Habs management doesn't get it...(umpteenth toughness thread)
View Single Post
08-29-2011, 09:34 AM
Join Date: Jul 2003
Originally Posted by
It's not evidence, it's biased observations and interpretations. You only believe it because you're predisposed in believing in the usefulness of fighters.
Evidence is based on fact, hence the stat-based argument. Hey, here's another article with a nifty chart where the impact of fighting on attendance and record over the last few years is examined:
The reality is that the teams that the correlation is
. That should be a pretty straightforward point here:
teams that fight the most actually tend to be lower in the standings
. (I wouldn't go so far to suggest a causal relationship from that. To me it seems to be more that bad teams tend to fight more, rather than fighting makes teams bad.)
Interesting link. Just the other day I did some (rudimentary) numbers work and came to the same conclusion. Of the 15 seasons since the first work stoppage in 94-95, 14 of them showed a negative correlation between points in the standings and fighting majors. The only season that didn't was 07-08 (coincidentally or not, the year after Anaheim made headlines for winning the Cup using their fists).
But like you, I believe it's more of an indication that worse teams tend to fill their rosters with worse players who, given the culture of hockey, fight more to prove they bring something of 'value'.
I also wanted to check if there was any relationship between fighting majors and injuries (as proponents of fighting would have you believe it's a deterrent). Unfortunately, there's not much historical data on man games lost due to injury, so I was only able to check the past 3 seasons. Two of the three showed that teams who fought more had slightly more injuries and the other season slightly less. Nowhere near enough info to draw any conclusions, but with what I have seen there doesn't seem to be any correlation.
View Public Profile
Bill McNeal's albums
Find More Posts by Bill McNeal