretty much the entire city of Detroit lol. It's not surprising that the Union would fight hard to keep something in the game that many of the union members are already doing. That doesn't mean it's not stupid and harmful. The MBLPA continuously fights to make sure snuff isn't banned from ballparks and dugouts. Is that somehow a validation of chewing tobacco? It's harmful and stupid. No matter who says otherwise.

I think that cheapshots can, and should, be reduced to levels consistent with other contact sports. I also don't think this is unreasonable or unrealistic. If a guy gets a concussion by hitting his head on the boards, or ice, after a LEGAL check...it's unavoidable. If a guy gets hit in the head by an opposing players elbow, because the league does not seriously discipline that kind of recklessness...it's a problem.

Not at all, you're totally misunderstanding me. My position: Drastically increase supplemental discipline for cheapshots (charging, boarding, headshots, hitting defenseless players) in an effort to get serious injuries reduced to the lowest possible level (nobody realistically thinks that they'll fall to zero). At which point, fighting will be completely and totally unnecessary, outdated, and most importantly...unjustifiable. I would also like to point out a few things we agree on. 1) We both agree that cheapshots, dirty hits, and the resulting injuries are a problem that should be addressed. 2) Apparently you and I both think supplemental discipline works to reduce cheapshots and dirty plays. 3) We agree that injures can't be completely reduced to zero. 4) AND, most importantly we agree that allowing guys to punch each other after dirty hits is not a solution to the problem. Apparently the only thing we disagree on is how much supplemental discipline to apply.

I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You agree that the health risks posed by repeated head trauma are a big problem, and that they need to be addressed. You just think that the league has already done so effectively by increasing supplemental discipline? And that, as a result of this supplemental discipline, cheap shots and the concussions they cause should fall over time AND fighting will happen less and less?

So what if it came out first? You said the NFL has "more" of these issues. The fact that they were sued earlier, and addressed the problem first doesn't suggest that they have MORE of a problem. If anything, it suggests that they're more responsible in how they've addressed it however. Which makes sense, I highly doubt there's anybody over at the NFL league office saying "Wait a minute, maybe if we let these guys punch each other after illegal hits to the head, they'll stop getting hurt". You guys all keep "selling" the notion that fighting has some integral part of the actual game. And yet, time after time research suggests otherwise. So then you all move on to some new reason why fighting is absolutely vital to the game. It isn't. I think you're a reasonable guy. I've talked to you before and have no reason to think you're a fool. I do, however, think that you (and other pro-fighting types) keep struggling to find reasons to validate fighting because if you don't find one sooner or later, you'll be forced to come to terms with the fact that something you find really enjoyable A) doesn't have any impact on the sport whatsoever, and B) is really, REALLY, ******* people's lives up.

Well there's your explanation. There is no problem. Don't fix what ain't broken. Ugh.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Provide one single shred of evidence to support the fact that the NFL has more head trauma issues than the NHL. I'll wait. It's funny because another pro-fighting guy said the exact opposite earlier. That the NHL has way more head trauma because of the speed of the game. Again, I just don't see why you guys don't just say "I like fighting because its fun". Which is fine. As long as you realize, and don't care, that what you find entertaining is also really screwing people up. But you keep trying to sell this notion that the best way to end head injuries is to allow players to punch each other in the head. Which is, of course, idiotic.

Sooooo...I take it you're conceding this "NFL has a bad hit epidemic" point eh? I thought so. Because it's not true. Fines and suspensions work. You're welcome to continue to enjoy fighting. I honestly don't care. It's clear you like it because you find it entertaining and you don't care about the associated health risks. That's fine. What I have a problem with, is the endless string of bulls*** argument you guys keep coming up with to justify fighting in hockey. "It deters dirty hits". "There's not a better system". "It gives your team momentum". It doesn't. At all. Just say, "I like it because I like watching guys I don't like getting punched by guys I do". At least then you wouldn't be totally full of it.

And you can't "ram your opponent into the boards as hard as you can" a minute later in hockey? Another trash argument.

Again, the fact that it's not PERFECT doesn't mean it's not BETTER. I'm not sure why you think that one counter example completely invalidates a demonstrably more effective form of deterring illegal activity. It doesn't.

There you go, making stuff up to support a point that's indefensible. There are an average of 5.38 "Unnecessary Roughness" penalties PER TEAM (per season) in the NFL. That includes chop blocking, spearing, hitting a player out of bounds, hitting a defenseless player, hitting a kicker or quarterback, hitting in the knees, etc. 5. Per team. Per year. And that includes ALL types of illegal hits. There is no illegal hit epidemic in the NFL. None. Zero. Illegal hits do happen, but have been minimized as much as is humanly possible. Without fighting. http://www.nflpenalties.com/penalty/unnecessary-roughness?year=2014

This is exactly the problem with this debate. The fighting people ways respond with "well fines won't get rid of cheap shots 100%". Of course they won't. But it'll work better than enforcers have. Every single contact sport has fewer malicious hits and cheapshots than the NHL has because they have stiffer fines. Don't believe me? What was the big dirty hit epidemic the NFL used to have? Spearing. You almost never see it in NFL games anymore. Why? What got rid of it? Definitely not a bunch of goons beating the s*** out of each other. It was fines. BIG fines. You guys act like if another method of punishment won't completely eradicate dirty hits, that it's not worth doing. That's false logic. The fact that it's not a PERFECT deterrent doesn't mean it's not a BETTER deterrent.

Continue to increase the economic consequences, for both the player AND the team, until the behavior stops. I don't know the exact number it will take to make these jackasses stop, but that doesn't mean the number doesn't exist. Continue to increase the fines and suspensions (lost wages on top of fines) until you see a noticeable decrease in dirty hits. It works for every single other sport. I don't know why people think hockey's so much different that it needs special extrajudicial violence to make it safe.

Translation: The KHL siphons quite a few players away from the SHL.