Post-Game Talk: Caps @ Devils 1pm

[g00n]

If you don't believe me, here's a link to that conversation if you feel like sifting through the GDT
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=116403557#post116403557

I addressed what you said, which contained some of the same links you're trying to shotgun blast inappropriately as "evidence" here.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=116405373&postcount=213

Are you seriously going back to a GDT from last April to complain about an unfinished conversation. Wow.

 

[Hivemind]

I addressed what you said, which contained some of the same links you're trying to shotgun blast inappropriately as "evidence" here.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=116405373&postcount=213

Are you seriously going back to a GDT from last April to complain about an unfinished conversation. Wow.

Keep reading. We had plenty of more posts between us after that. I was linking the start of the conversation, not every post in it.

I'm simply pointing out that we've been down this road before. You provided no evidence then, either.

 

[g00n]

I'm not demanding you read everything. I'm just pointing out how absurd it is when you attempt to discredit ALL of them without actually reading a single one.

I never even claimed those links supported my point. CCF literally asked for follow-up studies. I providing them for anyone who wanted to delve in. And yet that somehow make it "an exist strategy?"

Your entire argument so far rests upon a guy with pudding for brains who openly admits to being concussed while fighting. Seems like you really won this debate.

Wait, when did I try to discredit all of them? You're making things up to fit your argument. I merely pointed out that those links contained studies of injuries from HITS as well so it fed into MY point as much as the other side, if not more since it's nearly impossible to separate the two sources of injury among tough guys. If you're talking about the 3 links you posted together, I read them and posted my objections immediately. Not the same as the dozens via google.

Bottom line is you tried to use special pleading to defend the "head injuries from fighting = suicide so fighting must go" angle while claiming hits are an integral part of the game and therefore exempt from this criticism. You have not been able to defend this position so instead you've been using rhetorical tricks, dodges and stalls to try and end the debate.

Well, you did it. It's over.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I'm not demanding you read everything. I'm just pointing out how absurd it is when you attempt to discredit ALL of them without actually reading a single one.

I never even claimed those links supported my point. CCF literally asked for follow-up studies. I providing them for anyone who wanted to delve in. And yet that somehow make it "an exit strategy?"

Your entire argument so far rests upon a guy with pudding for brains who openly admits to being concussed while fighting. Seems like you really won this debate.

Because I read your first 3 articles and found holes in them. I supplied one study I found in 10 seconds that shows more injuries come from hitting than fighting and wondered if any others had been done of that type. Were all 59 articles you responded with that? I gave up after the nonsense in the first 3 honestly.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Wait, when did I try to discredit all of them? You're making things up to fit your argument. I merely pointed out that those links contained studies of injuries from HITS as well so it fed into MY point as much as the other side, if not more since it's nearly impossible to separate the two sources of injury among tough guys. If you're talking about the 3 links you posted together, I read them and posted my objections immediately. Not the same as the dozens via google.

Bottom line is you tried to use special pleading to defend the "head injuries from fighting = suicide so fighting must go" angle while claiming hits are an integral part of the game and therefore exempt from this criticism. You have not been able to defend this position so instead you've been using rhetorical tricks, dodges and stalls to try and end the debate.

Well, you did it. It's over.

This is where this whole thing started right? Someone suggested fighting=head injuries=Suicides. Mix in a bunch of stats nonsense and look where this has denigrated to. It's quite comical.

 

[Hivemind]

Wait, when did I try to discredit all of them? You're making things up to fit your argument. I merely pointed out that those links contained studies of injuries from HITS as well so it fed into MY point as much as the other side, if not more since it's nearly impossible to separate the two sources of injury among tough guys.

You immediately jumped into action claiming they supported one side or another WITHOUT READING ANY OF THEM.

If you're talking about the 3 links you posted together, I read them and posted my objections immediately. Not the same as the dozens via google.

You haven't actually posted any real objections. You just claimed "stats abuse." Give me a rational breakdown of how you think the analysis drawn by those "bloggers" (one of which is THN, a print publication) actually abused statistics. What are the specific failings in their analysis?

You just claimed "stats abuse" without any substantiation to that claim.

Bottom line is you tried to use special pleading to defend the "head injuries from fighting = suicide so fighting must go" angle while claiming hits are an integral part of the game and therefore exempt from this criticism. You have not been able to defend this position so instead you've been using rhetorical tricks, dodges and stalls to try and end the debate.

Well, you did it. It's over.

Once again, I never used special pleading. I was demonstrating that the two things you tried to equate are, in fact, distinguishable. Just because hitting ALSO causes injuries doesn't mean you can't address fighting. That's like saying you can't work to cure lung cancer because heart disease also kills people.

 

[Hivemind]

Because I read your first 3 articles and found holes in them.

You posted that link in post #194. I posted those three in #198. You might want to check your narrative.

I supplied one study I found in 10 seconds that shows more injuries come from hitting than fighting and wondered if any others had been done of that type. Were all 59 articles you responded with that? I gave up after the nonsense in the first 3 honestly.

The article you posted doesn't say that more injuries come from hitting. Did you even read it? It was a video analysis of punches to the face. It had nothing to do with injuries suffered from hits. Hell, the closing paragraphs of the article even mentioned skepticism of the results, and the opening paragraph (in bold) mentioned it was out dated and incomplete information.

The 59 I posted were in direct response to your question "I wonder if a recent study has been done like this." I was posting more recent studies for you to evaluate, if you wished.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I've been around here so long I remember back to when I cared to argue so vehemently. Lock this thing up it's going into the Benji zone (Stern fans get this)

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Now I know you didn't read it.

The study claims that fighting on skates isn't particularly dangerous, possibly because it's hard to get traction for a powerful punch on the ice, said co-author Dr. David Milzman, an associate professor of emergency medicine at Georgetown University School of Medicine.

"They get a lot more injuries being checked into the boards, being hit from behind," he said.

 

[Zoidberg Jesus]

It honestly might be time for each side to put the other on ignore. It seems like every thread devolves into these arguments that go around in circles and end up becoming personal and drowning out the actual topic of the thread. The Caps just bounced back from a bad two game stretch with a dominant win, and this post-game thread has no discussion of the game at all. The board's already got a problem with the relentless negativity after losses, and these toxic arguments aren't helping. Something needs to change.

 

[Hivemind]

Now I know you didn't read it.

The study claims that fighting on skates isn't particularly dangerous, possibly because it's hard to get traction for a powerful punch on the ice, said co-author Dr. David Milzman, an associate professor of emergency medicine at Georgetown University School of Medicine.

"They get a lot more injuries being checked into the boards, being hit from behind," he said.

Here's the description, from that article, of the actual study:

In the new study, researchers analyzed videos of more than 1,200 preseason and regular hockey games from the NHL 2010-11 season. They watched 710 fights, taking notes about what happened, and analyzed what happened to the players who fought. To determine if fighting on skates was more or less hazardous than fighting on solid ground, they also looked at injuries sustained by non-hockey players treated for fights at emergency or trauma centers.

It was a video analysis of fights. it had nothing to do with other hits. What you presented was an opinion from a co-author, not a result of the study.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

It honestly might be time for each side to put the other on ignore. It seems like every thread devolves into these arguments that go around in circles and end up becoming personal and drowning out the actual topic of the thread. The Caps just bounced back from a bad two game stretch with a dominant win, and this post-game thread has no discussion of the game at all. The board's already got a problem with the relentless negativity after losses, and these toxic arguments aren't helping. Something needs to change.

There was plenty of game discussion early on until outrageous statements were made.

 

[Hivemind]

It honestly might be time for each side to put the other on ignore. It seems like every thread devolves into these arguments that go around in circles and end up becoming personal and drowning out the actual topic of the thread. The Caps just bounced back from a bad two game stretch with a dominant win, and this post-game thread has no discussion of the game at all. The board's already got a problem with the relentless negativity after losses, and these toxic arguments aren't helping. Something needs to change.

I've had CCF on ignore before, and he will probably end up there again. It's much harder to justify ignoring g00n, as he will make comments regarding global moderation that posters need to read.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Here's the description, from that article, of the actual study:


It was a video analysis of fights. it had nothing to do with other hits. What you presented was an opinion from a co-author, not a result of the study.

First you don't read it now you try to end around discredit it. You're a peach.

 

[txpd]

yea, but I jump in after a 6-2 win and see a full page that? Its not like its not typical to this forum though. Its just sad.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I've had CCF on ignore before, and he will probably end up there again. It's much harder to justify ignoring g00n, as he will make comments regarding global moderation that posters need to read.

I had Goon on ignore for a year, didn't impact me one bit. I finally appreciate his efforts with you two that's all. Go for it...if that's your way out. The way I see it the TwabbyMind is at the root 80% of the arguments around here anyway so I should just do the same.

 

[twabby]

Here I'll change the subject if people want: Orlov and Niskanen were the best pairing on the ice yet again and are generating offense every time they are on the ice. This is what a first pairing should look like on a quality team.

Meanwhile Alzner and Carlson are still struggling. They generated nothing substantial on offense and somehow keep finishing below water on shot-attempts.

 

[Hivemind]

First you don't read it now you try to end around discredit it. You're a peach.

I did read it, and made multiple references to it in each of the posts discussing it.

Secondly, I'm not discrediting anything. I'm giving you a direct quote describing the study. How is that discrediting it?

 

[Zoidberg Jesus]

There was plenty of game discussion early on until outrageous statements were made.

This board feels like a family with a marriage that's falling apart. Everything's normal until mommy and daddy start yelling, and the kids go quiet and wait for it to be over. Normally there's at least some post-game discussion, but the last two pages have been nothing but arguing. It's time to either try marriage counseling or file the divorce.

 

[troyerlaw]

yea, but I jump in after a 6-2 win and see a full page that? Its not like its not typical to this forum though. Its just sad.

Sad!

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

This board feels like a family with a marriage that's falling apart. Everything's normal until mommy and daddy start yelling, and the kids go quiet and wait for it to be over. Normally there's at least some post-game discussion, but the last two pages have been nothing but arguing. It's time to either try marriage counseling or file the divorce.

I do admit I love to fight know it all alls!!! if the Caps would start playing great again, the stats nonsense and ensuing arguments would decrease by a large margin IMO.

 

[Fantomas]

Is Orlov in the doghouse? Why is he playing so little?

 

[AlexBrovechkin8]

Me after not being on these boards for a few days and reading the last page of this GDT.

 

[twabby]

Is Orlov in the doghouse? Why is he playing so little?

Probably the opposite. The Capitals were killing penalties all game so his overall ice time was down a lot. He still had a lot of ES TOI, and overall leads the team in ES TOI this season.

 

[troyerlaw]

Meanwhile Alzner and Carlson are still struggling. They generated nothing substantial on offense and somehow keep finishing below water on shot-attempts.

Alzner and Kuz aren't having the contract years I expected. They will still get paid, I'm sure, but maybe not by the Capitals?

I would love to keep both, I just think other teams are going to be willing to load them down with too much cash.