Dave Hakstol

[freakydallas13]

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.

You don't have access to Mason's behind door transcripts, nor are you an expert on whining. How can you definitively say Mason is a whiner, maybe it was a freak complaining scenario

 

[VladDrag]

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.

I don't think thats where the issue comes in. Everyone agrees there. I think the issue comes in the likelihood of his usage causing an injury.

There is a high possibility that his injury was a direct result of his overuse. I think you have slightly agreed there, but don't want to completely agree.

 

[Garbage Goal]

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.

There is, it's called sports science. Beef cited it and a professional rugby player gave inside information on it, including terminology and what constitutes overwork. You ignored the former and shrugged off the latter.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

Science is a liar, sometimes....

This is Aristotle,

He's thought to be the smartest man on the planet. He believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and everybody believed him because he was so smart...

Until another smartest guy came around, Galileo.

He disproved that theory. Making a Aristotle and everybody else on earth look like a BITCH. Of course, Galileo then thought comets were an optical illusion and there's no way the Moon could cause the ocean's tides. Everybody believed that because he was so smart. He was also, WRONG. Making him and everyone else on Earth look like a BITCH again.

And then, best of all Sir Issac Newton gets born.

He blows everybody's nips off with his big brains. Of course, he also thought that he could turn metal into gold and died eating mercury. Making him yet another.... STUPID BITCH.

Are you seeing a pattern?

No?

These were all of the smartest scientists on the planet. Only problem is they kept being WRONG...sometimes.

 

[VladDrag]

There is, it's called sports science. Beef cited it and a professional rugby player gave inside information on it, including terminology and what constitutes overwork. You ignored the former and shrugged off the latter.

I am not a professional. Played against a fair few if them.

 

[Garbage Goal]

I am not a professional. Played against a fair few if them.

Semantics, you've played it at a high level and have been around professional circles. Either way, you gave a lot more credible and deep information than I have seen Ghost post throughout this entire topic.

 

[Adtar02]

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?

Macro results??? Really??? Nitpicking points per 60 and first assists to knock the players on your team to try and prove they suck and its not the coach constantly is a Macro approach???? its funny cause at times you seem like you actually like the flyers and understand hockey. Then other is the polar opposite.

For the Record Hakstoll isnt as bad as some suggest but no where near as good as other try to claim. He is improving just like the talent. The lack of adjusting to players is a big problem. whether its PK, PP, 5v5, Scheme, Finishing games. There are times where the flyers look great. And times they dont. But he is at the helm and is going to take the brunt of it.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

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?

It’s scary because you aren’t reading what I write. You flat-out misstate my positions. You act like my argument is that there’s no way playing time “could be” the reason for the goalies’ injuries. (My argument has always been that we don’t know & shouldn’t act like we do.) You keep saying I refuse to address Neuvirth, which is truly bizarre given that I’ve thoroughly addressed him multiple times. And I don’t think you’re lying — I think you have convinced yourself that I said things I didn’t.

 

[Beef Invictus]

It’s scary because you aren’t reading what I write. You flat-out misstate my positions. You act like my argument is that there’s no way playing time “could be” the reason for the goalies’ injuries. (My argument has always been that we don’t know & shouldn’t act like we do.) You keep saying I refuse to address Neuvirth, which is truly bizarre given that I’ve thoroughly addressed him multiple times. And I don’t think you’re lying — I think you have convinced yourself that I said things I didn’t.

But your argument has entailed much more than what you are claiming here; you have at times actively argued against the notion that usage could cause injury.

 

[Curufinwe]

I did the top 16 starters plus Elliott. The rest will have to wait for another day.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I did the top 15 starters plus Elliott. The rest will have to wait for another day.

How many of those top 15 starters are used to a 45 game workload like Elliott, and how many of them are used to and ready for a greater workload, unlike Elliott? How many are on the younger end of their careers, enjoying the benefit of greater recovery that tends to come with youth?

 

[MacDonald4MVP]

Fakstol is singlehandedly making this fanbase loose their mind. Pennsylvania chamber of psychology rejoice!

 

[Curufinwe]

All of Elliot's back to backs were in December (3 sets). the last two sets were less then a week apart.

Yeah, I mentioned that in the post you quoted. And the reason why.

 

[Curufinwe]

Talbot also had an awful season coming off the heels of another crazy workload the season before.

Curu brings this up every off-season when people start talking about it. He points to amount of games played (or amount of B2B) and goalie capability. Someone points out how it’s just as much about the space between games as it is the amount. Said person shows the workload is hugely abnormal with an inordinate number of starts over a small time frame. He ignores it. Rinse and repeat next off-season after it happens again.

And you ignore the fact that Neuvirth was on IR and Stolarz was on crutches during December when Elliot had the prolonged stretch of starts.

It's the exact same situation as 15-16 when Neuvirth got hurt in March, and Mason ended up playing three sets of back to backs because the next goalie was a kid with zero NHL experience.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

I don't think thats where the issue comes in. Everyone agrees there. I think the issue comes in the likelihood of his usage causing an injury.

There is a high possibility that his injury was a direct result of his overuse. I think you have slightly agreed there, but don't want to completely agree.

I don’t know how you can say it was a “high probability” the workload caused the injury. Goalies tear stomach & groin muscles all the time. They do it on opening day. They do it in camp. They do it as starters & backups.

And even if the workload caused the injury, how is it possible to quantify what the increased odds were? Also, was it worth the risk, considering Neuvirth was either hurt or not 100% & they’re in a crucial playoff race? Elliott was getting paid to play, & they needed him. If he physically was unable to perform, is that the coach’s fault, or the GM’s who got the goalies? There’s just so much pure speculation with what happened that is treated like fact.

 

[Curufinwe]

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

If you want to assume that Elliott's December workload contributed to his January injury, then fine. But how did he cause Neuvirth's leg injury which happened in practice in December which put him on IR for a month? He had only played eight games in two months at that point.

 

[Beef Invictus]

And you ignore the fact that Neuvirth was on IR and Stolarz was on crutches during December when Elliot had the prolonged stretch of starts.

So he was the only goalie we had?

 

[Embiid]

Science is a liar, sometimes....

This is Aristotle,

He's thought to be the smartest man on the planet. He believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and everybody believed him because he was so smart...

Until another smartest guy came around, Galileo.

He disproved that theory. Making a Aristotle and everybody else on earth look like a *****. Of course, Galileo then thought comets were an optical illusion and there's no way the Moon could cause the ocean's tides. Everybody believed that because he was so smart. He was also, WRONG. Making him and everyone else on Earth look like a ***** again.

And then, best of all Sir Issac Newton gets born.

He blows everybody's nips off with his big brains. Of course, he also thought that he could turn metal into gold and died eating mercury. Making him yet another.... STUPID *****.

Are you seeing a pattern?

No?

These were all of the smartest scientists on the planet. Only problem is they kept being WRONG...sometimes.

Pierre thinks Dave Hakstol is a brilliant tactician...case closed

 

[Curufinwe]

So he was the only goalie we had?

No, they also had Lyon, but the coach didn't want to play him back then.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

"Play our top goalie tonight, and we will play him every game in a row forever."

- Fred Shero

 

[VladDrag]

I don’t know how you can say it was a “high probability” the workload caused the injury. Goalies tear stomach & groin muscles all the time. They do it on opening day. They do it in camp. They do it as starters & backups.

And even if the workload caused the injury, how is it possible to quantify what the increased odds were? Also, was it worth the risk, considering Neuvirth was either hurt or not 100% & they’re in a crucial playoff race? Elliott was getting paid to play, & they needed him. If he physically was unable to perform, is that the coach’s fault, or the GM’s who got the goalies? There’s just so much pure speculation with what happened that is treated like fact.

I can say it was a high probabilty because I have a basic understanding of training concepts and biology.

Most injuries that happen at the beginning of the season because preseason training did not do a good job of preconditioning the athlete to game-like conditions.

There is ways to quantify the likelihood of certain situations causing other situations, that area of study is called statistics. Its based on previous situations.

I understand why Hak played him that way, even agree to an extent. The problem is that he exposed him to a greater risk of injury. That's not debatable; its scientifically proven.

I am not against you saying you don't think Hak's usage caused injury; I am against you disagreeing on the likelihood. When you say there is no evidence, you are wrong.

 

[kudymen]

If this is an attempt to make at least one thread not about Hagg.. well done, but shove it

 

[deadhead]

No, they also had Lyon, but the coach didn't want to play him back then.

For good reason, he had two mediocre seasons in the AHL, and didn't show much when he came up, looked tentative and slow in the net.
If Lyon looked like a NHL goaltender, does Ron trade for Mrazek?

 

[Ghosts Beer]

I can say it was a high probabilty because I have a basic understanding of training concepts and biology.

Most injuries that happen at the beginning of the season because preseason training did not do a good job of preconditioning the athlete to game-like conditions.

There is ways to quantify the likelihood of certain situations causing other situations, that area of study is called statistics. Its based on previous situations.

I understand why Hak played him that way, even agree to an extent. The problem is that he exposed him to a greater risk of injury. That's not debatable; its scientifically proven.

I am not against you saying you don't think Hak's usage caused injury; I am against you disagreeing on the likelihood. When you say there is no evidence, you are wrong.

What I said was that we don’t know if Elliott’s usage caused his injury.

The likelihood it did? Beats me. I’d consider it a toss up. I mean, you’re always going to face more risk of injury playing than sitting on a bench. But did it cause an unreasonably elevated likelihood of serious injury? I find that claim dubious & speculative. Seems just as plausible to me he would have suffered the same injury even if he had a couple games of those 23 off.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

What I said was that we don’t know if Elliott’s usage caused his injury.

The likelihood it did? Beats me. I’d consider it a toss up. I mean, you’re always going to face more risk of injury playing than sitting on a bench. But did it cause an unreasonably elevated likelihood of serious injury? I find that claim dubious & speculative. Seems just as plausible to me he would have suffered the same injury even if he had a couple games of those 23 off.

So if someone ate McDonald’s every day for a year and dies of a heart attack, would you say that we can’t say for certain what caused the heart attack, it could have happened regardless?