View Single Post
01-14-2013, 04:49 PM
the best post
deliciouspie's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: sf, austin, here
Country: United States
Posts: 2,778
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to deliciouspie
Originally Posted by Black Eye View Post
All I know is that there are countless examples - and no I am not going to "prove it" by pasting in some links for you here, there are tons of interviews and stories out there to go find - of players, coaches, GMs, etc., talking about how much energy guys and "role players" and tough guys mean to their teams and how much impact they have on the momentum of games. While fans debate this, I just default to listening to what the people directly involved have to say and they seem to constantly confirm the value of "those kinds of players" to their teams. It's just part of the fabric of many teams and, like any other part of a team's makeup, it has it's place, and value.
and meanwhile we all talk about how "clutch" or "unclutch" certain players are in a variety of sports with the same breathless tones, yet remain unable to quantify or correlate what that means and how it actually affects teams

the thread was started under the following premise: that fighting in lockout shortened seasons will go up and whether the bruins would have enough pugilists to win these fights; in fairness, colt never made the direct correlation of winning fights to winning games, but certainly one could be forgiven for making that jump

i took a look at that particular season's fighting data and point values and saw no direct correlation; is there data that supports his claim

deliciouspie is offline   Reply With Quote