Dave Hakstol

[hatcher]

Ask a true machine like me guys LOL. Stop arguing ok LOL.

 

[Garbage Goal]

Basically what you’re arguing is that we’re not doctors and we never saw the medical records, congratulations you’re correct that we can’t prove 100% proof.

You win man, but Hak contributed to it greatly and you refuse to admit that.

It’s basically just an indirect appeal to authority. He’s saying because we’re not doctors or didn’t have the privileged information the authority did we can’t surmise or make opinions in any way. Or at least in any way that negatively reflects on Hakstol.

For a guy who claims to have some vague job description of being elitely trained and capable in removing bias, I would think a basic fallacy like that wouldn’t be an option.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

It’s basically just an indirect appeal to authority. He’s saying because we’re not doctors or didn’t have the privileged information the authority did we can’t surmise or make opinions in any way. Or at least in any way that negatively reflects on Hakstol.

For a guy who claims to have some vague job description of being elitely trained and capable in removing bias, I would think a basic fallacy like that wouldn’t be an option.

I think he just go deep into the argument of “i’m right and you can never be right” because of a technicality. Not even sure it’s deeper than that.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Basically what you’re arguing is that we’re not doctors and we never saw the medical records, congratulations you’re correct that we can’t prove 100% proof.

You win man, but Hak contributed to it greatly and you refuse to admit that.

You’re making stuff up as you go along. 23 starts in a row caused Elliott’s injury. How many fewer would have prevented it? You can’t answer, because you’re making it up. Does practice count? Should goalies not practice because of injury? Again, you can’t answer because you’re flying by the seat of your pants. Is it wrong to play forwards & defensemen 82 games? Is Hakstol responsible for their injuries? Why because Elliott was never a team’s clear #1 does that mean he’s physically incapable of taking on that role for a 23 game stretch when they need him? What are you basing your opinion on that it’s acceptable for a college goalkeeper to play in 20 back to back series, but Elliott’s usage was sacrilege? Hell, Elliott only played 6 back to backs. You’re guessing at things & treating it like fact.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

You’re making stuff up as you go along. 23 starts in a row caused Elliott’s injury. How many fewer would have prevented it? You can’t answer, because you’re making it up. Does practice count? Should goalies not practice because of injury? Again, you can’t answer because you’re flying by the seat of your pants. Is it wrong to play forwards & defensemen 82 games? Is Hakstol responsible for their injuries? Why because Elliott was never a team’s clear #1 does that mean he’s physically incapable of taking on that role for a 23 game stretch when they need him? What are you basing your opinion on that it’s acceptable for a college goalkeeper to play in 20 back to back series, but Elliott’s usage was sacrilege? Hell, Elliott only played 6 back to backs. You’re guessing at things & treating it like fact.

With Hak’s usage of goaltenders during his tenure and their injury history... if it quacks like a duck...

 

[deadhead]

They’re also arguing the guy is responsible as it relates to injuries while Simmonds played the entire season plus training camp with injuries and was never told to rest or forced to recouperate.

Didn’t a goalie also say they were fatigued in exit interviews? Or was that Mason in the past? Or am I completely misremembering (which is possible)?

Simmonds is a warrior and probably was reticent about admitting he was injured.
And if he was willing to play through some injuries, he was better than the alternative, even injured.
Again, lack of depth leads to suboptimal decisions.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

It’s basically just an indirect appeal to authority. He’s saying because we’re not doctors or didn’t have the privileged information the authority did we can’t surmise or make opinions in any way. Or at least in any way that negatively reflects on Hakstol.

For a guy who claims to have some vague job description of being elitely trained and capable in removing bias, I would think a basic fallacy like that wouldn’t be an option.

Where did I say you weren’t entitled to your opinion?

All I’m pointing out is that you’re wrongfully treating a hypothesis like it’s fact. And you sure don’t like people bringing up that it’s quite possible Elliott’s injury wasn’t caused by his workload.

And what “basic fallacy” are you accusing me of? “Indirect appeal to authority?” That’s what you want to call my point that you are making a medical diagnosis without evidence? I don’t think you have a firm grasp of logical fallacies. Do you think the US justice system is making an “indirect appeal to authority” when it bans medical opinions unless supplied by a certified medical expert?

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Didn’t a goalie also say they were fatigued in exit interviews? Or was that Mason in the past? Or am I completely misremembering (which is possible)?

Mason was a whiner who loved blaming everyone but himself. He whined that he got overused, then whined that the team wouldn’t commit to using him enough. Glad he got to a team who played their starter 67 games.

 

[Striiker]

The real moral of the story here is that Hagg is horrible.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Hakstol defense has reached the point of Bryzgalov defense and I still have PTSD from those threads.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Hakstol defense has reached the point of Bryzgalov defense and I still have PTSD from those threads.

You can’t even accept the possibility that maybe Hakstol didn’t cause his goalies’ injuries.

Your brain is so wired against him you think a “defense” of Hakstol in the form of “maybe he isn’t the reason for ___” is extremist. It’s the Crucible.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

You can’t even accept the possibility that maybe Hakstol didn’t cause his goalies’ injuries.

Your brain is so wired against him you think a “defense” of Hakstol in the form of “maybe he isn’t the reason for ___” is extremist. It’s the Crucible.

Can you accept the extremely likely possibility that maybe Hakstol did cause the goalies' injuries?

 

[Beef Invictus]

You can’t even accept the possibility that maybe Hakstol didn’t cause his goalies’ injuries.

Your brain is so wired against him you think a “defense” of Hakstol in the form of “maybe he isn’t the reason for ___” is extremist. It’s the Crucible.

Yes yes, and I'm sure Bryzgalov didn't allow any bad goals, right?

 

[deadhead]

Hakstol defense is simple reality, other than the nitpicking that occurs with EVERY coach, no one has shown real evidence that Hakstol is better or worse than most NHL coaches. And no one has been able to show a "magic" coach who can win with mediocre talent, what people show are new coaches who win with underachieving teams, sometimes due to a different scheme, sometimes due to the team tuning out the previous coach. And some of those "new" coaches were fired from their previous job when their previous team tuned them out.

The team hasn't underperformed relative to its talent (just because some exaggerate that talent doesn't make it better than it is, Giroux is not Crosby, Voracek isn't a top scoring forward (Voracek 5yr - 1.82 pp/60, 1.36 P1/60 - 77th/90th among 264 forwards with 3000 minutes), Couts isn't Kopitar yet.

Young players have developed as fast as other NHL teams or faster.
Flyers only have one elite and one top prospect, Patrick #2, Provorov #7.
TK #24, Sanheim #17, Lindblom 5th rd.
Morin #11, Laughton #20, Hagg 2nd rd, Ghost 3rd rd were Holmgren picks, which makes them suspect (i.e. Holmgren's draft record).
So their progress and success are certainly as good as you could expect given their draft position.
Ghost and Provorov have become 1st pair defensemen, TK a top six wing at 20, Patrick, Lindblom showed promise as rookies.

In other words, the Flyers have performed about where you'd expect them to be, the young players have developed as fast as you'd expect them to.
In two years if Hakstol doesn't take them to the next level as the talent increases, he'll be replaced, the same way Lavi was dumped when the team underperformed. That's the fate of all coaches.

But the idea that Hakstol is holding this team back assumes a "real coach" could get them to say 105 points and the conference finals.

Like Babcock in Toronto, who merely had Matthews, Marner, Nylander, Kadri, JVR, Marleau, Bozak, Hyman, C Brown and Kapanen at forward, and Gardiner, Zaitsev, Reilly on defense, and Anderson 66 starts with .918 S% in goal (and McElhinney 16g, .934 S%).

Now give Hakstol that kind of talent and if he doesn't match Toronto's performance last year, he should be fired.

 

[Beef Invictus]

It's such simple reality it requires that you lie constantly.


But yeah, I'm sure it's totally normal to need 5+ seasons before you feel it's time to judge a coach.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Can you accept the extremely likely possibility that maybe Hakstol did cause the goalies' injuries?

I can accept that it’s possible both goalies got hurt because they were worn out. I won’t accept it as “extremely likely.”

Can you accept that you have no proof Hakstol caused their injuries besides conjecture?

 

[deadhead]

Or you don't like uncomfortable truths that don't jibe with your delusional grasp of reality.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

I can accept that it’s possible both goalies got hurt because they were worn out. I won’t accept it as “extremely likely.”

Can you accept that you have no proof Hakstol caused their injuries besides conjecture?

I have conceded that I haven't seen the medical records nor can I say with 100% conviction that Hakstol caused those injuries. Nor do I believe anyone is saying that they can.

However, science and common sense says that Hakstol's handling of goaltenders, based off of multiple examples leading to different goalies getting hurt, largely increased the chances of an injury of his goaltenders.

Which by my calculations is bad and one of Hakstol's many faults.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Yes yes, and I'm sure Bryzgalov didn't allow any bad goals, right?

What does my point about you treating a non-expert medical diagnosis as fact, rather than theory, have to do with Bryzgalov? (I think Bryzgalov is one of the worst #1 goalies in Flyers’ history & a horrendous signing, btw.)

 

[Magua]

Or you don't like uncomfortable truths that don't jibe with your delusional grasp of reality.

Yeahhhhhh mannnnnn reality is a lieeeeee

 

[Beef Invictus]

Or you don't like uncomfortable truths that don't jibe with your delusional grasp of reality.

Hey, you're the one who abuses statistics by ignoring inconvenient ones, deleting context that you find inconvenient, and even going to far as claiming to have invented new stats to spread your lies. Not me.

 

[Beef Invictus]

What does my point about you treating a non-expert medical diagnosis as fact, rather than theory, have to do with Bryzgalov? (I think Bryzgalov is one of the worst #1 goalies in Flyers’ history & a horrendous signing, btw.)

Your refusal to acknowledge Hakstol could be at fault is on par with the Bryz defenders refusing to believe he could be to blame for any goals.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

I have conceded that I haven't seen the medical records nor can I say with 100% conviction that Hakstol caused those injuries. Nor do I believe anyone is saying that they can.

However, science and common sense says that Hakstol's handling of goaltenders, based off of multiple examples leading to different goalies getting hurt, largely increased the chances of an injury of his goaltenders.

Which by my calculations is bad and one of Hakstol's many faults.

So you have an opinion based on no medical evidence other than a theory Elliott was suffering from fatigue; treat it like fact that Hakstol caused the injury; ignore that goalies suffer injuries all the time independent of workload; and label my assertion that you are speculating without medical knowledge one of the “stupidest” arguments you’ve ever read on the board. Gotcha.

 

[VladDrag]

Okay -- since @Ghosts Beer asked these questions, I will answer some of them. Prior to that, I'll give you my background in training elite athletes, and not just some BS about my job makes me non-biased.

Now, this isn't to toot my own horn, but I've played rugby league at high levels, even for the United States. I've played a total of 6 test matches against other countries, I've played high levels in England as well. Here's a site that has my international numbers as proof Rich Henson - Career Stats & Summary - Rugby League Project. The team that I play for right now had an athletic trainer with a master's degree who, at the time, was a professor at Bryn Athyn College. Being in the USA Player Pool since 2015, I've been under the guidance of different athletic trainers, strength/conditioning coaches, doctors etc. Being around those types of people, I've picked up a lot of training and recovery methodologies. On top of that, my day job is as a scientist, so naturally, I have background in researching of scientific literature, which I've done on multiple occasions regarding the proper way to train or to recovery. I also own a few books which site scientific studies on training.

Now to answer questions.

Does practice count? Should goalies not practice because of injury?

Yes, practice counts as physical activity. Depending on a goalies workload (which includes all physical activity, games, and on/off ice training), he may or may not have to take a maintenance day or two. Prior to the season, most professional teams have baseline tests (various exercises). They will then test the athlete at various times of the season. The results of the in-season testing can show if they are fatigued or not. Grip strength is used quite frequently. One test you can use is to squeeze an analog bathroom scale each week and see how much deviation you get from your first number.

Is it wrong to play forwards & defensemen 82 games? Is Hakstol responsible for their injuries?

You are comparing apples and oranges when you compare skaters to goalies. Skaters shifts are 30 - 60 seconds of high energy output for 10 - 25 mins. They usually get 3 - 5 minutes of recovery between each shift as well. The movements of skating vs goalie are quite different as well. Goalies typically have fewer total movements, but their power outputs per movement are typically greater (IE reaction moves). There is a direct relationship between the amount of power movements and the length of recovery time required. Hakstol's usage might be one reason why the injury occurred.

Why because Elliott was never a team’s clear #1 does that mean he’s physically incapable of taking on that role for a 23 game stretch when they need him? What are you basing your opinion on that it’s acceptable for a college goalkeeper to play in 20 back to back series, but Elliott’s usage was sacrilege?

This is actually the biggest reason as to why it is important to look at potential usage and previous workload. There is a concept in strength/conditioning called prehabilitation. It's also a term used in surgery where you strengthen the area of surgery prior to the actual surgery to reduce the recovery time. In strength and conditioning, prehabilitation is a specific way you train so you are at your optimum during the season and you don't overtrain too early. Typically, you train to 110-115% of what your expected workload will be. That's everything from your periodization (training schedule) to your specific trainings, to rest periods. Gone are the days of simply training as hard as you can all the time, that's been proven as an inefficient use means of preparation, as well a risk for fatigue later in the season. It's the same thing for long distance runners, you only run the marathon pace during the marathon. So if he was used to a specific usage and expected to play around the 45 game marks as he had the last 3 years, his training would have not been to become ready for 65 games, but rather about 50 games over the course of the season. Being forced to play more than that would potentially cause fatigue, leading to an injury.

It's logical for a college keeper, who is in his athletic prime, who knows what his workload is, to be prepared for that work. Also, it's not just the back to back, it's the 3 in 4, or the 4 in 7 that are the problem.

As I said before, this information doesn't prove Hakstol is at fault, but it does shed some light on the situation. Feel free take it or leave it. And if any strength/conditioning coach or athletic trainer or doctor sees this and there is something that is incorrect here, please update me because I want to know what is and what isn't correct.

And yes this took way longer than it was worth.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Your refusal to acknowledge Hakstol could be at fault is on par with the Bryz defenders refusing to believe he could be to blame for any goals.

And you accuse me of moving the goalposts?
LOL.
You really think my argument has been that there’s no possible way Hakstol could be at fault for the goalies’ injuries? What are you reading? It’s clearly not the words I’ve typed.