General Leafs Talk

[GhostofPotvin29]

Believe it or not, just having a guy like Orr on the bench makes a difference.

I think the thing of it is, though, is that there are people who in fact don't believe that.

I don't give a damn what fans think...which players don't believe that? 

Probably anybody who has played on the Red Wings the past decade.  They've only intermittently had a player who would fight on their team, and their results haven't changed a whole lot in the regular season over that time.

But the Wings really are one of the only - if not THE only - exmaple of a team that hasn't carried an enforcer for an extended period of time. 

To Frank's point, perhaps Det being a veteran team for so long helped them carry a certain cache where there is a bit more respet out there for them vs. other teams, so they don't need the toughness as much. 

But really, one example like that looks more like an abberitian than everyone else doing something completely pointless when it comes to carrying goons.

But if you can't point to any tangible benefit to having an enforcer in the lineup, an example of a team over multiple seasons without one, not having any drop off in play, seems to me like a valid argument when nobody can really say what it is that they add to a team, or what it is a team lacks when they're not in the lineup.

If you can't show a tangible benefit, wouldn't it just be better to play players who are better skilled?

I certainly haven't seen the skilled players on our team getting hit less because of enforcers.

 

[bustaheims]

I know a handful of NHLers (most of them ex-now), and they suggest that it certainly makes a difference, especially when they were younger.  As they got older, they were comfortable enough that they could handle whatever came at them...but as young players, they weren't nearly as confident without some back-up.

There's a lot of conditioned responses going on there. From growing up and watching guys like Don Cherry espouse the benefits of fighting, seeing fighters get praise, etc to going up the ranks and having guys on the team that are there really just to drop the gloves and having your coaches tell you they're there to protect you, etc, you grow to believe in the kind of feelings these guys are expressing. For generations, players have been trained to believe that having a fighter or two on their team helps protect them, etc. Meanwhile, that comfort they're looking for can be just as easily provided by veteran guys who have other skills and know when a young guy needs a hand. These roles that enforcers supposedly play can easily be filled by guys who aren't out there for the sole purpose of fighting.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Question....how do the vets help with the likes of a Chris Neil. I mean, he's not a enforcer, but he's certainly known to be a complete a$$hole and I don't think a Komarov or McClement fall into his category. So who protects Kadri or Kessel when Chris Neil decides to give him a whooping? Fraser on D is about the only guy I can think of.

 

[gilmourthegreat]

Believe it or not, just having a guy like Orr on the bench makes a difference.

I think the thing of it is, though, is that there are people who in fact don't believe that.

I don't give a damn what fans think...which players don't believe that? 

Probably anybody who has played on the Red Wings the past decade.  They've only intermittently had a player who would fight on their team, and their results haven't changed a whole lot in the regular season over that time.

But the Wings really are one of the only - if not THE only - exmaple of a team that hasn't carried an enforcer for an extended period of time. 

To Frank's point, perhaps Det being a veteran team for so long helped them carry a certain cache where there is a bit more respet out there for them vs. other teams, so they don't need the toughness as much. 

But really, one example like that looks more like an abberitian than everyone else doing something completely pointless when it comes to carrying goons.

But if you can't point to any tangible benefit to having an enforcer in the lineup, an example of a team over multiple seasons without one, not having any drop off in play, seems to me like a valid argument when nobody can really say what it is that they add to a team, or what it is a team lacks when they're not in the lineup.

If you can't show a tangible benefit, wouldn't it just be better to play players who are better skilled?

I certainly haven't seen the skilled players on our team getting hit less because of enforcers.

Hockey is a physical sport where fear can play a role. If players are scared of the other team, they will play with heightened stress hormones in their system, which will affect their effectiveness.

My bet is that enforcers create a sense of comfort for the skilled players, which allows them to work more effectively. It's the same way that law enforcement and jobsite security allow you to type away without fear of a skull-bashing.

 

[Kin]

Hockey is a physical sport where fear can play a role. If players are scared of the other team, they will play with heightened stress hormones in their system, which will affect their effectiveness.

My bet is that enforcers create a sense of comfort for the skilled players, which allows them to work more effectively. It's the same way that law enforcement and jobsite security allow you to type away without fear of a skull-bashing.

That sort of assumes that these hyper-competitive professional athletes are scared of playing physical hockey.

 

[bustaheims]

Question....how do the vets help with the likes of a Chris Neil. I mean, he's not a enforcer, but he's certainly known to be a complete a$$hole and I don't think a Komarov or McClement fall into his category. So who protects Kadri or Kessel when Chris Neil decides to give him a whooping? Fraser on D is about the only guy I can think of.

The supposed solution for the Chris Neil type problem is very rarely out on the ice at the same time as the Chris Neils of the league. Their presence in the lineup certainly hasn't stopped the Chris Neils of the league from taking liberties with other teams' skilled players or stopped them from running their goalies. I mean, Orr and McLaren were both in the lineup on Saturday, and that didn't stop Neil from taking a pretty healthy run at Reimer, now did it?

 

[gilmourthegreat]

Hockey is a physical sport where fear can play a role. If players are scared of the other team, they will play with heightened stress hormones in their system, which will affect their effectiveness.

My bet is that enforcers create a sense of comfort for the skilled players, which allows them to work more effectively. It's the same way that law enforcement and jobsite security allow you to type away without fear of a skull-bashing.

That sort of assumes that these hyper-competitive professional athletes are scared of playing physical hockey.

No it just assumes basic physiology and psychology. You can train yourself to respond better in stressful environments, but only a psychopath can remove fear entirely when they are in a violent situation where serious bodily injury can happen at any moment.

 

[Frank E]

Hockey is a physical sport where fear can play a role. If players are scared of the other team, they will play with heightened stress hormones in their system, which will affect their effectiveness.

My bet is that enforcers create a sense of comfort for the skilled players, which allows them to work more effectively. It's the same way that law enforcement and jobsite security allow you to type away without fear of a skull-bashing.

That sort of assumes that these hyper-competitive professional athletes are scared of playing physical hockey.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Kin]

No it just assumes basic physiology and psychology. You can train yourself to respond better in stressful environments, but only a psychopath can remove fear entirely when they are in a violent situation where serious bodily injury can happen at any moment.

Well, again, it is. You're saying that hockey players look at playing in a hockey game against a physical team as being a "violent situation where serious bodily injury can happen at any moment" and that they're conscious enough of this to be more or less scared of different teams depending on who's in the line-up.

More problematic though is the assumption that these fears are ameliorated by the presence of someone on their team that...what? Does what to mitigate that? Are you actually making the argument that hockey is less violent because of fighting? Because there are leagues without fighting that are much less violent than the NHL.

 

[gilmourthegreat]

You're saying that hockey players look at playing in a hockey game against a physical team as being a "violent situation where serious bodily injury can happen at any moment" and that they're conscious enough of this to be more or less scared of different teams depending on who's in the line-up.

Of course they think that, that's exactly what's going on. That doesn't mean they aren't more than willing to take part, but almost all hockey players are aware of the health risks associated with playing professional hockey. To claim otherwise would be to imply hockey players are really dumb.

More problematic though is the assumption that these fears are ameliorated by the presence of someone on their team that...what? Does what to mitigate that?

The enforcers intimidate the other players, and cause physical, painful consequences for those who take risks with skilled players. This in itself inhibits aggression hormones in the players on the other team. The other team can and does compensate for this, but that doesn't mean the effect doesn't happen. If you've ever been in a fight where you lost, you might have noticed that your aggression levels went down immediately after, while your opponent's went up. This is a common response in primates after physical confrontation, and human hockey players are not immune to it.


Have you ever noticed that a big hit by a player can raise the physical play of the rest of the team? If so, I assume you would acknowledge that inspiration exists in hockey, and can influence the game. If you accept that, there isn't much of a leap to what I am arguing here.

Are you actually making the argument that hockey is less violent because of fighting? Because there are leagues without fighting that are much less violent than the NHL.

Nope, never said that. Overall, there is probably more fighting and violence in the NHL with enforcers than without them. However, the proportion of violence that is directed towards skilled players on teams with a high quality/quantity of enforcers is probably less than it would be on other teams.

Of course, other factors such as coaching style and the veteran nature of the team can strongly influence how teams respond to the presence of enforcers on either side. If you're about to argue that there are other factors involved and that enforcers don't always have the above effect, I agree.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Believe it or not, just having a guy like Orr on the bench makes a difference.

I think the thing of it is, though, is that there are people who in fact don't believe that.

I don't give a damn what fans think...which players don't believe that? 

Probably anybody who has played on the Red Wings the past decade.  They've only intermittently had a player who would fight on their team, and their results haven't changed a whole lot in the regular season over that time.

But the Wings really are one of the only - if not THE only - exmaple of a team that hasn't carried an enforcer for an extended period of time. 

To Frank's point, perhaps Det being a veteran team for so long helped them carry a certain cache where there is a bit more respet out there for them vs. other teams, so they don't need the toughness as much. 

But really, one example like that looks more like an abberitian than everyone else doing something completely pointless when it comes to carrying goons.

Or it could be an example of Detroit being ahead of the curve and making smart hockey decisions, like scouting and drafting in Europe more heavily and better than other teams.

It's very easy for GMs to toe the line and throw a goon in the lineup like everybody else.  It's usually a cheap and expendable player on a short contract, and the presence of the player in the lineup helps to insulate the GM from criticism if a star player gets hurt on a dirty or questionable play.  But those motivations for most GMs don't automatically make the near ubiquity of goons across the league a true endorsement of their actual value to a team.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

The enforcers intimidate the other players, and cause physical, painful consequences for those who take risks with skilled players.

Can you think of a time in recent memory where a player took liberties with a skilled player, was fought by a tough guy, and it changed something?

 

[Kin]

Of course they think that, that's exactly what's going on. That doesn't mean they aren't more than willing to take part, but almost all hockey players are aware of the health risks associated with playing professional hockey. To claim otherwise would be to imply hockey players are really dumb.

I think you're kind of ignoring my qualifiers here. Yes, hockey players are aware of the dangers of playing hockey, professional or otherwise. They're aware of them when playing any team, regardless of who that team is or who their players are. What I dispute is the idea that they get more frightened by a team like Boston. 

The enforcers intimidate the other players, and cause physical, painful consequences for those who take risks with skilled players.

Again, I don't think this is true. I think it's just as, if not more, likely that the prospect of playing a physical team gets that old adrenal gland flowing and hockey players, being fundamentally competitive people, are more inclined to play tough in those games than to shrink from the possibility that things will get rough because Shawn Thornton is around.

Have you ever noticed that a big hit by a player can raise the physical play of the rest of the team? If so, I assume you would acknowledge that inspiration exists in hockey, and can influence the game. If you accept that, there isn't much of a leap to what I am arguing here.

I think in general the effect you're talking abut is largely a result of confirmation bias. I've seen lots and lots of big hits that don't affect the rest of the game in the same way. Enough that the effect you're talking about can just as easily be attributed to randomness as it is "inspiration".

Nope, never said that. Overall, there is probably more fighting and violence in the NHL with enforcers than without them. However, the proportion of violence that is directed towards skilled players on teams with a high quality/quantity of enforcers is probably less than it would be on other teams.

That's one "probably" too many for me in this case. In order to actually believe that I'd have to see actual evidence of it. In general, I think hockey is too quick a sport and it's players too ruled by instinct and emotion to let their actions be dictated by the guys on the end of the bench playing five minutes a night. When a player makes a run at another player I don't think it's with the kind of careful consideration and roster evaluation that would speak to what you're saying.

 

[bustaheims]

The enforcers intimidate the other players, and cause physical, painful consequences for those who take risks with skilled players.

Except that, you know, that's not what happens at all. Skill players are still frequently on the receiving end of questionable hits. There's at least a couple fairly ugly incidents every season - often involving the very same players that are supposedly out there to prevent such incidents. And, as I stated earlier, the enforcers aren't out on the ice at the same time as their team's skilled players, so, how exactly are they protecting them? By fighting some other guy after a big hit, or, as we've so often seen, challenging the perpetrator to a fight in the next game between the two teams. Pure enforcers provide no real protection for anyone on the ice - psychological or practical.

 

[Kin]

If you've ever been in a fight where you lost, you might have noticed that your aggression levels went down immediately after, while your opponent's went up. This is a common response in primates after physical confrontation, and human hockey players are not immune to it.

A few things in response to this in particular because it seems to be a staple of what you're saying.

First of all, I'm a lover, not a fighter and the very few fights I've been in as an adult were A) not ones with clear winners or losers and B) were not ones where I was sober or thoughtful enough to take careful note of my aggression levels(or those of my opponent) and when they began to fade.

More importantly though the problem with what you're saying in how it relates to hockey players is that even if someone's aggression level drops after they lose a fight the kind of fight you're talking about(which happen very, very rarely and make up a decided minority of the fights that occur in the NHL) is one that happens after the star player has been run at. Not before. We've seen time and again what happens. Goon A runs at Star Player B so Star Player's teammate, Goon C, challenges Goon A to a fight. If Goon A loses the fight he...serves five minutes and is the exact same player the next game. Heck, the next shift. Wade Belak didn't straighten out Cam Janssen. Cam Janssen remained exactly the kind of player he was before he hit Kaberle. There was no conditioning there.

The reality of it is that if guys who took runs at star players were able to have that conditioned out of them by the negative response from the other team's enforcer it would never survive through junior, let alone the AHL. Guys get to the NHL still willing to take runs at the other team's players because they don't fear the consequences of fighting.

 

[Deebo]

Oh, good, the enforcer debate again.

It had been a couple days.

 

[Kin]

Oh, good, the enforcer debate again.

It had been a couple days.

I know, bro. I totes hate it when people repeat themselves.

Oh good, the fighting debate again.

 

[Deebo]

Oh, good, the enforcer debate again.

It had been a couple days.

I know, bro. I totes hate it when people repeat themselves.

Oh good, the fighting debate again.

I'll most likely react in the same manner when it is started again in a couple days.

 

[Kin]

I'll most likely react in the same manner when it is started again in a couple days.

There was a Star Trek episode like this. I forget how they escaped the loop. Something about the number three.

 

[Corn Flake]

I took a 3 hour lunch, came back and this is STILL being talked about?

Sheeeeesh!