An interesting stat. I didn't expect.....

[90-91]

I've always thought physical hockey was winning hockey, so I deceided to do some research to prove my point.
I totaled up the number of fighting majors in the Chiefs wins opposed to their losses.
In their wins there were 22 fighting majors with 31 in their losses. I didn't count the ties.
Has the league moved to a less violent side with teams like Everett, which has a winning record BTW, or is physical hockey now losing hockey? I know it wasn't in 90-91 the Chiefs Cup winning year.

[Beaner]

There's a difference between fighting and being physical. A team can be very physical and rarely fight and still be considered a "physical" hockey team.

I think a better way to look at your team being physical would be to count the actually hits thrown in those games. But of course, they dont track that stat, so unless you go to every single game you would only be guessing.

[90-91]

True.....the only reason I used Fighting Majors, is because it's the only true "no gray area for the ref" stat. on physical play. IMO a physical, hard hitting, intense game leads to fights (in most cases).......but looking at the stats. just in this Conf......... Kelowna (55 FM).......Everett (53 FM)......& Seattle (51 FM).........their the bottom 3 of the top 10 in fighting majors (according to Fight Central)
In your opinion will fighting eventually leave the game?

[bcboy]

Very interesting topic 90-91. I'll bet you get alot of input on this one.

IMO there will always be fighting in hockey. It's part of the game and it keeps people honest. The game has changed alot over the last 20 years.

The chiefs team that smashed it's way thru the cup tournament in 90-91, if they were in the league today I believe they would be fighting for a playoff spot. That is not a knock on that great team but more of a statement to how the league and game has changed. I have even heard Maxwell talk along those lines.

The players in todays game are way more skilled top to bottom than they were 20 years ago. The euro game showed us we were lacking in our skill and the North American game changed. The game will always have roll players but the difference today is those roll players can play to. That was not always the case in years gone by.

I don't think you can win in the WHL today with just a skill team. And you can't win with just a big physical team either. It has to be a mix of size, skill and toughness. Factor in team chemistry and personalities and I don't think it is a very exact science.

[IceMan]

You can't make a blanket determination simply based on the pure number of fighting majors.

I'm guessing here ... if someone wants to do the research to prove/disprove this, please do so .... but it seems to me that probably 70% of all of the fights occur in the 3rd period when the game is basically decided. A team down by 2 or 3 with a minute to go will sometimes fight 2 or 3 times in that last minute just to prove something. If my theory is correct, then it makes sense that teams with losing records would have more fighting majors, as they find themselves in that position more often than winning teams do.

In Everett, you can basically bet that if the Tips are up by 2 or down by 2 at the end of the game, there's going to be 2 or 3 fights. Out of all the games I've been to, in Everett and on the Road, I can probably count on one hand the number of fights they've had when the game is tied or within a single goal. The majority of Silvertips games are 1 or 2 goals, so they don't get into too many of these "We lost the game, but we're gonna kick your ass" situations. When the score does get out of hand, though, so do the fisticuffs.


If you looked instead of total fights for each team, somehow correlated the number of fights with the current score of the game, then you'd have something very interesting to discuss. However, based on just pure numbers, I don't think that fighting leads to a poor record, but instead think that a poor record leads to more fighting.

[speedkills]

I'm guessing here ... if someone wants to do the research to prove/disprove this, please do so .... but it seems to me that probably 70% of all of the fights occur in the 3rd period when the game is basically decided. A team down by 2 or 3 with a minute to go will sometimes fight 2 or 3 times in that last minute just to prove something...

...if I'd say it was 70% but ya also gotta take into account the reffing here. We've ALL seen the ref hand out penalties like candy at the end of a particularly rough game just to get his butt out of there...end the thing with as little extra-curricular activities as possible. This fact can disguise/affect the fighting majors statistics also.

[90-91]

You can't make a blanket determination simply based on the pure number of fighting majors.

I'm guessing here ... if someone wants to do the research to prove/disprove this, please do so .... but it seems to me that probably 70% of all of the fights occur in the 3rd period when the game is basically decided. A team down by 2 or 3 with a minute to go will sometimes fight 2 or 3 times in that last minute just to prove something. If my theory is correct, then it makes sense that teams with losing records would have more fighting majors, as they find themselves in that position more often than winning teams do.

In Everett, you can basically bet that if the Tips are up by 2 or down by 2 at the end of the game, there's going to be 2 or 3 fights. Out of all the games I've been to, in Everett and on the Road, I can probably count on one hand the number of fights they've had when the game is tied or within a single goal. The majority of Silvertips games are 1 or 2 goals, so they don't get into too many of these "We lost the game, but we're gonna kick your ass" situations. When the score does get out of hand, though, so do the fisticuffs.


If you looked instead of total fights for each team, somehow correlated the number of fights with the current score of the game, then you'd have something very interesting to discuss. However, based on just pure numbers, I don't think that fighting leads to a poor record, but instead think that a poor record leads to more fighting.

Very good point.......I just happen to have some time on my hands today....so I'll try to look up those numbers.......Only on the Chiefs though.....I don't have enough time on my hands for the rest of the league I did notice quite a few fights in the Chiefs ties though??????

[IceMan]

It would be very interesting to see what the score of the game was at the time of each fight ... as well as the final. You could compile a pretty cool report that correlates it all.

Sometimes, when a team is down in the 2nd, they'll drop the gloves to try and fire up the troops. Would be interesting to see how ofen an early fight affects the score, if at all, over time.

[90-91]

Chiefs fights.....

While down 2 or more goals.............21

While up 2 or more goals.................14

While tied.....................................9

While up 1....................................8

While down 1................................6

Fights by period in a win
1st.....7
2nd....7
3rd.....8

Fights by period in a loss
1st.....7
2nd....11
3rd.....13

Fights by period in a tie (final)
1st.....4
2nd....2
3rd.....1
In O/T.5........all in one game against PG

I'm not sure of the significance in those numbers....but the FMs are up considerably in loses by 2 or more & games they eventually lost.

[90-91]

It would be very interesting to see what the score of the game was at the time of each fight ... as well as the final. You could compile a pretty cool report that correlates it all.

Sometimes, when a team is down in the 2nd, they'll drop the gloves to try and fire up the troops. Would be interesting to see how ofen an early fight affects the score, if at all, over time.

Fights while down by 2 or more then came back to win...........1

Fights while down by 2 or more but still lost..........................17

Fights while down by 2 or more but came back to tie..............1

Fights while up by 2 or more but lost...................................3

Fights while up by 2 or more and won..................................13

Fights while up by 2 or more but tied...................................1

Fights while tied then won.................................................0

Fights while tied then lost..................................................6

Fights while tied then ended in a tie....................................6

Fights while down by 1 then won........................................3

Fights while down by 1 then lost.........................................5

Fights while down by 1 then tied.........................................0

Fights while up by 1 then lost.............................................0

Fights while up by 1 then won............................................7

Fights while up by 1 then tied............................................1

It doesn't look to me like the fighting effects the game too much......much less than I had suspected. It looks like enforcers or policeman whatever you want to call them are there to keep the other team fair not really a motivational factor. That's just based on the numbers.