Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Study done on fighting in hockey


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#21 Echolalia

Echolalia

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,886 posts
  • Location:fab ferndale

Posted 11 January 2012 - 05:44 PM

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 by Echolalia, 11 January 2012 - 06:13 PM.


#22 dobbles

dobbles

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 864 posts
  • Location:Tulsa, OK

Posted 11 January 2012 - 05:52 PM

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.

I love Maltby, but to say he wasn't a ****** is a dis-service to his career of douchebaggery.


#23 rrasco

rrasco

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,015 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 11 January 2012 - 05:58 PM

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.

Kronwalled.net - Keep Yer Head up Kid

 

MONEY ON THE BOARD: $10/Kronwalling (1), $1/goal by: Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco, Sheahan, disney.com (1), Andersson, Dekeyser, Pulkinnen, Ouellet, or Sproul.  2X MULTIPLIER: disney.com.  CONSOLATION PRIZE: $5/goal by: Datsyuk (3), $3/goal by: Z (1). MOTB TOTAL: $30


#24 Echolalia

Echolalia

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,886 posts
  • Location:fab ferndale

Posted 11 January 2012 - 06:00 PM

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.

#25 Frozen-Man

Frozen-Man

    Thanks for the memories

  • Gold Booster
  • 1,579 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 06:15 PM

Posted Image

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain


#26 F.Michael

F.Michael

    Old School Dynamic Duo

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,530 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 11 January 2012 - 07:21 PM

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.

It's been mentioned numerous times...It's not just 1 guy doing all the dirty work, but a handful...I personally would much rather have 3, or 4 guys who take a reg shift, and can drop the mitts when needed rather than 1, or 2 pure goons who contribute little else than fighting.

Numerous teams in the past have won the Cup with rosters with these sorts of players; our very own Red Wings included.

'Evolution' created by Offsides

#27 Finnish Wing

Finnish Wing

    13th Forward

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,475 posts
  • Location:Finland

Posted 11 January 2012 - 07:25 PM

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

Hahahaha. :D

So funny!

Edited by Finnish Wing, 11 January 2012 - 07:26 PM.

Detroit Red Wings & Tampereen Ilves forever!

#28 WorkingOvertime

WorkingOvertime

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,422 posts
  • Location:Columbus, OH

Posted 11 January 2012 - 08:25 PM

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.

I would argue an enforcer does make the current players more physical. Knowing a teammate will step in for you against anyone will likely have an effect on the physicality of the players. Against Chicago, Commie stepped between E and a Chicago player- he grabbed the Chicago player and dropped a glove (possibly both). E can take on most, but Commie stepping up showed that the team (or at least that pairing) will not back down physically from anyone.

#29 Bring Back The Bruise Bros

Bring Back The Bruise Bros

    RIP Probie

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,689 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 08:26 PM

I would argue an enforcer does make the current players more physical. Knowing a teammate will step in for you against anyone will likely have an effect on the physicality of the players. Against Chicago, Commie stepped between E and a Chicago player- he grabbed the Chicago player and dropped a glove (possibly both). E can take on most, but Commie stepping up showed that the team (or at least that pairing) will not back down physically from anyone.

Agreed. See: Ville Leino, Philadelphia, 2010
"Ice hockey is a form of disorderly conduct in which the score is kept."

RIP Bob Probert
RIP Wade Belak
RIP Derek Boogaard
RIP Rick Rypien

#30 Konnan511

Konnan511

    #FreePulkkinen

  • HoF Booster
  • 10,295 posts
  • Location:Traverse City, Mi

Posted 11 January 2012 - 08:45 PM

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.


Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

As always, your sarcastic spot on response wins the thread!

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


The team played flat against Chicago and won with our back-up in net with no fights. Explain that one...

Plus I like how the article states that a PK'r is better than an enforcer. So all I learned from this "study" is that fighting is even more useless than previously thought of.
The Best Of BC
HankthaTank
- Squirrels, they hate to be thrown. / Why is the magical unicorn named Brian... Jedi - I just downloaded the "kids" book, "Go the F--k to Sleep" as narrated by Samuel L. Jackson on my kindle. I am now ready to be a daddy. / *Checks Router* No, I'm positive I didn't hit the "Wings Defense Sucks" button. Electrophile - I'm just glad the Wings were able to win despite the Curse of Brian. ACallToArms - I think Trey needs to put something about payroll tax and deferred income in his sig... Edicius - I'd rather [have] a soundbite of me saying "I like (man sausage)" rather than "I like Crosby".

#31 WorkingOvertime

WorkingOvertime

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,422 posts
  • Location:Columbus, OH

Posted 11 January 2012 - 08:49 PM

Agreed. See: Ville Leino, Philadelphia, 2010

Shawn Thornton had a great quote recently. He was asked if Marchand was 'going to get it' one of these days. Thornton simply replied 'not while I'm here'. I'm not condoning dirty plays, but team toughness does increase when a player has that mentality about sticking up for his teammates.

#32 esteef

esteef

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 8,874 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 09:06 PM

Shawn Thornton is the exact type of player we need. An every-day player that can beat up most of the league and spark our other lower tiered guys.

esteef
"The Wings haven't won a Cup without Darren McCarty since 1955."

#33 newfy

newfy

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,114 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 12:53 AM

The team played flat against Chicago and won with our back-up in net with no fights. Explain that one...

Plus I like how the article states that a PK'r is better than an enforcer. So all I learned from this "study" is that fighting is even more useless than previously thought of.

They actually pulled their heads outta their asses and played at the end. That doesnt always happen though and they definitely lucked out, where was that against the isles the next game?

RIP BOB PROBERT #24


#34 Bring Back The Bruise Bros

Bring Back The Bruise Bros

    RIP Probie

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,689 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 12:56 AM

Shawn Thornton is the exact type of player we need. An every-day player that can beat up most of the league and spark our other lower tiered guys.

esteef

Please stop suggesting we get tough players. They make no difference.
"Ice hockey is a form of disorderly conduct in which the score is kept."

RIP Bob Probert
RIP Wade Belak
RIP Derek Boogaard
RIP Rick Rypien

#35 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 01:39 AM

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.

I think you're missing the point. The study is just on the effects of "a fight" in the game. A fight invloves both teams. There's no distinction made between who wins the fight or who starts the fight.

According to the data, 39% of the time, either both teams increase, stay flat, or decrease. The net effect gives no (or marginal) advantage to either team. The other 61%, one team increases relative to the other, but it doesn't truly specify which team. This means that while being involved in a fight can sometimes help, it can also hurt you at other times.

The 3rd table suggests that if a team with high momentum is involved in a fight, their momentum tends to decrease, while a team with low momentum tends to increase. So you need to limit your fighting to only those instances where your team has low momentum, and your oppenent is high in order to gain the maximum benefit.

However, that "maximum" according to this study is worth about .2 goals, or 1/30th of a win.

Now let's put that in some perspective. I'll assume we are only interested in instances where this hypothetical fight actually changes the outcome of a game from a loss to a win. I doubt anyone really cares about shifting momentum in a game we would win regardless. So at the basic level, you'd need 30 such situations (games where you are well behind in momentum and will lose the game) to equal one win. (That also means you lose the other 29.)

But that isn't really accurate, because it doesn't take into account the situation in the game already. If you're already down by three goals by the time you realize you need to shift momentum, you'll likely need a lot more than 30 fights to get enough impact to overcome the defecit. To what order of magnitude is a guess, but let's just say double. So maybe a fight can turn a loss into a win 1 in 60.

But even that isn't really accurate. What the study fails to address is the fact that momentum changes over the course of a game regardless of fights. It is very often cyclical, in that teams will have a burst of high momentum, then drop while the other team has its burst. To actually calculate the effect of the fight, you need to compare these results to the expected rate of change if the fight had not occurred. Let's say that cuts the efficacy of the fight in half. Now you're turning a loss into a win 1 in 120. Coincidentally, 120 is the number of regular-season losses the Wings have had total since we won the Cup in 08.

So assuming that in every one of those losses there was some point where we had low momentum and the other team was high, and we were very careful in picking our spots for our fights, we could have one more win over the last 3 1/2 seasons. Wow.

Or to make it all more simple, we'll just stick with the conclusion from the study:

Overall these results suggest that fighting by itself does not significantly help a team score more goals or win more games...


Edited by Buppy, 12 January 2012 - 01:44 AM.


#36 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,612 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 12 January 2012 - 08:29 AM

The philosophical concept of causality, applied to the game of hockey? Nice Touch.

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#37 WorkingOvertime

WorkingOvertime

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,422 posts
  • Location:Columbus, OH

Posted 12 January 2012 - 10:22 AM

The philosophical concept of causality, applied to the game of hockey? Nice Touch.

A fight in a hockey game is likely enough of a shock shock for a decent quasi-experiment. The actual 'study' is incredibly simplistic and the subject deserves more valid research. However, sports economics isn't studied much beyond undergraduate papers by authors will a small knowledge of the tools necessary for actual analysis. That is, this study is flawed but there likely won't be a better study because sports economics is a very small field and it carries little prestige at the academic level.

#38 BuckeyeWingsfan80

BuckeyeWingsfan80

    The more the better

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,913 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 10:31 AM

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.


More importantly, it might make the Wings a little less passive, which is usually what is happening when they are getting their arses handed to them.
Don't take it from fans on LGW, take it from his peers. NHL players have spoken and they think Tootoo is the dirtiest player in the league.

Get a clue already.

#39 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,629 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 12 January 2012 - 10:43 AM

I think you're missing the point. The study is just on the effects of "a fight" in the game. A fight invloves both teams. There's no distinction made between who wins the fight or who starts the fight.

According to the data, 39% of the time, either both teams increase, stay flat, or decrease. The net effect gives no (or marginal) advantage to either team. The other 61%, one team increases relative to the other, but it doesn't truly specify which team. This means that while being involved in a fight can sometimes help, it can also hurt you at other times.

The 3rd table suggests that if a team with high momentum is involved in a fight, their momentum tends to decrease, while a team with low momentum tends to increase. So you need to limit your fighting to only those instances where your team has low momentum, and your oppenent is high in order to gain the maximum benefit.

However, that "maximum" according to this study is worth about .2 goals, or 1/30th of a win.

Now let's put that in some perspective. I'll assume we are only interested in instances where this hypothetical fight actually changes the outcome of a game from a loss to a win. I doubt anyone really cares about shifting momentum in a game we would win regardless. So at the basic level, you'd need 30 such situations (games where you are well behind in momentum and will lose the game) to equal one win. (That also means you lose the other 29.)

But that isn't really accurate, because it doesn't take into account the situation in the game already. If you're already down by three goals by the time you realize you need to shift momentum, you'll likely need a lot more than 30 fights to get enough impact to overcome the defecit. To what order of magnitude is a guess, but let's just say double. So maybe a fight can turn a loss into a win 1 in 60.

But even that isn't really accurate. What the study fails to address is the fact that momentum changes over the course of a game regardless of fights. It is very often cyclical, in that teams will have a burst of high momentum, then drop while the other team has its burst. To actually calculate the effect of the fight, you need to compare these results to the expected rate of change if the fight had not occurred. Let's say that cuts the efficacy of the fight in half. Now you're turning a loss into a win 1 in 120. Coincidentally, 120 is the number of regular-season losses the Wings have had total since we won the Cup in 08.

So assuming that in every one of those losses there was some point where we had low momentum and the other team was high, and we were very careful in picking our spots for our fights, we could have one more win over the last 3 1/2 seasons. Wow.

Or to make it all more simple, we'll just stick with the conclusion from the study:



Well done, as usual.

GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#40 13dangledangle

13dangledangle

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,797 posts
  • Location:Port Hope, Ont.

Posted 12 January 2012 - 10:57 AM

Im not sure what they got out of this study that we know already? After a fight the energy sparks up for both teams, being the one fighting or not you receive an adrenaline rush wich will slowy wear off after a few minutes....Im concerned about our boys though I wont lie, Stuart, Abby and in my opinion big E is the worst of worst because of the way he's ragdolled a few dudes in the past and now he plays like one big floppy cock.

Its just a tad dissapointing really to see some of our guys (and freakin goalie) get hack and pushed and Dats and Z are the guys pushing back more often then not our "tougher" guys watch or skate to the bench...
....Ladies and Gentlemen Jimmy "F%$*ing" Howard.





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users