Black and Blue Leafs

[TimKerr]

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.

The question is though, in the playoffs what do those goons do?
Why aren't teams dressing their enforcers in the playoffs where wins are the most important because you know, if you lose, your season is over.

Can we say that enforcers are important in the regular season because players are more likely to take runs at star players and the games aren't as intense, but when the 'real hockey' starts in the playoffs the goons usefulness falls to zilch?

 

[nutman]

Bonsixx
Rookie

Posts: 497
TMLfans Newbie










Re: Black and Blue Leafs

? Reply #23 on: Today at 02:38:23 PM ?

Quote


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.


? Last Edit: Today at 02:40:43 PM by Bonsixx ?

Report to moderator  Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Sevax
Prospect

Posts: 35









Re: Black and Blue Leafs

? Reply #24 on: Today at 03:14:35 PM ?

Quote


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.


TML  have a read.... ;D 

PS I agree with it but never wrote it. so cutting up my grammer wont cut it this time. just wanted to show you that you dont know all. ;D ;D ;D

 

[Kin]

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.

Well, alright, in the service of your analogy...what if the bar already has two lowlifes in it and they're both 6'8 and 260. Are you looking for another friend to come with you? What would really make you more confident; bringing along your goon buddy or convincing the manager to kick out the riff-raff and turn the place into an Applebee's?

And maybe more to the point, wouldn't the knowledge that a guy that is a regular at the bar(An asian fellow with auburn hair, by the name of Dave "Red" Wing) has no big giant buddies, and has the time of his life there pretty regularly make you think that maybe, maybe, your instinct to take along your buddy is less about your buddy actually making a difference and more just sort of doing what you've always done for no real reason?

 

[Redleaf]

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.

Well, alright, in the service of your analogy...what if the bar already has two lowlifes in it and they're both 6'8 and 260. Are you looking for another friend to come with you? What would really make you more confident; bringing along your goon buddy or convincing the manager to kick out the riff-raff and turn the place into an Applebee's?

And maybe more to the point, wouldn't the knowledge that a guy that is a regular at the bar(An asian fellow with auburn hair, by the name of Dave "Red" Wing) has no big giant buddies, and has the time of his life there pretty regularly make you think that maybe, maybe, your instinct to take along your buddy is less about your buddy actually making a difference and more just sort of doing what you've always done for no real reason?

But now you're talking about the reason instead of the effect, and you're inadvertently stating the obvious. If the NHL banned fighting and checking, there would be no need for tough guys in the league.

 

[Kin]

Agreed. No one can present a measurable argument for either side.

Except I absolutely can present a measurable argument for the other side. Are there leagues without fighting? Yes. Do those leagues work as effective competition? Yes. Are fans horrified and driven away by hockey without fighting? A lot of people watched the Olympics, so no. Do players in the SEL, NCAA and international competition routinely say "Boy, I sure wish we had fighting"? No.

 

[bustaheims]

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

No, but that doesn't mean it is real either. It also raises the question of why there is an emotional response. Is it because these plays have a legitimate emotional impact or because the players have been conditioned by years and years coaches, media and fans telling them that these plays are supposed to have an emotional impact? Really, it's impossible to say for sure, but, when we look at the game itself, more often than not, big hits, fights, etc have no effect on changing the fortunes of the teams involved. Sure, we can all recall times when it appeared that they did, but, that's using some pretty selective memory and some serious observer bias.

 

[Redleaf]

Agreed. No one can present a measurable argument for either side.

Except I absolutely can present a measurable argument for the other side. Are there leagues without fighting? Yes. Do those leagues work as effective competition? Yes. Are fans horrified and driven away by hockey without fighting? A lot of people watched the Olympics, so no. Do players in the SEL, NCAA and international competition routinely say "Boy, I sure wish we had fighting"? No.

Again, your argument is based on removing fighting as opposed to the effectiveness fighters have on their team and their skilled team mates, when the opposition is also icing fighters.

 

[Kin]

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.

But I don't think anyone's talking about team toughness or standing up for your teammates as a negative. The issue is how it reflects on guys who are on the team for essentially no other reason. The game where Reimer got hit by Gionta, the Leafs had both Mike Brown and Jay Rosehill in the line-up. That there wasn't a fight in that game had nothing to do with whether or not the Leafs had guys in the line-up who could fight.

 

[Kin]

But now you're talking about the reason instead of the effect, and you're inadvertently stating the obvious. If the NHL banned fighting and checking, there would be no need for tough guys in the league.

Well, no, I've said nothing about banning checking. There's still checking in NCAA, the SEL and international play. I'm talking about fighting pretty exclusively and it's largely in response to the idea that a lack of fighting leads to problems with the game. 

But in addition to that, you'll note my pretty clever veiled reference to the Red Wings up there, a team that has won at a pretty good clip despite rarely having a goon in the line-up. Likewise, again, my point that having guys on the team who do nothing but fight is not something passed down from the days of Charlie Conacher but came to us with the decade that gave us wide-lapel polyester suits and the pet rock.

The idea that a goon is a necessity on a hockey team is one that actually contradicts the traditions of the game, not one of them.

 

[Redleaf]

But now you're talking about the reason instead of the effect, and you're inadvertently stating the obvious. If the NHL banned fighting and checking, there would be no need for tough guys in the league.

Well, no, I've said nothing about banning checking. There's still checking in NCAA, the SEL and international play. I'm talking about fighting pretty exclusively and it's largely in response to the idea that a lack of fighting leads to problems with the game. 

But in addition to that, you'll note my pretty clever veiled reference to the Red Wings up there, a team that has won at a pretty good clip despite rarely having a goon in the line-up. Likewise, again, my point that having guys on the team who do nothing but fight is not something passed down from the days of Charlie Conacher but came to us with the decade that gave us wide-lapel polyester suits and the pet rock.

The idea that a goon is a necessity on a hockey team is one that actually contradicts the traditions of the game, not one of them.

There I fixed it for you. Either way you've conveniently changed the subject to banning fighting instead of telling us why goons aren't effective when other teams are icing them too.

 

[Kin]

There I fixed it for you. Either way you've conveniently changed the subject to banning fighting instead of telling us why goons aren't effective when other teams are icing them too.

No, I've sort of migrated onto a side street in response to the idea that goons are a necessity. If people are saying that goons are needed because otherwise players are in danger the rational response is to get rid of goons, not to engage in some sort of silly, escalating MAD with people who can't play hockey.

As to the question of "why goons aren't effective if other teams are dressing them too" I think I've answered that kind of repeatedly even though it's asking me to prove a negative. For starters:

A) The Red Wings, which you could say have been the most successful NHL team in the last 20 years, and coached pretty exclusively by terrific coaches have dressed goons with probably the least frequency in the league and have yet to see Pavel Datsyuk's head taken off with a baseball bat swing of the stick. If dressing a goon was an effective thing to do in a league with fighting then why would Scotty Bowman and Mike Babcock have disregarded it?

B) The presence of goons in the line-up demonstrably doesn't prevent cheap shotting or the other team taking liberties, as evidenced by Rosehill's playing in the game where Reimer got run.

C) The fairly conclusive evidence that goons don't provide an advantage based on the fact that they don't tend to dress in the playoffs or exist before 1970.

On the other side of things? Player's stated feelings which, while I don't want to disregard entirely, can't be the whole of the other side.

 

[Kin]

No, but that doesn't mean it is real either. It also raises the question of why there is an emotional response. Is it because these plays have a legitimate emotional impact or because the players have been conditioned by years and years coaches, media and fans telling them that these plays are supposed to have an emotional impact?

And not just that, although I think that's a lot of it, but it is important to note that NHL players tend to be a fairly isolated and insulated bunch which doesn't tend to lead to a ton of self-examination or criticism. For a NHL player to stand up and say that fighting shouldn't be a part of the game or has no effect on him he'd essentially be making the argument that 40 or 50 other guys, some of whom are teammates or friends, shouldn't have jobs.

 

[Jalili]

I think there's the psychological element of having the baddest guy on the ice on your side that keeps these guys in the lineup.

If you're a team that tries to impose itself physically on the other team, then having a tough guy becomes a non-starter.

 

[Bullfrog]

I believe that's probably true. But instead of just trying to ensure you have more of them or that you have the baddest guy, why not eliminate them altogether? Then this emotional response isn't necessary?

In Corn flake's example, instead of bringing along his most intimidating friend so that he can feel better about being in a seedy, dangerous bar, why not choose to go to a bar that's not seedy or dangerous?

 

[Redleaf]

Wow. Low and behold that good for nothing goon Orr has an assist and a goal in the last two games. We gotta get rid of these useless goons....

 

[bustaheims]

Wow. Low and behold that good for nothing goon Orr has an assist and a goal in the last two games. We gotta get rid of these goons....

Yes. He got them from actually playing hockey, not from being a goon.

 

[Kin]

Wow. Low and behold that good for nothing goon Orr has an assist and a goal in the last two games. We gotta get rid of these useless goons....

And it's been snowing for days! So much for so-called "Global Warming"!

 

[Redleaf]

Wow. Low and behold that good for nothing goon Orr has an assist and a goal in the last two games. We gotta get rid of these goons....

Yes. He got them from actually playing hockey, not from being a goon.

Yes. He's doing what he's supposed to do, supply toughness and chip in the odd one.

 

[bustaheims]

Yes. He's doing what he's supposed to do, supply toughness and chip in the odd one.

All of which he can do with his gloves still on.

 

[Redleaf]

Yes. He's doing what he's supposed to do, supply toughness and chip in the odd one.

All of which he can do with his gloves still on.

Agreed. His effectiveness is in his intimidation factor not necessarily his fighting ability.