The Players' Tribune: Why We Fight by Brandon Prust

[Sabresfansince1980]

He made his hit to gain an advantage in the game, for his team, obviously not to injure. Its seems to me like the injury wasn't intentional, and he does regret what happened to Stepan.

Players do make bad decisions, and don't always think their actions through, which can lead to injuries and whatever. Having that little thing in the back of their mind to make them second guess that first instinct to go for the hit, for fear of getting their own injury, is the point I think he's trying to make.

And that's where the breakdown happens - he wants to make other teams fear delivering hits that potentially hurt players...by delivering hits that potentially hurt players.

W...T...F...

 

[Stjonnypopo]

These are great, but Prust really isn't the sharpest tool in the shed

I don't know what you're talking about. He's a smart dude. You can tell by the way he talks in interviews and on the behind the scenes stuff.

 

[dahrougem2]

I don't buy what he's saying, more specifically the part where he writes that if a rat refuses to fight, it causes his team to lose momentum. How so? He also writes:



Not true. Everyone loves to have a good rat/pest on their team.

There is a difference between a rat and a pest. Brad Marchand is a rat. Antoine Roussel is a pest. One guy drops the gloves when someone approaches, evidenced by his 7 fights in 2012-2013, 10 fights last season, and 6 fights so far this season. The other runs away after throwing cheap shots and hides behind bigger players like Chara and Lucic, as evidenced by his 5 total fights for his career, including 0 last season and 0 so far this season.

 

[Random Forest]

There is a difference between a rat and a pest. Brad Marchand is a rat. Antoine Roussel is a pest. One guy drops the gloves when someone approaches, evidenced by his 7 fights in 2012-2013, 10 fights last season, and 6 fights so far this season. The other runs away after throwing cheap shots and hides behind bigger players like Chara and Lucic, as evidenced by his 5 total fights for his career, including 0 last season and 0 so far this season.

This logic is also insane to me. They both toe the line, but one is excused because he's willing to punch the other team's enforcer in the face after he does it? Really?

I have no moral opposition to fighting. I don't care that it's barbaric. I just don't see the point in it anymore. Hockey is no longer a game of brute, physical intimidation like it was in the '70s and '80s. And it's better this way. If a team gets an advantage by playing the opposition's stars physically, they will keep doing that regardless of which talentless goon they send over the boards to "protect" them.

People whine about how much more honorable the good ol' days were. But the good ol' days had regular stick swinging incidents, bad hits, bench brawls, etc. Yeah, fighting really kept the game clean!


EDIT: And, oh, one of those players is a top six forward and a core contributor to his team. The other is nothing but a ball of energy. It's no wonder that one fights more than the other.

 

[sandysan]

There is one reason that falls into a moral justification for delivering an intentionally dirty hit on a player - that player intentionally hurt someone with a dirty hit also.

Even that reason will fall outside someone's moral code, but for me that is all I can think of that can justify it. Everything else, which Prust described, is a cop-out full of twisted logic.

hockey isnt a morality play. That should be obvious wrt his thoughts on lundquist.

Prust wants to give his team a jump, he thinks a consentual fight will do this. He looks but finds no takers, that doesnt change his original perception. So he forces the issue, if they stand up he gets what he wants, if they dont he gets what he wants ( the ability to hit people with impunity). once prust thinks that a fight will help the team that's pretty much what's going to happen.

 

[Random Forest]

if they dont he gets what he wants ( the ability to hit people with impunity).

So fighting is good because it keeps people from hitting with complete impunity. But if no one is gonna fight me, I'm gonna hit everyone I can with impunity!!!


Do you not see where that argument is outrageously lacking in reason?


"I fight players to keep them honest. But if no one wants to fight me, I'm going to be dishonest so I can goad someone into fighting me!" Is that not what he's saying?

I can think of many different ways to expose the hypocrisy of this argument.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

hockey isnt a morality play. That should be obvious wrt his thoughts on lundquist.

Prust wants to give his team a jump, he thinks a consentual fight will do this. He looks but finds no takers, that doesnt change his original perception. So he forces the issue, if they stand up he gets what he wants, if they dont he gets what he wants ( the ability to hit people with impunity). once prust thinks that a fight will help the team that's pretty much what's going to happen.

Oh swell, so we should all just sit happy and be quiet about it...because Prust gets what he wants and right and wrong don't matter.

Anyway...you're wrong about morality. There are rules and discipline in hockey which is based on the concept of fair play...which is based on right/wrong/morality.

 

[sandysan]

So fighting is good because it keeps people from hitting with complete impunity. But if no one is gonna fight me, I'm gonna hit everyone I can with impunity!!!


Do you not see where that argument is outrageously lacking in reason?

If you think you can run talent and still no one will fight you, good luck with that.

If a guy wants to fight and you decline there are lots of ways guys can get you to reconsider your reticence.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

If you think you can run talent and still no one will fight you, good luck with that.

If a guy wants to fight and you decline there are lots of ways guys can get you to reconsider your reticence.

There shouldn't be any "running talent" in the first place. Fix the first part instead of compounding the problem.

 

[Random Forest]

If you think you can run talent and still no one will fight you, good luck with that.

I didn't say that. I said even if you fight, it won't stop players from running talented players.

But more importantly, if playing other stars physically is an effective strategy, am I going to stop playing them physically just because the other team sends their enforcer out to fight me? Seriously? There's no chance. That's why I always laugh at Penguins fans who think loading up on goons is the best way to protect 87 and 71. Is that really going to deter teams from playing those two hard? Hell no.

You can fight all you want. It's not going to stop players from lining up the stars at any chance they get.

If a guy wants to fight and you decline there are lots of ways guys can get you to reconsider your reticence.

Oh, really? Care to explore some of these ways?


Also, unrelated, but I found this quote funny:

Now guys are so smart that they know not to give you a fight if your team needs it to swing the momentum.

"So smart"? Really? I think you meant "not braindead", Brandon.

 

[Captain Bowie]

"If fighting didn’t exist, those guys could skate around all game trying to head-hunt the skill players on the other team with no repercussions."

Call these hits more consistently, and these players will; hurt their teams (ie. their employers) far more often, and will soon be out of jobs.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

"If fighting didn’t exist, those guys could skate around all game trying to head-hunt the skill players on the other team with no repercussions."

Call these hits more consistently, and these players will; hurt their teams (ie. their employers) far more often, and will soon be out of jobs.

Not to mention all the clean hits that players either can't wait to see the replay for proof, or just don't care anyway, so they start a fight immediately after.

 

[sandysan]

Oh swell, so we should all just sit happy and be quiet about it...because Prust gets what he wants and right and wrong don't matter.

Anyway...you're wrong about morality. There are rules and discipline in hockey which is based on the concept of fair play...which is based on right/wrong/morality.

Whose sense of right ir wrong? Yours or the players?

Asking whether it's moral to paste some guy with his head down is something I'll leave to people with more free time on their hands.

Because i'm sure that when prust obliges a guy like Ronaldo, he should be forced to consider how his choices will affect the fan in section 100, row 3 seat 6 with the Oooooh so delicate sensibilities. I'm sure it keeps him awake at night.

Don't like to see fights, close your eyes or turn your head. It's a win/win.

 

[sandysan]

Not to mention all the clean hits that players either can't wait to see the replay for proof, or just don't care anyway, so they start a fight immediately after.

Did you read the article? Hoping that the refs protect you is a sure fire way to get serially abused.

He didn't like the hit on 67, but there was NO call. So Prust should ignore his opinion of the hit and simply defer to the stripes and hope that mabey next time a guy rubs 67 in the numbers that we might get a PP out of it to even it all up.

Not interested.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Whose sense of right ir wrong? Yours or the players?

Asking whether it's moral to paste some guy with his head down is something I'll leave to people with more free time on their hands.

Because i'm sure that when prust obliges a guy like Ronaldo, he should be forced to consider how his choices will affect the fan in section 100, row 3 seat 6 with the Oooooh so delicate sensibilities. I'm sure it keeps him awake at night.

Don't like to see fights, close your eyes or turn your head. It's a win/win.

I doubt Stepan thought it was cool.

Don't start that, you don't know what my sensibilities are...trust me. Knowing what's right or wrong doesn't mean I don't have the stomach to see or handle the wrong.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Did you read the article? Hoping that the refs protect you is a sure fire way to get serially abused.

He didn't like the hit on 67, but there was NO call. So Prust should ignore his opinion of the hit and simply defer to the stripes and hope that mabey next time a guy rubs 67 in the numbers that we might get a PP out of it to even it all up.

Not interested.

Maybe he should start looking for the guy who made the hit. Yeah crazy idea, huh?

 

[dechire]

EDIT: And, oh, one of those players is a top six forward and a core contributor to his team. The other is nothing but a ball of energy. It's no wonder that one fights more than the other.

Jamie Benn has more fights this season than Marchand does in the past 3 seasons combined but I guess that's okay since Benn isn't a valuable contributor to the team

 

[NoQuitInNewMexico]

I thought it was pretty clear, he was using it as an example of what happens when you don't have a fighter on your side. If NYR has a guy that Prust knows will fight him, in his own words, he thinks twice about making that hit.

I liked most of the rest of the article but that part was weird to me, that Rangers team obviously wasn't super-physical but we had Carcillo, Dorsett and Klein who all would have fought him. Dorsett did fight him that night, Carcillo tried to run him right before his funny ref-wrestling thing. And really, that hit was so egregious, you make a roster with the 18 softest skaters in the 2014 NHL and someone would have stepped up anyway.

I think he wanted to write the article and he knew he'd have to talk about Habs/Rangers, but any kind of real analysis would lead to him saying "we need Brandon Prust to protect the skill guys from...Brandon Prust!" Shame because I actually liked most of the piece, it's good to hear guys' perspectives like that.

Not trying to gaze into Dan Carcillo's soul but I think he has a firmer grasp of what he is.

 

[Random Forest]

Did you read the article? Hoping that the refs protect you is a sure fire way to get serially abused.

He didn't like the hit on 67, but there was NO call. So Prust should ignore his opinion of the hit and simply defer to the stripes and hope that mabey next time a guy rubs 67 in the numbers that we might get a PP out of it to even it all up.

Not interested.

Did you read the article?

He suggests fighting will protect players like Pacioretty from those hits. Yet he simultaneously says his desire to "find" a fight led him to throw a bad hit on Stepan.

Are you going to acknowledge this blatant hypocrisy or keep ignoring it?

 

[Random Forest]

Jamie Benn has more fights this season than Marchand does in the past 3 seasons combined but I guess that's okay since Benn isn't a valuable contributor to the team

Okay?

I didn't say top six players don't fight. I said they're less likely to fight than bottom six players. No one should be surprised that Marchand doesn't fight and Roussel does.

 

[sandysan]

I doubt Stepan thought it was cool.

Don't start that, you don't know what my sensibilities are...trust me. Knowing what's right or wrong doesn't mean I don't have the stomach to see or handle the wrong.

Your right, and you not answering the first part you bolded makes this all the harder.

This is competitive, guys will do things in competition that may be right up to the line or blatantly cross the line based on risk/reward. The players ARE FINE with fights. They don't view this as right or wrong.

The rules are generally clear, most fights require consent, unless the transgression is severe then your right if refusal is rescinded.

The fact that you have defined from your side that fights serve no purpose or that you would like the game more without them is moot. Guys who fight don't do it to entertain and so long as they accept the context and expectations your dissent ain't worth spit.

 

[dechire]

Okay?

I didn't say top six players don't fight. I said they're less likely to fight than bottom six players. No one should be surprised that Marchand doesn't fight and Roussel does.

The reason he doesn't fight has nothing to do with being a top 6 player. He's considered a rat because he throws cheap shots and then refuses to answer for them with a fight. Being in the top 6 doesn't automatically excuse him from answering for his actions. Roussel does fight when called to do it which is why he isn't a rat. You can argue that it's better for Marchand not to fight and not be in the box and maybe you're right but it still makes him a rat.

 

[Bouboumaster]

Prust is awesome

 

[Random Forest]

The reason he doesn't fight has nothing to do with being a top 6 player. He's considered a rat because he throws cheap shots and then refuses to answer for them with a fight. Being in the top 6 doesn't automatically excuse him from answering for his actions. Roussel does fight when called to do it which is why he isn't a rat. You can argue that it's better for Marchand not to fight and not be in the box and maybe you're right but it still makes him a rat.

Why does it matter that he doesn't fight? Is that really your problem? Because my problem is with him throwing cheap shots. Not with him refusing to "answer" for them (whatever the hell that even means).

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Your right, and you not answering the first part you bolded makes this all the harder.

This is competitive, guys will do things in competition that may be right up to the line or blatantly cross the line based on risk/reward. The players ARE FINE with fights. They don't view this as right or wrong.

The rules are generally clear, most fights require consent, unless the transgression is severe then your right if refusal is rescinded.

The fact that you have defined from your side that fights serve no purpose or that you would like the game more without them is moot. Guys who fight don't do it to entertain and so long as they accept the context and expectations your dissent ain't worth spit.

Well you've mistaken my stance then. I never said they serve no purpose. In fact I've been talking about dirty hits for the most part, if not all. I've been saying that if a player is going to fight/hit someone with intent or retaliation in mind, they should be choosing the "right" player. Go after the guy that did something "wrong" in their eyes. Going after a 3rd ,smaller skillguy that had nothing to do with it is flat out punkish to me, and in fact hypocritical in regard to the situation Prust was talking about.