Study done on fighting in hockey

[newfy 695]

http://powerscouthockey.com/blog/measuring-impact-nhl-fights-momentum-and-scoring-well-potential-coachs-strategy

This recently published study was done to see if fighting really does impact the momentum of the game, the guy who conducted it has a few University degrees and is an economics major so hes good with data.

They used the rate of shots on goal after a fight as a way to measure momentum, they decided this was the best way to quantify what you visually see on the ice and call momentum. Its not perfect but when I tihnk of a team with a tonne of momentum, shots on goal and maybe puck possession to an extenet is what I would call it. I think they used a good metric here.

They found that in over 75% of games after a fight, at least one team recieved a boost in their momentum, this is short term momentum taken over a 5 minute period. Basically, a boost that gets a teams head out of its ass if theyre playing poorly.

Appleby was on hockey central at noon and said that a poor period for a team would usually be around 4 shots on goal while the average is about 10. The teams that were having poor periods and not getting many shots on goal received the biggest boost by far.

Basically, its saying that if a team is playing well a fight may give a small boost, no boost or the other team may get the boost BUT when a team is playing like s***, a fight will usually give a pretty big boost to the team. Earlier this year when Abdelkader fought Lappierre in Vancouver is a prime example of this, the wings got a big boost and played much better after it woke them up.

Games like last night where the team was flat against the Isles is a perfect example of why adding a scrappy player like a Tim Jackman or Prust would be perfect for this team to wake the skill up and keep going. I know the whole momentum aspect of fighting is not accepted around here by a lot of people, but now that it was quantified and studied has anyone changed their stance on replacing redundancy in the bottom 6 for a guy who could provide this type of spark on a consistent basis?

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

I agree.

We need to sign some bearded fella who fights.

[evilzyme 769]

That's it boys, guess we gotta sign a line straight for fighting! CALL UP THE FRONT OFFICE. I can see it now, "STUDIES SHOW FIGHTING WINS STANLEY CUPS!" The sad part is... they do :[ All jokes aside, I don't see much argument that fighting would boost the team up.

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

That's it boys, guess we gotta sign a line straight for fighting! CALL UP THE FRONT OFFICE. I can see it now, "STUDIES SHOW FIGHTING WINS STANLEY CUPS!" The sad part is... they do :[ All jokes aside, I don't see much argument that fighting would boost the team up.

I actually think this team would play harder every night if we had a fighter or big hitter on our 4th line.

As it stands now, this team plays hard whenever they feel like it (like last night). There's no one out there to spark the team or change the tempo of a game. That's what happens when there isn't much balance in the lineup.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

Just as I thought: salaries aren't a stimulus.

[Carman 387]

I actually think this team would play harder every night if we had a fighter or big hitter on our 4th line.

As it stands now, this team plays hard whenever they feel like it (like last night). There's no one out there to spark the team or change the tempo of a game. That's what happens when there isn't much balance in the lineup.

So teams with an enforcer in the line-up never have bad games?

Edited January 11, 2012 by Carman

[Buppy 1,720]

I think it adequately shows what those of us who don't care about fighting have been saying all along:

CONCLUSION: Overall these results suggest that fighting by itself does not significantly help a team score more goals or win more games, but it can often increase short-term momentum (i.e. the RATE at which they are getting shots) for one or both teams. Statistically speaking, if fights happen randomly it will take about 60 fights to equal one win, but if their timing is managed by the coach it could take as few as 30 fights to equal one win. PowerScout has uncovered many other factors that can provide a much greater contribution to winning than fighting, such as having a good penalty killing unit.

In short, fighting doesn't amount to much.

Furthermore, since a fight, by definition, involves both teams, the momentum factors also affect both teams. Which would logically suggest that if 30 fights equals one win, that same 30 fights also equals one loss. I suppose, if your team only fights when they're playing poorly, it might be more of a benefit. So I guess the best strategy is to employ a couple of those spot-picking ******* that all the fight fans seem to hate so much.

[newfy 695]

So teams with an enforcer in the line-up never have bad games?

Nope teams with a guy who can and is willing to go out and get in a fight when the team is playing poorly have a much greater chance of receiving a momentum boost when they are playing poorly because its shown that fighting can boost momentum...

Dont gotta try to twist it because all of a sudden there are facts that go with what you always refused to believe feel it bud

I think it adequately shows what those of us who don't care about fighting have been saying all along:

In short, fighting doesn't amount to much.

Furthermore, since a fight, by definition, involves both teams, the momentum factors also affect both teams. Which would logically suggest that if 30 fights equals one win, that same 30 fights also equals one loss. I suppose, if your team only fights when they're playing poorly, it might be more of a benefit. So I guess the best strategy is to employ a couple of those spot-picking ******* that all the fight fans seem to hate so much.

Yeah but it shows a MUCH bigger difference when a team is playing poorly in increased momentum. In a 2-2 game in the tird period, noone is going to want a redwing to go out there and start a fight and risk losing momentum, but it would be very useful in a game like last nights is what this article is saying

[55fan 5,133]

So teams with an enforcer in the line-up never have bad games?

No. Teams with an enforcer in the line-up have better games for five minutes 75% of the time following a fight if they were doing poorly before the fights.

Or, for the namby-pamby panty-waists out there: If the Wings ever had a day when they weren't playing well (also called "playing the Islanders"), a fight might help them for 1/12 of the game 3/4 of the time we actually do it, which translates into an average of 2.5 minutes per season as the team stands at this point.

[Bring Back The Bruise Bros 1,029]

So teams with an enforcer in the line-up never have bad games?

Carman's back? Now all we gotta do is find Titanium2, Micah, Eva, Lidstromboli, EZBAKE, and convince the mods to let Mindfly back on and the whole crew will be here!

[newfy 695]

No. Teams with an enforcer in the line-up have better games for five minutes 75% of the time following a fight if they were doing poorly before the fights.

Or, for the namby-pamby panty-waists out there: If the Wings ever had a day when they weren't playing well (also called "playing the Islanders"), a fight might help them for 1/12 of the game 3/4 of the time we actually do it, which translates into an average of 2.5 minutes per season as the team stands at this point.

Abdelkader sparked them in that game against Vancouver when they were playing very flat, explain that one...

[redwingfan19 293]

So teams with an enforcer in the line-up never have bad games?

Teams with enforcers have bad games and when they do they go out there and goon it up. For once I would like to see the Wings goon it up in a blow out game and attack the other teams star players. Happens to them all the time lol.

[55fan 5,133]

Abdelkader sparked them in that game against Vancouver when they were playing very flat, explain that one...

Exactly. Abby goes out and does the job that time, but when will it happen next?

Who do we have that will actually go out there and get it done? We have a couple who could, but who will? At the rate we get into fights, it only effects us a small amount of the time.

If we had a person who was our designated fighter, like a Downey or Drake type who knew his role and made the most of it, it would help us for more than once every other season or so.

If Abby takes fighting lessons, or if someone else steps up, I'll be tickled, but for now, the Vancouver game is a lonely event in a string where the events are few and far between.

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

So teams with an enforcer in the line-up never have bad games?

No, but they do play more inspired. What usually beats teams is not being good enough.

In Detroit's case, the skill is there, but the effort doesn't always manifest itself.

[rrasco 1,312]

Abby took boxing lessons, two years ago was it? He even did some training with May on the ice.

The problem is, even games we suck in (like last night), we have momentum at times and scoring chances (normally), we just don't capitalize on our chances. If Helm and Flip had those two goals in the first, it would have been a very different game. Fighting doesn't score goals, no matter how much you try to make it seem like it does.

[sureWhyNot 19]

I think it is hilarious how those who are against dressing a scrapper disregard arguments that go against theirs. I actually started a thread that illustrated the Red Wings winning % in games which a FM was incurred - but it was locked and deleted.

I just wish people would realize there is a difference between guys who can scrap, and "goons". They are not the same thing.

[kipwinger 8,495]

I think it is hilarious how those who are against dressing a scrapper disregard arguments that go against theirs. I actually started a thread that illustrated the Red Wings winning % in games which a FM was incurred - but it was locked and deleted.

I just wish people would realize there is a difference between guys who can scrap, and "goons". They are not the same thing.

So here's the conclusion of the article which supposedly "does against" those people who disagree with you:

CONCLUSION: Overall these results suggest that fighting by itself does not significantly help a team score more goals or win more games, but it can often increase short-term momentum (i.e. the RATE at which they are getting shots) for one or both teams. Statistically speaking, if fights happen randomly it will take about 60 fights to equal one win, but if their timing is managed by the coach it could take as few as 30 fights to equal one win. PowerScout has uncovered many other factors that can provide a much greater contribution to winning than fighting, such as having a good penalty killing unit.

So, who's the one disregarding contradictory evidence again? I'm confused.

[rrasco 1,312]

Also, shouldn't the study take shot attempts into account instead of shots on goal? Seems that would be more accurate at determining momentum instead of SOG. How many times do you see a team rip the pick at the net only to miss or hit the plumbing and not even be attributed a SOG?

[MabusIncarnate 5,344]

I wouldn't have a problem bringing in someone like Ruutu, Dorsett, Chris Neil, or Clutterbuck, guys that play very physical but can actually produce and focus on the game of hockey as well. If it were someone more along the lines of Konopka who is gonna fight every game and put up 2 points a season, no thanks.

[Echolalia 2,961]

I don't know that anyone didn't think that fights can influence the momentum of a game. Folks just want to make clear that fights don't equal victory, which is something this study validates. Goals equal victory. Unfortunately its harder to find a fighter who can also score now more than ever, and "anti-fighter slappies" would rather have someone who is more likely to score than someone who has a 50% chance of increasing momentum for three minutes (while risking the other team also gaining momentum).

Also: a HUGE flaw in this study design is how momentum was calculated. In that link, they say that momentum was determined by comparing a rate of shots on goal in a few minutes period to the league average for that period, and not the TEAM's average. If your team tends to shoot more than other teams, then your team will display momentum regardless of fighting or any other attributing factor and that will skew the data and hide what fights actually do to a team's momentum. Secondly, this study did not account for powerplay time. Many fights end with one team serving an extra 2 minutes for instigating. Guess what? The team on the powerplay is likely to get more shots over the next three minutes because they have an extra man. That would incorrectly be labelled as "momentum". Its a wonder that they only saw an increase in "momentum" for the first three minutes after fights. That's pretty darn close to the two minutes that a team is on a power play for.

This study is bogus.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Echolalia

[dobbles 252]

while i am moderately anti-fighting, i just have a major problem with this study simply as a mathematician myself. (yes i actually received my degree in mathematics even though its useless!)

the study says this: 76% of the time, one of the teams benefits after the fight. however, they don't make any claim that its the team that wins the fight. so essentially, if your team gets in a fight, 24% of the time it will have no effect, and in the 76% of the time it does have an effect, you will have no idea if you are on the positive end or the negative end!!!! because thats what people forget; if one team is seeing an advantage because of the fight, the other team is seeing a disadvantage. its a very disingenuous statistic.

[rrasco 1,312]

For the record, I'm not against fighting at all. I just don't think it's going to impact the team in a way so many around here seem to think so. If we are getting a tough guy to protect our guys from getting run at, I'm all for it. If you think getting a fighter is going to win us games and make our guys play better, you are sorely wrong.

[Echolalia 2,961]

while i am moderately anti-fighting, i just have a major problem with this study simply as a mathematician myself. (yes i actually received my degree in mathematics even though its useless!)

the study says this: 76% of the time, one of the teams benefits after the fight. however, they don't make any claim that its the team that wins the fight. so essentially, if your team gets in a fight, 24% of the time it will have no effect, and in the 76% of the time it does have an effect, you will have no idea if you are on the positive end or the negative end!!!! because thats what people forget; if one team is seeing an advantage because of the fight, the other team is seeing a disadvantage. its a very disingenuous statistic.

There's a table which distinguishes home-team v away-team statistics, and there's about a 50% chance of shooting more over the next three minutes compared to the rest of the game after a fight (ie "momentum") for both teams.

[Frozen-Man 144]

[Finnish Wing 110]

Dont gotta try to twist it because all of a sudden there are facts that go with what you always refused to believe feel it bud

Hahahaha.

So funny!

Edited January 12, 2012 by Finnish Wing