Does Fighting Make Cents?
I was reading through a few archived sports articles involving statistical and economic analyses the other day, and came across a very interesting piece titled “Blood Money: Incentives for Violence in NHL Hockey”. I was reading the article as part of an economics of professional sports course I was taking at the university, and was intrigued because it had been written by a Dr. John P. Haisken Denew, a Hamilton native who had taken the very same course I was taking some many years ago.
Essentially, the article talked about a study done by the Ruhr and Westphalian Institute for Economic Research that took an interesting perspective when it came to evaluating the effects of fighting in the NHL. They looked at a huge range of data spanning from 1967 (damn them for choosing that year) all the way through to 2007. And here are some of the revealing team-oriented facts that they uncovered:
1. The game of hockey is becoming more and more violent over time. In 1967, the average NHL team would receive roughly 750 penalty minutes a season. In 2005, the average NHL team would be penalized 1200 minutes a season.
2. The more you fight, the more likely you are to get to the Stanley Cup Finals. But once you get to the Finals, the number of fights becomes irrelevant and the team with the highest regular season winning percentage is most likely to take the Cup. Strange.
3. As a continuation of the above findings, researchers also discovered that if you won the majority of those fights, you’d be even MORE likely to reach the Stanley Cup Finals.
Now moving on to individual players, they now wanted to know how fighting would impact a player’s market value. These economists essentially did a regression analysis that helped them determine the assocation strength between a player’s salary and a number of other variables including fights won and lost. So what you’re basically doing here is identifying a whole bunch of possible factors, and then seeing which one plays a greater role in affecing how much a player makes. And here’s what they found:
1. Penalty minutes was a positive and very significant statistic. Each PIM adds approximately $2,577 to a player’s salary.
2. Wingers get approximately $10,940 per fighting major.
3. Wingers who “win” those fights get $18,135.
4. And here’s an interesting one. Plus/minus did NOT affect a player’s monetary value.
So what does this tell us? It tells us that it pays to fight in the NHL. The teams who fight more and win more fights, are more likely to be successful in making deep playoff runs. Strangely enough, that theory falls apart once you’re in the Final. In addition, it also tells us that fighting is NOT being undervalued by the open market. Players that record more PIM’s, fight more, and win more fights, are being paid more handsomely for their efforts.
In fact, during this past offseason, there were several “tough guys” who signed new contracts such as Riley Cote, Chris Neil, George Parros, Donald Brashear, Ian Laperriere, Raitis Ivanans, etc. Despite the fact that the highest amount of goals scored among this group was 6, the group received an average raise of 16%. I’m sure there’s a good many of you that wouldn’t mind a nice 16% raise right about now huh? Exchanging a few punches down at the office is all it takes? Haha.
All in all, I thought it was pretty interesting stuff and thought it would be fun to share and discuss. How is this relevant to the Leafs? Well for one thing, it signals that the guy running the Leafs upstairs has got something upstairs if you know what I mean. This was one of the best statistical proofs that shows that bigger, tougher, rougher, meaner teams are more likely to succeed in the playoffs. It’s always been a commonly accepted notion for the most part, but if you’re a stats head like me, it was refreshing to see some of the numbers behind that concept. It’ll be fun to keep this all in mind when we watch Burke reshape the roster this coming offseason.
So the next time you see a Leaf player come out battered and bruised after winning a fight, you should tip your cap twice. One for that player displaying a ton of heart, and two, for him increasing the probability that the Leafs make it to the Finals. Even if it’s by just a tiny bit.
Always a pleasure,
Alex Tran
alx_22@hotmail.com
January 31st, 2009 at 2:25 am
FIRST!!!
Taking fighting out of hockey would be like taking the electric guitar out of rock n’ roll. Give it a rest already people.
BTW, nice site Alec. You need to get some funny yellow faces so that I can better express myself. I like the Leafs logo. Third Jersey anyone?
January 31st, 2009 at 2:58 am
skalapy….amen bro amen
January 31st, 2009 at 6:13 am
I’ll read the rest later but that first point about hockey getting more violent concluded from team penalty minutes increasing is absolutely a horrible conclusion. Wasn’t 2005 the first year back from the lock-out when there were new rules that no one knew how much they could get away with and referees were calling every little infraction just to set the tone? And penalties don’t always reflect violent acts, such as the interference call – which is one of the most frequent penalties. I hope the rest of this doesn’t outrage me as much as that first point.
January 31st, 2009 at 8:53 am
Yes, this whole fighting b.s. in the media has to stop. Just because a few people got hurt while fighting (surprise!). More players get hurt from getting body checked with all this new battle armor players are wearing. So I guess we take out all physical contact? More players get hurt getting hit with the puck, whether its in the leg or face. I guess we get rid of the puck??
Fighting is part of the game. Period. And anyone who’s been to a game in person, knows, there’s 2 things that get the crowd instantly to their feet: a goal, a fight.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:28 am
btw, it was an interesting article Alex. I’m with Blair about the penalties..
January 31st, 2009 at 9:47 am
I really don’t think any of these studies mean anything. There’s so many flaws with their analysis. For instance, who determines who wins a fight? That’s very subjective. Have you ever watched a game on one team’s network and then watched it again on the other team’s network to see the differences in how the game is called. Unless it’s painfully obvious that one guy beat the crap out of the other the decision usually depends on who is calling the game. So that being said, how can you legitimately track fight wins versus losses. Even if you to do make it objective (ex. most punches landed) whose to say that actually means they won the fight.
Also, more PIMs does not equal higher salaries. Last time I checked the Crosbys and Ovechkins were not leading the league in PIM. Perhaps amongst those tagged as fighters that stat may be true, but that’s more likely the result of them being good at fighting and doing it often rather than strictly the # of PIMs. Not to mention that most player salaries are increasing due to the annual cap increase – pretty much all players are making more now than prior to the lockout and the average cost of a player per position is increasing annually. Look at defensemen. Kaberle was expensive at 4.5 million a year a couple years ago but now the same quality D is going for 5.5 million a year on average.
But despite those studies being so obviously flawed I agree that the path to the cup is paved with toughness, grit, and fighting. It plays in to the psychology of the opposing players – giving them more to think about then what to do with the puck.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:20 am
You do make a good point Blair about the increased number of penalties post-lockout, and it was definitely something I had in the back of my mind as I was reading the article.
The general trend is still the same though as the number of PIM’s had been increasing steadily up until that point. I suppose it might’ve been deceiving to use 2005 as the end point and they probably should have used 2003 instead.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:22 am
And to the point made about who “wins” a fight, the article stated from the start that they realized how subjective that statistic was. They essentially used the hockefights.com site, where fans who saw the fight would go on and vote for who they thought had won.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:28 am
And lastly, to the comments being made about salaries, keep in mind that this is a regression analysis. What those do, is that they are able to isolate factors and determine their relative association strength.
-
Here’s a very simple example:
-
2x + y = z
-
If the regression analysis had found out that this is roughly what the formula looks like, then you would know that increasing either “x” and “y” would increase your “z” value. So for example, while increasing “x” would have a stronger effect (i.e. perhaps something like goals scored), increasing “y” would also have an effect (i.e. penalties). So basically, all it means is that a 40 goal scorer with 40 PIM’s is most likely to make more than a 40 goal scorer with 20 PIM’s. A regression analysis takes a bunch of assorted points, and turns it into a trend of best fit. Obviously, not all players will fall onto the line and thus not follow the formula perfectly.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:33 am
Interesting questions raised, but not necessarily answered. It would be nice to see some discussion of smart vs. dumb penalties, but this (again) is somewhat subjective. There are plenty of guys who play themselves right into the press box taking stupid penalties, which can’t help their pay grade or the team’s Cup chances.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Sorry, in my rage I forgot the part about the regression analysis. Certainly interesting that this was even the subject of a study. Did they even offer any theories on why fighting worked to improve a team’s chances of getting to a final but failed to help them win the cup? That’s an interesting (and very sudden) correlation reversal. I’d also be interested in knowing if they reported all findings, even if they didn’t support their hypothesis – which is the other curious half to that stat on PIM increasing from 1967 to 2005 when it was earlier stated that they used data up to 2007 (did 2007 and 2008 not fit their theory?)
January 31st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Hmm that’s a good point.
Maybe they decided not to use 2007 and 2008 because they were thinking the same thing you were earlier? About penalties after the lockout and such.
Shouldn’t be that hard to check actually. We can probably do the math for those two years ourselves.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:31 pm
skalapy, your analogy is off. this is more like banning crowd surfing, not the electric guitar. you couldn’t have a rock band without an electric guitar. you could have the NHL without fighting.
that said, I don’t support banning it in anyway shape or form
January 31st, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Only thing wrong in the assessment is that in 1967, I believe they also played about 12 less games than nowadays. So that’s 12 games, per team (24 teams I believe) less than the 30 teams and 12 more games now.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:55 pm
In 2007-2008, the average NHL team received 1105 PIM’s.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Alex, the penalty minutes per team is badly skewed. to explain:
-
January 31st, 2009 at 12:57 pm
In 2006-2007, the average NHL team received 1146 PIM’s.
Looks like it’s been steadily decreasing the last 3 years.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:05 pm
In 1967, the league added 6 teams which made it a total of 12.
They played 74 games (8 games less) than today.
Significant rule changes added automatically 2 minutes per game per fight for the instigator, also 2 minutes for delay of game calls, 2 minutes for hooking, 2 minutes for holding (clutch and grab was the name of the game and not the enemy). 2 minutes for player the puck in the trapezoid, 2 minute diving penalties were introduced. That’s an additional 12 minutes of possible penalties that were never counted before added per game. Majors weren’t given out for checking from behinds, and they also didn’t have gross misconduct penalties where they make the player sit in a corner for 10 minutes. So that’s a possibly 27 minutes per game already.
From CTV.ca NHL fighting Study in 2006:
“The statistical analysis of NHL data taken from 1999 season to 2003 season showed major penalties, which refs most often issu for on-ice brawls, increases the total points of the offending players team. Mike Gartner’s response, “I think you could probably do a study to that the team that ate spaghetti at a pre-game meal is more likely to win than a team that eats spaghetti”. Aju Fenn’s study stated that major penalties actually helped teams win.”
So while I do agree with you, it’s just slightly skewed in your very first point for the statistical information of penalty minutes per game. It’s not that it’s getting more violent, it’s that there are more rules to implement.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:07 pm
The stats that are out there right now are too ambigious to do a great indepth outlook to factor out all other penalties for the correct association to fighting majors. Including storylines from previous games that carried into the next meet up.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:09 pm
It is a really good article, all in all, and well done, but there’s just too many factors to consider to be able to make it relevant for hard evidence.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:40 pm
nice write-up. What really impresses me is the high correlation between PIM’s and compensation – and the non-existent relationship between +/- and pay.
It speaks to the entrenched culture in the game – knuckleheads get paid, pluggers who quietly go about the difficult business of helping the team win, are treated like they’re easily replaced.
It’s sick really.
February 1st, 2009 at 3:22 am
Great article Alex.
Love it when somebody makes me think.
I would like to comment on the fighting/anti fighting bs that has been making the headlines lately.
To those that want to get rid of fighting I ask you this…. how?
Fighting isn’t tolerated in the league (Senior A) where the player died. Fighting has been a game misconduct and a potential suspension in every league (except the NHL) known to man.Yet it still occurs at every level of hockey.
Even the Swedish elite league and the Russian league have to deal with fights occasionally. As does the WJC and the WC. As the recent tragedy illustrates… it doesn’t matter…. Someone could get seriously injured during a fight. No chit bat man.
I agree with Cherry on this one… I don’t like the designated goons and I don’t like the drop of the puck fights and I don’t like the retaliation fights for a good hard body check.
Here is my proposal….
If you get into a fight and you haven’t averaged over 5 minutes of ice time (could be 9.9) during the season you get a game misconduct. After the first one for said defined player…. game suspensions start and increase exponentially.
My bet is that this kind of rule would get rid of the Boogaards and allow us all as fans to watch a great tilt between Iginala and LeCavalier.
Cheers
February 1st, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Scot, the suggestion the article brought up in order to halt unnecessary fighting was a hefty fine in the range of $15,000 since that’s roughly what the regression analysis showed those players make per fight.
That way, it would be basically wipe out the guys who “fight” for a living, but would enable everyone else to continue to do so.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
[...] The more you fight, the more likely you are to get to the Stanley Cup Finals. But once you get to the Finals, the number of fights becomes irrelevant and the team with the highest regular season winning percentage is …$anchor_text[$anchor_choice] [...]
November 25th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Your article is write very well, I like it very much ~
ghd Hair Straightener ghd Hair Straighteners ghd straighteners GHD hair straightener bose in ear headphones bose on ear headphones bose in ear bose on ear bose headphones for sale buy bose headphones nike sb dunks nike dunks I wish you have a wonderful day!Thank you.
December 20th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Ugg Classic Cardy Boots On Sale! We are professional supply Ugg Classic Short Boots , Ugg bailey boots on Softugg.Inc,is your best choice,Enjoying shopping now!
Christmas is coming,Want to buy new Classic Tall Ugg Boots ,We are professional supply Ugg Bailey Button Boots online,get a pair of cheapUgg Nightfall Boots this winter,free shipping and nontax,only need 1 week to your hand!
December 27th, 2009 at 5:00 am
We guarantee we provide the cheapest ghd, ghd Hair Straighteners,ghd straighteners, ghd hair tools in the market and 100% Quality Guarantee.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
No prescription percocet….
No prescription percocet. Buy percocet without a prescription. Percocet online without prescription….
January 10th, 2010 at 5:36 am
Truck rental denver….
Pick up truck rental. Penske truck rental. Cincinnati area dump truck rental. Budget truck rental. Rental moving truck. Truck rental….
January 11th, 2010 at 1:57 am
Play strip poker….
Strip poker. Strip poker videos. Strip poker games. Free strip poker….
January 11th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Custom truck parts….
Chevy truck parts. Classic ford truck parts. Dodge truck parts….
January 12th, 2010 at 3:45 am
Free habbo hotel credits….
Refer a friendearn free auctionbid credits. New tax credits for 2006. Credits middle school promotion. New tax credits….
January 13th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Soma airmail….
Soma airmail….
January 14th, 2010 at 2:12 am
What is soma used for….
What is soma for. What is soma used for….
January 14th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Soma restaurant….
Soma restaurant….
January 15th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Wiki soma….
Wiki soma….