Post-Game Talk: Caps @ Devils 1pm

[txpd]

In the same shift. Kuzy with a blind pass to a Devil alone in the slot and then skates clean in on the net and back passes to no one instead of shooting. That sure is his season in a minute

 

[HTFN]

not being considered (take it with a grain of salt, though):

The NHL's "enforcers" are often referred to as some of the game's nicest players, its most open and caring people. To some extent they didn't make their careers with natural talent and confidence, but heart and that whole "do anything to stay around" mentality that Matt Hendricks talked about on 24/7.

I think generally, these guys have the hardest time parting with the game because they're perhaps more entrenched emotionally as a result of the mindset they live in, as "heart and soul" players.

Coupled with the after-effects of sustained concussions, it does even more to **** with their sense of purpose than it already would, and the results are predictably tragic. Put simply, with no EVIDENCE in my corner (except anecdotal, now almost literally one calendar year in to my own concussion issues), I think that while fighting likely increases your odds of sustaining concussions, the act of fighting is not what would make you inherently more at risk of committing suicide. It has much more to do with what you feel you've lost as a person, and what you have left to offer.

 

[g00n]

It is absolutely a false equivalence. Read the definition of the fallacy. Just because someone opposes an action that has a particular outcome in its set of outcomes doesn't mean that they have to oppose every action that has that same outcome in their set of outcomes. Making such a statement is a textbook example of a false equivalence.

As for your "evidence," that's an anecdote from someone defending their livelihood. If you want an actual conversation on the issue, go back and search the NUMEROUS articles that were posted when we had this discussion in the off-season. The actual numbers show that fighting does not reduce the risk of dangerous hits.

Wrong. I know what false equivalence is. Your use of it here is a red herring.

If someone is going to have an objection because of X then the exact same X (or possibly even MORE X) appearing for other reasons should trigger the same objection. That's not false logic. That's clear logic. Excusing X for hitting but not fighting is what's called a "special pleading" fallacy. Read the definition.

I'll take the word of guys who did it over yours, thanks. NUMEROUS articles are written on all sorts of contradictory things. If you know anything about research you know there's is ZERO chance a double blind study could be conducted to produce the "evidence" you and twabby assume is being expressed by correlative, speculative, incomplete analyses.

 

[Hivemind]

I remembered about the NCAA as soon as I typed it, as you'll notice in the immeidate ninja edit. I notice you didn't really address the concept, though. Can high level hockey be played without hitting? Do they HAVE to hit?

I do not know of a high level men's hockey league that disallows hitting. While you could certainly attempt to remove specific high-risk hits from the game (as the NHL has half-heartedly tried), I cannot envision a way to completely remove contact from the game while maintaining the speed of the game that makes it so entertaining. In order to turn hockey into a non-contact sport, you'd have to slow it down considerably.

 

[Hivemind]

Wrong. I know what false equivalence is. Your use of it here is a red herring.

If someone is going to have an objection because of X then the exact same X (or possibly even MORE X) appearing for other reasons should trigger the same objection. That's not false logic. That's clear logic. Excusing X for hitting but not fighting is what's called a "special pleading" fallacy. Read the definition.

Nobody is setting up an exception, here. You're attempting to tie together two independent arguments via false equivalence.

I'll take the word of guys who did it over yours, thanks. NUMEROUS articles are written on all sorts of contradictory things. If you know anything about research you know there's is ZERO chance a double blind study could be conducted to proviced the "evidence" you and twabby assume is being expressed by correlative, speculative, incomplete analyses.

Okay, if you're ONLY interested in anecdotal "evidence" laugh:), you can argue with the 80 former players who feel the opposite of McSorly.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rudy-poeschek-nhl-concussion-lawsuit_us_565ccd05e4b08e945fec5241

 

[troyerlaw]

Anybody with at least one good eye can see that. Now, who's bright idea was it to stop?

To me, it was an overreaction to Pens winning Cup. The conventional wisdom became, in today's NHL speed and skill wins. Which is fine and may even be true. But: a) i'm not sure how much smaller and speedier we actually got, roster wise; b) we didn't seem to adopt an actual strategy of emphasizing speed and counterattacks and so forth; and c) we straight-up stopped hitting. Which was a shame because we have a handful of guys who can do it well and seem to enjoy it, and it gives great energy to rest of team.

 

[g00n]

I do not know of a high level men's hockey league that disallows hitting. While you could certainly attempt to remove specific high-risk hits from the game (as the NHL has half-heartedly tried), I cannot envision a way to completely remove contact from the game while maintaining the speed of the game that makes it so entertaining. In order to turn hockey into a non-contact sport, you'd have to slow it down considerably.

No you wouldn't. There's such a thing as accidental or incidental contact. Do you think checking and accidental contact are the same things? Don't players already fly around the ice at high speeds without running into each other?

Checking has contact but contact is not always checking. Accidents happen.

If we're going to wring our hands about fighting causing suicide via head injuries then we're being hypocritical if we also don't look at the effects of legal hitting.

 

[Chukcha]

wow! 88 didn't miss the net!

 

[Devil Dancer]

I do not know of a high level men's hockey league that disallows hitting. While you could certainly attempt to remove specific high-risk hits from the game (as the NHL has half-heartedly tried), I cannot envision a way to completely remove contact from the game while maintaining the speed of the game that makes it so entertaining. In order to turn hockey into a non-contact sport, you'd have to slow it down considerably.

So your argument is that because no leagues have done it, it can't be done? That's a fallacy.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that banning hitting would slow down the game?

 

[g00n]

Nobody is setting up an exception, here. You're attempting to tie together two independent arguments via false equivalence.



Okay, if you're ONLY interested in anecdotal "evidence" laugh:), you can argue with the 80 former players who feel the opposite of McSorly.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rudy-poeschek-nhl-concussion-lawsuit_us_565ccd05e4b08e945fec5241

And there it is! The facepalm!


I've laid it out pretty clearly for you, breh. And you did set up the exception http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=126228561#post126228561

 

[troyerlaw]

In the same shift. Kuzy with a blind pass to a Devil alone in the slot and then skates clean in on the net and back passes to no one instead of shooting. That sure is his season in a minute

Yeah. Maybe he needs the mandated 2- or 3-game break which worked wonders with Bura's game.

 

[Blitzkrieg365]

Responding with a quick goal after a goal against? What team am I watching again?

 

[Hivemind]

So your argument is that because no leagues have done it, it can't be done? That's a fallacy.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that banning hitting would slow down the game?

Okay then, illuminate me as to how to remove hitting from hockey.

 

[troyerlaw]

Responding with a quick goal after a goal against? What team am I watching again?

Yah I think i tuned into a Pens or blue jax game by accident.

 

[Hivemind]

And there it is! The facepalm!


I've laid it out pretty clearly for you, breh. And you did set up the exception http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=126228561#post126228561

That's not an exception. That's showing the two things you're trying to equate are not, in fact, equivalent. You know, a false equivalence. Pretty simple, breh.

 

[twabby]

Niskanen-Orlov is a +4 and are killing the shot attempt battle again

 

[g00n]

That's not an exception. That's showing the two things you're trying to equate are not, in fact, equivalent. You know, a false equivalence. Pretty simple, breh.

uh huh. don't stop believin

 

[SpinningEdge]

If people can't fight - we'd see way more hitting. More dirty hits probably too. When players are frustrated in a contact sport - things happen.

How many people in hockey fights in NHL miss games for injury? I'm assuming it's on average in the single digital overall per year.

How many players get hurt from illegal hits or just hitting in general? I'd say those are in the hundreds - if not 1,000 missed games per year on avg in the nhl.

If we are viewing what is more dangerous - I'd argue standard hitting in NHL is more dangerous than fighting. Hell, hockey players have helmets and visors on. If a 100 mph puck can hit the helmet of a player and the player will be okay - a fist definitely isn't causing any major issues.

Game is fine how it is. Even skill players who don't fight agree fighting is a important part and better for the NHL game.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/consum...juries-study-claims-657909.html?client=safari


Just more info, draw your own conclusions. I wonder if a recent study has been done like this.

 

[Hivemind]

No you wouldn't. There's such a thing as accidental or incidental contact. Do you think checking and accidental contact are the same things? Don't players already fly around the ice at high speeds without running into each other?

Checking has contact but contact is not always checking. Accidents happen.

Non-contact hockey would no longer be hockey. Even youth leagues allow intentional checking.

Are you arguing for rules similar to USA Hockey's used in youth leagues?
http://www.usahockey.com/page/show/908033-body-checking-rule

If we're going to wring our hands about fighting causing suicide via head injuries then we're being hypocritical if we also don't look at the effects of legal hitting.

"If we're going to wring our hands about gun violence, we're being hypocritical if we also don't look at the effects of heart disease."

Fighting is an easily divisible and independent event from the game of hockey. There are obvious and achievable steps that can be taken to mitigate the injury risk caused by fighting. That doesn't mean you also aren't looking to mitigate the injury risk elsewhere in the game, but to claim that because injury risk exists elsewhere you CANNOT take action on fighting is backwards logic.

 

[AtNightWeFly]

This game has been unusually feisty. I don't hate it.

 

[g00n]

Nice to see a game vs NJ that has some life to it. Hopefully Moore is OK

 

[Hivemind]

If people can't fight - we'd see way more hitting. More dirty hits probably too.

The exact opposite is true.
http://deadspin.com/the-enforcer-fallacy-hockeys-fighting-specialists-don-1442618145
http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/thn-analytics-the-statistical-argument-against-fighting
http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2...fighting-deter-other-nasty-business-in-hockey

 

[BiPolar Caps]

Devils 0 for 9 on the PP, would that be equivalent to the golden sombrero in baseball.

 

[chilimac]

Nice to see a game vs NJ that has some life to it. Hopefully Moore is OK

Agreed. also nice to see the Caps play a good matinee game.