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

[DKH]

The best way to get Gudas is take runs at Konecney and Gudas. You pick the culprit and someone like Konecney. Clean on the kid but relentless and hard- cheap and dirty on Gudas.

 

[Dr Quincy]

No. Standing up for your teammates has zero effect on them... Haven't you read this thread?

This post would be a lot cooler if you picked a game where "standing up for teammates" actually had an effect. Instead, you pick a game that the team lost.

Unless of course we see some kind of delayed effect from it tonight. Like Krug will be skating around thinking "Man, I don't even care about this game. What's in the mini-bar back at my hotel room. Ohh check out the babe in the 3rd row. Is it the 2nd Thursday of the month yet? Oh wait a second, Chara punched Matt Martin the other night. I WANT TO WIN NOW!!!!!!"

 

[BigGoalBrad]

This post would be a lot cooler if you picked a game where "standing up for teammates" actually had an effect. Instead, you pick a game that the team lost.

Unless of course we see some kind of delayed effect from it tonight. Like Krug will be skating around thinking "Man, I don't even care about this game. What's in the mini-bar back at my hotel room. Ohh check out the babe in the 3rd row. Is it the 2nd Thursday of the month yet? Oh wait a second, Chara punched Matt Martin the other night. I WANT TO WIN NOW!!!!!!"

Non tough guys sticking up for teammates has the biggest effect. THey don't have to even win the fight.


Savard taking a beating from Brian Little when he came to the defense of a teammate in a chippy game with a lot of fights kicked the 2011 Bruins into gear. How did that team do in playoff game 7s???? 3 for 3.

 

[ODAAT]

Non tough guys sticking up for teammates has the biggest effect. THey don't have to even win the fight.


Savard taking a beating from Brian Little when he came to the defense of a teammate in a chippy game with a lot of fights kicked the 2011 Bruins into gear. How did that team do in playoff game 7s???? 3 for 3.

you stating that there is an undeniable correlation between Savvy doing that and the B`s winning game 7`s?

I think that yes, that team was one who had one another`s backs, but moreso, it was a team who was mentally tough, one that didn`t pack it in the moment they hit a roadblock

 

[PB37]

In fairness to myself and Dr Q, that was not the point that we were making. What we were saying was there is no proven correlation between teammates "having each other's backs" and better performance as a team.

From a sociology standpoint, it's very much a team building/bonding thing. Fighting for/avenging/coming to the aid of another are very common themes in coming closer with others in your group when dealing with physically confrontational scenarios like war, sports, high risk dangerous jobs, etc etc.

 

[NeelyDan]

nvm.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

From a sociology standpoint, it's very much a team building/bonding thing. Fighting for/avenging/coming to the aid of another are very common themes in coming closer with others in your group when dealing with physically confrontational scenarios like war, sports, high risk dangerous jobs, etc etc.

You would think that would be the case, but we have seen teams that were supposedly very tight not do well, and teams with the proverbial "25 cabs" scenario do well.

As I have said all along, I like it when teammates stick up for one another, I'm just not sure (particularly on the Pro level) that you can draw a correlation between that and winning?

 

[PB37]

You would think that would be the case, but we have seen teams that were supposedly very tight not do well, and teams with the proverbial "25 cabs" scenario do well.

As I have said all along, I like it when teammates stick up for one another, I'm just not sure (particularly on the Pro level) that you can draw a correlation between that and winning?

Well, I'm talking from just a sociology standpoint. It most certainly brings people together. I mentioned this in another thread as well - fighting for each other/having each other's backs etc etc is just another part of the equation to a winning formula. I don't place it any higher or lower than the other parts ( like skill, coaching, luck, etc etc ) just because the dynamics are different every time.

 

[BMC]

No. Standing up for your teammates has zero effect on them... Haven't you read this thread?

Yes I have and I don't agree. Back in the dark ages when I played competitive sports it was important for teammates to have your back and vice versa. It fostered unity which is so important to a team.

 

[Oates2Neely]

This post would be a lot cooler if you picked a game where "standing up for teammates" actually had an effect. Instead, you pick a game that the team lost.

Unless of course we see some kind of delayed effect from it tonight. Like Krug will be skating around thinking "Man, I don't even care about this game. What's in the mini-bar back at my hotel room. Ohh check out the babe in the 3rd row. Is it the 2nd Thursday of the month yet? Oh wait a second, Chara punched Matt Martin the other night. I WANT TO WIN NOW!!!!!!"

Your shtick as contrarian is getting old. Is it that hard to fathom that playing on a team with teammates who have each other's backs benefits the team more than it hurts it?

 

[bb_fan]

Your shtick as contrarian is getting old. Is it that hard to fathom that playing on a team with teammates who have each other's backs benefits the team more than it hurts it?

Apparently.

 

[Ice Nine]

Just re-upping one part of a post of mine from earlier in the thread, as it actually offers links to an actual empirical study demonstrating a "rallying effect" from players sticking up for their teammates (via a fight, for example):

-----------------

But more importantly, I think there's definitely a rallying effect that *does* help win games. And it's been shown empirically.

Read this:

Fighting works.

The first-of-its-kind statistical analysis of the sport confirms the dirty little secret coaches and players have known since the dawn of the NHL. There's no more readily available, sure-fire way to shift the momentum of a game than to send a player out to start a fight.

By measuring offensive output in the three minutes after play resumes, researchers at powerscouthockey.com concluded that fights produced a surge by at least one team an eye-popping 76 percent of the time. The remaining 23 percent of the time, roughly one out of every four fights, both teams raised their games. Surprisingly, it isn't always the team whose players dominate the fisticuffs that benefits and researcher Terry Appleby said more work needs to be done to determine if those surges pay off in goals or wins.

Either way, the findings passed muster with a handful of players interviewed by The Associated Press earlier this week

"I've been made aware of what our record is when I fight and never really gave it a thought," said Boston's Shawn Thornton.

For the record, the Bruins were 38-13-8 in games when Thornton was involved in a fight. Even so, he might have embraced them a little too enthusiastically.

"I think it's just a testament to how hard our guys play and how we try not to let each other down," Thornton added. "But I'm a big proponent for keeping fighting in the game. I think it's an important part of the game. If these stats encourage it, then it's an encouraging sign and I'm all for it."

http://www.masslive.com/bruins/inde..._momentum_of_games_players_not_surprised.html

 

[Oates2Neely]

Just re-upping one part of a post of mine from earlier in the thread, as it actually offers links to an actual empirical study demonstrating a "rallying effect" from players sticking up for their teammates (via a fight, for example):

-----------------

But more importantly, I think there's definitely a rallying effect that *does* help win games. And it's been shown empirically.

Read this:



http://www.masslive.com/bruins/inde..._momentum_of_games_players_not_surprised.html

As expected, the "2-points" fribble crew completely glossed over your post. Does not fit their narrative.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Most surprised I've been in awhile about the longevity of a thread.

 

[catsmasher]

"The negativity in this town sucks. Andrew Ference isn't walking through that door, Shawn Thornton isn't walking through that door , milan Lucic isn't walking through that door."

 

[BigGoalBrad]

you stating that there is an undeniable correlation between Savvy doing that and the B`s winning game 7`s?

I think that yes, that team was one who had one another`s backs, but moreso, it was a team who was mentally tough, one that didn`t pack it in the moment they hit a roadblock

Yup.

And the team wasn't itself at that point Kelly/Peverley deals hadn't come, Savard was not himself he was playing with Horton and Lucic and they weren't really scoring, Marchand not a key guy yet etc etc.

That team wasn't perfect and had issues throughout the year. They still ended up with home ice for the game 7's against Montreal and Tampa games which would have been super tough to win on the road. So while that game might not have been a direct reason they won 3 game 7's it definitely played a big part in that team picking up enough points to be able to host Montreal and Tampa at home because the 10-11 Bruins definitely had there bad moments and slumps.

But Savard could have done without getting punched in the head a few times that night definitely not what he needed at that point.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

As expected, the "2-points" fribble crew completely glossed over your post. Does not fit their narrative.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't "gloss over" this study at all, and discussed it earlier.

All it measured was shots after fights...that's it. Not goals, not wins, nothing else. If you read the whole article, hopefully you noticed the part where the author of the study admitted that it was limited and needed a lot of work.

That part must not have fit your narrative so you just neglected to mention it

 

[jgatie]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't "gloss over" this study at all, and discussed it earlier.

All it measured was shots after fights...that's it. Not goals, not wins, nothing else. If you read the whole article, hopefully you noticed the part where the author of the study admitted that it was limited and needed a lot of work.

That part must not have fit your narrative so you just neglected to mention it

But you cannot deny that others glossed it over, and even you only commented on it when specifically asked .

 

[Gee Wally]

well as is our custom here with this subject it has gotten to the 'tastes great - less filling' stage of personal shots.

until next time.

*click*