I'm talking about playoffs.
Montreal has been physically bullied in the playoffs by the Senators and Bruins in recent memory.
They didn't sign Parros because he could help them score goals or help God (Carey Price) stop shots.
How many of these goons do you think see time in the playoffs? I'll give the answer: not many. Ironically, the pace and intensity of the playoffs is the very thing that excludes enforcers; teams do not have the space to spend on players whose main aptitude lies in fighting, as they require players who can contribute on offense and defense and thus usefully occupy time on ice. For example, your favorite enforcer, Mr. McGrattan, has not seen a single second of playoff time in his NHL career. George Parros saw very infrequent use by the Ducks, contributing zero points and one fight, the last an undecided bout against Douglas Murray. Zenon Konopka has likewise played very infrequently, suiting up for only eight playoff games in his career; oddly enough, he has only nine cumulative hits in those eight contests. Colton Orr, last season's premiere tough guy, played seven games, threw 18 hits, and contributed absolutely nothing else of substance while residing dead last in ice time per game. And of all of the fights in the postseason, none included pure enforcer types.
The simple fact is that the likes of Probert, Domi, and Kocur, guys who could win fights and also succeed at their offensive and defensive duties, have largely disappeared from this league. Sure, you could today include amongst that list maybe Chris Neil, Shawn Thornton, but they're rare. Most fighters are simply a waste of a roster space in the postseason, whose style of play has no place for them.
The "hit" stat, much like +/-, is a joke to begin with. It's completely subjective, is kept by the home team and is usually biased in their favor. But don't let that hinder your "research".
Considering all teams play roughly the same amount of home games, wouldn't the subjective bias have essentially no effect?
All teams play 41 away games and 41 home games.
There you go, esteef. While it's true that hit totals are sometimes biased in favor of the home team (I think "usually" may be a stretch, and that you have in mind only that infamous contest against the Blue Jackets), it's very likely that any infrequent bias that does occur evens out. And given that your claim was given in the context of asserting that Eastern teams hit more, what's to say that they don't inflate their hit totals more than Western teams? Whatever the case, the type of statistical bias you're implying the presence of most likely effects very little net change in the cumulative figures.
Edited by Crymson, 10 July 2013 - 09:56 PM.