[OT] Hockey Pugilism Meets Economic Theory

[That Aud Smell]

perusing a recent copy of the atlantic, i came across this digested review of a scholarly economics paper on the incentivized nature of fighting in the nhl.

 

based on the conclusions drawn and recommendation made, the article's authors should be put on skates, made to chase a dump-in, and then run soundly into the end boards.

 

even so, i'm fascinated by the fact that there's statistical corroboration for the position that "strategic fighting can improve a team?s playoff chances."

 

in the event the link goes dead, here's a cut and paste job:

 

Sports

 

Image credit: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press

 

Mad Cash

 

When you think of hockey, you probably think black eyes, missing teeth, and bloody brawls. And although the NHL has tried various schemes to clean up its image?to the dismay of many fans?a study by two economists found that the sport still offers ?enormous incentives for foul play and overt violence,? and even a cash enticement for goons to drop their gloves. After analyzing league statistics?including penalty minutes, goals scored, and salary figures?the authors determined that strategic fighting can improve a team?s playoff chances, and that players possessing the unique skills of an enforcer are duly rewarded for their efforts. By fighting, lower-skilled wing players can create scoring opportunities for more-talented centers by intimidating opposing teams and keeping their skilled defenders in the penalty box. While a player earns a ?wage premium? of $10,925 when he assists on a goal, they calculated, he earns $18,135 for winning a fight and $11,993 even for losing a fight. To ensure that the sport values skill and finesse over ?bad boy? enforcers, they suggest that the league deduct a ?fight fine? of roughly $36,000 from the team?s salary-cap allotment for each donnybrook.

 

??Blood Money: Incentives for Violence in NHL Hockey,? John P. Haisken-DeNew and Matthias Vorell, Ruhr Economic Papers