I've decided to take another shot at the proverbial goon since there seems to be a lot of them hanging around (and Darryl Sutter can't bear to go without one). Let me first state that I have been a hockey fan most of my life and enjoy the visceral thrill of one of *my* players beating up one of the *bad guys* as much as anyone else. This is not a call to ban fighting from a squeamish bleeding heart. However, as a fan who enjoys winning even more than fisticuffs, and as an amateur analyst, I feel compelled to question the validity of the pugilist.
Certainly the number of lumbering heavyweights has been reduced since the lock-out, in response to such goonish impediments as draconian instigator rules, the salary cap and the obstruction crack-down. In 03/04, 8 of the top 10 PIM getters were guys I'd define as "enforcers" - players that are in the league primarily or solely because they can chuck knuckles (low point totals, small ice-time, triple digit PIMs) - with Sean Avery and Chris Neil (who is basically a relatively high functioning goon) the exceptions. In 07/08, perhaps 3 of the top 10 could be considered "enforcers" (Stortini, Parros and Burish), although only Parros averaged the typical goonish ice-time, with Storts and Burish inching closer to the functional 10 minutes/night crowd (meaning they can actually play some hockey too). It's four if you count 200 pound Jared Boll, whom I tend to classify as a "pest" more than "goon".
Yes, the enforcer is a dying breed. And in my humble opinion, it's a breed that isn't dying fast enough. GM's still cling to the conventional wisdom that "every club needs its heavyweight" like jammy-fingered children to a security basket. Just glancing over the various rosters now, I count about 26 pure pugilists. Im not talking about guys that fight, or even fight a lot. Again, I mean the guys who do almost nothing but fight. The policemen, the nuclear the deterrents, the not-so-gentle giants. The guys whos penalty minutes match or exceed their total ice-time by the end of the year. There's still a bunch of them in the league. And I can't conceive of one good reason why that is.
First off, another hat-tip to James Mirtle who thoroughly investigated this issue previously. His findings and conclusion bear repeating:
The average enforcer in this study has played 16.5 games at 5.45 minutes per game for a total of about 90 minutes of ice time this season. In that time, against the worst opposition in the league, their teams have scored an average of 1.56 goals, allowed 2.66, and been out shot 38-30.
At best, they're not a liability. At worst, they cripple their team, allowing somewhere in the neighbourhood of two goals per 60 minutes more than the rest of their team while generating almost zero offence or shots on goal.
If I'm a coach or GM, isn't there a better option at the bottom of the roster?
One would think so. However, let's proceed on the assumption that the contributions of the archetypal goon can't be captured with the advanced metrics Mirtle employed in his piece. Sabres heavyweight Andrew Peters offered these justifications when questioned about his own usefulness:
"You take fighting out of hockey, you might as well take the triple salchow out of figure skating. I saw someone hurt their tailbone pretty badly and miss a skating competition not too long ago. That's something the International Olympic Committee should be looking at.
"But in all honesty, it's offensive to me. It almost takes away from what you mean to your team. I don't think we are (useless) and I think if you asked 25 guys in this locker room, they'd tell you the same thing. Take fighting out and you're looking at a whole different style of hitting. Now guys will take free rein because they don't have to pay the consequences. I think it would be stupid.
"There's a reason for it. It can change the momentum of a game, send a message that if you come after our players, we'll come after yours. It can be used in so many different strategies, more than just a goon way. And that's such a terrible word to use."
1.) Im personally not arguing against fighting in hockey per se, so his lamentations to that effect are irrelevant. Players would still fight even if there wasn't a designated fighter on every team no doubt. Hell, let 'em.
2.) The "consequences" for malfeasance is a common refrain when I debate this issue with a goon supporter. The claim is that the opposition would suddenly start to hurt or injure the good guys (particularly the stars) without the presence of a heavyweight. This also falls in the "send a message" realm. I'll address this in more detail later.
3.) The "momentum" trope is also a classic one. Despite the fact I think "momentum" is a dubious contributor to success, I find it hard to swallow that a perfunctory clash between two lugheads (since they only ever seem to fight each other) can be of much motivational or psychological value. Iginla scoring a couple goals and then beating on some twerp that's mouthing him off? Maybe. A 30 second bear-hug between Ivanans and Stortini? I doubt it.
4.) As for enforcers "being used in so many different strategies"...well, Im afraid Im a skeptic. Peters names maybe two distinct "strategies" above (message sending and momentum changing) and neither of them are terribly compelling.
As to "message sending", the modern goon is so utterly impotent in the face of "new" NHL obstacles that his ability to right perceived wrongs and deter pests is next to nil. Here's a brief guide on how to neutralize an enforcer:
a.) Just say "no". With the strict instigator rules that include penalties, suspensions and fines, not to mention the existing codes of etiquette and conduct regarding beating on an unwilling partner, the ability of a goon "to do his job" is directly moderated by the oppositions willingness to engage him in fisticuffs. An obvious example that springs to mind is Eric Godard: from Dec.13 to Feb.2*, a 19 game sample, Godard didn't get a single penalty minute, let alone a fighting major. Godard explained in an interviewed during the dry spell that he was "frustrated" because he simply couldn't find anyone to fight him. He'd skate around for five minutes a night, looking for trouble, finding none. He was rendered completely toothless.
(*Notably, Godard's dry-spell ended in Edmonton on Feb.04. His 27 PIM came thanks to a crease scrum in which Godard clumsily attacked anyone and everyone around him (the Flames were being embarrassed at the time). Godard ended up getting thrown out of the contest and the Oilers ended up scoring on the ensuing powerplay(s). Take THAT Oiler scum!)
b.) Have an effective 4th line. Goons only play about 5 minutes a night because they tend to be gross liabilities. They get scored on easily and can't score themselves. They also take a lot of penalties. As such, goons only tend to see the ice when the outcome of the game is no longer in question (blow-outs, in either direction) or against similarly bad players. Therefore, a relatively decent bottom end of the roster would probably convince the opposing coach to bench his big man pretty quickly**.
**(That is, at least, until his team was being blown-out. Then the goon could be sent out to fight and be subsequently penalized, suspended and potentially fined...thereby further feeding the blow-out).
c.) Dont have a goon on the roster. An extension of the point above, but also plays into the "goons only fight each other" thing. How often do you hear "we have to play X heavyweight because they have Y heavyweight?" Well, maybe *they* wouldn't play Y if you didn't have X, capice?
Just say "no", have a half-way decent bottom 6 and don't bother dressing a goon. Voila: you have now effectively castrated the other guy's enforcer. Feel free to "run their stars", if it fits your fancy (because that's what everyone does when there's no goon, right!?), because there ain't a damn thing he can do about it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In his interview, Peters hints at a potential psychological calming effect a goon might have on the rest of the roster..."just ask 25 guys in the locker room, they'll tell you the same." Perhaps the enforcer is the gun under-the-pillow for the rest of the team? The insurance of civility, the last resort, the bruiser the guys can turn to if things get out of hand?
Perhaps. And if so, does that have some measurable effect on performance, ie; on winning? If it does, I would wager that the effect is more than neutralized by the fact that goons, as shown over and over again, are bad hockey players and have very real and very observable consequences when it comes to things that most obviously do have effect on winning (goals for, goals against, penalties for).
Just in case, I did a quick correlation-analysis between fighting and other team metrics from last year (wins, losses, points, GF, GA and GD):
Note - tallying fighting majors may be a pale proxy for the "goon effect", since it includes tussles by every team member. Still, teams with lots of fights can be reasonably assumed to have a "fight ready roster", including a goon, and not be susceptible to intimidation (ie: the supposed benefit of employing an enforcer).
As you can see, fighting doesn't really have a strong correlation to any of the other performance measures. wins, points and GD share a positive relationship with total scraps, but nothing even approaching significance. The strongest inverse relationship seems to be between goals against and fighting, oddly, but even that could be a product of chance.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps there are some good reasons for keeping a goon around. Afterall, it should be safe to assume that each NHL GM isn't just following the ass of the guy in front of him when it comes to these signings, right? RIGHT?
If there's a good argument in favor of enforcers, though, I haven't heard it. I'd welcome a worthwhile explanation because, as far as I can tell, the heavyweight is an anachronism in this league and carrying one doesn't do anything more than further an outmoded convention.
15 comments:
I totally agree, MG, but I'm also curious about your penultimate paragraph. There has to be some reason, some intangible reason, for the existence of goons. Deep in the id of 'hockey guys' there is this itch that has to be scratched. Whether that has something to do with how the typical hockey player 'grows up' within the strictures and culture of the game, or whether its just a fact that in the group dynamic of a physical sport there has to be a 'Dad' thats going to deliver justice, and if not justice, then at least revenge.
In baseball, you often hear the argument, that throwing at hitters in retaliation for your hitters being thrown at is 'part of the game' or 'how the game is played'. Both the hockey and baseball examples of on the field punishment for perceived unwritten infractions may be cases of players trying to keep each other 'accountable'. In a modern professional sport context, of course, the leagues, and above them, the criminal law, seemingly fill this purpose, and yet..
While I may agree as to the fact there is no place in the NHL today for a "goon" only player, I feel there is a place for enforcers in the NHL. Yes Bettmans NHL rules have put big damper on fighting but to the detriment of the league. You say you've been a hockey fan all your life but I'm betting that it really hasn't been that long. Not long enough to have watched hockey before Bettman took over when fighting wasn't disdained like it is today. Then you would understand the enforcers role much better. Allow fighting again and the stick work, blows to the head and cheap shots wouldn't be nearly as prevalent as they are today because there would be someone to hand out justice the next time you stepped on the ice.
While Gretzky was/is against fighting he didn't play without some kind of enforcer on the team. If someone put a hard hit on Gretzky, their next shift they would have to fight whomever Wayne's enforcer was at the time. That combined with later in his career if you hit Wayne, there would be a penalty called is what allowed Gretzky to accomplish what he did. He was able to skate unobstructed. Granted he was a gifted player but if he had to play today, he would never get the totals he did.
The rules today have made the "goon" obsolete but the need for enforcers is still there just as it was in the past. That is more to do with the teams being limited on how many players they can dress from what it used to be. I'm not sure how long ago it was but the league shortened the benches by allowing less players to dress and that made the "goon" obsolete as today an enforcer needs to be able to play also because teams don't have a roster spot available for someone with limited playing ability. Therein lays the problem, there aren't many talented enforcers today. Also when you are talented, you don't want to be sitting in the box because of Bettman's anti-fighting rules. I won't go into how Bettman has ruined hockey and it's not just because he has cracked down on fighting.
While I may agree as to the fact there is no place in the NHL today for a "goon" only player, I feel there is a place for enforcers in the NHL.
your first premise contradicts your second one...unless you think enforcers are different from goons.
You say you've been a hockey fan all your life but I'm betting that it really hasn't been that long. Not long enough to have watched hockey before Bettman took over when fighting wasn't disdained like it is today.
Im 30 years old. I've watched hockey since I was 5. I played the game for 10 years. I've also coached it. So your bet would be wrong.
Allow fighting again and the stick work, blows to the head and cheap shots wouldn't be nearly as prevalent as they are today because there would be someone to hand out justice the next time you stepped on the ice.
The assertion that there was some golden age where violence and cheap shots didn't exist or were less prevalent (due to the "policing" by enforcers) is a dream. Ever hear of the broad street bullies? Bench clearing brawls used to drain into the stands. One of the most egregious cheap shots in league history occurred between two enforcers.
Like so many GM's, it seems to me you're clinging to a convention because that's the way it used to be and is therefore surmised to be the proper way of things.
A goon is someone who is out of control, in todays game i would call the agitators more of a goon than the enforcers. for example: Avery spends the entire game looking to cause problems under the guise of 'getting under the skin' of other players. His behavior is generally unchecked and he is well known for running at star players setting off the bench clearing variety of fights. He has worn out his welcome everywhere because he does this even when coaches tell him to stop.
Conversly Look at George Larouque (sp) and his work in pittsburg, prior to his arrival Crosby was beaten, slashed, slewfooted, and any other behind the play cheap shot available. George went out under direction, and protected the best player. It is never uncontrolled, it is planned, and was effective.
I also have been a player, coach, and referee in hockey for 32 years (I am 36) and in all aspects I agree with the deterent of an enforcer. As a referee, games with the deterent generally are cleaner, with alot less cheap work in them, at all levels of hockey.
Ask any good-to-elite player and they will agree. Hell even Gretzky made sure McSoley came with him to LA, and he was the big 'no fighting' Guy in the NHL. Note what hapened when he went to St. Louis and had noone covering his back, he was blindsided and knocked cold in weeks.
I will not question your time n hockey, but i would question your ability in it, If you were ever the offensive leader or fistline type of guy, you would change your tune on the subject quickly.
As a referee, games with the deterent generally are cleaner, with alot less cheap work in them, at all levels of hockey.
Ask any good-to-elite player and they will agree. Hell even Gretzky made sure McSoley came with him to LA, and he was the big 'no fighting' Guy in the NHL. Note what hapened when he went to St. Louis and had noone covering his back, he was blindsided and knocked cold in weeks.
I will not question your time n hockey, but i would question your ability in it, If you were ever the offensive leader or fistline type of guy, you would change your tune on the subject quickly.
Ahh the ad hominem attack...my favorite logical fallacy.
Im afraid Im going to have to ask for proof of all these "hockey is inherently cleaner with goons in it" claims. Otherwise it strikes me as a baseless assertion. Was hockey cleaner in 03/04, for example, when enforcers dominated the PIM column? I really doubt it.
As for goons being a deterrent currently, the article details why that is no longer so. For anecdotal evidence, I came to notice that the pests you refer to (Ott, Avery, Burrows, etc.) ran amok against the Flames last year. With Godard in the line-up. Why? he was rarely on the ice when they were and when he was, they'd laugh at him and skate off the ice. He deterred no one.
The only thing Godard did last year was 1.) fight other goons and 2.) get scored on.
Players would still fight even if there wasn't a designated fighter on every team no doubt. Hell, let 'em.
I think that the distinction needs to be made between an enforcer or designated fighter, who "sends the message" but also plays the game (from John Ferguson to, say, Daniel Carcillo), and the goon, who has no other discernable NHL-level skills (Eric Godard et al). You look at the stats, and Ferguson could actually play hockey: 303 points in 500 games, only one season with fewer than 15 goals and two with at least 20, in a career evenly split between the Original Six and the first expansion era. I have no problem with the designated fighter, as long as he can take a regular shift and not kneecap his own team through incompetence.
As to "message sending", the modern goon is so utterly impotent in the face of "new" NHL obstacles that his ability to right perceived wrongs and deter pests is next to nil.
I personally find that fact kind of distasteful. The refs aren't going to catch everything, and even if they did, there just isn't the same sense of justice from an ejection and suspension that there is from an ejection, suspension, and good old-fasioned ass-whoopin'. I've advocated removing the instigator for years, because if nothing else, there's that catharsis that comes from seeing the asshole who attacked your star "get what's coming to him." Would it end cheap shots? Of course not, but it might keep a few guys from looking for trouble when it isn't needed -- the simple psychology of punishment does work, if not to the degree some would like you to believe. And really, if someone can pound on Sean Avery with relative impunity, I bet he'd have to find a different way to play the game, and I don't see that as a bad thing.
As to the other point Xtroll made, about Gretzky skating unobstructed, Neil Sheehy, the guy who made his living by harrassing Gretzky, believes that the instigator not only contributed to stuff like the Bertuzzi incident, but the obstruction tactics of the Dead Puck Era. It's an odd conclusion, but I guess I can see where he gets it from.
from Dec.13 to Feb.2*, a 19 game sample, Godard didn't get a single penalty minute, let alone a fighting major.
note: in the same time period you've got guys who can actually PLAY hockey getting into fisticuffs (iginla, phaneuf, nolan), with a couple of debateably useful fourth-liners picking up most of the fighting slack (nystrom, smith). even david hale threw down twice, at one point beating matt cooke into a senseless pulp.
[okay, so hale only JUST won that one, but it was DAVID EFFIN HALE !!!].
point: any of those guys can fight just fine in a retaliaion/momentum situation, so dressing a guy who's otherwise useless as a hockey player makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
if we've got primeau, nystrom, prust, and vandermeer (in this pretense, i refuse to believe andre roy will suit up for any game other than vs. vancouver or edmonton), we needn't dress a total lunkhead.
I've played summer hockey with guys that were "goons" in the WHL and the NHL and they were more talented than anybody else on the ice.
While they may be a liability in the role they are used in, I contend they could actually contribute if given an opportunity.
Chris Neil is an example, so is Sean Avery. Heck Deave Semenko actually could play and was Gretzky's winger.
Remember that nice breakaway Oliwa scored a few seasons ago? That move shows the talent level.
Skating seems to be the biggest liability of "goons", so if teams would just invest in some power skating your 4th line argument would actually happen with the goons becoming better players and earning more than 4 minutes a game.
The other reason the NHL won't ban fighting, as much as Bettman hates it, every arena in the league goes nuts when the gloves are dropped.
I like the argument that dirty blows to the head, stick work, and cheap shots happen because of the disdain for fighting in today's NHL. There is supposedly no one to hand out justice.
What's wrong with the ref? The league does not instruct the refs to put players away for dirty play. They are capable of making the calls, but the league's weekly video DVDs say to let it go.
I love a hard clean hit and great checking and I NEVER want to see that leave the game. I do want to see the "forearm finish to the head" that shoulder checks are often followed up by be penalized for what they are... dirty plays.
There's no reason good clean physical play can't be rewarded. The NFL is all about hitting, on every play, and yet that sport does not require fighting to change momentum or to self-regulate dirty play. They rely on the referees and the pressure of the team to say "that unsportsmanlike conduct call cost us, you blew it by losing your cool".
Ahh the ad hominem attack...my favorite logical fallacy.
i MADE AN if/THEN ARGUEMENT THEREFORE IT COMPUTES AS VALID. SYBOL LOGIC, MY FAVORITE.
Second you did not address my question of skill level as a hockey player therefore avoidance, and you again returned to the term Goon, not enforcer, which was the other distinction I addressed. Yes, if Avery had to actually pay for his actions he would be a very different player. He puts his hand in the goalies face (something your taught as a mite as dirty play) and an enforcer catches you next shift and bloodies you a bit, you think 2x when he says keep your hand on your stick as the ref saves you next ime around. Think he would make runs at Crosby if Laroque could hit him back?? No way, guy is a coward.
Remove instigator rules, and let the guys do their job. This is the last man's sport left in North America, let them be men, or next thing you know it will become a 'me' sport like the other 3 bigs.
Let me tell you something about enforcers, they are the police officers of the NHL. Imagine our streets with no cops to keep the criminals in check. It is old school but a necessary evil for the game. After reading your post I am pretty sure you have not played in a hostile game before. Without fighting cheapshots would be at an all time high and those lousy French Canadians would have a field day, with nobody allowed to punish them without the goons. We live in a violent world, wars have been going on since the beginning of mankind, so if you think you can just turn the switch off just like that your smoking some crack. Fighting must always be a part of the game or more serious injuries will happen. Ask the Great One how he would feel without McSorely around all those years.
"This is the last man's sport left in North America, let them be men"
Ah, I always love that argument. All Kent's saying here, at all, is that it makes more sense to dress a good player than a bad one, yet this comment string immediately descends into a referendum on whether fighting should be around.
He said it best in the comments: "Like so many GM's, it seems to me you're clinging to a convention because that's the way it used to be and is therefore surmised to be the proper way of things."
All a real fan wants is for his team to win games. And it's bloody clear that a quality player on the fourth line helps your team win games a hell of a lot better than Andre Roy does.
If you like fighting so much, go watch UFC. I'll take watching the Flames win games, thanks.
Andre Roy??? of course (except he was considered a mediocre player at best until Daddy bumped him up), Now he is an NHL prospect, per Patrick, LOL.
Though again, my arguement is more enforcers good, goons bad. Anyone who has played knows the difference. Take Darren McCary, considered a fighter/enforcer for a long time, but still can play. I do not edorse the Worrells in the league, but i know my team is better with a mathew barnaby around ready to jump anyone who cheap shots my best players. Heck even european teams are picking up that a decent 4th liner who can fight is better than a slightly better 4th line who can not, option A is the route. And euro's were considered soft for how long??
And ya had me until calgary wins, now we are in fantasy land. (ducks and grabs jersey while yanking off helmet)
To "goon" or not to "goon". Ahhh, the great mental masturbation with out the orgasm. Well, thought out argument complete with evidence to further your idea. However, you've forgotten one factor - probably because there's absolutely no way to argue it.
I like it.
Call it blood-lust. Call it wrong. Call it what you want. But you've forgotten the most basic reason to keep it- because I like it.
Now at this point your going to say, "Ah, HA! We're arguing enforcers, not fighting."
And I say, Ah-HAH! I like them too.
Debate all you want about the need, the reason, or the statistics, but I can tell you when I see a goon hit the ice my heart pumps a little more adrenaline - and I like that feeling. Another argument, that drives me up the wall is the argument from a players perspective, whining about the safety factor, and unsportsmanlike conduct a goon/enforcer participates in. However, the reason I'm watching Hockey and not Cricket is because of the "anything can happen" factor, and the enforcer furthers this.
I like hockey the way it is, with the enforcers, the fighting and the extra strategy to overcome those obstacles, and there's no way to argue against that.
While I like that Owen Nolan, Iginla, Shanahan and a few notable others will fight their own battles, what will the reaction be when one of them breaks a hand and misses 4-6 weeks? The value of the enforcer will be made clear then.
Beyond that, the Ducks' Cup isn't that far behind us, is it? That team was loaded with so-called goons, and yet they could play a little hockey, couldn't they?
Post a Comment