Dave Hakstol

[Ghosts Beer]

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.



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.


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.



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.

I appreciate the post & the time you put into it, but what it boils down to supports my original point — the notion that Hakstol caused Elliott’s injury is conjecture. And you’ve got a lot of people treating it like indisputable fact.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

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.

Actually, as Beef posted, the opinion is based on medical evidence that you refuse to acknowledge yourself.

It is one of the stupidest arguments because all that you have is "You're not a team doctor so you don't know for certain," Well guess what, you're not a team doctor. Sure you'll fire back that I need to provide "proof" in this case that Hakstol directly caused the injuries, which of course I can't because i'm not a team doctor. So congratulations, you win, you're correct based off a technicality.

However, I, nor anyone else, have claimed with 100% certainty that Hakstol caused these injuries. We have stated that based off of medical evidence, common sense, and prior history that Dave Hakstol's handling of goaltenders greatly increased the chances of them getting hurt and science and medical evidence shows that.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

I appreciate the post & the time you put into it, but what it boils down to supports my original point — the notion that Hakstol caused Elliott’s injury is conjecture. And you’ve got a lot of people treating it like indisputable fact.

Show me where people are stating it as an indisputable fact?

The fact is that Dave Hakstol's handling of goaltenders GREATLY increases the chances of injuries of goaltenders.

I'll put it simply, would you rather have a coach that employs his goaltenders at a baseline level of chance of injury or one that increases that baseline level by 1%?

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

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.



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.


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.



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.

Sorry but have you seen Brian Elliott's medical records? No? Well then you opinion is irrelevant.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

Show me where people are stating it as an indisputable fact?

The fact is that Dave Hakstol's handling of goaltenders GREATLY increases the chances of injuries of goaltenders.

It is an indisputable fact that Dave Hakstok caused all of the Flyers' goalie injuries. Fire Hakstok.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

It is an indisputable fact that Dave Hakstok caused all of the Flyers' goalie injuries. Fire Hakstok.

Well there goes my argument.

 

[Young Sandwich]

3 days and 10+ pages later and you dudes are still going hammer on the same argument. Gotta give you guys credit though, you really have courage in your convictions. Just a heads up though, there is sometimes a middle ground to these things.

 

[Beef Invictus]

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.

Really? Because you've spent all your time dismissing out of hand every single chance that Hakstol could be at fault as I've presented it, even flat-out ignoring a detailed post with citations showing how he could be at fault. Instead you moved from wanting medical expertise to wanting statistics. You moved the goalposts.

At this point I'm done putting in any real effort. You'll just make different demands every time. I'm sure if Hak uses his goaliea the same way again, and they get hurt again, you'll ignore the greater trend and insist it's all coincidence.

We have three seasons of irregular, strenuous goalie usage to look at. We've seen goalies injured at a high rate. We've watched Mason wear down to the point of being visibly sluggish in games. But you'll ignore all that. And when it continues, as it likely will, you'll still defend it.

 

[deadhead]

Okay -- since

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.

As I said before, this information doesn't prove Hakstol is at fault, but it does shed some light on the situation..

This is actually why speculation is just that, Hextall (and Holmgren to give credit where credit is due) have invested significant resources into sports medicine and training facilities, so I'd think they would be monitoring players throughout the season. And then informing Hextall and Hakstol whether a player needs time off.

This is why I focus on macro-results, not nitpicking. We simply lack sufficient information to know what's behind each decision.
We don't know which players were injured, who was fatigued (especially younger players not used to the rigors of an 82 game season), who was in a mental funk (we don't know what their responsibilities or review game film with that in mind), etc.

As far as I know, no one on this board has played in the AHL, much less the NHL, or coached at a professional level.
So as you've pointed out, there's a lot of stuff we're not familiar with that goes on behind the scenes.

What I find weird is the animosity toward Hakstol, you'd think the Flyers hadn't made the playoffs in four years and were going steadily downhill - oh, that's Carolina? Or that they got knocked out of the playoffs with a loaded roster, oh that was Toronto?

Ok, he looks like a dork and sounds like a beet farmer - IT'S THE NHL - most coaches come from some godforsaken place out in the Canadians plains where it was ice hockey or tractor repairman as your career choices. He coached in North Dakota, which is just Canada gone psycho. What do you expect from the poor man?

 

[Magua]

Guys, we can put an end to this. I have just seen Brian Elliott’s medical records.

Unfortunately, I’m not a medical professional, so I don’t understand what I saw. But the important thing is they have been seen. Rest easy.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

Guys, we can put an end to this. I have just seen Brian Elliott’s medical records.

Unfortunately, I’m not a medical professional, so I don’t understand what I saw. But the important thing is they have been seen. Rest easy.

I too have just seen Brian Elliott's, Michael Neuvirth's, and Steve Mason's medical records,

However due to HIPAA laws, I am no longer able to continue with this conversation.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Actually, as Beef posted, the opinion is based on medical evidence that you refuse to acknowledge yourself.

It is one of the stupidest arguments because all that you have is "You're not a team doctor so you don't know for certain," Well guess what, you're not a team doctor. Sure you'll fire back that I need to provide "proof" in this case that Hakstol directly caused the injuries, which of course I can't because i'm not a team doctor. So congratulations, you win, you're correct based off a technicality.

However, I, nor anyone else, have claimed with 100% certainty that Hakstol caused these injuries. We have stated that based off of medical evidence, common sense, and prior history that Dave Hakstol's handling of goaltenders greatly increased the chances of them getting hurt and science and medical evidence shows that.

It’s not based on medical evidence. You’re drawing arbitrary lines. A study saying that fatigue is one thing that can contribute to an injury is not evidence that Elliott was fatigued or evidence that his injury was caused by fatigue. You’re guessing, & then when someone notes that it is a guess & far from a fact, you label it as one of the “stupidest” things you’ve ever read on this message board. So forgive me for thinking you’re acting as if Hakstol caused the injury is damn near a 100% certainty.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

It’s not based on medical evidence. You’re drawing arbitrary lines. A study saying that fatigue is one thing that can contribute to an injury is not evidence that Elliott was fatigued or evidence that his injury was caused by fatigue. You’re guessing, & then when someone notes that it is a guess & far from a fact, you label it as one of the “stupidest” things you’ve ever read on this message board. So forgive me for thinking you’re acting as if Hakstol caused the injury is damn near a 100% certainty.

Please answer my question: Would you rather have a coach that employs his goaltenders at a baseline level of chance of injury or one that increases that baseline level by 1%?

 

[Beef Invictus]

Show me where people are stating it as an indisputable fact?

The fact is that Dave Hakstol's handling of goaltenders GREATLY increases the chances of injuries of goaltenders.

I'll put it simply, would you rather have a coach that employs his goaltenders at a baseline level of chance of injury or one that increases that baseline level by 1%?

Right. It increases the chance, and it just so happened that both our goalies got hurt.


Well geeeeee.

 

[Garbage Goal]

I appreciate the post & the time you put into it, but what it boils down to supports my original point — the notion that Hakstol caused Elliott’s injury is conjecture. And you’ve got a lot of people treating it like indisputable fact.

Actually, nobody has been stating indisputable facts aside from you asserting as such. Which is called strawmanning which you would also know if you're some elite bias guru. People have been claiming there's a pattern and it's very likely he contributed to the chances of injuries.

You already know that though. You just want to argue and bait for some reason.

 

[deadhead]

Please answer my question: Would you rather have a coach that employs his goaltenders at a baseline level of chance of injury or one that increases that baseline level by 1%?

Depends on the alternative and the opportunity cost.
If overworking Elliott increases his chance of injury but allows me not to use Neuvirth until he's healthy enough to reduce his chance of injury . . .
It's not worth arguing over because we have insufficient knowledge to know what the tradeoffs were.

And as the playoffs showed, I'd prefer the alternative where we didn't use either one or Mrazek, for that matter.
Which is why the real blame falls on Hextall.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Really? Because you've spent all your time dismissing out of hand every single chance that Hakstol could be at fault as I've presented it, even flat-out ignoring a detailed post with citations showing how he could be at fault. Instead you moved from wanting medical expertise to wanting statistics. You moved the goalposts.

At this point I'm done putting in any real effort. You'll just make different demands every time. I'm sure if Hak uses his goaliea the same way again, and they get hurt again, you'll ignore the greater trend and insist it's all coincidence.

We have three seasons of irregular, strenuous goalie usage to look at. We've seen goalies injured at a high rate. We've watched Mason wear down to the point of being visibly sluggish in games. But you'll ignore all that. And when it continues, as it likely will, you'll still defend it.

I’ve spent all of my time saying you don’t know what caused Elliott’s injury so stop acting like you do. How you’re trying to twist my stance is laughable, & it’s a scary insight into human psychology that (apparently) you believe it.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

Guys, I just watched five minutes of "House" and I can tell you, with absolute medical certainty, that Dave Hakstok is responsible for the goalie injuries. And the bird flu.

Fire Hakstok.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

Depends on the alternative and the opportunity cost.
If overworking Elliott increases his chance of injury but allows me not to use Neuvirth until he's healthy enough to reduce his chance of injury . . .
It's not worth arguing over because we have insufficient knowledge to know what the tradeoffs were.

And as the playoffs showed, I'd prefer the alternative where we didn't use either one or Mrazek, for that matter.
Which is why the real blame falls on Hextall.

I'm asking it in the most simplistic way possible.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

I'm asking it in the most simplistic way possible.

Ah, now here is something I can speak to with some authority. Dave Hakstok is, as you suggest, a total simpleton. Fire Hakstok.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I’ve spent all of my time saying you don’t know what caused Elliott’s injury so stop acting like you do. How you’re trying to twist my stance is laughable, & it’s a scary insight into human psychology that (apparently) you believe it.

Yeah, I'm sure you're just living in abject existential horror of my posts.

I point out that starting Neuvirth in the manner Hakstol did was only ever going to maximize his chances of injury. It was pointed out at the time it was happening, too. He did in fact get injured, quite predictably. You refuse to accept these things could be related. I spell out the medical proof with citation. Instead of accepting that usage and injury could be related, you insist on only talking about Elliott from then on while refusing to look at grander context, so that everything could look more flukey. Why? Because my posts are scary to you?

 

[Magua]

Guys, I just watched five minutes of "House" and I can tell you, with absolute medical certainty, that Dave Hakstok is responsible for the goalie injuries. And the bird flu.

Fire Hakstok.

If you stayed at a Holiday Inn too, I don’t see how this isn’t an expert witness opinion.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

Yeah, I'm sure you're just living in abject existential horror of my posts.

Not to be nitpicky, but some of the things you have posted on here have been pretty ****ing horrifying Fire Hakstok.

 

[Garbage Goal]

I’ve spent all of my time saying you don’t know what caused Elliott’s injury so stop acting like you do. How you’re trying to twist my stance is laughable, & it’s a scary insight into human psychology that (apparently) you believe it.

My degree is in Psychology and I work in a clinical setting. I can assure you there is nothing scary or insightful about anything related to your posts.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Please answer my question: Would you rather have a coach that employs his goaltenders at a baseline level of chance of injury or one that increases that baseline level by 1%?

As with anything, it depends. I’ve already touched on this. How much more are your chances of winning/losing vs. the goalie getting hurt?

You act as if you can quantify a goalie’s chance of getting injured based on his usage, but you’re really just making it up & using hindsight. You’re also ignoring that goalies always have a risk of injury, & even ones with light workloads get hurt.

If there was a scientific way to measure increases risk of injury, then you could more accurately engage in a cost/benefit analysis. But there isn’t. Which is the whole root of my complaint.