The role of fighters has been much discussed over the past year. Travis Yost tackled the myth of momentum here (see also this post from Jonathan Willis from a couple of years ago). Adam Gretz looked at the myth of protection here. And, in more recent days Trevor Linden has openly questioned fighting’s role in today’s NHL.
Yesterday, Jonathan Willis had an interesting post on roster construction (in this case, the Oilers’ attempt to recreate the Chicago Model, on which see my own post here) in the presence of an enforcer, i.e., Luke Gazdic. You can read his post here.
[For reference, I’ve looked at Gazdic before here and talked about enforcers before here]Willis’ article (and his engagement in the comments’ section) reminded me of an argument I’ve seen advanced over the years concerning “intimidation” and how it cannot be measured by advanced stats.
Unlike the “momentum” and “protection” arguments related to fighting/truculent play, this argument asserts that intimidation is a skill like any other that helps the intimidating player win puck battles. Whereas the momentum and protection arguments suggest the major benefit of fighting is experienced by the rest of the team (as opposed to the fighter himself), the intimidation argument suggests the major benefit is experienced by the intimidator himself.
The Intimidation Argument
The argument runs like this:
Just as a sneaky Datsyuk-type player takes the puck away from his opponent through skill, so the truculent player scares his opponent off the puck with intimidation.
I came across a succinct version of this argument after posting this tweet back in April:
Jack Michaels on Stauffer: “You can’t apply Advanced Statistics to what Luke Gazdic brings. I just won’t listen to it. I just won’t”
— Romulus’ Apotheosis (@RomulusNotNuma) April 16, 2014
I got this response from twitter user @nrXic
In response to this argument, I’d like to make a number of points.
1. In general terms, I’m sympathetic to this argument.
Intimidation, in this sense, i.e., as a tool to gain possession of the puck, seems like a valuable tool to have in a player’s arsenal. If the goal is to gain and maintain possession of the puck, the manner of doing so doesn’t necessarily matter.
2. It seems clear to me that in some cases intimidation does actually work in this way, or something very much like it.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwYMvKztLVQ&w=560&h=315]3. What intimidation cannot do, however, is make up for the essential skill involved in making/taking passes and all the other things we generally attribute to puck possession. A team of intimidators without any ability to play with the puck isn’t going to win hockey games.
That said, it seems intimidation could well be an important part of a player’s skill set.
4. Because the intimidation argument limits itself to the fortunes of the intimidator and his on-ice play, it, frankly, doesn’t make any sense to suggest possession metrics cannot account for its effects.
Whether a player is winning puck battles and driving possession on the merits of his intimidation skills, rather than some other skill set, is irrelevant.
5. Let’s use an analogy of petty theft.
The goal is to gain a wallet.
One thief is cunning, subtle. He sneaks up on you unawares. A pickpocket.
Another thief is blunt, forceful. He approaches you directly. A robber.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that both methods are equally efficient in the aggregate. The only question that matters, then, is: are you proficient enough in your chosen method to achieve your goal or not?
In the case of the intimidating hockey player: are you good enough at intimidating the opposition into giving you the puck?
The Failure of an Argument
I suspect the reason the proponents of the intimidation argument (which, again, I have time for) claim intimidation (and in general what truculent players “bring to the table”) can’t be measured by advanced stats, is largely due to the nature of the players they hoist up as heroes of the argument, i.e., very bad hockey players.
The argument, however, isn’t invalidated because Luke Gazdic is a very bad hockey player. Despite this, the argument proves to be fairly limited in application precisely because players who are all, or nearly all, intimidation have a horrible record of possessing the puck. That is, they aren’t good enough at intimidating NHL players to cut it on intimidation alone. Or, they are so poor at the skills necessary to maintain possession of the puck after episodes of intimidation that the benefit of their intimidation skill is greatly outweighed by their lack of general hockey skill.
[adsanity id=1808 align=alignnone /]Add The Sports Daily to your Google News Feed!
