View Single Post
10-02-2011, 10:25 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,283
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Newhabfan View Post
However such a research would need a careful discussion on the basic hypothesis and independent and dependent variables.

As I understand it - there are several hypotheses possible - we need to clarify them.

- cheap shots intimidate the opponent
- clean physical play intimidate the opponent
- intimidation reduces productivity.
- enforcers and fights what ?

Measuring intimidation with reliable indicators would be difficult. The number of hits done by the intimidated team before and after an incident ? Puck possession before and after ? 1 on 1 battles won ? Tricky one.

Anyway - I'll try to contribute to such a project.
I concur. It is deeply flawed at the moment. It is important to clarify that we have two elements that we're examining here:

1) Track suspensions/cheapshots/injuries-as-a-result-of-cheapshots league-wide

2) Track Montreal's record in games where some overt methods of intimidation are employed by the opposition

On the first point, I'm actually curious to see whether teams that play with more team toughness are more susceptible to cheapshots/injury. I suspect such teams engage in tougher games on average and, consequently, such games will be played on the brink of dirty. Tensions are higher, and there will be an escalation of events to eventually having intent-to-injure or a cheapshot occur.

But the most important point of #1 is to see what correlation there is, if any, between having an enforcer/team toughness & receiving cheapshots.

I'd like clarification from habsjunkie2 and other on this, actually. I know habsjunkie2 doesn't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that enforcers provide a deterrence. However, it seemed to be commonly thought by the pro-enforcer or pro-team toughness crowd that in the game vs. TB, for example, that if Montreal had a tough team to answer to Malone, that the cheapshot to Campoli wouldn't have happened. That he wouldn't have gone running around all game. Is this not so? Is this not the basic argument for having a tough team?


On the second point, we can just as easily remove the word intimidation, replacing it with: teams that assert themselves physically. Montreal doesn't actually have to be intimidated, and that may be too controversial a word to use. Rather, the assert-themselves-physically may be more easy to gain consensus: we can agree that TB asserted themselves physically more than Montreal last night. We can then see that it had no bearing on Montreal's ability to perform and win the game. As such, Montreal was not physically intimidated.

Essentially, this could be a measure of Montreal's capacity to match up with teams that are physical. And that may be a far less controversial, but ultimately similar, way of describing 'intimidation.'


Mike8 is offline