Black and Blue Leafs

[Champ Kind]

WHile I know the Habs looked terrible Saturday night, the fourth line played quite well.  Most of that is because of McClement, who is playing terrific hockey.  Orr is unidimensional, no doubt, but I have an optimistic outlook for McLaren.  The guy is a pretty good skater and his hands are better than I would have imagined for someone playing his role.  I'm wondering if he might be a bit of a reclamation project (rather than an interim fighting scrub while Brown makes his way back) in the mold of Brian Boyle.  If he could become half of that, McLaren will be fantastic on the fourth line.

And I agree with comments about the fighting not really changing the momentum of the game.  It is nice to see the Leafs not get pushed around.  But I think the tone was set earlier on in the game by the huge Kadri hit on Emelin, Kostka's emotional scrap in protection of Reimer, and overall Phaneuf's tough, hardnosed game.

 

[sneakyray]

The make up of the Leafs I would like to see is one that has team toughness with one 'Colton Orr'.  Players willing to block shots and throw hits, etc.

Currently, boys that throw solid hits include Kulemin, Frattin, Brown and Orr at forward and Phaneuf, Holzer, Komisarek, Fraser, on defense plus you have Lupul, Bozak, Kadri, JVR, MacArthur, Franson, Kotska who will throw the occasional solid hit leaving only Kessel, Grabovski, McClement and JM Liles.

That is impressive.  The only thing I wish is the Leafs had a 'Gary Roberts' or Owen Nolan' type forward who could play more than 5 minutes a game.

you left out Komorov...the guy leads the league in hits.

Among forwards he does, Luke Schenn leads the league in hits.

thats what I meant...among forwards

 

[Justin]

The Leafs lead the NHL in both hits and fighting majors (tied).

In favour? Not in favour? Many have been complaining about Orr/Mclaren/Fraser in the lineup over more skilled players. Either way, I think we can all admit that the fights and big hits last night helped give the Leafs momentum at the very least.

No, I don't agree at all.  This is a great example of the kind of revisionist history that leads many to believe having bad hockey players who punch helps win games.

The Leaf were up 2-0 before any penalties were called.  They were up 3-0 after only a single off-setting minor for roughing was called involving Holzer (not one of the goons brought up primarily for his fists).  The leafs were up 4-0 and still no fights.

So, you might find fighting entertaining but there's not even the weakest kind of evidence it might have helped them win the game.

Edit: I should really read a little further down before posting ...

Come on! Ask any hockey player and they'll tell you a big win in a fight or a big hit gives the bench a jolt. Why do you think teams employ enforcers? Basically, by saying this you're refuting common practice in hockey since the beginning of the game's existence. Did the fights help the Leafs win this particular game? Well, the Leafs would have won anyways. But did the fights help get the players going in some way? Any player will tell you yes.

 

[Bonsixx]

I think intimidation played an undeniable role in the Leafs/Habs game. It was also nice to see that kind of intensity from the Leafs for the first time in about nine years.

Toronto has been on the wrong end of that kind of game too often over the past few seasons. I don't need every game to turn into a sideshow, but it's nice to know that, when it does happen, the Leafs aren't going to be left lying.

 

[Sevax]

I agree that the fights did not change the momentum of that game.  However, the players sticking up for one another goes a long way to creating the bond that you need in a dressing room for a successful team and one where the stars feel free to be creative knowing that there are team mates that have there back. (see Gretzky---Semenko).  I was sick to my stomach last year when Gionta took out Reimer and no leaf went near him in response.  The message was "take liberties we won't respond."

Not this year not under this coach.  A big step forward.

 

[Bill_Berg]

Better to throw the punches than get punched.

 

[Corn Flake]

I agree that the fights did not change the momentum of that game.  However, the players sticking up for one another goes a long way to creating the bond that you need in a dressing room for a successful team and one where the stars feel free to be creative knowing that there are team mates that have there back. (see Gretzky---Semenko).  I was sick to my stomach last year when Gionta took out Reimer and no leaf went near him in response.  The message was "take liberties we won't respond."

Not thos year not under this coach.  A big step forward.

or when we had poor rookie Luke Schenn taking on Chris Neil and getting clobbered because nobody else on the team would?

 

[bustaheims]

Come on! Ask any hockey player and they'll tell you a big win in a fight or a big hit gives the bench a jolt. Why do you think teams employ enforcers? Basically, by saying this you're refuting common practice in hockey since the beginning of the game's existence. Did the fights help the Leafs win this particular game? Well, the Leafs would have won anyways. But did the fights help get the players going in some way? Any player will tell you yes.

Just because it's a long held belief does not mean it's correct. For centuries, people thought the earth was flat or that it was orbited by the sun. It's really not unusual for people and organizations hold on to false beliefs.

 

[Bender]

The make up of the Leafs I would like to see is one that has team toughness with one 'Colton Orr'.  Players willing to block shots and throw hits, etc.

Currently, boys that throw solid hits include Kulemin, Frattin, Brown and Orr at forward and Phaneuf, Holzer, Komisarek, Fraser, on defense plus you have Lupul, Bozak, Kadri, JVR, MacArthur, Franson, Kotska who will throw the occasional solid hit leaving only Kessel, Grabovski, McClement and JM Liles.

That is impressive.  The only thing I wish is the Leafs had a 'Gary Roberts' or Owen Nolan' type forward who could play more than 5 minutes a game.

Power Forward? JVR? I really don't understand the nostalgia for Gary Roberts and Owen Nolan though. "Heart" is entirely overrated without production.

 

[Corn Flake]

Come on! Ask any hockey player and they'll tell you a big win in a fight or a big hit gives the bench a jolt. Why do you think teams employ enforcers? Basically, by saying this you're refuting common practice in hockey since the beginning of the game's existence. Did the fights help the Leafs win this particular game? Well, the Leafs would have won anyways. But did the fights help get the players going in some way? Any player will tell you yes.

Just because it's a long held belief does not mean it's correct. For centuries, people thought the earth was flat or that it was orbited by the sun. It's really not unusual for people and organizations hold on to false beliefs.

I don't understand when you have the acutal players who play the game telling us this, yet still question whether or not it's true?

the players tell us that:

a) they feel more protected out there when the team employs toughness and guys who are out there to "take care of business"

b) get a boost from a fight, staged or otherwise

I don't really see how those of us who are not playing the game can question this. 

 

[bustaheims]

I don't understand when you have the acutal players who play the game telling us this, yet still question whether or not it's true?

the players tell us that:

a) they feel more protected out there when the team employs toughness and guys who are out there to "take care of business"

b) get a boost from a fight, staged or otherwise

I don't really see how those of us who are not playing the game can question this.

Again, just because the players believe it to be true does not mean that it has any actual measurable impact on their play on the ice.

 

[Kin]

Come on! Ask any hockey player and they'll tell you a big win in a fight or a big hit gives the bench a jolt. Why do you think teams employ enforcers? Basically, by saying this you're refuting common practice in hockey since the beginning of the game's existence.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem, as you've given us here, is a pretty basic logical fallacy. It used to be common practice in hockey not to wear helmets too but things changed when people realized that common practice made no sense.

But more than that two things are wrong fundamentally with your argument here. One, having "enforcers" is more of a modern phenomenon. In the original six there weren't goons who couldn't play hockey. There were tough guys, sure, but they were tough guys in the mold of a Milan Lucic or at least a Mike Brown, guys who doubled as useful players besides fighting. "Enforcers", in the Orr/Mclaren mold, really only came into the game in the 70's as expansion and the competition with the WHL created a significant need for more players and the sideshow of staged fights.

But even more than that, even if we accept your argument that the fights on Saturday were in any way beneficial to the team, it still doesn't make the argument for "enforcers" because the team's enforcers didn't really fight. McLaren got a fighting major, sure, but that was with the team up 6-0 and all he really did was hold Gorges and laugh at him. The Leafs who actually fought were Kostka and Fraser, real defensemen. 

 

[Kin]

I don't understand when you have the acutal players who play the game telling us this, yet still question whether or not it's true?

the players tell us that:

a) they feel more protected out there when the team employs toughness and guys who are out there to "take care of business"

b) get a boost from a fight, staged or otherwise

I don't really see how those of us who are not playing the game can question this.

Well, first and foremost, I think we can question it because what those players say is contradicted by the decisions that their coaches actually make. If dressing enforcers actually helped a team win, gave them an edge of any sort, then coaches wouldn't sit enforcers in the playoffs when winning actually matters the most.

 

[Redleaf]

I don't understand when you have the acutal players who play the game telling us this, yet still question whether or not it's true?

the players tell us that:

a) they feel more protected out there when the team employs toughness and guys who are out there to "take care of business"

b) get a boost from a fight, staged or otherwise

I don't really see how those of us who are not playing the game can question this.

Again, just because the players believe it to be true does not mean that it has any actual measurable impact on their play on the ice.

No offence Busta, but just because you keep repeating your argument, it doesn't make it any more true either. I would tend to believe the players on the ice more than any fans point of view on the matter.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I agree that the fights did not change the momentum of that game.  However, the players sticking up for one another goes a long way to creating the bond that you need in a dressing room for a successful team and one where the stars feel free to be creative knowing that there are team mates that have there back. (see Gretzky---Semenko).  I was sick to my stomach last year when Gionta took out Reimer and no leaf went near him in response.  The message was "take liberties we won't respond."

Not thos year not under this coach.  A big step forward.

This. One hundred times this.

 

[Kin]

No offence Busta, but just because you keep repeating your argument, it doesn't make it any more true either. I would tend to believe the players on the ice more than any fans point of view on the matter.

But until someone actually refutes what Busta says, that is they show or at least argue that there is a measurable impact on players, then it's not a matter of believing anyone. Even if you feel that dressing an enforcer does raise the level of a team's overall play(something that could be measurable, as most enforcers tend to miss a fair amount of games in the season and a team's record with them in the line-up could be compared to it without them) then you're not really disagreeing with what Busta says unless you, you know, measure it.

 

[Corn Flake]

Again, just because the players believe it to be true does not mean that it has any actual measurable impact on their play on the ice.

It's clearly an emotional thing and almost impossible to measure, but that doesn't mean its not real.

 

[Corn Flake]

No offence Busta, but just because you keep repeating your argument, it doesn't make it any more true either. I would tend to believe the players on the ice more than any fans point of view on the matter.

But until someone actually refutes what Busta says, that is they show or at least argue that there is a measurable impact on players, then it's not a matter of believing anyone. Even if you feel that dressing an enforcer does raise the level of a team's overall play(something that could be measurable, as most enforcers tend to miss a fair amount of games in the season and a team's record with them in the line-up could be compared to it without them) then you're not really disagreeing with what Busta says unless you, you know, measure it.

if I walk into a sketchy bar in the worst part of town, I know I feel a lot more confident if I have my friend with me who is 6'5" and 250 lbs, built like a dump truck, strong as an ox and can be very intimidating without having to say a word to anyone. 

I can't measure how much better it makes me feel but I can sure as heck tell you it makes all the difference.

 

[Redleaf]

No offence Busta, but just because you keep repeating your argument, it doesn't make it any more true either. I would tend to believe the players on the ice more than any fans point of view on the matter.

But until someone actually refutes what Busta says, that is they show or at least argue that there is a measurable impact on players, then it's not a matter of believing anyone. Even if you feel that dressing an enforcer does raise the level of a team's overall play(something that could be measurable, as most enforcers tend to miss a fair amount of games in the season and a team's record with them in the line-up could be compared to it without them) then you're not really disagreeing with what Busta says unless you, you know, measure it.

Agreed. No one can present a measurable argument for either side. It's really about what people believe to be true. Again, if the players tell the media it does, then my belief leans in that direction. As CF posted, you can't really measure emotion very well, if at all.

 

[Redleaf]

No offence Busta, but just because you keep repeating your argument, it doesn't make it any more true either. I would tend to believe the players on the ice more than any fans point of view on the matter.

But until someone actually refutes what Busta says, that is they show or at least argue that there is a measurable impact on players, then it's not a matter of believing anyone. Even if you feel that dressing an enforcer does raise the level of a team's overall play(something that could be measurable, as most enforcers tend to miss a fair amount of games in the season and a team's record with them in the line-up could be compared to it without them) then you're not really disagreeing with what Busta says unless you, you know, measure it.

if I walk into a sketchy bar in the worst part of town, I know I feel a lot more confident if I have my friend with me who is 6'5" and 250 lbs, built like a dump truck, strong as an ox and can be very intimidating without having to say a word to anyone. 

I can't measure how much better it makes me feel but I can sure as heck tell you it makes all the difference.

Yeah. What if one or two goons at the bar were paid to go after you every time you visit that bar? I think I'd be a little more comfortable drinking my pop with a couple of big buddies on either side of me.