Why did nobody respond to the hit by Adam Mair ---I mean, Radko Gudas?

[Oates2Neely]

When the hit occurred, the Bruins were publicly criticized for their lack of retaliation on Cooke. Even hockey personnel within the organization weren't happy. When the Penguins came to Boston on March 18, Bruins pugilist Shawn Thornton dropped the gloves with Cooke on their first shift. Boston lost 3-0.

Savard said he was happy with the response by Thornton, but not the team's position in the standings.


"First off, we're not sitting in the most comfortable spot," he said. "Obviously, you would like to get teams back and people back, but we want to make the playoffs and that's a huge thing, so there are times to do things and I'm sure if we had a comfortable lead like last year it would have been a different situation. Thorny got him back pretty good, so at the end of the day I'm sure down the line there will be other times that we play each other or another situation. So this year, under the circumstances, we weren't able to do probably everything we wanted to."

 

[Dr Quincy]

You seem to be against basically everything in this thread, toughness, a response etc. I respect your take on it, i really do but i just don't get how you can't see that this teams makeup is completely different, and for the worse.

Last year the Bruins open their game against the Ducks with a quick goal, 5 minutes later Perron gets into it with Krug, then Krug has to fight Chris Stewart and gets pumped. The Ducks score 4 unanswered goals right after. Pat Maroon laughs in the face of Chara, no one responds to Stewart taking liberties with Krug and the Bruins lose 6-2.

What is your take on that? I'm just curious. Seems to me like the old Bruins wouldn't take that lying down.

Against toughness? No. But you might have a different definition of toughness than me.
Against a response? What do you mean by "response"? I can't tell if I'm for or against it unless you tell me what the "response" is.

Against the idea that the lack of a response is a big deal that portends a bad season for this team? YES. I am totally 100% against that. I'm sorry. I don't think that this team is doomed because of that, nor do I think a "response" would have built team camaraderie which would then propel this team to more wins.

As for your question about my take: I can remember 2 times last year when I wore a certain pair of sneakers and it rained. Now it rained on other days. And there were times I wore that pair of sneakers and it didn't rain. Doesn't it seem odd then to remember and point out those 2 times and say "Wearing these sneakers causes it to rain"?

Of course my analogy is taken to extreme for effect, but I'm doing it to show what my argument is: You are taking 1 even that has no causal relation to the outcome and prescribing some causality. I guarantee you that had the Bruins been the ones to win that game, you STILL would have posted that video and instead would have said:

LOOK FIGHTING WORKS!!! Sure Krug got beat up, but man he showed heart and his teammates' spirits were lifted and they went out and won the game for him!

In other words, you are waiting for the outcome of the game and THEN going back and saying that the fight caused the win. If a team can get some super Pac-Man powerup pill for its team by fighting, then the other team does as well. No? And if this really worked, then why aren't there more fights in the playoffs when wins matter most? In fact, why aren't teams fighting nonstop?

There were many games with fights last year. In those fights, both teams fought (unless there was a case of 2 teammates fighting, which I'm unaware of). In those games 1 team won the fight and 1 team lost the fight. In those games 1 team won the game and won team lost. Teams that fight have a .500 record.

What's your take on that?

 

[jgatie]

Still waiting for an explanation about how the B's supposedly had a tough close knit team the year they won the Cup (and it played a role), and yet many guys on that team stood by and did nothing when Savard got cheap-shotted by Cooke...

The Savard hit was March 7, 2010. The team to a man was excoriated for not responding. Following that, there were numerous incidents where they came to the defense of a teammate, 3 by Andrew Ference alone, 1 where Savard himself took on a guy, concussion and all. Can we say the 2010-2011 team learned a lesson from the Savard incident?

 

[HiyaGeorgii]

The Savard hit was March 7, 2010. The team to a man was excoriated for not responding. Following that, there were numerous incidents where they came to the defense of a teammate, 3 by Andrew Ference alone, 1 where Savard himself took on a guy, concussion and all. Can we say the 2010-2011 team learned a lesson from the Savard incident?

Agreed. I have no idea what people are trying to do with the Savard incident from the year before? They were lambasted for it and were a totally different team the year after for the most part.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

The Savard hit was March 7, 2010. The team to a man was excoriated for not responding. Following that, there were numerous incidents where they came to the defense of a teammate, 3 by Andrew Ference alone, 1 where Savard himself took on a guy, concussion and all. Can we say the 2010-2011 team learned a lesson from the Savard incident?

The year before, the B's were involved in a couple of line brawls, including one against DAL which I already cited (where Savard was involved). That team "had each other's backs" and didn't succeed in the playoffs. A lot of the core players on the team were the same for that 3 year period, so did they have team unity, lose it, then need to get it back?

As I said before, I like to see teammates sticking up for one another, but I'm not sure I can draw a correlation between that and winning. Also, using your example above, just because the B's didn't respond to the Czarnik hit, it doesn't mean they won't respond during the year.

 

[jgatie]

The year before, the B's were involved in a couple of line brawls, including one against DAL which I already cited (where Savard was involved). That team "had each other's backs" and didn't succeed in the playoffs. A lot of the core players on the team were the same for that 3 year period, so did they have team unity, lose it, then need to get it back?

As I said before, I like to see teammates sticking up for one another, but I'm not sure I can draw a correlation between that and winning. Also, using your example above, just because the B's didn't respond to the Czarnik hit, it doesn't mean they won't respond during the year.

I'm not claiming any correlation. But I'm also not accepting that citing the Savard incident is proof of anything except single incidents do not prove a trend. Any trend.

However, the study cited earlier is interesting, given it appears to prove an increase in offensive statistics after a fight. Of course, posters who abhor fighting are ignoring this study in favor of hyperbolic strawman arguments. Par for the course.

 

[Therick67]

I'm not claiming any correlation. But I'm also not accepting that citing the Savard incident is proof of anything except single incidents do not prove a trend. Any trend.

However, the study cited earlier is interesting, given it appears to prove an increase in offensive statistics after a fight. Of course, posters who abhor fighting are ignoring this study in favor of hyperbolic strawman arguments. Par for the course.

My question is, whats the down side to guys sticking up for a teammate? IMO thats just the way it's supposed to work. Does doing so cause the team to lose? Do the fans not like it?

For all those claiming it does not help in any way, how does it hurt?

 

[jgatie]

My question is, whats the down side to guys sticking up for a teammate? IMO thats just the way it's supposed to work. Does doing so cause the team to lose? Do the fans not like it?

For all those claiming it does not help in any way, how does it hurt?

It offends the sensibility of people who have trouble reconciling their abhorrence of violence with their love of an inherently violent sport.

Note: This is not a critique. Everyone has to reconcile the level of violence they are able to tolerate and choose their fandom accordingly. I will not watch MMA fighting. I find it to be one step from bloodsport. However, I also don't go into MMA forums telling them how to clean up the violence in an inherently violent sport. YMMV.

 

[BruinDust]

The year before, the B's were involved in a couple of line brawls, including one against DAL which I already cited (where Savard was involved). That team "had each other's backs" and didn't succeed in the playoffs. A lot of the core players on the team were the same for that 3 year period, so did they have team unity, lose it, then need to get it back?

As I said before, I like to see teammates sticking up for one another, but I'm not sure I can draw a correlation between that and winning. Also, using your example above, just because the B's didn't respond to the Czarnik hit, it doesn't mean they won't respond during the year.

I don't see it either.

After that hard fought physical Ottawa game where Marchand hip-checked Borowiecki (sp?) and Hayes got the hat trick, there were comments on here about that would be this teams "Dallas game".

Sure didn't work out that way.

And weren't there rumors about a divided room when the team collapsed late in 2015?

And how in 2016, they said it was a tighter group. Yet the same sort of collapse occured.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

It offends the sensibility of people who have trouble reconciling their abhorrence of violence with their love of an inherently violent sport.

Note: This is not a critique. Everyone has to reconcile the level of violence they are able to tolerate and choose their fandom accordingly. I will not watch MMA fighting. I find it to be one step from bloodsport. However, I also don't go into MMA forums telling them how to clean up the violence in an inherently violent sport. YMMV.

I like physical hockey.

I like fighting (not staged).

I like teammates sticking up for one another.


The OP basically condemned the current version of the team because they didn't respond to the Czarnik hit. I can't find a correlation between "responses" and success of the team.

 

[jgatie]

I like physical hockey.

I like fighting (not staged).

I like teammates sticking up for one another.


The OP basically condemned the current version of the team because they didn't respond to the Czarnik hit. I can't find a correlation between "responses" and success of the team.

Not everyone posting in this thread agrees 100% with the OP, I thought that was obvious. As to correlation, what are your thoughts on the previously posted study which shows a increase in offensive statistics following a fight? Is that not some evidence that fighting may give a boost to a team?

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Not everyone posting in this thread agrees 100% with the OP, I thought that was obvious. As to correlation, what are your thoughts on the previously posted study which shows a increase in offensive statistics following a fight? Is that not some evidence that fighting may give a boost to a team?

If I read the article correctly, all the study measured was shots in the 3 minutes after a fight?

As the guy who did the study admitted, it needs a lot more work.

 

[jgatie]

If I read the article correctly, all the study measured was shots in the 3 minutes after a fight?

As the guy who did the study admitted, it needs a lot more work.

That's what I got out of it too. However, there may be something there. It's more than the evidence to the contrary, which far too many times consists of silly logical fallacies like "You can't say fighting deters cheap shots, because cheap shots still happen!"

 

[Fenian24]

It offends the sensibility of people who have trouble reconciling their abhorrence of violence with their love of an inherently violent sport.

Note: This is not a critique. Everyone has to reconcile the level of violence they are able to tolerate and choose their fandom accordingly. I will not watch MMA fighting. I find it to be one step from bloodsport. However, I also don't go into MMA forums telling them how to clean up the violence in an inherently violent sport. YMMV.

Thank you, this has been my argument with the wussification of hockey for some time now. I used this analogy a while ago but I feel it still applies.

I just started watching soccer a couple years ago, I am becoming a fan of he sport, as a new fan I don't go and tell soccer die hards that it would be better if there was more scoring or if they allowed hitting, maybe if they let the players use their hands it would be more exciting. I watch and accept what the game is, if players acting like the Montreal Canadiens and feigning life threatening injuries every time they get tackled annoys me I won't watch anymore, my ego isn't so frail I think a game with a rich history should change it's rules to appeal to new fans who don't have a deep love of the game and are casually interested.

I feel this is what Bettman has done with hockey, he listened to the ESPN's and their "media partners" and wussified the game to make it more appealing to casual fans while not caring in any way about the hardcore base of hockey fans. There was always a percentage of fans who disliked physical play and fighting, if you look at most polls regarding fighting a very small percentage, but Bettman felt there were more fans not watching the game because of the violence so he has turned the game into speed skating with little contact.

Maybe he was right, maybe hockey will not be a niche sport in non NHL markets and the soccer moms will let little Jimmy play because he won't have to fight or get hit. In my opinion the game is more boring than ever and is on the wrong path.

What this has to do with the threads subject is once upon a time if you ran a player you answered for it, if not your team was considered soft and would continue to get run until there was a response to stand up for yourself and your teammates. Maybe this no longer applies, which is really sad, but I think it is still in the DNA of the game, the Flyers answered Backes clean hit in the same game, Boston choose not to respond to a dirty hit from a borderline player, that to me sends a bad message to your teammates and to other teams that even in Bettmans watered down version of hockey you can do what you want to the Bruins and only have to worry about the leagues response not the Bruins.

 

[Sheppy]

Against toughness? No. But you might have a different definition of toughness than me.
Against a response? What do you mean by "response"? I can't tell if I'm for or against it unless you tell me what the "response" is.

Against the idea that the lack of a response is a big deal that portends a bad season for this team? YES. I am totally 100% against that. I'm sorry. I don't think that this team is doomed because of that, nor do I think a "response" would have built team camaraderie which would then propel this team to more wins.

As for your question about my take: I can remember 2 times last year when I wore a certain pair of sneakers and it rained. Now it rained on other days. And there were times I wore that pair of sneakers and it didn't rain. Doesn't it seem odd then to remember and point out those 2 times and say "Wearing these sneakers causes it to rain"?

Of course my analogy is taken to extreme for effect, but I'm doing it to show what my argument is: You are taking 1 even that has no causal relation to the outcome and prescribing some causality. I guarantee you that had the Bruins been the ones to win that game, you STILL would have posted that video and instead would have said:

LOOK FIGHTING WORKS!!! Sure Krug got beat up, but man he showed heart and his teammates' spirits were lifted and they went out and won the game for him!

In other words, you are waiting for the outcome of the game and THEN going back and saying that the fight caused the win. If a team can get some super Pac-Man powerup pill for its team by fighting, then the other team does as well. No? And if this really worked, then why aren't there more fights in the playoffs when wins matter most? In fact, why aren't teams fighting nonstop?

There were many games with fights last year. In those fights, both teams fought (unless there was a case of 2 teammates fighting, which I'm unaware of). In those games 1 team won the fight and 1 team lost the fight. In those games 1 team won the game and won team lost. Teams that fight have a .500 record.

What's your take on that?

You know you can respond to posts without being condescending, right?

Does fighting lead to wins? Probably not, but it probably boots the team. There's no real stat saying so, so maybe we will never know. Until you've sat on a bench when it has happened you probably wouldn't know. I remember a few years ago, Jared Boll took a huge run at John Tavares, then Trevor Gillies came over and introduced himself to Jared Boll, there was a dust up and when Gillies was in the box, John Tavares came over said "Thanks" and gave him a tap with the stick. I would guess that Tavares was happy with a response and appreciated it.

Also, don't assume I'll say things when i absolutely wouldn't. Krug had absolutely no business fighting Chris Stewart. Did he show heart? Absolutely, did the Bruins build off Krug getting absolutely rag dolled? No, they didn't. However, Anaheim did they went on to push the Bruins around like many teams did, including the Habs.

Does toughness = fighting? Not necessarily, but i don't think you can deny it doesn't (which you probably will) - Team toughness to me is a team that comes out and plays hard, they don't let players take liberties with their teammates, they have each others back. Team toughness which the Bruins had during their cup run hasn't been seen since. Teams knew what they were getting into when they rolled into the TD Garden, they knew they were in for a fight. You beat the Bruins? Awesome, however the Bruins took a chunk out of them when they did so.

Maybe i'm in the minority here but this "new look" style they're going with is absolute trash. It's hard to watch this team, and it has been over the past few seasons. I love that they brought in Backes, he helps up front. Outside of him and Beleskey hardly anyone in their forward group will throw a hit. Outside of Adam McQuaid (who people want gone) they don't have a nasty d-men that would even clear a crease.

Again, maybe it is just me but i have never liked this new style of hockey the Bruins suddenly adopted overnight after they couldn't beat Montreal in the post season a few years back.

 

[TwineTickler]

While I'm disappointed there was zero response during a meaningless preseason game when a tiny rookie got demolished, the good news is Czar wasn't seriously hurt and he will be in the lineup tomorrow night. Also, I fully expect during the first B's/Flyer game for someone to offer with Gudas. Hopefully it's McQuaid and he's angry.

 

[Oates2Neely]

Maybe the anti-response fans assume we are in favor of goon hockey? I certainly don't. I think some of the glue guys (tough guys) during the Bruins recent reign weren't really great fighters (Ference, Campbell, etc). But if they witnessed a teammate on the wrong end of a dirty play you can bet your house on them instantly reacting. Whether they'd won the fight or not didn't matter, it was the precedent that was set, "run our guys & we will not stand for it". I bet the guys in black & gold jerseys appreciated it. Just a hunch.

 

[BigGoalBrad]

The league is changing we will lose games by playing someone who can fight over Czarnik. Do you want to bench Krug for McQuaid?

Don't get me wrong when you're designated 'big' body on the bottom 6 is ****ing Hayes you leave yourself vulnerable to getting bullied by Philly. But again we are stuck with friggen Hayes he is a mistake we have to live with for now no room for another slow big guy.


People demanding a 'response' don't remember how dumb it used to look and how pointless when Greg Campbell would 'fight' to try and spark the team. Shame abotu the hit but it was an exhibition game that was over and no goons were fighting for a spot.

 

[Fenian24]

The league is changing we will lose games by playing someone who can fight over Czarnik. Do you want to bench Krug for McQuaid?

Don't get me wrong when you're designated 'big' body on the bottom 6 is ****ing Hayes you leave yourself vulnerable to getting bullied by Philly. But again we are stuck with friggen Hayes he is a mistake we have to live with for now no room for another slow big guy.


People demanding a 'response' don't remember how dumb it used to look and how pointless when Greg Campbell would 'fight' to try and spark the team. Shame abotu the hit but it was an exhibition game that was over and no goons were fighting for a spot.

Bolded is not a legitimate argument, Krug is your number 2 D, McQuaid should be your 5/6 and I would take him over Liles or others competing for that spot.

 

[Sheppy]

The league is changing we will lose games by playing someone who can fight over Czarnik. Do you want to bench Krug for McQuaid?

Don't get me wrong when you're designated 'big' body on the bottom 6 is ****ing Hayes you leave yourself vulnerable to getting bullied by Philly. But again we are stuck with friggen Hayes he is a mistake we have to live with for now no room for another slow big guy.


People demanding a 'response' don't remember how dumb it used to look and how pointless when Greg Campbell would 'fight' to try and spark the team. Shame abotu the hit but it was an exhibition game that was over and no goons were fighting for a spot.

Exactly. Czarnik was injured in a meaningless game by a thug. Wouldn't that be even more reason to address the hit? I mean two points weren't on the line or anything.

 

[Artemis]

Maybe the anti-response fans assume we are in favor of goon hockey? I certainly don't. I think some of the glue guys (tough guys) during the Bruins recent reign weren't really great fighters (Ference, Campbell, etc). But if they witnessed a teammate on the wrong end of a dirty play you can bet your house on them instantly reacting. Whether they'd won the fight or not didn't matter, it was the precedent that was set, "run our guys & we will not stand for it". I bet the guys in black & gold jerseys appreciated it. Just a hunch.

The key word here is "witnessed."

Lots of assumptions and armchair psychology going on about something that would benefit most from Occam's Razor: what is the simplest and most logical answer?

The vast majority of hockey players not named Michael Ryder will step up for a teammate who they see injured by a dirty hit. Even non-fighters (we've seen David Krejci and Marc Savard do so, just to name two) will respond in such situations.

Assuming that Czarnick's teammates have no heart, have been shackled by their coach, neutered by the NHL, etc. etc. ignores the simple fact that the hit happened away from the play and most probably wasn't witnessed. Players get hurt all the time, and most of the time it's not dirty. Gudas got 2 minutes for boarding, and we didn't learn until after the game that Czarnick was concussed.

Fans complain about the game being "wussified" when their player is forced to fight after a good hard check. But they have the same complaint when one of their players doesn't step up for an injured teammate on a split-second play that the player safety guys have to examine like the Zapruder tape to determine whether it was dirty. Of course sometimes it's obvious. But often it isn't.

And for the record, I have nothing against fighting.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

Thank you, this has been my argument with the wussification of hockey for some time now. I used this analogy a while ago but I feel it still applies.

I just started watching soccer a couple years ago, I am becoming a fan of he sport, as a new fan I don't go and tell soccer die hards that it would be better if there was more scoring or if they allowed hitting, maybe if they let the players use their hands it would be more exciting. I watch and accept what the game is, if players acting like the Montreal Canadiens and feigning life threatening injuries every time they get tackled annoys me I won't watch anymore, my ego isn't so frail I think a game with a rich history should change it's rules to appeal to new fans who don't have a deep love of the game and are casually interested.

I feel this is what Bettman has done with hockey, he listened to the ESPN's and their "media partners" and wussified the game to make it more appealing to casual fans while not caring in any way about the hardcore base of hockey fans. There was always a percentage of fans who disliked physical play and fighting, if you look at most polls regarding fighting a very small percentage, but Bettman felt there were more fans not watching the game because of the violence so he has turned the game into speed skating with little contact.

Maybe he was right, maybe hockey will not be a niche sport in non NHL markets and the soccer moms will let little Jimmy play because he won't have to fight or get hit. In my opinion the game is more boring than ever and is on the wrong path.

What this has to do with the threads subject is once upon a time if you ran a player you answered for it, if not your team was considered soft and would continue to get run until there was a response to stand up for yourself and your teammates. Maybe this no longer applies, which is really sad, but I think it is still in the DNA of the game, the Flyers answered Backes clean hit in the same game, Boston choose not to respond to a dirty hit from a borderline player, that to me sends a bad message to your teammates and to other teams that even in Bettmans watered down version of hockey you can do what you want to the Bruins and only have to worry about the leagues response not the Bruins.

Or maybe, just maybe, the league has instituted new rules to better take care of the health and safety of the players.

 

[BruinDust]

You know you can respond to posts without being condescending, right?

Does fighting lead to wins? Probably not, but it probably boots the team. There's no real stat saying so, so maybe we will never know. Until you've sat on a bench when it has happened you probably wouldn't know. I remember a few years ago, Jared Boll took a huge run at John Tavares, then Trevor Gillies came over and introduced himself to Jared Boll, there was a dust up and when Gillies was in the box, John Tavares came over said "Thanks" and gave him a tap with the stick. I would guess that Tavares was happy with a response and appreciated it.

Also, don't assume I'll say things when i absolutely wouldn't. Krug had absolutely no business fighting Chris Stewart. Did he show heart? Absolutely, did the Bruins build off Krug getting absolutely rag dolled? No, they didn't. However, Anaheim did they went on to push the Bruins around like many teams did, including the Habs.

Does toughness = fighting? Not necessarily, but i don't think you can deny it doesn't (which you probably will) - Team toughness to me is a team that comes out and plays hard, they don't let players take liberties with their teammates, they have each others back. Team toughness which the Bruins had during their cup run hasn't been seen since. Teams knew what they were getting into when they rolled into the TD Garden, they knew they were in for a fight. You beat the Bruins? Awesome, however the Bruins took a chunk out of them when they did so.

Maybe i'm in the minority here but this "new look" style they're going with is absolute trash. It's hard to watch this team, and it has been over the past few seasons. I love that they brought in Backes, he helps up front. Outside of him and Beleskey hardly anyone in their forward group will throw a hit. Outside of Adam McQuaid (who people want gone) they don't have a nasty d-men that would even clear a crease.

Again, maybe it is just me but i have never liked this new style of hockey the Bruins suddenly adopted overnight after they couldn't beat Montreal in the post season a few years back.

It's not just the Bruins, it's every team for the most part.

What's the solution? Rolling out McQuaid night after night when he's barely capable after his concussion, and they have better options.

Giving Tyler Randell 8-10 mins? I like Randell but who is he going to fight to fire up the team. You can't keep him in the line-up just to respond to dirt-bags like Gudas. He's a liability defensively.

It's not like every team employs a head-hunter like him or Matt Cooke before him. Most teams have shed the enforcer role. There are a handful of guys like Clifford or Martin who can fight and still be ideal for a 4th line role. How much time will Shawn Thornton see this year in Florida? Probably not much, but he's got this veteran leader/character guy whose won before thing going for him which keeps him employed, although probably not much longer.

Power forwards who can play are pretty hard to come by. And good luck convincing teams to part with them without significantly overpaying.

The game has changed whether we fans like it or not, it's not just the Bruins.

 

[Therick67]

I saw Steven Stamkos drop the gloves and go after Marchand. You don't have to be a goon or a fighter to stand up for a teammate or defend yourself. I'm guessing every one of them appreciated what he did.

 

[Oates2Neely]

The key word here is "witnessed."

Lots of assumptions and armchair psychology going on about something that would benefit most from Occam's Razor: what is the simplest and most logical answer?

The vast majority of hockey players not named Michael Ryder will step up for a teammate who they see injured by a dirty hit. Even non-fighters (we've seen David Krejci and Marc Savard do so, just to name two) will respond in such situations.

Assuming that Czarnick's teammates have no heart, have been shackled by their coach, neutered by the NHL, etc. etc. ignores the simple fact that the hit happened away from the play and most probably wasn't witnessed. Players get hurt all the time, and most of the time it's not dirty. Gudas got 2 minutes for boarding, and we didn't learn until after the game that Czarnick was concussed.

Fans complain about the game being "wussified" when their player is forced to fight after a good hard check. But they have the same complaint when one of their players doesn't step up for an injured teammate on a split-second play that the player safety guys have to examine like the Zapruder tape to determine whether it was dirty. Of course sometimes it's obvious. But often it isn't.

And for the record, I have nothing against fighting.

Gudas received a minor penalty on the play in question. He continued to play the remainder of the game. Yes it appears most teammates missed the actual hit in live time. But there IS a Jumbotron, I'm sure they all saw the replay. Someone should have skated over & dropped gloves at some point.