Why not fight instead?

As I followed the fleeting moments of the Nashville/Calgary game on Friday night, a thought occurred to me:

Instead of pulling the goaltender to get an extra attacker on the ice, why not just start a fight?

I am told by my "real hockey fan" counterparts that fighting provides some value to the game. At various times and in various combinations, I am told it provides the potential for a momentum shift in a game, it gets the crowd "into it," it inspires teammates, etc., etc., etc.

So, in Calgary v. Nashville, we have the fighting-est team in the league taking on one of the least fight-prone teams. Calgary is down by one goal, at home, and has a Captain recognized leaguewide for his leadership skill which, on more than rare occassion, includes dropping the gloves.

Well? Isn't it obvious that instead of pulling Kiprusoff with a minute left in an effort to deposit the tying goal, Jarome Iginla should have beat the shite out of someone?

Nashville's lack of fights combined with their better-than-average record is arguably an indicator that even if fighting provides some value toward the goal of winning certain hockey games, they choose not to employ that particular strategy and would therefore not get the same lift as their pugilist opponents would from some fisticuffs.