Bloodlust trumps logic for hockey fight-loving creeps (Trending Topics)

On Tuesday night in Columbus, there was a routine icing play against the Blue Jackets.

Josh Anderson, a 22-year-old rookie, was pursuing the puck but got beat to the dots by Adam McQuaid. Anderson was fired up about a hit McQuaid had thrown earlier in the shift, or other so he went after McQuaid and got his hands up high.

The linesman stepped in and prevented the fight, ostensibly because Anderson tried to engage in it after the whistle had already gone. Though both players dropped their gloves, they were only giving roughing minors instead of fighting majors because the linesman put in yeoman’s work to keep them beyond arms’ length.

“I guess you’re not allowed fighting after the whistle is blown,” Anderson told the Columbus Dispatch. “(The linesman) told me it was a clean hit. He was like, ‘What are you doing?’ And I said, ‘I’m going after him after that hit.’ He just said, ‘What hit? It was a clean hit.’ It was kind of weird.”

That this happened the same day as Dave Lozo wrote a column entitled “Hockey fighting continues to decline, and good riddance,” is a happy coincidence. As Lozo says, the only people who want to keep fighting in the game are those who: a) are disingenuous enough to say they like it for any reason that is not “I like seeing guys give each other CTE,” or b) are incorrectly of the belief that fighting has any real effect on dirty play, cheap shots, etc.

The problem with saying fights — or at least guys on the roster who are willing to fight — deter “cheap shots” is that you can’t prove the negative. It’s specious reasoning, a la Lisa Simpson’s tiger-preventing rock, to say that an absence of cheap shots is proof fighters are doing their jobs just by existing. Especially because it’s hard to define what is or isn’t a “cheap shot.” Like pornography, you know it when you see it, but it’s not always easy to define.

A slash to the hand that goes wholly undetected can be seen as a cheap shot, as Edmonton fans have been saying all year about the rough treatment opponents give Connor McDavid. But you have to say that the refs in this league generally do a pretty good job of calling the egregious stuff. And anyway, wasn’t the presence of Milan Lucic supposed to deter that kind of behavior in the first place?

Shocking revelation for a Liberal Wuss From Taxachusetts like me: I too used to be a “fighting helps police the game” truther.

But there’s no evidence to support it. If we’re going to loosely define “cheap shots” as plays that result in a major penalty — which again, you have to say refs mostly get right in this league — then there’s basically no effect on the number of majors given out per game even as fighting has declined sharply.

The number of non-fighting majors given out per game has moved between 0.02 and 0.05 — basically 1.6 to 4.1 per 82 games, per team — but not with any significant correlation to fighting numbers. You quite literally cannot say that there’s any change in behavior even as fighting is down about 50 percent over the past eight-plus seasons (that’s as far back as ESPN’s major penalty tracker goes).

And no, that doesn’t count cheap stuff that’s only a minor by the rule book but is still injurious, or stuff that didn’t get called, but in theory fights prevent the Big Bad Stuff from happening to teams’ star players. The data doesn’t support it.

This very much feels like one of those things where people know they’re behind the times and they have to rationalize it to themselves. People have to understand in their hearts that the fact that guys like Zac Rinaldo can’t get a job in the NHL doesn’t have any bearing on whether their favorite player gets run. In fact, getting guys out of the league who solely exist to do what Rinaldo did is probably good for everyone’s health. Because it wasn’t just Rinaldo who was out there trying to Police The Game in his own way; let’s not forget the time even Hizzoner Shawn Thornton tried to kill Brooks Orpik for what was, at worst, a borderline hit. This was when the Bruins had both Thornton and Lucic in the lineup, mind you — in addition to other willing combatants like Gregory Campbell and Jarome Iginla — so if ever a deterrent was going to exist, it was going to be that team.

McQuaid, another guy whose calling card is his willingness to throw hands, wasn’t in the lineup that night, but he was on that team.

So circling back to McQuaid’s most recent issues vis a vis not-fighting, or not being allowed to (because he would have been more than happy to drop Anderson), of course the reaction to it has been divided solidly between two camps: the dopes who see it as the end of the sport they care about only on the condition it include guys punching each other in the face, and dispassionate hockey haters who really don’t see this one thing as being a big deal either way.

You can imagine where at least one Boston Media Take fell on the subject: “So, Fighting Appears To Have Been Banned By The NHL.”

Now, the semantic argument here is that fighting has always been banned by the NHL and that’s why it results in a major penalty (this is what the league itself always says when the subject of banning fights comes up, so you know it’s well-founded). The less-snotty version of the argument is that this was one thing and also, seriously dude who cares? Yeah, they make every new player wear a visor now, and if you think that’s bad it’s because you think visors are for cowards although you wouldn’t call them cowards you would call them a vulgar term probably involving gendered or homophobic insults.

And they can’t take their helmets off before they fight any more? Ah jeez, but I want there to be a chance guys split the back of their skulls open like overripe watermelons in every single fight!

And now staged fights are banned in the AHL, a league where fighting is still a major issue that makes games nearly unwatchable? Yeah, that’s bad too I guess.

From that breathless take (which somehow concludes with a wishy-washy “maybe it’s okay if fighting goes away” conclusion that doesn’t serve anyone): “But declaring an outright ban on fighting in hockey would turn away many of the game’s old-school fans. And in a sport that isn’t quite as popular as football, basketball and baseball, the NHL can hardly afford to lose any fans for any reason.”

To the first argument: Who cares?

To the second: Statistically speaking, no one who likes fighting in hockey would actually stop watching the NHL if the fighting went away. Because again, we have some evidence this isn’t the case. Another specious argument here but as long as we’re making them: Ratings generally go up when fighting goes down.

(I don’t actually think that’s the reason, though. Obviously hockey just has a core audience that doesn’t change much from one year to the next for any reason in particular.)

Besides, hockey fans aren’t actually hockey fans, by and large. Football fans are football fans insofar as they will watch whatever weak-ass game is on Monday Night Football or the 4:15 games. If they’re a Pats fan they’ll sit through a Texans game or whatever because it’s football and it’s on TV. Generally speaking, you couldn’t get a Ranger fan to watch a Wild game with a gun to his head because hockey fans are fans of teams and perhaps individual players, but not the sport at large. That’s why NBCSN has one of Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Boston or the Rangers on almost every national TV game. They guarantee a reliable audience, whereas Columbus or Carolina very much do not.

Fighting, in point of fact, has no bearing on national numbers. These people just don’t exist.

This is a well-worn argument, too, but people who like fighting in hockey will also talk about how they love the Olympics and World Junior and Stanley Cup Playoffs. Where there is no fighting. There is just the sport being played at its highest allowable level. Perhaps if the NHL could guarantee a higher quality of play (i.e. through contraction, which will never happen) then the bloodlust would subside. But probably not, right?

And look, if you like fighting in hockey, that doesn’t necessarily make you a bad person (though obviously it doesn’t help). It does make you a low-brow creep who doesn’t understand they can just watch UFC fights and get more of what they’re ostensibly looking for, but also it just makes you a product of how you grew up.

All these outside forces from neurosurgeons to concussion lawsuits who are coming for the traditions you’ve held dear even as the landscape changes around you. Changing is hard and accepting change, and the fact that you’ve been marginalized by a governing body that you think doesn’t care about you any more understandably hurts.

Really, you only want one thing. You, and people like you, would love to Make Hockey Great Again. Like it used to be when you were a kid.

And folks, if there’s ever a need for a new commissioner, I know just the kind of guy you could vote for, okay?

Ryan Lambert is a Puck Daddy columnist. His email is here and his Twitter is here.

All stats via Corsica unless otherwise stated.

MORE FROM YAHOO HOCKEY