HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

TRADE[FLA/VAN] Andrew Peters for Darcy Hordichuk

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-11-2010, 05:09 PM
  #276
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 15,393
vCash: 500
Alternate-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
If a fight helps fire up a team that is trailing and playing poorly more than it helps the team that 'showed up' wouldn't that mean elite teams that play with a lead more often than not are giving their opponents more 'lifts' than they're receiving? I would really like an answer to this specific question.
How does a team that plays with a lead more than it trails get a lift more than 50% of the time from a fight? It defies logic.

If you buy into the urban myth that fighting sparks a team that 'didn't show up' you also have to buy into the idea that the more fights an elite team gets into the more it helps their opponents. Do you agree with that?

Drop the Sopel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2010, 05:52 PM
  #277
Connecticut
Registered User
 
Connecticut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,773
vCash: 500
I get your logic, but it's based on a set of assumptions that are potentially flawed. A few points that are potentially problematic.

1. Having the option to energize your team doesn't mean you use it at random -- obviously you don't try to energize the other team. If you play with the lead most of the time then it may make the option less useful, but not necessarily counterproductive.

2. It may be that, for an elite team, energizing both teams plays to your advantage. That is, you're comfortable with the idea that when both teams are firing on all cylinders, your team is better.

3. You may have a team that is below average in the show-up department. Or a team that has slow starts.

4. You may have more or less options to energize your team without fighting. For instance, a team that has an energizing leader, or big hitters, may be less in need of a fight to energize them; or, vice versa.


So all in all, I think there's a debate here that is difficult to resolve using pure logic. You could look at the stats and regress wins on fighting majors (I think this has been done and there used to be a relationship pre-lockout but it doesn't exist anymore, not positive though). But I guess I'm saying you can make more or less convincing arguments, but there's no inevitable logic that will tip this debate one way or the other.

Personally, I like the idea that we don't have a heavyweight, but we have Rypien, a couple of other guys who can fight if called on, and a guy like Peters who can be called up without recall waivers if we truly need a goon for a game or two.

Connecticut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2010, 06:01 PM
  #278
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 15,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connecticut View Post
I get your logic, but it's based on a set of assumptions that are potentially flawed. A few points that are potentially problematic.

1. Having the option to energize your team doesn't mean you use it at random -- obviously you don't try to energize the other team. If you play with the lead most of the time then it may make the option less useful, but not necessarily counterproductive.

2. It may be that, for an elite team, energizing both teams plays to your advantage. That is, you're comfortable with the idea that when both teams are firing on all cylinders, your team is better.

3. You may have a team that is below average in the show-up department. Or a team that has slow starts.

4. You may have more or less options to energize your team without fighting. For instance, a team that has an energizing leader, or big hitters, may be less in need of a fight to energize them; or, vice versa.


So all in all, I think there's a debate here that is difficult to resolve using pure logic. You could look at the stats and regress wins on fighting majors (I think this has been done and there used to be a relationship pre-lockout but it doesn't exist anymore, not positive though). But I guess I'm saying you can make more or less convincing arguments, but there's no inevitable logic that will tip this debate one way or the other.

Personally, I like the idea that we don't have a heavyweight, but we have Rypien, a couple of other guys who can fight if called on, and a guy like Peters who can be called up without recall waivers if we truly need a goon for a game or two.
There are obviously far too many variables to get to the bottom of this debate - hence we never will but in your opinion do the Canucks get an advantage over their opponents from a fight more than 50% of the time?

I've been told it's ridiculous to think the Canucks will get a competetive advantage from a fight 50% of the time. I simply want to understand why that is - IMO it defies logic.

Maybe over the course of some years there would be a competetive advantage more than half the time - but wouldn't the odds of that be 50/50.

Drop the Sopel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2010, 06:57 PM
  #279
Connecticut
Registered User
 
Connecticut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
There are obviously far too many variables to get to the bottom of this debate - hence we never will but in your opinion do the Canucks get an advantage over their opponents from a fight more than 50% of the time?

I've been told it's ridiculous to think the Canucks will get a competetive advantage from a fight 50% of the time. I simply want to understand why that is - IMO it defies logic.

Maybe over the course of some years there would be a competetive advantage more than half the time - but wouldn't the odds of that be 50/50.
I think if fights happened at random then it would probably be near 50-50. But the thing is, it's not -- teams (players) choose to fight when it serves their needs, so really what you want are smart fighters. Guys who know when to pick their spots, and who to fight and who to avoid fighting.

Connecticut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2010, 08:55 PM
  #280
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
but how can improving your energy ever be irrelevant to winning? your theory is that having "less energy" can give you a better chance of winning a hockey game. that theory cannot be applied to the realities of a physical game like hockey, no matter who scores the next goal.
If having 'more energy' actually contributed to winning, then improving the energy of your team through a fight would lead to improved goal differential after the fight or else it isn't contributing to winning. If it isn't contributing to goal differential then it isn't contributing to winning, because at the end of the day wins only depend on your ability to score more goals than the other team.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2010, 09:11 PM
  #281
The Vengabus
Registered User
 
The Vengabus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
but how can improving your energy ever be irrelevant to winning? your theory is that having "less energy" can give you a better chance of winning a hockey game. that theory cannot be applied to the realities of a physical game like hockey, no matter who scores the next goal.
It's not about energy. The point is that if energy had a positive relationship with the likelyhood of winning then we can use goal differential as a proxy to measure whether an event influences the outcome of a game. Considering that energy is a meaningless and abstract term that can only be defined in the "i'll know it when i see it" manner, I could care less whether a fight results in more energy.

I just want to see if a fight has a meaningful effect on the likelyhood of my team winning.

If we postulate that "energy" is a contributing factor to an increased goal differential->increased winning percentage then that is something we could hypothetically measure.

If there is no causation between energy and winning percentage then we hold it to be irrelevant to the outcome we desire, that is winning games.

The Vengabus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2010, 09:15 PM
  #282
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
...does a fight increase total energy in a building or not, generally speaking?
I personally don't find that a very interesting or relevant question. IMO the only question that matters is whether or not fighting improves your odds of being a champion. And the overwhelming evidence is that, no, it does not, at least in our current era of hockey.

Maybe 40 years ago, when so much violence was allowed that actual bloody intimidation could work, but not today, and not for a long time.

  Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2010, 02:59 PM
  #283
CrackerJibbs
Registered User
 
CrackerJibbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,765
vCash: 500
I wouldn't mind seeing Peters get called up for tomorrow night game against the Ducks, considering how they've been playing. We shouldn't struggle to beat them (hopefully) and I think Peter's might add a bit of protection if/when the game gets ugly. Rypien is a great fighter, but he can't handle a guy like Parros.

CrackerJibbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2010, 03:06 PM
  #284
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 15,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrackerJibbs View Post
I wouldn't mind seeing Peter's get called up for tomorrow night game against the Ducks, considering how they've been playing. We shouldn't struggle to beat them (hopefully) and I think Peter's might add a bit of protection if/when the game gets ugly. Rypien is a great fighter, but he can't handle a guy like Parros.
What's the worst that will happen if we don't have someone to fight Parros? A noogie? Wet willy? A flick of the earlobe?

If the Ducks are being sore losers and running around trying to hurt guys give them one warning - if they don't listen, crosscheck Teemu Selanne in the teeth and say there you go - you got what you wanted. If that doesn't work - suckerpunch Saku Koivu...

You don't go after the tough players if the opposition is running around - you run their small, weak players. If they persist, find the next weakest guy and take his head off. At some point the little guys on the Ducks will be begging the Parros' and Sutton's to get back in line.

Drop the Sopel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2010, 03:12 PM
  #285
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,455
vCash: 500
I think it's conceivable that a big/good tilt can fire up the team the way a succession of good hits or one devastating hit can fire up the team, especially if that team is at home and has the crowd to feed off of.

However, I would posit that if the above is true, it's almost definitely not true of fights in blow-out games or tilts between two heavyweights just "doing their job". It's more likely to happen when someone like Kevin Bieksa goes off his rocker and decides to go toe-to-toe with Ben Eager or Kesler steps up to fight Iginla and manages not to be utterly decimated. I think this is the real value in toughness is when it's displayed by core members of your team, not by somebody who is just "doing his job". This is also why Kevin Bieksa has always been an interesting package as a hockey player and so infuriating as he continues to throw it all away.

As has been mentioned, the variables are so numerous that any statistical evidence one could possibly find is far too jumbled to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio. I do believe the above to be true, but I don't think there are any hard and fast rules to when/if fighting will help your team. Moreover, I sincerely doubt it's a situation that can be replicated when your team doesn't show up.

Note: the intrinsic value of the above scenarios may not even lead to coming back or holding on to win that game. It's possible that it serves more as a cohesive agent for the team, building a stronger bond that will make the team more resilient down the road. There's obviously some value in having guys go to war with one another (in any number of different ways), but I think it's impossible to measure.

Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2010, 04:18 PM
  #286
Timmer44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Van City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,202
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
What's the worst that will happen if we don't have someone to fight Parros? A noogie? Wet willy? A flick of the earlobe?

If the Ducks are being sore losers and running around trying to hurt guys give them one warning - if they don't listen, crosscheck Teemu Selanne in the teeth and say there you go - you got what you wanted. If that doesn't work - suckerpunch Saku Koivu...

You don't go after the tough players if the opposition is running around - you run their small, weak players. If they persist, find the next weakest guy and take his head off. At some point the little guys on the Ducks will be begging the Parros' and Sutton's to get back in line.
I agree that this can sometimes work, but look what happened to the Canucks in game 3 of the playoffs. Brouwer (I think) went after Sedin and got him off his game. So Burrows went after Campbell, punched him in the mouth a few times and took a bad penalty. The Hawks made him pay and scored a big goal on the PP.

Timmer44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2010, 04:26 PM
  #287
ZyggZagg
Registered User
 
ZyggZagg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burnaby
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,126
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmer44 View Post
I agree that this can sometimes work, but look what happened to the Canucks in game 3 of the playoffs. Brouwer (I think) went after Sedin and got him off his game. So Burrows went after Campbell, punched him in the mouth a few times and took a bad penalty. The Hawks made him pay and scored a big goal on the PP.
Burrows mistake wasn't taking the penalty, it's what the penalty was. Campbell shouldn't have been able to continue playing D:

ZyggZagg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2010, 04:54 PM
  #288
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
What's the worst that will happen if we don't have someone to fight Parros? A noogie? Wet willy? A flick of the earlobe?
If the Ducks are being sore losers and running around trying to hurt guys give them one warning - if they don't listen, crosscheck Teemu Selanne in the teeth and say there you go - you got what you wanted. If that doesn't work - suckerpunch Saku Koivu...

You don't go after the tough players if the opposition is running around - you run their small, weak players. If they persist, find the next weakest guy and take his head off. At some point the little guys on the Ducks will be begging the Parros' and Sutton's to get back in line.
Absolute classic!

I think we respond by sending the Ripper out to give Selanne a purple nurple.

ddawg1950 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2010, 05:38 PM
  #289
Potatoe1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 764
vCash: 500
I think people are barking up the wrong tree with the whole "energy" argument.

The reason dressing a "tough" line up is good is because teams that are tough typically feel better about themselves and when people feel better they typically play better. Tough teams are usually tighter, more confident, more assertive etc, etc.

Best recent example would be Bieksa sticking up for one of the Twins the other night when a trash talking King got in his face.

I imagine Sedin felt pretty good about that little altercation. Instead of skating back to the bench saying wtf why do I need this abuse, he skates back knowing that Kevin has his back.

I don't think anyone likes being pushed around, intimidated, or trash talked and I think most professional athletes play better when their chest is puffed out. The Sedins chest is probably a little more puffed when they feel like their team mates have their backs against the many toolbags they get to go up against nightly.

That said, we don't need a goon to have a tough team, having guys like Ryp, Glass, Bieksa, etc who will go out and stick up for their team mates is just fine.

I do understand why some teams dress goons though, I don't think it is purely to entertain the fans.

We just aren't at that point anymore, the Canucks are all about the playoffs this year, and goons simply don't play in the post season. Having one in the line up atm pushes a guy who could help in the post season into the press box.

Potatoe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2010, 06:00 PM
  #290
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,938
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
I'm glad you brought it up because I was about to - what a complete crock of ****. There were 3 minutes left in the game and Ivanans went after McIntyre, not the other way around. Mac wanted no part of the fight and even tried to turn away but Ivanans persisted until Mac obliged. Now the fight happened because Ivanans "had to be accountable"? Laughable - and anyone who watched the game knows it.

Another gem in there by Cole where he talks about the single biggest reason the Canucks fell to the Hawks was their lack of 'nuclear deterent' to deal with Byfuglien? I was hoping it was sarcasm but it doesn't appear so. Is he forgetting game 3 where Shane O'Brien(a guy more than capable of taking Byfuglien out) went out of his way to target Byfuglien and crosschecked him repeatedly until the referee was forced to put the Canucks shorthanded twice? O'Brien did everything he could to get an answer from Buff but to no avail - other than to put a lethal Hawk team on the PP against the Canucks abysmal PK.
Pretty much. Buff took the punishment and laughed it off when he got a PP. A goon might have fought, Buff is more Matt Cooke than Derek Boogard, he's not stupid he knows he can do more damage not by fighting and getting in the oppositions heads.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2010, 06:36 PM
  #291
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,938
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
There are obviously far too many variables to get to the bottom of this debate - hence we never will but in your opinion do the Canucks get an advantage over their opponents from a fight more than 50% of the time?

I've been told it's ridiculous to think the Canucks will get a competetive advantage from a fight 50% of the time. I simply want to understand why that is - IMO it defies logic.

Maybe over the course of some years there would be a competetive advantage more than half the time - but wouldn't the odds of that be 50/50.
more like 25%.

25% you get a boost
25% they get a boost
50% cancels

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2010, 06:50 PM
  #292
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,938
vCash: 50
I think with Peters we have an ideal situation. We have a goon, other teams will know that. Only our goon is not wasting our cap space and chewing up salary, but he's there next game if we need to settle something

Pure goons used to be needed but they have been legislated to the point of meh.

* They can't instigate anymore
* Agitators just laugh at them and skate away
* Referees give them no leeway/benefit of the doubt
* Suspended players don't get paid, not getting paid puts the breaks on.
* coaches get in trouble for sending in the goons

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2010, 06:51 PM
  #293
NugentHopkinsfan
Registered User
 
NugentHopkinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,087
vCash: 500
So far it doesn't look like toughness will be a problem for this team. We've been really physical and haven't needed to fight.

NugentHopkinsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2010, 06:58 PM
  #294
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenrikSedinFan View Post
So far it doesn't look like toughness will be a problem for this team. We've been really physical and haven't needed to fight.
The test will be the power play. When other teams start taking liberties and penalties are assessed if the Canucks make them pay then the Red Wings approach works.

If the power play is not a deterrent then something else may be needed.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2010, 07:29 PM
  #295
The Big Foot
Registered User
 
The Big Foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Bhutan
Posts: 2,596
vCash: 500
Hordichuk looked awesome for that early shift he had in the first. I'm sure the Panthers fans think they have a player now - too bad that will be in all likelihood his best shift of the year.

Not too worried about Parros. Just glad we don't have to watch Hordi get in a "fight" with him again. I love fighting in hockey but watching two guys like that go at it when they aren't even angry at each other is just stupid.

The Big Foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2010, 07:40 PM
  #296
Dana Murzyn
Registered User
 
Dana Murzyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,522
vCash: 500
Aw man, there's been a fighting debate in here the whole time and I missed it? Bah.

Well, put me down for whatever Drop the Sopel's been saying.

Dana Murzyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2010, 12:57 AM
  #297
alternate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
If having 'more energy' actually contributed to winning, then improving the energy of your team through a fight would lead to improved goal differential after the fight or else it isn't contributing to winning. If it isn't contributing to goal differential then it isn't contributing to winning, because at the end of the day wins only depend on your ability to score more goals than the other team.

I'm sorry, where was it shown that there was no increased goal differential after a fight? all I saw was a post saying the winning team scores the next goal 50% of the time. it's yet to be shown that the winning fighter was from the team that needed the boost. who wins the fight is inconsequential. the fight occurring is what creates the spark.

to break it down:

team A needs a lift, player from team A loses a spirited tussle. Team A plays better, scores next goal.

team B needs a lift, player from team B wins a spirited tussle. Team B plays better, scores next goal.

result: 50% of the time the winning team scores the next goal.

relevance: none.

that's the thing with stats, they're black and white. life ain't, especially when bringing emotion into the equation. I can't imagine there being a way to quantify the affect a fight has on a team, short of maybe measuring time of possession/hits/FO%/blocked shots (ie things related to focus and effort) before and after a fight. not practical and too subjective.

on the other hand, anyone that has watched hockey for more than a season or two has probably watched a game where a fight provided a catalyst to improved play. does it happen after every fight? obviously not. but is there anyone out there that would contend that it never happens? if not, my point is made.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickNashEquilibrium View Post
If there is no causation between energy and winning percentage then we hold it to be irrelevant to the outcome we desire, that is winning games.
again, great theory on paper. hockey isn't played on paper though. any theory that tries to "postulate" that energy is irrelevant to winning hockey games is a theory not applicable to the reality of the game.

hypothetical situation: Calgary jumps out to a 2-0 lead early. Game A: quiet game, Canucks lose 5-1. Game B: a fight occurs, crowd gets back into it, Canucks start finishing their hits, still lose 4-3 (after falling behind 3-0). other than the score, is there any difference in these two occurrences?

alternate is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:43 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.