Jump to content

Rest in Peace, MidMichSteve

Buppy's Photo


Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 09:50 PM

#2244348 Study done on fighting in hockey

Posted by Buppy on 11 January 2012 - 03:11 PM

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.

#2243718 Cherry rips Holland

Posted by Buppy on 10 January 2012 - 03:50 AM

If fighters have zero effect on a team's ability to win a Cup, why do they still exist in the league? Why do players like that try to be extra physical and intimidate if (according to people on this board) it has absolutely no effect on good players (like the Wings roster)? Why are these type of players still signed and iced to this day if they are useless towards winning?

Maybe you guys are on to something and the rest of the hockey world is just too dumb to figure it out.


No one's saying they have no effect. But there's a wide gap between useless and essential.

Downey wasn't sent down in 08, he was replaced by Mccarty in the lineup who would still scrap but was a bit better skater, not to mention a real feel good story for the team to eat up. So I guess an enforcer was playing when games mattered.

As for the "myth" about winning with a grittier bottom 6.... its pretty obvious that when the wings played in 08 they had their grittiest bottom 6 that could wear other teams down. Drake Draper Cleary was the third line, Helm Mccarty Hudler the fourth line. 5 of the wings bottom 6 that year were very gritty players. The next year playing with a very skilled Sammy Flip Hudler third line, the wings fell short.

McCarty was playing due to injuries to Kopecky, Maltby, Franzen, and Homer. When we were healthy, McCarty was in the pressbox watching our 4th line of Hudler-Helm-Maltby. Yeah, that line was tough.

I'm not saying fighting=chamionships. I'm not saying the Cup is ours if we get a guy like Moen. There are so many other factors that play into a teams success than just grit. Although I will say we've got to be able to physically combat our opponent in a long playoff series. We played decent against Anaheim in 2007, but they just seemed to out-muscle us to loose pucks a lot of the time. We need to be able to physically keep up with those kind of teams. Regardless of what the role players do, the snipers need to play consistently. The defense needs to be able to play consistently. The penalty kill needs to be able to get a few kills if it comes down to that. There needs to be balance. You can't have a team full of goons alone and expect to win a Cup. You can't have a bunch of finesse guys that won't go to the trenches to win a puck battle and expect to win a Cup. You can't have a team that fails to effectively kill penalties and expect to win a Cup. You need a team that has a balance of finesse, grit (winning puck battles down low, separate man from puck, block shots, just play physically as a team), defensive prowess, and a solid goaltender. Your role players have to show up occasionally on the score sheet. Take a look at a few role players for Boston last year in the playoffs:

Chris Kelly-13 points in 25 games
Dan Paille-6 points in 25 games
Gregory Campbell-4 points in 25 games

In addition to the skilled guys putting up offensive numbers:

David Krejci-23 points in 25 games
Patrice Bergeron-20 points in 23 games
Brad Marchand-19 points in 25 games
Nathan Horton-17 points in 21 games

These guys have to show up to win a Championship. Hell, Drake put up 4 points in the '08 postseason. Not a lot, but contributions from the role players are key.

I'd love to be proved wrong. I'd be ecstatic if we won the Cup this year with the roster we have right now. I just don't see it happening, based on the last few early playoff exits with virtually the same roster. And again, the Cup isn't automatically ours if we find a Moen, there needs to be a healthy balance of what I listed above to be a Cup contender.

You all keep saying it's not about fighting, just "toughness". You keep saying we're too "soft" to win the Cup with this roster, but you can't point to one element outside of fighting that suggests our current roster is any more "soft" than previous Cup winners.

You say "You can't have a bunch of finesse guys that won't go to the trenches to win a puck battle and expect to win a Cup." as if we don't already have a bottom 6 that does exactly what you say you want. Helm, Cleary, Abby, Miller, Eaves... All of them battle hard down low, around the net, in the corners. They finish checks, they're capable of chipping in offensively, block shots, play good defense, win battles...

Name one thing, other than fighting, that our current bottom 6 can't do but our bottom 6 in 08 did? You can't, because there isn't anything.

You admit there's no correlation between fighting and winning, but you all sure seem to wish there was. You all seem to want it so bad that you've invented some mysterious, amorphous concept of "toughness" and call it essential. You can't define or quantify "it" (or at least how "it" is any different from what we already have), but you all seem pretty sure that whatever "it" is, we don't have it. You're sure "it" is absolutely essential, so therefore any previous Cup winners had "it". And if we do win the Cup this year, I'm sure you'll all admit you were wrong, and that this team had "it" all along, and in a few years you'll be pointing out how much more "it" this team had than the current team.

The 08 team was pretty soft. So was the 02 team. Relative to the league, so were the 90s teams. The only thing that makes them any "tougher" than the teams we've had that didn't win the Cup is your obsessive need cling to the notion that only tough teams can win, so obviously those teams must have been tough. Chicago wasn't all that tough. Nor was Carolina. "Soft" teams can, and have, won Cups. No, you can't play like ******* and not work hard and still expect to win. But our current roster doesn't do that, nor did our previous soft teams.

Our current roster can win. They just need to play well enough at the right time. That includes the grinders that we already have grinding hard. Helm, Cleary, and Homer (and Miller technically) have already done it on other Cup teams. Abby and Eaves play the exact way you all seem to want. Emmy, Conner, Mursak, etc...who knows, but they may not even be in the lineup anyway.

Maybe you don't agree with that, but at least be realistic. If we're not a contender now, trading Miller for Moen (or any similar deal) isn't going to make us one. To even suggest that it would is patently absurd.

And for the record, I'm not saying that being more physical (especially in the top 6) wouldn't be beneficial, that it wouldn't help our chances. Just saying that it's not the essential quality you're claiming it is.

If you can't admit that, at least abandon the pretense of logic and just say what it is that you really want to say: That you need to fight to win. It may not be true, but at least you'd look like you have a real opinion. I hate all the vagueness, circular logic, and revisionist history of this stupid debate.

#2243715 If you could pick any six players, from any era...

Posted by Buppy on 10 January 2012 - 01:56 AM

I agree that players from the current era are better than those from previous eras. Following that same logic, and since I have a time machine, I'd pick all players from the future. I assume it would be:

C - Gordevio "The Rocket" Bosetzkysitorr (Amalgam of genetic material from all the best players of all time. Plus, he's actually a rocket.)
LW - Hockey-Bot 9007XL (Self-explanatory)
RW - Walrus-Man (Not Ponda Baba. An actual cross between a walrus and a human. Self-explanatory.)
D - Twiki (Yeah, the robot from Buck Rogers. Turns out he's awesome. Go figure.)
D - Lidstrom (In 10 more years, he develops into a really good player)
G - A Black Hole (Scoring took a dramatic down-turn [to zero] in the 31st century when the UHL decided to allow celestial objects to play.)

#2243374 Marchand Suspended 5 games

Posted by Buppy on 08 January 2012 - 11:54 PM

Cheap shot in my opinion. Doesn't look like Salo is even looking to throw a big hit, much less a dirty one.

This is why discipline has to come from the league. You can't just assume someone is going to throw a dirty hit, and use that assumption to justify a dirty preemptive strike. Vigilante justice never works, and only causes more injuries and injuries to innocent people.

Marchand absolutely should be suspended. If I remember correctly, he has a history of going for the knees too. 2-5 games I'd say, depending on his repeat status.

#2242997 Cherry rips Holland

Posted by Buppy on 08 January 2012 - 09:04 PM

Sigh....I'll bite.

There isn't anybody saying fights=championships. In 2002, we had guys like McCarty, Maltby, and Draper who were all physical and defensively responsible, while chipping in offensively. Shanahan was gritty and offensively skilled as well. All were physical, as in getting in on the forecheck and wearing down the defense. Finishing all of their checks. These guys won puck battles down low. They all drove the net. At the same time, Yzerman, Fedorov, and the finesse guys played on a consistent basis. There was a healthy balance of finesse and grit.

In 2008, Drake, Maltby, and even Helm and McCarty were the ones winning puck battles down low. Driving to the net. Getting in on the forecheck and wearing down the defense. Blocking shots. These kind of grinders are needed, IMO to get through gruesome playoff series. Again, our finesse guys played consistent. Again, there was a healthy combination of finesse and grit.

I'm not giving credit to Dallas Drake for our championship in 2008, but guys like him help us physically compete with other teams in long playoff series.

Many will say "Oh well we were one game away from the Conference championship series with a really soft team". I didn't realize that was good enough around here. There is room for improvement on this team.

Well, I think this is exactly about some people trying to correlate fighting to winning. Of course, there isn't one, so the enforcer slappies have to duck behind vagueness like "grit". They insinuate that there's some special, intangible "toughness" that can't be measured or specified in any way, but is possesed by all Cup winners, and lacking everywhere else. Anything contradictory is dismissed as "not what I mean by toughness".

In 08 our forward with the most hits in the playoffs was Datsyuk. In the regular season we were 25th in the league in hits. 13th in hits/game in the playoffs. 1st in playoff hits was New Jersey, then Anaheim, who both lost in the 1st round. In 02, we were 26th in the regular season and again 13th in the playoffs. So far this year we are 24th, ahead of Boston, Chicago, and San Jose. Last year we were 19th, ahead of both Boston and Vancouver. Columbus, Dallas, and Carolina were all in the top 5 in hits last year and missed the playoffs.

Abby is a gritty, physical player. Gets in on the forecheck, finishes his checks. Defensively responsible, wins battles down low, drives the net, etc. He is a lot like Drake, except for the near mythical proportions Drake has taken on since the Cup win. Helm and Cleary are still Helm and Cleary. Miller and Eaves also play hard, battle down low and in the corners, play good defense, etc. Emmerton and Conner aren't very physical, but Hudler was also in our bottom 6 in 8. McCarty played mostly in place of Maltby, then in place of Cleary when he moved up to take Mule's place. Not much of a net gain in physicality, especially considering he only played about 6 minutes a night.

In the 08 regular season we had Draper, Drake, Maltby, Kopecky, Sammuelsson, and Downey. This year we have Helm, Abby, Bert, Miller, Eaves, and Emmerton. In 08, those guys combined for 397 games and 538 hits. This year, our 6 have 246 hits in 188 games. Using last years numbers (but this year for Emmerton), it's also 397 games, and 632 hits.

There is no correlation between toughness and winning. We were soft in 08, were soft now. We can still win. Of course, it would be great if we could be just as good while also being tougher. It would be great if we could be just as good, and everyone was also a better goal scorer. Or just as good and 15% faster.

Sure, there are players that are as good as some of our players who can also fight or are more physical. No one is suggesting that we should avoid those players. I for one am not even saying those players are that hard to find. I would even like someone physical for the top 6 (I think our bottom 6 is fine).

What I have a problem with is the veiled (or sometimes open) insinuation that replacing someone like Miller with a similar player who can fight is what will put us over the top. It's silly.

#2242697 Cherry rips Holland

Posted by Buppy on 08 January 2012 - 04:42 PM

People are so funny. Toughness is relative, and the Wings have been one of the softest teams in the league for all of our recent Cups. The way some people talk about the Cup years now, you'd think we led the league in majors, as opposed to being last or close like we really were. I'm sure if we win the Cup this year, in a few years we'll see folks reminiscing about the toughness of Bert, E, and Abby.

So we haven't won a Cup without an enforcer. How many times have we (or any other team) actually had a season without one?

How about this. In 98, we beat Washington in the Finals. Washington was last in the league in majors, we were next to last. In 02, we beat Carolina. We were last, Carolina was next to last. In 08 we were last, Pittsburgh was 10th. (I don't have the stats for 97, but I'm pretty sure we were near the bottom.)

There is no correlation at all between toughness or fighting and playoff success. Some tough teams win, some soft teams win.

#2241684 Wings to host NHL Winter Classic within next 2 years

Posted by Buppy on 04 January 2012 - 10:51 PM

Ford Field. First ever outdoor game played indoors. Now that would be something different.

#2241481 Season-Long Lines Thread

Posted by Buppy on 04 January 2012 - 02:47 AM

the problem is that we only have one big guy that can do anything with the puck (mule). so one of the top two lines is going to be without. nyquist, who's faster, could be swapped with hudler.

being strong and strong with the pick are two different things. i think bert's awful doing anything with the puck. he kills a top 2 line. and what offensive instincts?? - constantly going offsides?

that or swap eaves out for emmerton.

i think he'd benefit more from a guy that can participate with the puck in nyquist.

i think conner got reassigned to gr today.

you must've not seen him play.

Try watching Bert with some objectivity. Same with Nyquist and Smith.

#2240655 Gorges wins lottery !

Posted by Buppy on 02 January 2012 - 02:07 AM

good catch on the hits.

as far as "pretty similar", maybe in some stats...but as far as contract value, not at all. gorges is considered by many habs fans as their best defensive defenseman. they are mostly all excited about this signing. he's considered a leader and a shutdown defenseman. some of them would even like gorges to be considered for the captaincy.

ericsson, on the other hand, is brutal defensively and has done almost nothing to show that he is worth that contract. nearly all wings fans thought the contract was ridiculous.

comparing these two players is something that would be done by someone that has only watched one of them play.

Yeah, yeah. Only Wings fans can overrate their players. And Wings fans never underrate our players. Wings fans are idiots, except when we hate Ericsson...then we somehow know more than Kenny and Babs. I know your schtick.

Habs fans may love Gorges, but they haven't had Lidstrom on their team for the last two decades making all their other defensemen look like crap in comparison. They don't have Stuart, Kronwall, or White. Their best defenseman has missed the better part of the last three seasons.

Ericsson is in only his 3rd full season, and he is far better than most fans here give him credit for. He's not as physical as he should be for his size, and he doesn't have great poise with the puck which can result in turnovers when he's pressured. He won't block shots and he doesn't have a great grasp of when he should and shouldn't jump in on offense. But he's pretty sound positionally, strong along the boards, a pretty good skater, makes a good pass when he has time, and if he can figure out how to use his shot he could be a solid point producer. He has the kind of size you have to pay a premium for.

Gorges doesn't have ideal size, or any particular talent on offense. He plays a simple, solid game. He's an excellent shot-blocker, but he's nothing special overall. He's not even Brad Stuart. He's more important to his team, so it justifies the salary more. Marketwise though, if E is over paid, so is Gorges.

#2240614 Your favorite DRW memory of 2011

Posted by Buppy on 01 January 2012 - 09:23 PM

I liked game 5:

  • Nev likes this

#2240603 Gorges wins lottery !

Posted by Buppy on 01 January 2012 - 08:54 PM

this season gorges has around double the hits, triple the blocked shots, and 6 more minutes of icetime/game than ericsson. he's also taken less minor penalties even with the significantly higher icetime.

One more hit, actually. In one more game, with far more ice time. Gorges is a far better shot blocker, but other than that they are pretty similar.

#2235891 Can Conner reasonably be sent down?

Posted by Buppy on 14 December 2011 - 10:55 AM

We currently have an open spot, so we won't have to send anyone down until Eaves gets back.

Conner has looked good so far, but so did Emmy in his first few games. Right now, I'd have him above Emmy, but that could change in the weeks before Eaves is ready, or we could have more injuries.

It's too early and the sample size is too small to make long term plans with Conner. I think he's earned a spot in the lineup for now. Assuming he keeps it up, I think Emmy, Miller and Homer will rotate with Mursak once he comes back.

#2233115 Realignment decided - 4 Conferences

Posted by Buppy on 05 December 2011 - 11:23 PM

Eastern conferences have a 7% better chance of making the playoffs? EFF THAT BS.

It's not random selection, so it's not really 7% better chance. Larger pool size just means a better chance of the larger conference having more good teams. It's about as likely that the 5th-place team in one of the 7-team conferences will be better than the 4th in one of the 8-team.

I'm kind of torn. I liked divisional playoffs and the rivalries created, and I like playing the first two rounds close to home (or at least no further than Dallas/Winnipeg). But this method creates such a large chance of someone getting screwed.

Much better if they just went with the 4 conference winners + 12 wildcards.

#2232417 Filppula is "too nice".

Posted by Buppy on 03 December 2011 - 10:24 PM

I just don't see the appeal of trading flip. Hes a homegrown wing, with great defensive responsibilities and puts up good points. I just don't know what you'd expect to get in return that would be better than what flip offers, whether hes having a good season or average season. Hes the kind of playmaker that makes his linemates better, just like dats and Z, but not quite at their level. For his salary, I think it would be foolish to trade him - especially given the red wings success.

The appeal is that he's a valuable asset who could be used to bring back someone who fits the team needs better. I don't want to see him traded (and I doubt he will be, as someone would have to make Kenny a pretty sweet offer), but if we could use him to get Parise (without adding too much more) it would be foolish NOT to.

Though unless he's part of a package to add another star-caliber player, it would be pretty foolish the way he's played so far this year.

#2228847 Jiri Hudler Appreciation Thread

Posted by Buppy on 22 November 2011 - 09:16 PM


Ah yes. react sooner. Such poor judgment of Hudler to not react quicker than immediately. And such slow reaction speed, in that he didn't make it to the puck that he would have had to be skating towards before the faceoff to stop from exiting the zone. Or the fact that Richards was going full speed, and was within a couple feet of Hudler, by the time Hudler had a chance to react. As for defensive positioning; take a look at the replay and watch how Hudler forces Richards to go around him. The simple fact that Richards was going full speed while Hudler was standing still when the play started pretty much defined the result. Hudler had no chance because he wasn't expecting Cleary to hand the Kings a nice breakout pass, and therefore didn't position himself in "Cleary prevent" formation.

Surprising that you haven't blamed Zetterberg for not winning the faceoff cleanly enough. With you it's always everyone except Hudler.

Cleary was battling for the puck after the faceoff, and swept it back to the D, like he's supposed to. Obviously not perfect, but he was still doing his job.

Kronwall hung back to cover the late man, as he's supposed to in that situation. You could argue they should have switched roles, but from their actions it's obvious neither played felt that was the correct play.

Howie stayed with the shooter, did not over-commit to anything, as a goalie should. He just couldn't react quickly enough.

The fact is that goal was the result of Richards being a lot faster than Hudler. They both started moving when the puck dropped, and as you say Hudler started backing up almost immediately. It's not like Richards was shot out of a cannon or started sprinting up ice three seconds before the faceoff. Hudler was at a disadvantage because he needed to turn around, but he still had two steps on Richards at their blue line, and Richards was past him by ours. And if you want to say that Hudler had no chance due to the disadvantage, then the correct play by Hudler there would be to step into Richards and take him out or at least hold him up enough to ensure Kronwall gets possession. Most likely an interference penalty, but 4v4 is better than giving up a breakaway opportunity.

Not saying it was terrible by Hudler. Mostly it was a good effort from Richards to take advantage of a slower player playing a position he isn't accustomed to.