Why the Red Wings Don't Fight

[Frozen-Man 144]

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.

Not to mention that no team can win with a European captain since no team had done it before. Detroit was also the first team last year to win with at least 50% of the players being European. I believe that Cherry basically used those two arguments as to why the Wings could never win. I guess maybe it doesn't matter that much.

[xBrave_Heartx 0]

[/b]

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

Kopecky wears a visor, Draper wears a visor, Maltby wears like a full faced visor lol.. Downey/Mac dont wear visors.. , Not sure if your post was sarcastic or not, But there is my honest answer

----

I think i already added my 0.02$ on this subject. I want a damn 4th line like Vancouvers they are just violent on the forecheck have been all year. and Rpyien and Brown were undersized so they could find alot of willing combatants, Brown sucks at fighting, but Rypien is pound for pound the best fighter in the league. *yes i know brown isn't with nucks anymore*.. I'd settle for a 4th line with Rick Rypien, Mike Brown and hell i dont care who plays the other wing. It could be a guy like Haydar and i would be estatic.oh mi gawd..

That 3rd period penalty on Rypien last night was BS, for charging.. He skated hard. glided and rubbed McKee out along the boards. Refs made the penalty because he forearm lifted a bit. and just decided to throw a BS penalty because they were running around..

[Frozen-Man 144]

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.

I am not sure that his point is valid. What I mean is (even though he made it all up) even though the Wings did have more fighting majors in the previous Cup wins they were still historically and comparatively low compared to the rest of the league. His statement that there were more fights in previous Cup teams is true but what does that prove. As I cited above in '98 when the Wings won the Canucks had 105 fighting majors - 318% more than the Wings. If the fights and "toughness" that they prove are that all fire important then why didn't the Canucks make the playoffs. Perhaps it is something else that the Wings had that was what really mattered in winning the Cup. The Wings even in the highest of the Cup winning years were still in the bottom 10% of league in fighting ('97 bottom 8.8%, '98 bottom 3.8%, '02 bottom 1% - dead last, '08 bottom 1% - dead last). Compared to almost every other team and using SureWhyNot's definition of "toughness" the Wings were always at the bottom and the two last Cups were the very lowest in terms of what he calls "tough," yet the win Cups. If they win this year there will be the argument that they had Mac for 13 games and Downey for 4 and that they were both part of the team. The fact is more than 72% of the past 11 Cup winning teams have been in the bottom half of the league in terms of fighting.

I like fighting. It is great. It adds excitement, energy, and and an awesome element that other pro team sports don't have. I would be pissed if they ever took it out of the game and I hate the restrictions (and the negative stigma) that they are currently putting on it BUT I'm not going to let SureWhyNot make stuff up or draw unsubstantiated conclusions just to fit his predetermined outcome (especially when he can't even cite real stats to argue his point).

[Wombat 26]

I am not sure that his point is valid. What I mean is (even though he made it all up) even though the Wings did have more fighting majors in the previous Cup wins they were still historically and comparatively low compared to the rest of the league. His statement that there were more fights in previous Cup teams is true but what does that prove. As I cited above in '98 when the Wings won the Canucks had 105 fighting majors - 318% more than the Wings. If the fights and "toughness" that they prove are that all fire important then why didn't the Canucks make the playoffs. Perhaps it is something else that the Wings had that was what really mattered in winning the Cup. The Wings even in the highest of the Cup winning years were still in the bottom 10% of league in fighting ('97 bottom 8.8%, '98 bottom 3.8%, '02 bottom 1% - dead last, '08 bottom 1% - dead last). Compared to almost every other team and using SureWhyNot's definition of "toughness" the Wings were always at the bottom and the two last Cups were the very lowest in terms of what he calls "tough," yet the win Cups. If they win this year there will be the argument that they had Mac for 13 games and Downey for 4 and that they were both part of the team. The fact is more than 72% of the past 11 Cup winning teams have been in the bottom half of the league in terms of fighting.

I like fighting. It is great. It adds excitement, energy, and and an awesome element that other pro team sports don't have. I would be pissed if they ever took it out of the game and I hate the restrictions (and the negative stigma) that they are currently putting on it BUT I'm not going to let SureWhyNot make stuff up or draw unsubstantiated conclusions just to fit his predetermined outcome (especially when he can't even cite real stats to argue his point).

I am of the mind that you don't need an "enforcer" to win the Cup, but I do think it is easier if you have a bit more grit to the game than the Wings are showing right now. All I want is for the playoffs to start so we can see what this year's playoff Wings are going to be like. If they are soft like in the regular season, they won't go far. I think they'll pick up their gritty play (not fighting, but physicality does matter in the playoffs), but it's to be determined to see how far they pick up their gritty play. In the playoffs last year, they did not dress actual "enforcers" but they had grittiness permeating throughout the whole lineup.

I think it's a valid argument right now that a team so seemingly devoid of grittiness can win the Cup. Where I disagree is that the Wings need a bona fide enforcer out there. I think they can do it with every player incrementally being tougher/grittier, like last year. It's not about the Wings' FM rank year to year... we know they are at the bottom of the list, but it's more about having guys that will step up when needed. I can't wait for tonight for us to see who steps up!

[ManLuv4Clears 7]

I am of the mind that you don't need an "enforcer" to win the Cup, but I do think it is easier if you have a bit more grit to the game than the Wings are showing right now. All I want is for the playoffs to start so we can see what this year's playoff Wings are going to be like. If they are soft like in the regular season, they won't go far. I think they'll pick up their gritty play (not fighting, but physicality does matter in the playoffs), but it's to be determined to see how far they pick up their gritty play. In the playoffs last year, they did not dress actual "enforcers" but they had grittiness permeating throughout the whole lineup.

I think it's a valid argument right now that a team so seemingly devoid of grittiness can win the Cup. Where I disagree is that the Wings need a bona fide enforcer out there. I think they can do it with every player incrementally being tougher/grittier, like last year. It's not about the Wings' FM rank year to year... we know they are at the bottom of the list, but it's more about having guys that will step up when needed. I can't wait for tonight for us to see who steps up!

Couldn't have said it better myself. I hope this post isn't interpreted that you want 12 Milan Lucic's, because that's what some will conclude.

Edited April 16, 2009 by ManLuv4Clears

[Datsyerberger 279]

Well, I can't list the last time a team won a cup without an enforcer, since we just came out of enforcer heavy eras. I can, however, name this certain team that's won several cups in recent history while being the bottom of the league in fighting majors... same team this year, hm...

Fighting is entertainment. It can be beneficial in some circumstances. It can be relevant to toughness. An exceptionally high level of toughness can be a successful way to build a team. However, none of these are a prerequisite for success. You can win without lots of fighting, you can win without a high level of toughness (you don't want a team of powder puffs, mind). The Wings prefer a skill and puck possession based system. The amount of toughness they have is "enough" to compliment this. Sure, they could get tougher, but that usually means a sacrifice in skill.. which doesn't fit with the Wings system.

Actually, I would go so far as to say that the Wings level of toughness is underrated, given the fan tendency to rate toughness on this mathematical formula:

(Fights*2) + Hits + (Shotblocking/2) = Team Toughness

And not take into consideration like willingness to go and/or stay in front of the net (something we have in loads which other teams fans always ***** about a lack of -- not just in Homer and Franzen, but even small guys like Hudler), play the body for defensive positioning, work along the boards, and the ability to absorb and/or avoid hits.

Just because the Wings have less hit and shotblocking TOTALS doesn't mean they do it with less frequency than (some) other teams when necessary. It stands to reason that when your time of attack/possession is higher than everyone elses, and you have the 2nd lowest amount of shots against, you're going to be hitting less and blocking less shots.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Datsyerberger

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Well, I can't list the last time a team won a cup without an enforcer, since we just came out of enforcer heavy eras. I can, however, name this certain team that's won several cups in recent history while being the bottom of the league in fighting majors... same team this year, hm...

Fighting is entertainment. It can be beneficial in some circumstances. It can be relevant to toughness. An exceptionally high level of toughness can be a successful way to build a team. However, none of these are a prerequisite for success. You can win without lots of fighting, you can win without a high level of toughness (you don't want a team of powder puffs, mind). The Wings prefer a skill and puck possession based system. The amount of toughness they have is "enough" to compliment this. Sure, they could get tougher, but that usually means a sacrifice in skill.. which doesn't fit with the Wings system.

Actually, I would go so far as to say that the Wings level of toughness is underrated, given the fan tendency to rate toughness on this mathematical formula:

(Fights*2) + Hits + (Shotblocking/2) = Team Toughness

And not take into consideration like willingness to go and/or stay in front of the net (something we have in loads which other teams fans always ***** about a lack of -- not just in Homer and Franzen, but even small guys like Hudler), play the body for defensive positioning, work along the boards, and the ability to absorb and/or avoid hits.

Just because the Wings have less hit and shotblocking TOTALS doesn't mean they do it with less frequency than (some) other teams when necessary. It stands to reason that when your time of attack/possession is higher than everyone elses, and you have the 2nd lowest amount of shots against, you're going to be hitting less and blocking less shots.

There is more to toughness than fighting, but this team hasn't shown much of that this year. The 4th line has been as tough as biting into a marshmallow.

And we don't always have the puck, so you inflated that argument. Hitting doesn't just have to occur when you're forechecking in the offensive zone, it can occur anywhere on the ice. When the other team is cycling around in our zone, I'd love to see one of our guys lay someone on their ass. We haven't seen too much of that this season, either.

I hope we see the whole team come out with a physically malicious intent, much like we did against Calgary several years ago. However, if it does happen, it won't be because of anything we've seen this season, because the team has been soft all season.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

I am of the mind that you don't need an "enforcer" to win the Cup, but I do think it is easier if you have a bit more grit to the game than the Wings are showing right now. All I want is for the playoffs to start so we can see what this year's playoff Wings are going to be like. If they are soft like in the regular season, they won't go far. I think they'll pick up their gritty play (not fighting, but physicality does matter in the playoffs), but it's to be determined to see how far they pick up their gritty play. In the playoffs last year, they did not dress actual "enforcers" but they had grittiness permeating throughout the whole lineup.

I think it's a valid argument right now that a team so seemingly devoid of grittiness can win the Cup. Where I disagree is that the Wings need a bona fide enforcer out there. I think they can do it with every player incrementally being tougher/grittier, like last year. It's not about the Wings' FM rank year to year... we know they are at the bottom of the list, but it's more about having guys that will step up when needed. I can't wait for tonight for us to see who steps up!

Exactly.

It happened because they had toughness on the roster just about all season throughout the regular season. It did make this team tougher as a whole. That's the thing most people don't realize when they bring up these pointless arguments about how little icetime Downey or McCarty played last season. 4th liners never play lots of minutes, but that doesn't mean that their presence doesn't affect the rest of the team. It's called leading by example.

Edited April 16, 2009 by GMRwings1983

[Datsyerberger 279]

There is more to toughness than fighting, but this team hasn't shown much of that this year. The 4th line has been as tough as biting into a marshmallow.

And we don't always have the puck, so you inflated that argument. Hitting doesn't just have to occur when you're forechecking in the offensive zone, it can occur anywhere on the ice. When the other team is cycling around in our zone, I'd love to see one of our guys lay someone on their ass. We haven't seen too much of that this season, either.

I hope we see the whole team come out with a physically malicious intent, much like we did against Calgary several years ago. However, if it does happen, it won't be because of anything we've seen this season, because the team has been soft all season.

The 4th line part I agree with (well, Draper's been decent, but Maltby has been wimpier than ever and Kopecky still looks like he's been shot every time he receives a hit).

I didn't say we always have the puck. However, I think it's safe to say through observation that our time of possession (plus time spent disrupting the other team in the neutral zone) is among the highest, if not the highest, of the regular season.

Again, hitting isn't the end all be all of toughness (and a hit only counts, stats wise, if its on a player with possession of the puck at that moment). That said, I'd like to see the 2nd pairing bulldozer + dumptruck combo that was Kronwall + Stuart in last years playoffs.

Our boardwork has been very bipolar. Excellent in the offensive zone, at times spotty in the defensive zone.

[Datsyerberger 279]

Exactly.

It happened because they had toughness on the roster just about all season throughout the regular season. It did make this team tougher as a whole. That's the thing most people don't realize when they bring up these pointless arguments about how little icetime Downey or McCarty played last season. 4th liners never play lots of minutes, but that doesn't mean that their presence doesn't affect the rest of the team. It's called leading by example.

The only major difference between this year's playoff roster and last years is Drake. If you'll recall, there was bitching aplenty last regular season about our regular season "toughness", too.

Hopefully, this year, our playoff play is just as gritty as it was last year.

[Guest Shoreline]

The only major difference between this year's playoff roster and last years is Drake. If you'll recall, there was bitching aplenty last regular season about our regular season "toughness", too.

It happens all the time, and will happen next year too. The Wings have not been "tough" anywhere close to any of the actual "tough" teams for over 15 years. It's when they shed that "tough" mentality that they started winning cups. One HAS to be physical if they are going to win a cup because players are going to get hit. It's an ability to take hits, for one. Secondly, finishing checks has nothing to do with toughness. That's like suggesting blocking shots is toughness. It's not. It's related to strategy. For example, I've seen handfuls of goals scored on the Wings where, when a team is making their zone break-out, a Wing is right on a puck handler and when the player passes the puck, the Wing skates right by and turns around to pursue the puck. BAD idea. It's led to goals because that player can then streak up the ice and join in on the rush for a goal while the defense is following the puck. Instead, the player needs to finish his check, knock the player into the boards, or on his ass, or at least off balance so that player can no longer be a part of any rush. Finishing checks in this manner is a sound strategy that has NOTHING to do with toughness. The only toughness that I've seen where the Wings could use a tough player is right up on Osgood's grill, to prevent garbage goals and screens.

Then, there's the intensity factor, which is merely a part of wanting the cup. This is why winning back to back is so difficult, because obviously the intensity and want is far less since it takes so much to maintain that level of intensity for an extra 2-3 months, win a cup, then go back and start the season again, going back to the playoffs for that extra 2-3 months possibly.

The belief of this team needing an enforcer, or fighter, is superstition, and I could find stats to back up other superstitions, which doesn't make any of them more logical.

[ManLuv4Clears 7]

The only major difference between this year's playoff roster and last years is Drake. If you'll recall, there was bitching aplenty last regular season about our regular season "toughness", too.

Hopefully, this year, our playoff play is just as gritty as it was last year.

I guess that tell us how much of an impact Drake had, the team was about 10X tougher to play against physically last year versus this year. I didn't realize how spoiled I was

[Guest Shoreline]

I guess that tell us how much of an impact Drake had, the team was about 10X tougher to play against physically last year versus this year. I didn't realize how spoiled I was

The Wings will pick up the physical play. They have to. They'll be more aiming at finishing checks, and more toward boxing out or battles along the boards. Babs is one of those coaches who also knows how to play against the Wings, so surely he can understand what the Wings need to do to avoid losing. Drake was a character of his own, a role player, and part of the reason why the team won the cup. However, don't make the mistake of giving him too much undeserved credit.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Shoreline

[Guest E_S_A_D]

Such a tiresome argument.

The Wings will open to a 1/2 full arena tonight, and that's no joke. The spirit is gone. I'm sick of these fighting arguments... All I know is Columbus is not doing well economically either and they have Jared Boll who is 2nd in fighting majors. Notice the difference in arenas when we 'visit' the Jackets.

I hope the Wings win, but I'm going to say Columbus in 6.

Good day, gentlemen.

[Guest Shoreline]

Notice how this is the Jackets' first playoffs. The Wings have been in the playoffs every season the Jackets have been a team.

[Guest Shoreline]

Not trying to sound like an ass, but have you ever played hockey?

It can hurt like hell to throw, & to receive checks; it's why some players are labeled "soft" due to their unwillingness to throw, or to finish a check...Bruises, lacerations, getting the "wind knocked outta ya", teeth chipped/cracked/knocked-out, dislocated shoulders, broken noses, sprains of numerous sorts, concussions, & even fractures are commonplace in the very physical sport as ice hockey - especially at the NHL level of play during the playoffs...Blocking shots is no different...Gotta be willing/able/tough to survive the grind of the playoffs...Toughness, & character when going into the playoffs should never be overlooked.

As for enforcers/fighters/character types; well many of these guys are the ones whom lead by example - by finishing their checks/initiating contact, & by blocking shots...Some of them may not get more than a few minutes of ice time per game, but their high-energy style encourages others to follow suit.

I do agree with ya concerning our need for the "D" to play with more of an "edge"; sometimes tying up an opponents stick just isn't enough when knocking him on his ass is needed...Make the opposing forwards fear our "D"; intimidate them by making them pay for standing by our goalies crease.

Yes I've played hockey, at Logitech Ice, ironically, where the Sharks practice. Haven't since all my friends moved away. How one deals with a check is like how one deals with a block, or tackle, or fall, and that is good positioning, which is a strategy. No toughness is going to help when body parts are broken, i.e. recklessness. Finishing checks, especially in the way I refer to it in the example I gave, has nothing to do with toughness, since it isn't about kicking your opponent's ass, or even knocking them on it, but stopping their momentum or even throw them off, i.e. make a mistake, being worried about a player coming. Now, toughness is different around the net and along the boards.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Shoreline

[Frozen-Man 144]

Exactly.

It happened because they had toughness on the roster just about all season throughout the regular season. It did make this team tougher as a whole. That's the thing most people don't realize when they bring up these pointless arguments about how little icetime Downey or McCarty played last season. 4th liners never play lots of minutes, but that doesn't mean that their presence doesn't affect the rest of the team. It's called leading by example.

See, that is what is bothering me, you can't say definitively that the fact Downey was on the regular season roster is why the Wings were "tougher as a whole" in the playoffs. Just because an element was/is present does not mean that it is the cause of the result. That is why clinical trials ALWAYS have a control group and only change one condition, if they have two conditions that they want to test then they have a control, a group where one condition is changed and the other is not and a third group with the converse. You can't know that it happened because Downey was on the roster most of the year. It very likely could have happened because the Wings hadn't won the Cup in six years whereas this year they are the defending champs. There are too many variables and too many changes from last year to this year definitively say that the reason that something occurred last year is X.

The only major difference between this year's playoff roster and last years is Drake. If you'll recall, there was bitching aplenty last regular season about our regular season "toughness", too.

Hopefully, this year, our playoff play is just as gritty as it was last year.

Yeah they were too soft to win last year as well, but when they won last year that changed the bar for when the Wings were considered "tough enough" and now last year's team is retroactively tough.

Notice how this is the Jackets' first playoffs. The Wings have been in the playoffs every season the Jackets have been a team.

CLASSIC! But what you don't realize is Cups don't matter, playoff appearances don't matter, wins don't matter, the number of fights is what is important that is why according E.S.A.D's standards this guy

Should be on every NHL roster because that is what will fill the seats.

*Edit - you know except for the whole steroids thing (although I guess that would give the game bigger fighters . . . Hmmm).

Edited April 16, 2009 by Frozen-Man

[Guest Shoreline]

Gotcha.

Everyone has a different definition of "toughness"; many of us here feel the Wings had it last spring (many like myself feel Drake/McCarty/Downey played a role throughout the reg season that led into the playoffs) - however some like myself feel that the toughness (or maybe lack of focus/intensity) this year is lacking.

Hope I'm wrong.

The Wings lack both the intensity and toughness on the boards. That's not something made up, it's for good reason. The Wings have been beaten many times in front of the net on garbage goals and screens because they lack the tough defensemen to box out, or even missing on the simple things like tying up sticks or simply paying attention to what's going on if they are dropping back into a box-like defense and taking an area (i.e. caught following the puck too much). Which is why in the Ericsson topic I showed a lot of enthusiasm for Ericsson in these regards in hoping he fills out a bit more, but he has the look of a guy who can be tough and clear out the front of the net which is the most dire need at the moment. I'd hate to see what it might be like with an intense Blue Jackets team crashing the net.. we've seen so many times this season what happens.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Shoreline

[Doc Holiday 0]

Such a tiresome argument.

The Wings will open to a 1/2 full arena tonight, and that's no joke. The spirit is gone. I'm sick of these fighting arguments... All I know is Columbus is not doing well economically either and they have Jared Boll who is 2nd in fighting majors. Notice the difference in arenas when we 'visit' the Jackets.

I hope the Wings win, but I'm going to say Columbus in 6.

Good day, gentlemen.

Oh wow.

Jared Boll has nothing to do with the fanbase in Columbus. The whole "first playoff appearance in the franchise" thing has to do with it.

[Guest Shoreline]

Oh wow.

Jared Boll has nothing to do with the fanbase in Columbus. The whole "first playoff appearance in the franchise" thing has to do with it.

No wai man, they're all there to see Jared-*******-Boll. Admit it!

[Frozen-Man 144]

No wai man, they're all there to see Jared-f**king-Boll. Admit it!

His whole argument is silly, Carcillo has the 4th most fighting majors and the Yotes are bankrupt. E.S.A.D randomly picks any positive thing - like the huge crowd the Blue Jackets will likely have at their playoff games - and then attributes it to fighting - rather than the fact that the Blue Jackets are making their first playoff appearance ever or that they one have one pro sports team (of the big 4 pro sports) to rally around unlike Detroit who has all four.

This is usually done in direct contradiction to the actual facts. For example, even with the all mighty crowd drawing Boll: Columbus was 25th out of 30 in overall attendance while Detroit was 4th; Detroit attendance was more than 4,000 people higher per game; including road appearances Detroit was at 101.7% of attendance capacity while Columbus was at 90.2%; and almost 650,000 more people were in attendance this year to see the Wings than to see the Blue Jackets. As a final note this is not a knock on Boll, his skill, or what he brings to his team - it is an attempt to accurately and correctly explain the outlandish claims that E.S.A.D makes and the lengths he will go to in order attribute every good thing that happens to fighting.

*Edit - Also, interestingly Wings home attendance is up 5% from last year even though there were roughly twice as many fights last year and Downey played in 56 games last year and 4 this year.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Frozen-Man

[esteef 2,679]

Boll establishes himself early in the game all up in Datsyuk's face, Avery was big for NY the other night, Montreal vs Boston features some tough guy chess work with Laraque out on early shifts against Lucic and Chara. But hey, nobody plays fighters in the playoffs. They're not important.

esteef

[Guest Shoreline]

Obviously the Wings are everybody else, and look at everybody else win more cups than them in the last 15 years.

[Guest Shoreline]

His whole argument is silly, Carcillo has the 4th most fighting majors and the Yotes are bankrupt. E.S.A.D randomly picks any positive thing - like the huge crowd the Blue Jackets will likely have at their playoff games - and then attributes it to fighting - rather than the fact that the Blue Jackets are making their first playoff appearance ever or that they one have one pro sports team (of the big 4 pro sports) to rally around unlike Detroit who has all four.

This is usually done in direct contradiction to the actual facts. For example, even with the all mighty crowd drawing Boll: Columbus was 25th out of 30 in overall attendance while Detroit was 4th; Detroit attendance was more than 4,000 people higher per game; including road appearances Detroit was at 101.7% of attendance capacity while Columbus was at 90.2%; and almost 650,000 more people were in attendance this year to see the Wings than to see the Blue Jackets. As a final note this is not a knock on Boll, his skill, or what he brings to his team - it is an attempt to accurately and correctly explain the outlandish claims that E.S.A.D makes and the lengths he will go to in order attribute every good thing that happens to fighting.

*Edit - Also, interestingly Wings home attendance is up 5% from last year even though there were roughly twice as many fights last year and Downey played in 56 games last year and 4 this year.

Wings fans must be a bunch of pansy Europeans too.

[thedisappearer 291]

His whole argument is silly, Carcillo has the 4th most fighting majors and the Yotes are bankrupt. E.S.A.D randomly picks any positive thing - like the huge crowd the Blue Jackets will likely have at their playoff games - and then attributes it to fighting - rather than the fact that the Blue Jackets are making their first playoff appearance ever or that they one have one pro sports team (of the big 4 pro sports) to rally around unlike Detroit who has all four.

This is usually done in direct contradiction to the actual facts. For example, even with the all mighty crowd drawing Boll: Columbus was 25th out of 30 in overall attendance while Detroit was 4th; Detroit attendance was more than 4,000 people higher per game; including road appearances Detroit was at 101.7% of attendance capacity while Columbus was at 90.2%; and almost 650,000 more people were in attendance this year to see the Wings than to see the Blue Jackets. As a final note this is not a knock on Boll, his skill, or what he brings to his team - it is an attempt to accurately and correctly explain the outlandish claims that E.S.A.D makes and the lengths he will go to in order attribute every good thing that happens to fighting.

*Edit - Also, interestingly Wings home attendance is up 5% from last year even though there were roughly twice as many fights last year and Downey played in 56 games last year and 4 this year.

PWN'd by facts.