Why No Hockey Blogging?
Posted by
tgirsch
Because our teams suck, that’s why. Kevin’s Blackhawks have just 42 points in 43 games played, putting them 13th out of 15 teams in the West. My Maple Leafs have just 40 points in 43 games played, putting them 14th out of 15 teams in the East. The only thing they’re competing for at this point are draft picks.
I can’t speak to the Blackhawks, but the Leafs are bad in pretty much every aspect of the game. Mats Sundin remains the lone true bright spot, averaging over a point a game (and +11, if you care about that sort of thing), and they’re finally getting some production out of Nik Antropov (35 pts, +6), but their defense and special teams suck. (Note to John Ferguson: It doesn’t matter how many goalies you try; if the team in front of him hangs him out to dry, he’s going to look like a sieve.) Toronto’s power play is 28th in the league, and their penalty kill is 24th. Not a recipe for success.
There’s talk (as there always seems to be) of trading Sundin, but for what? Is anyone really going to give up a couple of quality blue-liners — which the Leafs desperately need — to rent an aging-but-still-pretty-good veteran? I doubt it. And in any case, Sundin has a no-trade clause and has made it clear that he wants to stay in Toronto, even if the team isn’t playoff-bound. Ideal scenario: Rent Sundin out to the Canucks for the rest of the season for some prospects, let him get some playoff time and maybe a cup, then re-sign him as a Leaf next year, Doug Weight style (H/T).
My Devils were given up for dead before the season, but they are in 2nd in the East and have a beautiful new home! I am under no illusions they have a chance at the Cup this year.
Comment 1/10/2008
Unrelated, but I’m only a marginal hockey fan.
This past weekend I innocently asked my biggest hockey fan friend about the fighting dynamic. I was not condemning fighting or asking it to be removed from the game. I was not asserting that fighting/or lack thereof is/or would be a determinant of how much hockey I watch. In fact, the only reason why I don’t watch all that much hockey is that I watch a whole lot of basketball - it’s a marketshare issue for my TV.
Anyway, my only question was if he found it weird that hockey is the only sport in which fighting is actually allowed. My assertion was that the dynamics that cause incite confrontation are not unique to hockey as a sport. In the absence of rules to prevent fighting, fighting would be more prevalent in other sports too.
Apparently, it is difficult to have a civil discussion with a passionate hockey fan about the subject (or at least ones who are friends with me). He kept telling me that it wasn’t weird because it had always been there. But, I kept reminding him that the question was about the treatment of fighting in hockey as unique to sports, not about fighting as it existed throughout the history of hockey (of course it’s not weird in that sense).
My main issue was that one of the explanations for allowing fighting is that it discourages dirty play in the long run and prevents enforcer types from bullying speedy skater types without fear of retribution. My question is why that same dynamic, if true, wouldn’t hold true for the NBA. Would fisticuffs prevent cheap elbows and flagrant fouls? Should Kobe be allowed to just deck Bruce Bowen the next time he slides his foot so Kobe lands on in when coming down from a jump shot?
Again, the question is value-neutral. It is not about the morality or merits of fighting, but just about its unique treatment in hockey.
Perhaps many of the hockey purists don’t want to consider that fighting may be condoned because it can be one of hockey’s chief drawing cards for the lay fan.
What do you think, TG?
Comment 1/10/2008
well, hotstove season should take priority over hockey anyway.
Comment 1/10/2008
digglahhh:
I’m pretty sure that Kevin and I are both on-the-record that we would like to see fighting banned from hockey. But I’m also pretty sure that we’re in the minority on that count.
I just don’t buy any of the supposed justifications. The people who want it there want it there because they like it, not because it somehow keeps the game free(r) of clandestine cheap shots.
The sport would be better without it.
Ted:
“hotstove” season?
Comment 1/10/2008
Actually, if you look at what has happened since the instigator rule was brought in, fighting has decreased but the number of star players being taken out with cheap shots has risen dramatically.
I have heard several players discuss the fact that the removal of fighting simply increases the dirty shots that the ref can’t see. They have also said that players get run more often if there is no chance for retribution.
The biggest difference between hockey and the other sports is the speed of the game and the difficulty for officials to spot cheap shots with sticks, etc. Everyone in hockey agrees that the reason the Oilers stars weren’t run like the stars of today is because Semenko was in the line-up and if you took a cheap shot, he would simply move in and fight the guy.
Also, fighting sells tickets.
Comment 1/10/2008
The “fighting sells tickets” I’d agree with, although most NHL cities don’t have an attendance problem, and could likely sell tickets without it. The Air Canada Centre isn’t going to be vacant tomorrow if they reign Tucker in.
But I don’t buy the cheap shot argument. You could easily make the same arguments in NFL football. While the speed isn’t the same as Hockey, you have more guys to watch, and many of them are crammed into a lot less real estate, if you look at the lines.
If the league wanted to get serious about eliminating fighting, it could. And there are enough cameras these days that they could start fining players for cheap shots, even ones that aren’t penalized during the course of the game. The NFL does that now, with no detriment to the sport.
At the end of the day, it’s all just excuses. People who like fighting will defend it, and those who don’t won’t. The rest is all fluff.
Comment 1/10/2008
I hear the hockey being its own animal argument a lot, but I’m still not sure if that is really the case.
I’ve played many blacktop basketball games that have turned into fistfights - in some cases, like hockey, the game resumed afterwards - something I found remarkable given the adbsence of neutral authority figures, and the existence only of “codes” instead of rules.
Anyway, to me, it seems cheap shots happen in all sports. I’m a Knick fan, I watched Oakley in the paint for years! It seems that if one supports the arguments for fighting in hockey, it is consistent to think that basketball, say, would improve from allowing fighting as well.
Again, this is more of an consistency across sports issue for me, than a question about whether I do or don’t want to see fighting, or if it is “right” or whatever. I’m not ready for that stage, yet However, if you buy the anti-cheapshot argument the question answers itself, fighting becomes a sort of preventative, tough-love, and thus “right.”
My initial discussion did lead me to rule book, and I found that that fighting is covered in enough detail, that I do feel it is reasonable to assert that fighting is, in fact, “part of the game.”
You can still claim it’s a part of the game, you want to see done away with. But, I have to give the “it’s part of the game” argument more credence than I initially thought it deserved - the sport, as an institution, seems to treat it as such…
Comment 1/10/2008
Unless you have spent time playing hockey, it is incredibly difficult to understand the idea of fighting in the game.
In football, if you step over the line, you can get hit a little harder or even get worked over in the pile.
In baseball, if you do something stupid, the pitcher always has the option of throwing at you.
In basketball, it’s not uncommon to trade elbows under the basket and if you do something stupid, you know someone will be dealing with you.
In hockey, a less skilled player can give a cheap shot to the top player on the team and know that odds are good he will not pay much of a price because the refs are always watching for the retaliation penalty. As fighting has been decreased or been curtailed, the number of back, neck and head injuries have skyrocketed. Why? No concern of retribution.
Aggression is being removed from all sports. Fighting has always been a part of hockey whereas it has NEVER been a legitimate part of any other sport. That is a huge difference.
I know it often comes down to personal taste, but fighting has always been a part of the game. Much like guys throwing punches at each other has always been a part of boxing. I don’t see anyone trying to ban that.
Just my two cents worth.
Comment 1/10/2008
Big U:
The difference being that in boxing, throwing punches is the point of the contest, whereas in hockey, it’s a distraction (in my mind).
And while I understand what you’re saying about the refs, that’s easily resolved through training and post-game review.
(I’m also not sure that fighting has ALWAYS been a part of hockey — were they doing it in 1912? I dunno.)
And as you say, they’re cracking down in the other sports — there’s a lot less tolerance for pitchers throwing at batters than there was even ten years ago, for example — so why not hockey, too? (Why not? Because too many fans still like it, plain and simple. As long as that’s true — and as long as Don Cherry still lives — it’s not going anywhere. I suppose if someone were to be seriously injured during a fight, that might change things, too.)
Comment 1/10/2008
Big U,
I will readily admit that hockey is the only one of the four major sports that I have not played in organized form. So, I may not fully understand the dynamics of the gameplay on a personal level. But, I do understand the general concepts of the provocation of physical altercation during the course of playing a sport, and I also understand the idea of bigger, stronger (or simply less skilled) players intimidating and potentially harming an opposition’s star players by using force.
Athletes in other sports get that. Allen Iverson gets that! Dwayne Wade’s stint as a superstar in the NBA will not last more than six years as a result of him “getting that.” (Unless he gets an accompanying low post presence, which is unlikely to happen with Shaq making $20M to play like a hobbled Erick Dampier - but I digress).
TG noted the absurdity of the boxing analogy, but I’d like to state two more things.
I think this is actually more about the absence of rules, than it is about a unique, historically embedded dynamic. Fighting exists in hockey and not in others sports less because of the rules that govern it, and more because of the absence of rules strong enough to deter it. That is to say that were fighting to be condoned in basketball, you would see a lot more of it. The dynamic that is unique about hockey is not the game play that incites fights, but the ambivalence to those fights.
I’m not opining to ban fighting from the game, per se. I just think that some of the professed justifications for its existence are bunk, or at least not uniquely applicable to hockey.
As for the retribution argument, I don’t remember seeing stark differences in hit batsmen in the AL as opposed to the NL. Since pitchers never have to hit in the AL, they’re never personally held responsible for their actions, and one might think that would embolden them to go head hunting more often. One would think this would hold, AL relative to NL, regardless of the reduced role the beanball plays in today’s game. Just a thought.
Comment 1/11/2008
TG > The league HAS clamped down on fighting. And as it has reduced fighting, the result has been an increase in stickwork, running from behind and cheap shots by the less skilled players. I would have no problem with fighting being removed as long as ALL physical contact was removed. And that won’t happen.
digglahhh > one of the biggest differences in physical contact in hockey is the speed at which it can occur. Players can be moving up to 20 miles per hour on blades which is significantly different than any other sport regardless of how fast a player can run. That results in a significantly higher tempo, harder collisions and shorter fuses.
It is really hard to explain the difference unless one has experienced it. I know for a fact that by the end of a hockey game, my patience is usually gone and my frustration level is high while I have never had that issue in any other sport. And I never fought in hockey so it’s not like I was a goon looking for someone to pound.
Having been involved for close to 30 years, I have seen far worse injuries come from the type of equipment (rock hard elbow pads), the stickwork, and cheap shots than I ever have from fights so safety is not an issue.
I understand where the opponents to fighting are coming from, but for the most part they have either never played, or were not physical players when they did play.
Comment 1/11/2008
Thanks Big U,
In theory, I’m tempting to advocate that anti-fighting position. But, never having really played hockey, I’m aware that my understanding is severely lacking. That is why I don’t actually advocate a position.
Your input is appreciated, as a big part of this question was to get people more intimately involved with the sport to offer their opinions about specific issues surrounding fighting.
As for the hockey I do watch, fight doesn’t turn me on or off to the sport. I just find the phenomenon very interesting.
Comment 1/11/2008
Big U:
And as it has reduced fighting, the result has been an increase in stickwork, running from behind and cheap shots by the less skilled players.
I’d like to see a statistical analysis of that, because I certainly haven’t seen it. If anything, today’s hockey seems to me to have less in the way of cheap shots, high sticking, etc. But as I keep saying (and you keep ignoring), even if my perception is wrong, then the answer isn’t to reintroduce more fighting, but rather to clamp down on the stick work, cheap shots, and running from behind. Start penalizing it, and start handing out suspensions, and it will go away. It’s worked pretty well with helmet-to-helmet and blows to the head in football; I just don’t see why it can’t work in hockey. If they wanted to get rid of it, they could get rid of it.
In any case, reducing fighting is not the same thing as eliminating it. And most of the fighting I do see these days is not retribution for some cheap shot, but instead someone on a team that’s losing badly trying to “fire up” his team by starting a fight.
digg:
Fighting exists in hockey and not in others sports less because of the rules that govern it, and more because of the absence of rules strong enough to deter it.
I agree with this analysis.
Comment 1/11/2008
Tgirsch > sorry, wasn’t trying to ignore your suggestions to clamp down on stick work, cheap shots, etc. Those are valid suggestions, but with the speed hockey is played at, it is often difficult to catch the little things that happen. It is incredibly difficult for refs to see everything and simply not enough cameras to track everything. To do so would require cameras on every player at all times and more refs.
In football, helmet to helmet blows ALWAYS occur where the football is. Blows to the head tend to occur either where the ball is, on the line of scrimmage, or in the backfield. All three places where a specific ref has dedicated attention.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying bring in more fighting like the broad street bullies of the 70’s. What I am saying is if the threat of being called out is present, guys tend to think twice about going after the other team’s stars.
Comment 1/11/2008
Big U:
You’re right that you couldn’t catch all of it, but you could catch an awful lot of it, especially since most of the nasty play still tends to center around the puck. Further, even if penalties aren’t called, coaches could complain and send game tapes to the league.
Also, I don’t see why the threat of being called out is more of a deterrent than the threat of being suspended without pay. The latter isn’t a threat right now because it doesn’t exist. I argue that it should, though.
Comment 1/11/2008
Oh, and while we’re talking about clamping down, they’ve got to do a better job of clamping down on diving…
Comment 1/11/2008
You are right. Diving needs to be dealt with.
I would agree with the suspension/penalty aspect of things with you.
Right now, there is no deterrent at all as fighting is more penalized but dirty plays and cheap shots are not being dealt with. The perfect example is the fact that a meat-head like Chris Simon is still in the league. If you can attack a guy like he did and only get 30 games, how can you justify suspending a guy for running someone within the confines of the game?
I guess my personal experience has been that often-times refs will let certain things go, so it is necessary to police from within, hence the idea that being called out is more of a deterrent. Either the league has to call the penalties or they have to let the players police themselves.
Comment 1/11/2008
Let’s not forget Bertuzzi, while we’re at it. If I were NHL commissioner, Bertuzzi would have been suspended until Steve Moore was cleared to return to the ice (which, to my knowledge, hasn’t happened yet). Or, alternatively, after a full-season suspension, he could return on the condition that half of his pay goes directly to Moore.
In any case, I think the Simon example is a bad one for your cause, because no amount of fighting was likely to deter Simon from taking that shot.
Either the league has to call the penalties or they have to let the players police themselves.
Put me down for “the league has to call the penalties,” and not just for the rough stuff, but for the run-of-the-mill grabbing, hooking, and tripping that slows down the game. Because the 1990’s showed what happens when you let the players police themselves: they don’t, and it’s a Greco-Roman wrestling match rather than a hockey game.
Comment 1/11/2008
is fghting part of the European game? My understanding is no. If true, that casts doubt on any argument that it is integral to the game.
Comment 1/11/2008
There is very little fighting in Europe but the players there could remove your spleen surgically with a hockey stick while you’re going down the ice.
Just ask Wayne Cashman about the 50 stitches he needed on his tongue when they played the Swedes and he was fed a hockey stick blade. Never even nicked a tooth.
Comment 1/11/2008
Big U,
We have seen games in Sweden and Prague, I am more than happy to reply with a “Eh”. I don’t see a difference.
heh, Devils are being built to win another Cup. There is still space on the bandwagon. Jump on now, or be prepared to be on the receiving end of some vicious taunting!
)
Comment 1/12/2008
wkmaier:
No thanks, I’ll leave the fair-weather fandom to someone else.
Comment 1/12/2008
hehehe. been a Bruins fan all my life. Not interested in changing that now. Especially to the Devils.
Comment 1/13/2008
To answer the question, we saw a game in Sweden a few years ago that included a bench clearing brawl, in which the final seconds of the game were not played. Not being a fan of either team for obvious reasons, it was fun to see.
That being said, if any of youse guys want to come to Newark, the new arena is great, lots of good beer and food selections. We are slowly making our way around the concourse: paninis, lamb kebabs, sushi, pastrami sandwiches, cheese steaks (take that Philly!!), soup, pulled pork, BBQ… More than happy to be your host.
BTW, our seats are upstairs where you have to wear shorts and flip flops, but still put up with the “leaners” that sit in front of you.
Comment 1/13/2008
Okies, I realize your team might … well … I hope you will do what you did last year and post playoff predictions. I loved those! And please be sure to predict the Sharks winning each game and the Cup!
GO SHARKS!
Comment 4/2/2008