View Single Post
03-29-2013, 11:00 PM
Not a Fanboy
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,712
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by habtastic View Post
I'm genuinely curious how the studies you cited from (or their titles, I'm guessing) support the idea that you can cherrypick research to support a claim substantially. What is the agenda being forwarded by the pigeons, alcohol and human taste panel studies? Did you mean that together they support a hypothesis or merely that you can do research on esoteric things?

What are the conclusions of those studies in terms of ramifications on whatever agenda it is you are supposing they promote? They seem merely investigative.

Sorinth's facts heavily support the hypothesis that fighters/goons/whatever you wanna call 'em (the ones that can't play hockey) do not help you win, statistically, at least. I'm in the Bowman camp. Don't handicap yourself. Particularly in the playoffs where gooning it up is a great way to lose.
I did a quick Google search for absurd studies. I dont know nor do I care what the agendas were for those studies. There are agendas or else they would not have been funded.

Until they can come up with a statistic that shows what a skill player in the NHL is thinking when they have an enforcer or someone willing to stand up for them on the ice/bench that night, then I guess we will have to rely on actual hockey players like Galchenyuk to determine whether they feel they are of use or not.

Boston gooned it up against the Canucks and they skated off with the Cup. So much for that conventional wisdom.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote