View Single Post
10-09-2010, 07:47 PM
Registered User
alternate's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,079
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
Didn't somebody break down the data from fights that showed the team that won a fight scored the next goal 50% of the time? Sounds about right to me.
this is logically irrelevant. A causes B only when C occurs means nothing. A can cause B even if C never happens.

look at it this way, do you agree a big save or a big hit can fire up a team? does that only hold true if the team scores the next goal? or how about scoring a goal? surely you agree that fires up a team, no? or is it again only a case of it firing up a team when they also score the next goal?

Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel;28201493[QUOTE
]Let's be honest, that was a whole lot of nothing. You still didn't explain to me why your team gets a lift more than a Flames fan.

Even if I agree with every word in your post it still doesn't point to the Canucks getting a lift more than half the time from a fight. The fact the Canucks play with the lead more than they trail simply flushes the entire basis of your first point down the toilet.
I'm going to have to assume you've never played any sort of organized team sport, especially one that involves some sort of physical nature?

because if you had, you'd have a better grasp of a pretty basic rule: worry about your play not your opponents.

a non-fighting example is when people on this board say it's a bad idea to hit Iginla because it "might wake him up". While I agree it's a bad idea to give a disinterested Iginla a face-wash in a scrum, I strongly disagreeing with not finishing a check because you are afraid of the result. first you pass up a hit on Iginla, then you start passing up on other hits, next thing you know you lose because you are playing a passive, timid game. same rationale: what matters is what it does to your bench, not theirs.

and your point about the Nucks scoring first more often than not falls flat on two fronts: first, only by predicting the future can you know how you will start any given game; second, it's equally possible to score first but start the second period flat, or third, etc.

As for Peters, we'll see. As of right now he's not a top 12 forward on this team. Nor top 13, or 14. I'll say it again - Darcy Hordichuk being moved for Andrew Peters in no way, shape or form should lead anyone to believe Mike Gillis wants a nuclear deterent on his roster. Even with Vigneault's notorious affinity for toughness Peters isn't anywhere near this team, nor in the press box.
first, I don't agree with the term "deterrent". I agree completely that they deter nothing or nobody.

but I do disagree that Peters "isn't anywhere near this team". he's a phone call and an airplane ride away. the important point being, if Gillis and AV feel we have a need for him, he's only a day away.

Mike Gillis wanted his team to have the physical capabilities to play in front of their own net, their opponents and along the boards. Nothing he's done this offseason has made them better suited for dropping the gloves - quite the contrary actually.

There's something to be said for being difficult to play against. Just don't convince me a fight will benefit my team more than half the time - it simply won't.
and how often will a fight be a detriment to your team? more or less frequently than it will be a benefit?

alternate is offline   Reply With Quote