Abstract
Fighting is often considered an essential part of professional hockey. Increased ticket sales, a means to self-regulate other dangerous gameplay, and helping teams win are a few of the reasons that fighting advocates provide for retaining fighting in the NHL. However, fighting trends have changed over the past 50 years. Given the recent data on concussions and player safety, an in-depth analysis of fighting is required to understand if fighting has a place in the future of the NHL. Seasonal statistical team data on NHL teams from the 1967 to 2019 seasons were collected and analyzed using publicly available databases. Specific outcome variables of interest related to fighting, penalties, the final team record for a given season, and final standing were recorded. The data were divided into subgroups according to "era of play" and before/after the implementation of the instigator rule. The trends in fighting, seasonal outcomes, and other minor penalties were assessed to determine the trends in fighting over the past 50 years, the relationship between fighting and winning, and the impact of the instigator rule. Fights per game decreased significantly after the implementation of the instigator rule (0.71 to 0.51 fights per game, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in fights per game when comparing Stanley Cup champions to nonplayoff teams in either the modern era (0.36 vs. 0.42, p = 0.43) or the expansion era (0.45 vs. 0.51, p = 0.49). Only two Stanley Cup champions (the Flyers 1974-1975 and the Ducks 2006-2007) led the league in fighting. A multivariate regression analysis comparing fights per game and points earned per season divided by the number of games played revealed a statistically significant inverse relationship (coefficient = -0.16, p < 0.001). Our analysis demonstrates that the Instigator rule achieved its intended effect to decrease the number of fights per game. In the current era of professional hockey, there is no compelling evidence that a team with more fights per game will achieve greater seasonal success. These results continue to cast doubt on the belief that fighting is a necessary strategy for winning games at the NHL level.
Highlights
Proponents of fighting in the National Hockey League (NHL) have long considered fighting an essential part of gameplay [1, 2]
If a player in the NHL is involved in 3 fights in a single game or is found to have instigated 2 fights, they receive a game misconduct
We propose that the rate of fighting has continued to trend downwards, especially following the implementation of the instigator rule, and that increased fighting does not correlate with improved outcomes
Summary
Proponents of fighting in the National Hockey League (NHL) have long considered fighting an essential part of gameplay [1, 2]. If a player in the NHL is involved in 3 fights in a single game or is found to have instigated 2 fights, they receive a game misconduct. E trends in fighting, seasonal outcomes, and other minor penalties were assessed to determine the trends in fighting over the past 50 years, the relationship between fighting and winning, and the impact of the instigator rule. Our analysis demonstrates that the Instigator rule achieved its intended effect to decrease the number of fights per game. In the current era of professional hockey, there is no compelling evidence that a team with more fights per game will achieve greater seasonal success. In the current era of professional hockey, there is no compelling evidence that a team with more fights per game will achieve greater seasonal success. ese results continue to cast doubt on the belief that fighting is a necessary strategy for winning games at the NHL level
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
