Why the Red Wings Don't Fight

[esteef 2,679]

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.

The only reason I brought up the Cups was because some here are certain the new finesse style produces results/wins/success, and to that I say what "success"? Where are the Cups Detroit has won without the fighting element on the team? There ARE none. The utter dismissal of the fighting element and it's importance to "winning" is where I have issue.

There's nothing wrong with trying to constantly improve the team, regardless of how successful they've been or not, and that's all anyone here is saying with regard to the fighting aspect. I believe the Wings could've won more Cups if the fighting/toughness element had been better addressed during certain Wings playoff campaigns. That's all I'm saying. I'm not spoiled, I understand the Wings are good.

esteef

[Frozen-Man 144]

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 know that you always bring this up in defense of an enforcer, but I just don't really see the relevance of the question or what it proves. There are several reasons for my contention. First, how many teams in the last 10 years have not dressed an enforcer for at least 10 games combined in the regular season and playoffs, I don't know for sure (and obviously am not going to research it ) but I doubt that there are hardly any teams that don't fit that requirement. Second, whether you want to use the legal term proximate cause (and actually cause in fact as well) or the statistical term correlation does not equal causation - just because a condition exists does not mean that it is the cause of the the result. For example, (and this is just a hypothetical I have no idea if it is true) I could ask how many teams have won the Cup without at least one of their goalies being right handed, or left handed, or over 6', or under 6', or Canadian, or whatever factor you want to have. Since almost every team has your requirement of dressing an enforcer 10 games almost every Cup champion will have met your requirement but that still doesn't mean that they are a cause or the cause of the ultimate result.

BTW, just so you know you are still one of my favorite posters to debate with and I always pause to read you posts even if I am just skimming - so kudos to you on making this board better.

[Guest micah]

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

1) LOL, I was paraphrasing Holland, you Maroon.

and

2) I was paraphrasing Holland, you Maroon.

[Frozen-Man 144]

1) LOL, I was paraphrasing Holland, you Maroon.

and

2) I was paraphrasing Holland, you Maroon.

Wow I really can't believe that you can even convince yourself that you were paraphrasing Holland. I can just see him now hey Hank, Lids, Mule, thanks for signing hometown contracts to help the team but you guys really

“ are a bunch of *******, incapable of handling [yourselves]â€

You can have whatever opinion you want of the players on this team, and it is obvious from your many posts that you despise most of them but please don't pretend to put that on Holland as well. You have many times stated that you have that opinion of the team (which is fine to have your opinion) BUT you also know that your post was nothing even close to what Holland said or meant and to pawn it of as "paraphrasing" is a bastardization of the word and insulting to everyone you are trying to convince.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

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.

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

I didn't say he was a moron. I just said that his particular comment on that point didn't make much sense. Just because he's a great GM doesn't mean he's some God who says and does everything right. Excuse me for disagreeing with Holland on a particular point.

I know that you always bring this up in defense of an enforcer, but I just don't really see the relevance of the question or what it proves. There are several reasons for my contention. First, how many teams in the last 10 years have not dressed an enforcer for at least 10 games combined in the regular season and playoffs, I don't know for sure (and obviously am not going to research it ) but I doubt that there are hardly any teams that don't fit that requirement. Second, whether you want to use the legal term proximate cause (and actually cause in fact as well) or the statistical term correlation does not equal causation - just because a condition exists does not mean that it is the cause of the the result. For example, (and this is just a hypothetical I have no idea if it is true) I could ask how many teams have won the Cup without at least one of their goalies being right handed, or left handed, or over 6', or under 6', or Canadian, or whatever factor you want to have. Since almost every team has your requirement of dressing an enforcer 10 games almost every Cup champion will have met your requirement but that still doesn't mean that they are a cause or the cause of the ultimate result.

BTW, just so you know you are still one of my favorite posters to debate with and I always pause to read you posts even if I am just skimming - so kudos to you on making this board better.

My trivia question was mostly a joke used to prove a point, namely that this would be the softest team ever to win the Cup.

And I do think that having some semblance of toughness does correlate to winning the Stanley Cup. This year's team hasn't shown much semblance of toughness. I think that's what separated last year's Wings from previous years where they failed in the playoffs. It all goes back to having a balanced team. An enforcer is a pretty good player to have to make your team more physical overall and more balanced. A player like Drake would also help in that regard, but he's not necessarily an enforcer.

So to use legal terminology, but for Aaron Downey and Darren McCarty setting a tempo for the rest of the team with their physicality, we wouldn't have won the Stanley Cup last year. Proximate cause is a little harder to apply in this analogy, so I won't even go there.

Edited April 16, 2009 by GMRwings1983

[uk_redwing 495]

If the Downey thread was still around we probably wouldnt have gone into this argument AGAIN in another thread.

[sureWhyNot 19]

Great article, and exemplifies how the goon and the goon'ish strategy is rightfully being eliminated from hockey, and even better for the Wings who don't need to employ the goon strategy to win. Good on Kenny Holland and the WSJ (never thought I'd say that).

After reading this comment, I am curious as too what team does use the "goonish" model. I mean people around here throw the word "good" around and I seriously dont think they have the faintest clue what "goon" hockey is.

The Broad Street Bullies were a "goon" oriented team. There are a numebr of Bruins teams that you could argue were "goonish" to some extent, and so on. But in todays game their isn't a true "goon" squad - period.

But I guess recognizing that wouldn't be as easy as continuing to use the term and the applause/agreement it receives from the majority of people on this board.

I love Holland's comment: "I'd love to beat your team and beat you up, but it's impossible to do both." Yeah, we'll take just beating your team.

Kind of silly. I mean in essence he is openly admitting we are soft as all hell. I mean it's a cute little tid-bit for a good portion of fans, but not really true in a literal sense.

Yet strangely, win cups, despite fighting less and less. I'll take the cup winning ******* any day, who are exciting to watch and can score more than any other team. Thanks.

Yes, we do win cups. Unfortunately (and this happens all to often with the ad hoc statements thrown around on here such as this one) the years the Wings won the cup, they actually did quite a bit of fighting - at least in a compartitive sense to where we currently sit.

Years the Red Wings won the Cup:

1996-97: 98 Fighting Majors

1997-98: 50 Fighting Majors

2001-02: 30 Fighting Majors

2007-08: 31 Fighting Majors

I know people get sick of me "posting these silly stats", and I can see why. I too get annoyed when people come up with tangible proof which negates almost my entire argument. But as long as people throw statements such as the one this is in response too, I am going to continue proving them to be exactly what they are - garbage.

I mean it is so cut and dry obvious that while the actual "fighting" may not be a huge predictor of a teams success, it sure as hell is a good measuring stick as too the teams toughness. And we all know that "toughness" is needed in the playoffs and needs to be a part of any well rounded team in general.

Also want to point out that I am not saying the Wings won't win the Cup this year. I am praying they do, and think they have as good of a chance as any, if not better then doing so. I am simply trying to show that the status quo sentiment that the Wings being "above the fighting" fray while winning cups along the way is actually not true. The years they have won, they may not have led the league in fighting, but they sure as heck didn't shy away from it.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

This talk? Again?

Oy vey.....

[xBrave_Heartx 0]

From what I recall Hank, & Lids feel otherwise.

As for the "image" - who exactly is the NHL trying to impress, or win over? Nothing will attract new fans better (and keep long time fans like myself, micah, GMRWings, esteef, UK Wings, etc, etc happy) than a heated rivalry with a few scraps.

add me lul

[xBrave_Heartx 0]

If the Downey thread was still around we probably wouldnt have gone into this argument AGAIN in another thread.

or we'd have 2 threads of why downey is awesome.

[Vladifan 680]

After reading this comment, I am curious as too what team does use the "goonish" model. I mean people around here throw the word "good" around and I seriously dont think they have the faintest clue what "goon" hockey is.

The Broad Street Bullies were a "goon" oriented team. There are a numebr of Bruins teams that you could argue were "goonish" to some extent, and so on. But in todays game their isn't a true "goon" squad - period.

But I guess recognizing that wouldn't be as easy as continuing to use the term and the applause/agreement it receives from the majority of people on this board.

Kind of silly. I mean in essence he is openly admitting we are soft as all hell. I mean it's a cute little tid-bit for a good portion of fans, but not really true in a literal sense.

Yes, we do win cups. Unfortunately (and this happens all to often with the ad hoc statements thrown around on here such as this one) the years the Wings won the cup, they actually did quite a bit of fighting - at least in a compartitive sense to where we currently sit.

Years the Red Wings won the Cup:

1996-97: 98 Fighting Majors

1997-98: 50 Fighting Majors

2001-02: 30 Fighting Majors

2007-08: 31 Fighting Majors

I know people get sick of me "posting these silly stats", and I can see why. I too get annoyed when people come up with tangible proof which negates almost my entire argument. But as long as people throw statements such as the one this is in response too, I am going to continue proving them to be exactly what they are - garbage.

I mean it is so cut and dry obvious that while the actual "fighting" may not be a huge predictor of a teams success, it sure as hell is a good measuring stick as too the teams toughness. And we all know that "toughness" is needed in the playoffs and needs to be a part of any well rounded team in general.

Also want to point out that I am not saying the Wings won't win the Cup this year. I am praying they do, and think they have as good of a chance as any, if not better then doing so. I am simply trying to show that the status quo sentiment that the Wings being "above the fighting" fray while winning cups along the way is actually not true. The years they have won, they may not have led the league in fighting, but they sure as heck didn't shy away from it.

Ah yes. The Broad Street Bullies. Weren't they the team that was supposed to take us out in four in '97? Do the words "puck possession" ring a bell? I saw everyone of those games and they were a frickin' work of art. Big ol' Lindros could do NOTHING because he was forever and constantly harrassed. At the time, the Flyers thought that he would have to deal mostly with Konstantinov. Wrong, puck breath. It was Lids, et al, who mostly corralled and frustrated him.

[Vladifan 680]

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.

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.

And how many of our fourth liners don't wear visors? I honestly can't remember.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Vladifan

[Guest E_S_A_D]

ZzZzZ

[Wombat 26]

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.

Wait... so is Lilja an enforcer or not?

[Wombat 26]

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.

Does Boulerice truly count as he was not on the team for the 2nd half of the year? He was traded away. I doubt his name is even on the Cup. I would think for him to truly be part of the team, he has to at least be there when the season ends.

[uk_redwing 495]

Wait... so is Lilja an enforcer or not?

Only in GMR's world

[Wombat 26]

Only in GMR's world

That does matter then because he asked the question:

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 agree with you that Lilja is not an enforcer.

[Guest Shoreline]

After reading this comment, I am curious as too what team does use the "goonish" model. I mean people around here throw the word "good" around and I seriously dont think they have the faintest clue what "goon" hockey is.

The Broad Street Bullies were a "goon" oriented team. There are a numebr of Bruins teams that you could argue were "goonish" to some extent, and so on. But in todays game their isn't a true "goon" squad - period.

But I guess recognizing that wouldn't be as easy as continuing to use the term and the applause/agreement it receives from the majority of people on this board.

Kind of silly. I mean in essence he is openly admitting we are soft as all hell. I mean it's a cute little tid-bit for a good portion of fans, but not really true in a literal sense.

Yes, we do win cups. Unfortunately (and this happens all to often with the ad hoc statements thrown around on here such as this one) the years the Wings won the cup, they actually did quite a bit of fighting - at least in a compartitive sense to where we currently sit.

Years the Red Wings won the Cup:

1996-97: 98 Fighting Majors

1997-98: 50 Fighting Majors

2001-02: 30 Fighting Majors

2007-08: 31 Fighting Majors

I know people get sick of me "posting these silly stats", and I can see why. I too get annoyed when people come up with tangible proof which negates almost my entire argument. But as long as people throw statements such as the one this is in response too, I am going to continue proving them to be exactly what they are - garbage.

I mean it is so cut and dry obvious that while the actual "fighting" may not be a huge predictor of a teams success, it sure as hell is a good measuring stick as too the teams toughness. And we all know that "toughness" is needed in the playoffs and needs to be a part of any well rounded team in general.

Actually fighting is NOT a predictor of anything other than a team will fight. End of story.

Now, as for the stats you just made up here, esp for the second cup season (since it's the first I could easily and readily find) in 1998 (1997-98: 50 Fighting Majors <-- your quote), NHL.com and hockeyfights is there to refute your ass rather easily:

1997-98

http://hockeyfights.com/leaders/teams/1/reg1998

Detroit Red Wings: 33 (25th of 26th)

33 fighting majors.

ALL Major penalties via NHL.com for the 1997-98 season:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/app

Detroit: 36 (i.e. 3 extra majors that weren't fighting)

Compare this to your suggestion that the Wings had 50 fighting majors for that season, and you have yourself a bunch of conjured bulls*** since the team cannot have more fighting majors than majors total. Looks like hockeyfights is right, and you made a bunch of bulls*** up -- speaking of ad hoc. The rest is the same subjective worthless s*** I've argued over and over (so humorous that one could suggest that the broad street bullies have anything to do with today), but I just want to make it clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. Thanks.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Shoreline

[uk_redwing 495]

That does matter then because he asked the question:

I agree with you that Lilja is not an enforcer.

Well the answer is there has never been a team thats won the Stanley Cup without an active enforcer on the roster.

[Frozen-Man 144]

My trivia question was mostly a joke used to prove a point, namely that this would be the softest team ever to win the Cup.

And I do think that having some semblance of toughness does correlate to winning the Stanley Cup. This year's team hasn't shown much semblance of toughness. I think that's what separated last year's Wings from previous years where they failed in the playoffs. It all goes back to having a balanced team. An enforcer is a pretty good player to have to make your team more physical overall and more balanced. A player like Drake would also help in that regard, but he's not necessarily an enforcer.

I definitely agree that a guy like Drake would really help, and I would agree that some enforcers would help this team a lot. I just don't happen to think that a specific enforcer, Downey, would really help this team that much - I think this for a variety of reasons which we have discussed before but mainly because I think Babs and Kenny are smart enough to put him in the lineup if they thought it would help.

So to use legal terminology, but for Aaron Downey and Darren McCarty setting a tempo for the rest of the team with their physicality, we wouldn't have won the Stanley Cup last year. Proximate cause is a little harder to apply in this analogy, so I won't even go there.

I guess that is really my point that there is no way to prove that but for "Aaron Downey and Darren McCarty setting a tempo for the rest of the team with their physicality, we wouldn't have won the Stanley Cup last year." There is no way to prove that it is true and no way to prove that it is not. I could just as easily say but for Ozzy being left handed or 5'10" we wouldn't have won the Stanley Cup last year. The problem is the reality that we actually did win the Cup last year so anything that the Wings had or did could be argued to be the but for reason that the result happened. If Ozzy were a couple of inches taller he might not have gotten down so quick and we might have gotten scored on more. There is no way to prove that statement true or false and using the ultimate result - that we won the Cup - doesn't make the statement any more or less true. Also, I agree that there is no way to apply a true proximate cause analysis and that is part of the problem, the legal field has always struggled to find and prove the actual cause of a result and that is the issue here, there is no way to prove the impact that Downey and/or Mac had on the team last year - yes they happened to be on the team and the team won the Cup but that doesn't prove that they were the cause (or even a significant factor) in winning the Cup, perhaps they were, but it is an exercise in futility to try to prove it.

Yes, we do win cups. Unfortunately (and this happens all to often with the ad hoc statements thrown around on here such as this one) the years the Wings won the cup, they actually did quite a bit of fighting - at least in a compartitive sense to where we currently sit.

Years the Red Wings won the Cup:

1996-97: 98 Fighting Majors

1997-98: 50 Fighting Majors

2001-02: 30 Fighting Majors

2007-08: 31 Fighting Majors

I know people get sick of me "posting these silly stats", and I can see why. I too get annoyed when people come up with tangible proof which negates almost my entire argument. But as long as people throw statements such as the one this is in response too, I am going to continue proving them to be exactly what they are - garbage.

I know Einstein said "imagination is more important than knowledge" but I don't think he meant making "stats" up to "prove" your point. I think actual knowledge and facts would be more beneficial here.

People don't get sick of you posting stats they get sick because they actually are silly because you either rip them out of context, twist them to fit your predetermined point of view, or usually completely make them up. They are not tangible proof of anything except that you cannot do thorough research. As I will show and actually give citations to you completely made up every single statistic that use used and thus your bull crap numbers are the ones that are actually garbage.

1996-97: 98 Fighting Majors - The Wings had 55 fighting majors, were 23rd out of 26 teams in fighting, and there was not any team in the league that had more than 90 fights. Your statistic is silly because you made up 43 (almost half) of the fighting majors to prove that other peoples arguments are garbage.

1997-98: 50 Fighting Majors - The Wings had 33 fighting majors, were 25rd out of 26 teams in fighting, while the "tough" Canucks had 105 fighting majors and did not even make the playoffs. They were probably exciting right up till the time that the playoffs started and then they were sitting at home watching the Wings actually play in the playoffs. Your statistic is silly because you made up 17 fighting majors.

2001-02: 30 Fighting Majors - The Wings had 21 fighting majors, were 30th out of 30 teams in fighting. That's right they were last in the league. Your statistic is silly because you made up 9 (almost 1/3) of the fighting majors you claimed happened to prove your silly statistics.

2007-08: 31 Fighting Majors - Wow, who would have thought, amazingly you made this number up as well. The Wings had 21 fighting majors, were 30th out of 30 teams in fighting. That's right they were last in the league again, that's right, last in the league in fighting yet still win the Cup. Your statistic is silly because you made up 10 (almost 1/3) of the fighting majors you claimed happened to prove your silly statistics.

I can't believe the audacity to just make up 79 fights in 4 seasons of hockey and then claim your made up numbers prove other people's arguments are garbage. Finally, in regards to your statement: "I know people get sick of me 'posting these silly stats,' and I can see why. I too get annoyed when people come up with tangible proof which negates almost my entire argument[,]" I am not sure you know what the words tangible or proof mean. Tangible means real or actual, rather than imaginary - I'm pretty sure that if you make up stats that never existed they can't, by definition, be real or actual but have to be imaginary (hence the made up part). Proof mean the establishment of the truth of a thing - since the stats are made up I don't think you established the truth of your statement. I don't think you actually offered tangible proof of anything other that the fact that your post and "facts" are the real garbage.

[Wombat 26]

Yeah, hockeyfights.com lists these totals for the Cup winning years:

96-97 - 55

97-98 - 33

01-02 - 21

07-08 - 21

While his numbers were wrong, I think sureWhynot's point is valid; past Cup winning Red Wing teams have fought more than this one. Now, the last two Cup winning Wings teams may not be significantly higher in the grand scheme of things, but they will still need to prove to some that they can win without fighting.

[Guest Shoreline]

Well the answer is there has never been a team thats won the Stanley Cup without an active enforcer on the roster.

If that's the case (which I doubt, but I haven't seen any proof one way or another that this statement is anything more than conjecture), I could easily have said last year that no team with a Newfie would win the cup. I could also make up several reasons why the Wings could never win the cup because of what they may be without. Nonetheless, these reasons all mean s*** and the best team simply wins the cup. People harping on this one single issue is clearly because they are far too focused on fighting, and try to use whatever means to an end to justify a rabid obsession with it. I can't see why they'd bother doing that, but it ain't my problem.

[Wombat 26]

Well the answer is there has never been a team thats won the Stanley Cup without an active enforcer on the roster.

I countered with the Hurricanes from 05/06 since their only active enforcer, Boulerice, was traded halfway through the season.

And also, the point of his question is to imply that this Wing's team cannot win because there is no enforcer. But if he thinks Lilja is an enforcer, the intent of the question is void.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Wombat

[Guest Shoreline]

I definitely agree that a guy like Drake would really help, and I would agree that some enforcers would help this team a lot. I just don't happen to think that a specific enforcer, Downey, would really help this team that much - I think this for a variety of reasons which we have discussed before but mainly because I think Babs and Kenny are smart enough to put him in the lineup if they thought it would help.

I guess that is really my point that there is no way to prove that but for "Aaron Downey and Darren McCarty setting a tempo for the rest of the team with their physicality, we wouldn't have won the Stanley Cup last year." There is no way to prove that it is true and no way to prove that it is not. I could just as easily say but for Ozzy being left handed or 5'10" we wouldn't have won the Stanley Cup last year. The problem is the reality that we actually did win the Cup last year so anything that the Wings had or did could be argued to be the but for reason that the result happened. If Ozzy were a couple of inches taller he might not have gotten down so quick and we might have gotten scored on more. There is no way to prove that statement true or false and using the ultimate result - that we won the Cup - doesn't make the statement any more or less true. Also, I agree that there is no way to apply a true proximate cause analysis and that is part of the problem, the legal field has always struggled to find and prove the actual cause of a result and that is the issue here, there is no way to prove the impact that Downey and/or Mac had on the team last year - yes they happened to be on the team and the team won the Cup but that doesn't prove that they were the cause (or even a significant factor) in winning the Cup, perhaps they were, but it is an exercise in futility to try to prove it.

I know Einstein said "imagination is more important than knowledge" but I don't think he meant making "stats" up to "prove" your point. I think actual knowledge and facts would be more beneficial here.

People don't get sick of you posting stats they get sick because they actually are silly because you either rip them out of context, twist them to fit your predetermined point of view, or usually completely make them up. They are not tangible proof of anything except that you cannot do thorough research. As I will show and actually give citations to you completely made up every single statistic that use used and thus your bull crap numbers are the ones that are actually garbage.

1996-97: 98 Fighting Majors - The Wings had 55 fighting majors, were 23rd out of 26 teams in fighting, and there was not any team in the league that had more than 90 fights. Your statistic is silly because you made up 43 (almost half) of the fighting majors to prove that other peoples arguments are garbage.

1997-98: 50 Fighting Majors - The Wings had 33 fighting majors, were 25rd out of 26 teams in fighting, while the "tough" Canucks had 105 fighting majors and did not even make the playoffs. They were probably exciting right up till the time that the playoffs started and then they were sitting at home watching the Wings actually play in the playoffs. Your statistic is silly because you made up 17 fighting majors.

2001-02: 30 Fighting Majors - The Wings had 21 fighting majors, were 30th out of 30 teams in fighting. That's right they were last in the league. Your statistic is silly because you made up 9 (almost 1/3) of the fighting majors you claimed happened to prove your silly statistics.

2007-08: 31 Fighting Majors - Wow, who would have thought, amazingly you made this number up as well. The Wings had 21 fighting majors, were 30th out of 30 teams in fighting. That's right they were last in the league again, that's right, last in the league in fighting yet still win the Cup. Your statistic is silly because you made up 10 (almost 1/3) of the fighting majors you claimed happened to prove your silly statistics.

I can't believe the audacity to just make up 79 fights in 4 seasons of hockey and then claim your made up numbers prove other people's arguments are garbage. Finally, in regards to your statement: "I know people get sick of me 'posting these silly stats,' and I can see why. I too get annoyed when people come up with tangible proof which negates almost my entire argument[,]" I am not sure you know what the words tangible or proof mean. Tangible means real or actual, rather than imaginary - I'm pretty sure that if you make up stats that never existed they can't, by definition, be real or actual but have to be imaginary (hence the made up part). Proof mean the establishment of the truth of a thing - since the stats are made up I don't think you established the truth of your statement. I don't think you actually offered tangible proof of anything other that the fact that your post and "facts" are the real garbage.

Also, look to NHL.com for a list of ALL major penalties received. I only started at the first one I could find, 97-98, but I guarantee you he has more fighting majors he made up for all four cup seasons than the Wings had major penalties entirely.

This is why I don't care to use stats, because being a person who's been through stats courses, political campaigns, and has been working in marketing divisions, I know too well how much they are either made up or simply misused to justify an end, and this end is the strange conclusion that this team can't win because it does not have an enforcer or doesn't fight more than other teams. It's horse s*** really, and it's taking superstition to a new level.

[Frozen-Man 144]

Now, as for the stats you just made up here, esp for the second cup season (since it's the first I could easily and readily find) in 1998 (1997-98: 50 Fighting Majors <-- your quote), NHL.com and hockeyfights is there to refute your ass rather easily:

. . .

I just want to make it clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. Thanks.

Beat me to it. I spent too long on my post.