To Enforce or NOT to Enforce…

waves and McSorley

We can all agree that what really matters is winning. Winning the Cup.

That said, the Cup has been won by teams that had enforcers and teams that didn’t have enforcers. It’s also well known that enforcers are used less during the playoffs. Why is this? I would argue that it’s because teams that play them will ultimately lose. The team that rolls 4 lines that consist of gritty players will always beat a team that plays a 4th line with a substandard enforcer.

So then why do they do it? Why does the NHL allow enforcers to be part of the game? And should they finally ban them? Or continue a tradition that spans more than 100 years?

One of the biggest reasons I love ice hockey is the gritty play. Watching a team impose its will over another team, whether it’s through skill or physicality or both (my favorite) is what sporting competition is all about. And no other sport encompasses these two aspects more than the NHL.

Simmonds and Perry

But herein lies the issue. Is there a difference between gritty, hard-nosed play and the role of the enforcer? If you say yes (as I do) then it seems that the role of the enforcer is unnecessary. If you say no, then you would argue the two go hand-in-hand (gritty play and enforcers).

The way I look at it is this: honest to goodness gritty play results in natural (not forced) confrontation between honorable competitors. This is the ideal I look to when I watch hockey.

Enforcers are contrary to this ideal. Their confrontations are almost always staged. They are essentially a response to the expectation that there must be a fight. It’s like a steam valve to relieve pressure. Regardless of which team you’re rooting for, the goon fight is a release of overall tension.

This may be a simple human condition. Some people don’t mind that tension, whereas others really want to see it explode. For me, taking the high road is the honorable position for many reasons. Mostly though because it honors the sport. Whereas the base emotion to see a fight, for no other reason than to relieve pressure, is pointless. It lowers the sport in my eyes.

Last night’s game between the Kings and Ducks is a great example of this. Many fans argued on the mothership about it. Do the Kings dress their enforcer or not? They didn’t and won convincingly through very gritty and skilled play.

I would argue that the reason for this is that this LA Kings team is gritty enough to not need an enforcer at all. This reasoning held true last night. The Kings more than took care of business against a Ducks team that played their enforcer that did nothing much.

Which again begs the question, why do it at all? Of course there is the tradition aspect as I said earlier. And there’s sometimes a need for a weak team to get tough. But the other part of it is money. Unfortunatley, money is probably the biggest reason it’s still allowed.

I think the tradition aspect of it is fairly moot at this stage of the modern NHL if for no other reason than enforcers do not impact the winning of the Cup. Sure, they can dissuade teams during the regular season from taking liberties on otherwise non-gritty teams. But their impact is limited by those teams that are true contenders. The other teams are simply trying to sell tickets despite their lack of playoff hope.

Kings coach Terry Murray is on record as being a big supporter of the role of the enforcer. As of late, he has changed his tune as far as his lineup is concerned. I’d love to know why exactly. I’m sure there’s a reason that does not include him being less of an enforcer enthusiast. Of course, I am very much in favor of this change and think it will help the team.