Why the Red Wings Don't Fight

[Wombat 26]

As always with these arguments, I think everyone is on completey seperate pages. Is there really anyone who would not love to see another McCarty circa 1997 on this team? I have to think those fans are few and far between. I still think there is a big difference between McCarty and someone I view as a more pure "enforcer" like George Parros (Godard, Downey, Cote, Boogard, Orr, Shelly, etc), for instance.

I'm not even against having more of a pure enforcer like Downey again for next year, but I would still prefer someone like McCarty. I'm hoping Abdelkader and Ericsson give us a taste as they start to really break into the league.

How about the Detroit team of the 50s

A lot of Original 6 teams did not have enforcers.

That's what I was getting at with asking for definitions, and I thank both GMR and Micah for giving their opinions. I know there isn't a real definition for it, but I wanted to see what opinions were on the matter as I see too many people throwing around the word enforcer in referring to players that clearly are not.

[esteef 2,679]

Nice try, but Matt Ellis was not a Red Wing when we won the Cup last season. He was on the Kings. Besides, it has no validity. Here's what you were trying to say, Mark Hartigan was the reason we won the Cup, well no. Sure he played some games, but didnt have the impact Downey did during the regular season, or the affect Drake had on the team during the post season. The Wings have only won Cups when they had a legit tough guy, and surronding tough players on the roster.

Bingo. But careful, you'll be accused of making "little sense".

sidenote: It's funny how little Shanny's name comes up in these discussions. A legitimate fighter AND scorer. Hell Detroit had so many "fighters" they couldn't even fit them all on the 4th line!

esteef

[Opie 308]

I must've been asleep when Edmonton and Calgary won their Cups this decade.

Damn, if only we had Chris Neil for the last 7-8 years, we would've won like 3-4 more Cups!

Whoever made that 49ers comparison is dead on. Waaaah...we only have four Cups in 11 years. Waaaah...we don't have 12 Milan Lucics up front.

There's going to be a day--maybe next year, maybe 10 years from now, who knows--when we suck, and you're going to regret not enjoying this more.

[Guest Shoreline]

Whether they need an enforcer to be a catalyst, or build the team in that direction, that's what wins. Not the enforcer, but the culture he brings to the team.

What culture is that? Teams don't need bodyguards after other incidents like the Bertuzzi one, it's not the image the NHL or certain classy teams like the Wings want. It's a nice feeling but it doesn't win cups for the Red Wings. The enforcer that creates that type of culture was useful back in the Gretzky era.

Jacques Lemaire said, about Boogaard, that what he brings to the team is attention from the opposition, which may be a good thing during the season, but that attention goes away in the playoffs, since no one will be looking out for Boogaard to score. People who suggested the 97 McCarty were kinda right, but he was a bit busy scoring and finishing checks rather than fighting. People seem to think that a fighting presence alone really means much, and it doesn't.

[Pskov Wings Fan 71]

The point is that fighting is fun and entertaining:) Who doesn't enjoy a good dust-up, either as a participent or a spectator?

I can somewhat understand it from spectator's point of view. But my guess is that very large percentage of people would not enjoy being a participant of a "good dust-up".

[Wombat 26]

I suppose, Boulerice is a pretty big joke. The thing the Canes had, was a tough enviroment to start with. Ward, Commodore, Cole, Brind'Amour, etc. That's what teams need, a tough enviroment. Whether they need an enforcer to be a catalyst, or build the team in that direction, that's what wins. Not the enforcer, but the culture he brings to the team.

So then you feel that a team does not need a bona fide enforcer to win the Stanley Cup?

[Vladifan 680]

I read that as a confession; "our players are skilled, but man, they are a bunch of *******, incapable of handling themselves physically against the other men in the league".

Cool. Let's just let this play this out and for instance, see how long the Ducks last, and for that matter Parros. He's really talking about himself when he says "they'll" be hurting. I suggest to you that he's going to have a short-lived career because of what he's usually out there for. And I can only wish the same for the Ducks who use fighting as a strategy.

[Guest Shoreline]

I must've been asleep when Edmonton and Calgary won their Cups this decade.

Damn, if only we had Chris Neil for the last 7-8 years, we would've won like 3-4 more Cups!

Whoever made that 49ers comparison is dead on. Waaaah...we only have four Cups in 11 years. Waaaah...we don't have 12 Milan Lucics up front.

There's going to be a day--maybe next year, maybe 10 years from now, who knows--when we suck, and you're going to regret not enjoying this more.

That is, assuming they don't jump ship to another team, which is so common nowadays.

[egroen 384]

I was curious if there was a study done to examine any correlation between fighting and winning, and luckily there was already one done:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1135225#

I have not had much time to look at it, but they came to the conclusion that there is a direct relatinship between not only fighting and winning, but also fighting and wages in the NHL.

Just putting it out there if anyone is interested in taking a look - obviously the Wings have proven you can be successful while trailing the league in fighting majors.

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

So then you feel that a team does not need a bona fide enforcer to win the Stanley Cup?

Usually, yes I do. But in cases like Carolina's, it wasnt necessary. More often then not, the Stanley Cup Champion will have at least one, so I'm not going away from the norm

[Vladifan 680]

I love Grapes and Redmond, but they are going to look at things through their own light, and both of them like old time hockey, where the Wings hadn't won in decades.

The thing that the 97 cup team had was, there was no cup in over 40 years. The intensity and interest of the fans was there too. It was the same well-oiled machine. I had tears for each of those 4 cup wins, but none of the latter 3 were anything like the first one. It's one thing to appreciate the past, another to dwell too much on it in nostalgia. This team we have has just as much character, as in, different roles to play, yet buying into the same system that makes the team successful. The only difference is the team winning means less and less to those who have been here throughout, or those who are new fans. We expect the Wings to win now, so anything less than a cup for some is a disappointment. I'm not saying you're wrong that the Wings wouldn't benefit from having more "entertaining" players like the old Probert or Kocur, but this mentality that the Wings need other things when their formula for winning is just fine, is silly. The team's bottom line is to win, and hockey itself is the entertainment.

I just see the exact same attitudes that people had with the 49ers when they won all the time. They'd complain about each and every thing, wanting a complete overhaul of the team if they didn't win the super bowl despite finishing first in the standings and looking forward to the playoffs year in and year out. They'd complain that the team doesn't have exciting receiving like the way the old Jerry Rice was, or Roger Craig, or complain about the West Coast Offense being boring and methodical over the run and gun Montana days where he and Rice set a ton of records.

I guarantee you though that most of the people complaining now will look back and appreciate this team when they aren't winning very much. Logic dictates one should appreciate the team they have now. That's the difficulty of producing teams in any sport that can win so often and that is they have to keep up the drive. Likewise, for fans, they need to keep appreciating their team and that the team is what it is. Often times fans from losing teams come in here and give our heads a shake, because they would LOVE for their team to be winning as often as our team does. And the fact is, those who are so entrenched in this enforcer mentality are going to be in for further disappointment because the Wings have not been goons for almost 2 decades now. And they aren't going to change their philosophy and start losing because a few fans can't be content enough with that.

So well put. Can't relate to the 49'ers but the perspective about the Wings is very much appreciated. Most of us don't realize how blessed we are, being fans of this team. And we waste so much time nitpicking about issues that for this team, will probably never be a reality.

[C-TownWing 0]

Bingo. But careful, you'll be accused of making "little sense".

sidenote: It's funny how little Shanny's name comes up in these discussions. A legitimate fighter AND scorer. Hell Detroit had so many "fighters" they couldn't even fit them all on the 4th line!

esteef

If Shanny's a "fighter," then Lilja is too and we do have a fighter, although not a healthy one.

Going by the number of times they fight (from hockeyfights.com), they're pretty comparable. Shanny had 3 in 5 of his 9 years with the team and 4 in two other years, Lilja's had 3 each of the last two years.

Then again, Lilja might've had a couple more this year if not for his last scrap.

[esteef 2,679]

I must've been asleep when Edmonton and Calgary won their Cups this decade.

Damn, if only we had Chris Neil for the last 7-8 years, we would've won like 3-4 more Cups!

Whoever made that 49ers comparison is dead on. Waaaah...we only have four Cups in 11 years. Waaaah...we don't have 12 Milan Lucics up front.

There's going to be a day--maybe next year, maybe 10 years from now, who knows--when we suck, and you're going to regret not enjoying this more.

They didn't, and the poster knew what I meant and wasn't so literal about it. Point was, they bounced the Wings out of the playoffs, and not with "skill".

So, it's not possible that a player such as Chris Neil would've helped us win more Cups? Please look into your crystal ball and elaborate.

No one said they were not satisfied with current results, only that the results could've been better, especially when all we hear is how awesome this fighter-less style of play is (with no Cup results to show for it). But please continue wuith your ridiculous "Waaah" rant as you seem to not have anything relevant to the actual points made.

esteef

[Vladifan 680]

I wish people would stop saying that being able to take a hit make the team physical. Theres a difference to absorbing physical play than actually giving physical punishment. And yes its not just fights, but grit and hits and not backing down in the scrums.

Detroit has done none of that this season.

And people seem to think that theres no possible way of having a tough team that can win the cup. Erm...so what did Anahiem do in the 06-07 season? Toughest team the league had seen since the lockout, and the breezed past skillful Detroit and the rest of the league.

A team needs to be tough. A team needs fighters and to have that mind set of not backing down from anything (Detroit last season anyone?). Its called having a balanced team. An unbalanced team has never won the Stanley Cup. And it wont happen this season.

How about a team - one of the very few - that can authentically and realistically roll four lines? How about a team that would define "tough" differently from you? Again. If the Ducks use fighting/violence as a strategy as they usually do, and they are called for it like the rules now designate, they should be out on their asses. Of course, first I'd like to see them beat up on the Sharks. That is more than permissable (sp?) in my book.

[Guest Shoreline]

Usually, yes I do. But in cases like Carolina's, it wasnt necessary. More often then not, the Stanley Cup Champion will have at least one, so I'm not going away from the norm

Lilja's apparently a fighter on this team. Or, at least, so says a few posters here. I mean, there really isn't a way to win that argument because people are only going to correlate fighting and winning with a fighter simply being on the team. Again, this makes as much sense as correlating a scorer on the team with helping the team win while he's really never scoring. There needs to be at least some objectivity, rather than simply dismissing a winning team as ******* and leaving it at that. Hard to believe a person can like their [winning] team and speak so ill of it.

[Vladifan 680]

That's how this issue is always reverts to black and white. Most people on these boards like you, myself, Esteef, GMR, ect, would just want one guy on the 4th line and a bruising defenseman that are able to drop the gloves and stick up for themselves and their teammates. This contributes to overall team toughness and allows the team to not be one dimensional. UK said it best above how it allows for team balance. Somehow us believing this type of lineup would make the team more successful makes us all pro-goon and wanting a team full of bruisers with no skill besides fisticuffs. It boggles my mind.

And how does that fourth line enforcer avenge the 'bully' on the 1st or 2nd line that caused the problem? You think most pro coaches would put an enforcer out there on a different line during the playoffs just to get retribution?

Timing is everything. Whether you're talking about puck possession, goal scoring, passing, forechecking, retribution and fighting. It cannot and should not be used as a strategy. That is bulls*** and absolutely takes away from the game. I would guess that every coach except maybe Carlyle would agree with that.

It.is.a.waste.of.time.and.talent.

[Wombat 26]

Usually, yes I do. But in cases like Carolina's, it wasnt necessary. More often then not, the Stanley Cup Champion will have at least one, so I'm not going away from the norm

OK, we'll mark you down in the "You can win without an enforcer camp."

C-Town brought up a good point... what about Lilja? I seem to remember somebody touting him as good fighter, and perhaps being on the verge of enforcer-dom. This is another reason I was asking about definitions. Is Lilja an enforcer? I personally would say no, but he is a guy that can and will fight. But is the willingness to have a few scraps per season good enough for someone to say "that team had a fighter/enforcer on the team and won"?

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

As always with these arguments, I think everyone is on completey seperate pages. Is there really anyone who would not love to see another McCarty circa 1997 on this team? I have to think those fans are few and far between. I still think there is a big difference between McCarty and someone I view as a more pure "enforcer" like George Parros (Godard, Downey, Cote, Boogard, Orr, Shelly, etc), for instance.

I'm not even against having more of a pure enforcer like Downey again for next year, but I would still prefer someone like McCarty. I'm hoping Abdelkader and Ericsson give us a taste as they start to really break into the league.

How about the Detroit team of the 50s

A lot of Original 6 teams did not have enforcers.

I forgot you were the history buff around here. I guess I can't disagree with you, but if you have to look that far back to answer my question, the point is still proven just as well.

I understand what you are trying to have as the answer (zero teams), but I'm still just trying to find out what exactly an enforcer is. Earlier you said a guy that goes against heavies is an enforcer, but here you are refining that he must also hold his own with other heavies.

In general I agree with your definition, but there are some on this message board that try to put certain guys in as enforcers when they clearly are not. Drake was not an enforcer.

After this run around in definitions, may I ask your opinions of the 05/06 Stanley Cup winning Carolina Hurricanes? This is a team that had only 17 fighting majors all season long. Jesse Boulerice led the team with 5 fighting majors, but was traded on January 30th to the St. Louis Blues after playing in only 26 games with the team.

Does this count as a team that won a Cup without a legit enforcer?

Boulerice played more than 10 games for them. Close, but no cigar. Once again, it doesn't matter how many times the guy fought. Laraque has hardly ever fought more than 17 times in a season, and several enforcers are in that boat.

I know one thing. No Wings team in recent memory (post original 6) won the Cup without having an enforcer play at least 50 games combined during the regular season and playoffs.

If this team wins it, it will be the softest team ever to win the Stanley Cup. Carolina would be the next closest, but Boulerice played at least 25 games for them. I wish Downey played that many games for us this season. Maybe it would rub off on the rest of the 4th liners.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

OK, we'll mark you down in the "You can win without an enforcer camp."

C-Town brought up a good point... what about Lilja? I seem to remember somebody touting him as good fighter, and perhaps being on the verge of enforcer-dom. This is another reason I was asking about definitions. Is Lilja an enforcer? I personally would say no, but he is a guy that can and will fight. But is the willingness to have a few scraps per season good enough for someone to say "that team had a fighter/enforcer on the team and won"?

Did this happen after he destroyed Sharp? Or did it happen after he destroyed Phaneuf, Begin, Neil, Boll and Souray? I don't quite remember.

I don't know. If Laraque backs down from you, you must be somewhat an enforcer.

[Frozen-Man 144]

What the author of this article downplayed was that fighting is way up in hockey from last season.

Also, our regular season success has nothing to do with the fact that we don't fight. Last year we fought more often than previous seasons and still had a good regular season. Likewise, I'm sure that if we averaged around 40 total fights a year from several players combined, we'd still be just as good.

Also, Holland's comment makes no sense. It is possible to beat your team and beat them up, just not from this current team. Many teams have done so in the past, most recently Anaheim in this so-called "new NHL where no one fights anymore."

Yeah that Holland is a moron who has no idea how to put a team together, I hope we can replace him with Burke sometime soon.

I read that as a confession; "our players are skilled, but man, they are a bunch of *******, incapable of handling themselves physically against the other men in the league".

Nice to know you think so highly of the players on your favorite team.

[C-TownWing 0]

They didn't, and the poster knew what I meant and wasn't so literal about it. Point was, they bounced the Wings out of the playoffs, and not with "skill".

So, it's not possible that a player such as Chris Neil would've helped us win more Cups? Please look into your crystal ball and elaborate.

No one said they were not satisfied with current results, only that the results could've been better, especially when all we hear is how awesome this fighter-less style of play is (with no Cup results to show for it). But please continue wuith your ridiculous "Waaah" rant as you seem to not have anything relevant to the actual points made.

esteef

I think the point about Edmonton and Calgary is quite valid actually. Yes, they each bounced the Wings and did so with a style that just about everyone would call more physical than ours. Fine. But, as you say, where's the hardware for that effort? The Clarence Campbell Bowl? What about the Sharks? There's a highly skilled team with an edge. They frequently carry multiple pure fighters. In fact, they seem to be a perfect representation of what you want the Wings to be. What about their hardware?

The Chris Neil thing was obviously meant as hyperbole, but the one reality that can't be ignored with your point about winning more Cups: nobody, no matter how skilled, gritty or both, repeats anymore. This is the NHL right now. It's damn hard to win once, damn near impossible to win twice (consecutively). You act like a properly constructed team should win every year, when even the 2002 team with 10 HOFers (including Bowman) almost lost to Vancouver.

This thing is, I don't even disagree with you guys, I wouldn't mind having a skilled guy who can throw. But to complain about the way we're winning or to actually DISPARAGE our success--do you even realize how ridiculous that is?--just makes you (and all of us, by extension) come off as beyond spoiled. That's what gives me the redass--no wonder the rest of the league hates us.

[Guest Shoreline]

This thing is, I don't even disagree with you guys, I wouldn't mind having a skilled guy who can throw. But to complain about the way we're winning or to actually DISPARAGE our success--do you even realize how ridiculous that is?--just makes you (and all of us, by extension) come off as beyond spoiled. That's what gives me the redass--no wonder the rest of the league hates us.

Answer to the bold -- no. Evidently disparaging your own team is being really fan-like. Kinda like clubbing a lady you like and dragging her back to your cave is showing affection. Blessed be the good ol' days.

[Reds4Life 51]

Good article. I still don't understand what's so entertaining about two guys punching each other until one of them goes down. Boring. Skilled players generally do not fight and that makes the fights even more boring. The worst that can happen is one big pylon gets injured. Again - boring.

[vangvace 12]

Wow the sugar plum fairy land realm of fandom we all must live in...

Anyway. Imo what fighters, enforcers and the like bring to the table more than fists is energy. Whether it be directly from a fight or just the electricity in the stands from their brief time out there anticipating that something might happen. There is a hard to deny something that they bring. Ever notice that unless it's a special goal (cup clinching, series winning, etc.) that fans return to their low buzz by the time they drop the puck again, but the place is normally rocking for minutes after a fight (planned not withstanding in most cases)...

wel that's enough wasting my breathe for now.

[Frozen-Man 144]

I'd be complaining if the Wings were playing the old New Jersey trap-and-bore style of rope-a-dope hockey but they've been in a lot of pretty exciting games this year and just about hit 300 goals this season, well above any other offense. I doubt dropping the gloves would do much other than appease a few who need fights to feel like the team is exciting. I must iterate that this team was 23rd and 25th (of 26 total teams) in 1997 and 1998 in fighting majors (the team you said was exciting), and has been decreasing in fights ever since, winning 2 more cups along the way while dead last in fighting. I do miss the old rivalries, and indeed missed times like Probert or Kocur throwing them down, but today isn't yesterday, and the Wings have yet another shot at the cup, which is a-ok with me. I don't need my type of hockey to be 100% happy with the team. Their job is to win.

QFT

I was just rewatching my footage of those two seasons - man, those teams had it all, talk about fun to watch!

Yeah everything including no salary cap so they could buy and spend whatever they wanted to stack the team as fully as possible with all types of players without regard to the cost. Not to mention that they luckily had some pretty special guys who are not exactly a dime a dozen in this league and demand an arm and a leg for their ability to have skill and fists.

So if Detroit doesn't need to fight to win, and folks always try to claim that "fighters" don't play in the playoffs (even though Drake, McCarty both played last year), then why doesn't Detroit have more Cups in the last 10-15 years? Did other teams "out-skill" or "out-finesse" the Wings in the playoffs? Did Anaheim out-skill the Wings on their way to the Cup? Did Edmonton? Did Calgary?

All I hear every game is how great the Wings org is from owner down to the stacked-with-talent lineups year after year. If that's so true and they've built this model franchise and style of play, why don't they have more Cups to show for it? I mean, if finesse and skill are all you need, where's the hardware? From what I can see, the years they did win it all, they absolutely had the fighter/tough guy element.

Articles like this are interesting reads, but in my opinion, not entirely accurate.

esteef

We may not have won every year but since 1997 we have won twice as much as anyone else (New Jersey) and any other team that has won, the Ducks included, have only won once. Sounds like the Wings way, while not guaranteeing a Cup is working better than any one elses.

Trivia time.

Name me the last team to win the Stanley Cup, who dressed an enforcer for less than 10 games combined in the regular season and playoffs?

I guess that if that is the criteria we are fine. We dressed Mac 13 games and Downey 4 so we are well over your mark. Here is some more trivia, how many teams have been first fighting majors and won the Cup (in the last 11 Cups)?

Answer: 1 The Ducks (year before last)

How many teams have been last in fighting majors and won the Cup (in the last 11 Cups)?

Answer: 2 The Wings (2008, 2002)

What ranking did the Cup champs have in fighting majors for the last 11 Cups?

2008: 30th out of 30

2007: 1st out of 30

2006: 28th out of 30

2005: No Cup

2004: 24th out of 30

2003: 18th out of 30

2002: 30th out of 30

2001: 14th out of 30

2000: 10th out of 28

1999: 21st out of 27

1998: 25th out of 26

1997: 23rd out of 26

In 11 Cups only 3 teams have been in the top half of fighting majors and won the Cup while 8 have been in the lower half and won the Cup. Of those numbers only 1 team out of the last 11 Cups has been in the top 5 in fighting majors while 5 have been in the bottom 5 in fighting majors. I enjoy fighting in the game, I would like to have a guy like Shanny or even Mac in his prime (or especially Proby), I will be pissed if they ever take it out of the game and hate the restrictions that they keep putting on it, but I just don't buy it when posters try to convince me that it is so necessary to winning the Cup. The numbers just don't back it up, most of the teams to win the Cup (over the last 11) have been much closer to the bottom of the fight column than have been near the top.