Post-Game Talk: Caps @ Devils 1pm

[AtNightWeFly]

This game should've happened in DC and that game in Jersey for the sake of the fans at least!


If Caps play like this more often then I have no problems with Barry. But Barry will Barry.

 

[Hivemind]

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.

Here's one list of related scholarly articles if someone wants to dive in:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...ved=0ahUKEwi34_6pp5_RAhVK4YMKHcO0BdcQgQMIGDAA

 

[g00n]

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

OMG stat heads plug generic stats into spreadsheets and draw broad conclusions then post them to their blogs and THAT'S proof. LOL

This is why you can't trust these bloggers and their stat abuse. Just looking at rates of other penalties following fights is NOT what fighting as a deterrent is about. Why was there a fight? Was it after a CLEAN hit? Is it some guy trying to get his team to wake up? WHO fought? Did the combatants have anything to do with the issue that needed to be resolved?

Shows no understanding of the underlying concept, so there's no chance of getting the point across.

Evidence!

 

[SpinningEdge]

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

Overall hitting may be down sure - because the whole game would change. It'd turn into a skills competition where no defending teammates/etc could happen. Obviously stuff would go down.

However, HARD hits - dirty hits - etc would most likely for sure go way up if players feel that's the only way to release frustration.

In pro sports - players will go as far as they can. Whether that's taking supplements, pushing boundaries, using rules, etc. Right now when there's a lot of frustration a player knows fighting could still be an option and a player will fight when tensions rise as that's how things get handled. That's why Wilson got into a fight in this game. If he didn't get in a fight you can bet your ass he'd of got checked or hit super hard/border line dirty/or straight up dirty. Players will go as far as they can when emotions rise like that.

This is the NHL - not a inferior league.

 

[g00n]

Here's one list of related scholarly articles if someone wants to dive in:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...ved=0ahUKEwi34_6pp5_RAhVK4YMKHcO0BdcQgQMIGDAA

That includes injuries from HITS.

 

[Hivemind]

That includes injuries from HITS.

"That" is a list of 59 scholarly results, with different aims and focuses. Which one are you referencing specifically. You should probably read one first, before declaring what they do and do not include.

 

[Hivemind]

Overall hitting may be down sure - because the whole game would change. It'd turn into a skills competition where no defending teammates/etc could happen. Obviously stuff would go down.

However, HARD hits - dirty hits - etc would most likely for sure go way up if players feel that's the only way to release frustration.

In pro sports - players will go as far as they can. Whether that's taking supplements, pushing boundaries, using rules, etc. Right now when there's a lot of frustration a player knows fighting could still be an option and a player will fight when tensions rise as that's how things get handled. That's why Wilson got into a fight in this game. If he didn't get in a fight you can bet your ass he'd of got checked or hit super hard/border line dirty/or straight up dirty. Players will go as far as they can when emotions rise like that.

This is the NHL - not a inferior league.

Read. The. Articles.

 

[g00n]

"That" is a list of 59 scholarly results, with different aims and focuses. Which one are you referencing specifically. You should probably read one first, before declaring what they do and do not include.

Thanks for the advice and fact checking. You're a hero.

 

[Hivemind]

OMG stat heads plug generic stats into spreadsheets and draw broad conclusions then post them to their blogs and THAT'S proof. LOL

This is why you can't trust these bloggers and their stat abuse. Just looking at rates of other penalties following fights is NOT what fighting as a deterrent is about. Why was there a fight? Was it after a CLEAN hit? Is it some guy trying to get his team to wake up? WHO fought? Did the combatants have anything to do with the issue that needed to be resolved?

Shows no understanding of the underlying concept, so there's no chance of getting the point across.

Evidence!

Yes, evidence. It demonstrates that the "underlying concept" does not deter anything.

 

[twabby]

OMG stat heads plug generic stats into spreadsheets and draw broad conclusions then post them to their blogs and THAT'S proof. LOL

This is why you can't trust these bloggers and their stat abuse. Just looking at rates of other penalties following fights is NOT what fighting as a deterrent is about. Why was there a fight? Was it after a CLEAN hit? Is it some guy trying to get his team to wake up? WHO fought? Did the combatants have anything to do with the issue that needed to be resolved?

Shows no understanding of the underlying concept, so there's no chance of getting the point across.

Evidence!

Stats that don't agree with your preconceived notions = STAT ABUSE

 

[g00n]

Yes, evidence. It demonstrates that the "underlying concept" does not deter anything.

No it doesn't.

 

[Hivemind]

Thanks for the advice and fact checking. You're a hero.

My heroism is dwarfed by yours, the one who makes broad declarative statements about content he hasn't even read. Please educate me further on the content of those links.

 

[g00n]

Stats that don't agree with your preconceived notions = STAT ABUSE

Not falling in line with bloggers and their questionable methods and conclusions about stats they've smashed together = Y U HATE STATS????

sure

 

[g00n]

My heroism is dwarfed by yours, the one who makes broad declarative statements about content he hasn't even read. Please educate me further on the content of those links.

You're the one that posted them, chief. I'm just telling you they don't all say what you might think they say, and if anything from what I READ in some of the summaries there's a lot in there about hitting, which is what I was talking about.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

What a mess.

 

[twabby]

It's becoming clear from the past two GDTs that g00n and CCF just can't be argued with in good faith. There's no effort to approach a topic from a rational standpoint and instead allow emotion and prior belief to cloud everything.

 

[Hivemind]

No it doesn't.

We've had this conversation before. You claimed that the stats are invalid, despite providing no counter-evidence. You then claimed the enforcer rule was to blame, to which I pointed out the enforcer rule has been in place since the 1930s and and cited examples of significant cheap shots from before and after each major alteration to the rule. You also tried to use "guys who were there" as a crutch then, as well, but picked Jim Thomson as your source. The irony being that Thomson now wants fighting removed from the game.

 

[g00n]

We've had this conversation before. You claimed that the stats are invalid, despite providing no counter-evidence. You then claimed the enforcer rule was to blame, to which I pointed out the enforcer rule has been in place since the 1930s and and cited examples of significant cheap shots from before and after each major alteration to the rule. You also tried to use "guys who were there" as a crutch then, as well, but picked Jim Thomson as your source. The irony being that Thomson now wants fighting removed from the game.

I'm sure that's exactly how it went. We don't see eye to eye now and we don't even agree on the concept. So I'm sure nothing has been resolved, same with the goalie equipment issue that kept coming back up.

 

[Hivemind]

You're the one that posted them, chief. I'm just telling you they don't all say what you might think they say, and if anything from what I READ in some of the summaries there's a lot in there about hitting, which is what I was talking about.

There's 59 results in there, chief. You're lumping all of them together for no reason other than suiting your argument. You're not even attempting to read the the studies beyond their summaries before you paint them a certain color.

Speaks volumes about your intentions in this debate.

 

[Hivemind]

I'm sure that's exactly how it went. We don't see eye to eye now and we don't even agree on the concept. So I'm sure nothing has been resolved, same with the goalie equipment issue that kept coming back up.

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

 

[g00n]

It's becoming clear from the past two GDTs that g00n and CCF just can't be argued with in good faith. There's no effort to approach a topic from a rational standpoint and instead allow emotion and prior belief to cloud everything.

This is so ironic it's hilarious

 

[g00n]

There's 59 results in there, chief. You're lumping all of them together for no reason other than suiting your argument. You're not even attempting to read the the studies beyond their summaries before you paint them a certain color.

Speaks volumes about your intentions in this debate.

Hmmm, yeah. You're linkbombing blogs and google results and demanding people read like 65 articles before they can comment on anything else. I have to admit, on the surface it seems like a decent exit strategy when the rest of the debate has already been lost.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

If it's on the Internet it must be true!

Grain of salt for anyone else?

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

It's becoming clear from the past two GDTs that g00n and CCF just can't be argued with in good faith. There's no effort to approach a topic from a rational standpoint and instead allow emotion and prior belief to cloud everything.

Pot, kettle, game set match.

 

[Hivemind]

Hmmm, yeah. You're linkbombing blogs and google results and demanding people read like 65 articles before they can comment on anything else. I have to admit, on the surface it seems like a decent exit strategy when the rest of the debate has already been lost.

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.