HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Bobrovsky and Couturier questions/comments

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-11-2011, 11:35 PM
  #251
OriginJM
watch out im smart
 
OriginJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,364
vCash: 500
You guys have quite a lot of time to argue about what is, ultimately, unprovable.

OriginJM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2011, 11:35 PM
  #252
Jtown
Registered User
 
Jtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 16,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Why don't you, since you think a generic sampling of people age 11-70 thirty years ago is useful for talking about hockey players. If I looked at the musculature of an endurance athlete would it be the same as a sprinter? No. Would either of them have directly comparable musculature to Joe shmoe 30 that went to the gym a few nights a week? No.

Perhaps most importantly. If I took a peak athlete from 30 years ago and stood him next to a modern day athlete, would they have much similarity in their training, nutrition, etc. experience?

For a "scientific mind" you are blowing past a boatload of variables that are non-trivial... And I'd wager you know it.

But, hell, you are in the field. If it hasn't been done a study that isolates on athletes in specific sports at various stages of their career would be good stuff. Be sure to note how many games they have played.

Here are the facts, though. If a dude hasn't made it by 25 there is a really good chance he's never going to make it. At 22/23 the vast majority of NHL players will begin to tap in to their offensive potential, and by 27 they will begin to decline. I have no doubt there are physiological factors at play, in fact I've noted that quickness and agility are the most obvious losses that you can observe in athletes. Age, however, has strong correlation to arc, and it isn't just a number. And the data backs that up.

You want to come up with the why? Go for it... But games is not a satisfactory answer to that for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, there isn't much to support that claim in the NHL... And you haven't provided anything to prove your claim. I have.
what have you proven?

Jtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2011, 11:39 PM
  #253
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coppy View Post
This is the smartest thing anyone has said in this thread for about 3 pages...
'cept it doesn't really hold water. If games were really an important factor, then elite 18 y.o guys that broke in at that age would drop off at an earlier age than normal. Lets explore that.

Top 18 y/o players in order
Gretzky (137 pts): Blew up at 20 (212 pts), and his peak years ran to (you guessed it, 27) when he began to slow down a bit (not much compared to normal folks).

Hawerchuk (103 pts): Blew up at 21 (130 pts). His last 100+ campaign came at 24, posted 96 (would likely have gotten 100 if not for missing some games) at 25 and remained quite good through his late 20s before injuries wrecked his career after 30 (86 pts).

Crosby (102 pts): time will tell... was on pace to his best season yet last year (age 23) prior to the concussion.

Yzerman (87 pts): blew up at age 22 (102 pts in 64 games) and his final epic season came at age 27 (137 pts). Was very good in an injury shortened 28 y/o season and remained good, but not at peak levels throughout the rest of his career.

Jimmy Carson (79 pts): I don't remember him all that well, but he was part of the Gretzky trade as some might recall... looks like injuries wrecked a promising career, was a stud as a 19 and 20 y.o with two 100 point seasons but only topped 60 games twice after that.

Sylvain Turgeon (72 pts): another injury derailed career (abdominal strain similar to Renberg if I remember correctly).

Ron Francis (68 pts - in 59 games): first 90 point season came when he was 23, and hit 100 at 26 (the last time he hit 30 goals). He obviously played at an exceptionally high level (even in comparison to his own career) well into his 30s, with his best season coming at age 32. Guys that wrack up assists tend to age better than guys that rely on goal scoring.

Bobby Carpenter (67 pts): scored 50 goals when he was 21. I remember him, but not as a scorer... it looks like goofy stuff was going on with him in what should have been his prime years... played for three different teams when he was 23, and injuries look like they were in there.

Phil Housley (66 pts): peak offensive years were 24-28, culminating in a 97 point season.

Brian Bellows (65 pts): best years were roughly 23-28, with his best season coming when he was 25.

That's the top 10... and I'll stop there. These guys (outside of injuries and oddities) all pretty much conform to the age correlated arc that I outlined above, and what you can expect from players regardless of when they enter the NHL. If games was a determining factor I would expect this sample to have their peak years shift younger... but it doesn't. In fact, more than a few of 'em enjoyed far more successful careers of greater breadth than those that came into the league at a later age... a testament to their much better overall skill as a hockey player. Within the confines of their own careers the arc is perfectly normal with what you would expect.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2011, 11:40 PM
  #254
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jtown View Post
what have you proven?
That you're too lazy to point and click, apparently.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2011, 11:49 PM
  #255
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jtown View Post
jester i feel sorry for you, you keep sidetracking and you do a great job at it. WE know you can make correlations. Thats great but it doesn't prove anything. I've given you physiological proof that the body reaches its peak at age 30, ANd that the body can still perform at incredible levels after that barring no injury. However after 30, a persons reaction time trends down ward particularly due to the degeneration of the sensory receptors particulary due to myelin sheath wear and tear. ..l. http://www.neurobiologyofaging.org/a...130-3/abstract
Quote:
We applied the automated MRI segmentation technique Template Driven Segmentation (TDS) to dual-echo spin echo (DE SE) images of eight young (512 years), six middle-aged (1619 years) and eight old (2430 years) rhesus monkeys. We analyzed standardized mean volumes for 18 anatomically defined regions of interest (ROI's) and found an overall decrease from young to old age in the total forebrain (5.01%), forebrain parenchyma (5.24%), forebrain white matter (11.53%), forebrain gray matter (2.08%), caudate nucleus (11.79%) and globus pallidus (18.26%). Corresponding behavioral data for five of the young, five of the middle-aged and seven of the old subjects on the Delayed Non-matching to Sample (DNMS) task, the Delayed-recognition Span Task (DRST) and the Cognitive Impairment Index (CII) were also analyzed. We found that none of the cognitive measures were related to ROI volume changes in our sample size of monkeys.
I'm sidetracking? Monkeys, dude. Monkeys.

I'm not saying monkeys are not useful for human related research (they certainly are), but you've been critiqued (not just by me) with citing a human population that doesn't really work as a representative population for professional athletes and you've moved on to monkeys.

I mean, at what point do monkeys start playing in the CHL?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:03 AM
  #256
Jtown
Registered User
 
Jtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 16,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
'cept it doesn't really hold water. If games were really an important factor, then elite 18 y.o guys that broke in at that age would drop off at an earlier age than normal. Lets explore that.

Top 18 y/o players in order
Gretzky (137 pts): Blew up at 20 (212 pts), and his peak years ran to (you guessed it, 27) when he began to slow down a bit (not much compared to normal folks).

Hawerchuk (103 pts): Blew up at 21 (130 pts). His last 100+ campaign came at 24, posted 96 (would likely have gotten 100 if not for missing some games) at 25 and remained quite good through his late 20s before injuries wrecked his career after 30 (86 pts).

Crosby (102 pts): time will tell... was on pace to his best season yet last year (age 23) prior to the concussion.

Yzerman (87 pts): blew up at age 22 (102 pts in 64 games) and his final epic season came at age 27 (137 pts). Was very good in an injury shortened 28 y/o season and remained good, but not at peak levels throughout the rest of his career.

Jimmy Carson (79 pts): I don't remember him all that well, but he was part of the Gretzky trade as some might recall... looks like injuries wrecked a promising career, was a stud as a 19 and 20 y.o with two 100 point seasons but only topped 60 games twice after that.

Sylvain Turgeon (72 pts): another injury derailed career (abdominal strain similar to Renberg if I remember correctly).

Ron Francis (68 pts - in 59 games): first 90 point season came when he was 23, and hit 100 at 26 (the last time he hit 30 goals). He obviously played at an exceptionally high level (even in comparison to his own career) well into his 30s, with his best season coming at age 32. Guys that wrack up assists tend to age better than guys that rely on goal scoring.

Bobby Carpenter (67 pts): scored 50 goals when he was 21. I remember him, but not as a scorer... it looks like goofy stuff was going on with him in what should have been his prime years... played for three different teams when he was 23, and injuries look like they were in there.

Phil Housley (66 pts): peak offensive years were 24-28, culminating in a 97 point season.

Brian Bellows (65 pts): best years were roughly 23-28, with his best season coming when he was 25.

That's the top 10... and I'll stop there. These guys (outside of injuries and oddities) all pretty much conform to the age correlated arc that I outlined above, and what you can expect from players regardless of when they enter the NHL. If games was a determining factor I would expect this sample to have their peak years shift younger... but it doesn't. In fact, more than a few of 'em enjoyed far more successful careers of greater breadth than those that came into the league at a later age... a testament to their much better overall skill as a hockey player. Within the confines of their own careers the arc is perfectly normal with what you would expect.

Jester are you too stupid to realize that Correlation does not equal causation. ALl you have done is list an observation which is most basic trait of a human being. Now show that you have actually developed some sort of brain and go beyond that. Show me the physiological factors that show declination in performance at that age.



How do you feel about the correlation between coffee and pancreatic cancer.

Jtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:05 AM
  #257
Jtown
Registered User
 
Jtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 16,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I'm sidetracking? Monkeys, dude. Monkeys.

I'm not saying monkeys are not useful for human related research (they certainly are), but you've been critiqued (not just by me) with citing a human population that doesn't really work as a representative population for professional athletes and you've moved on to monkeys.

I mean, at what point do monkeys start playing in the CHL?


ah yes you missed my point again. My point what showing the degeneration of myelin sheath leads to a loss of reaction time with ageing. But you're right we shouldn't test monkeys we should open up the neural fibers of our fellow man and experiment that way, since we all know that neural fibers are world renowned for there ability to regenerate.

Jtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:05 AM
  #258
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jtown View Post
Jester are you too stupid to realize that Correlation does not equal causation. ALl you have done is list an observation which is most basic trait of a human being. Now show that you have actually developed some sort of brain and go beyond that. Show me the physiological factors that show declination in performance at that age.



How do you feel about the correlation between coffee and pancreatic cancer.
I've just showed you correlation between age.

Why don't you show us correlation between games played (independent of age)?

And, I assure you, I'm not too stupid for anything.

So far you have made a claim (and not supported it), and cited two abstracts one of which had a subject population of 11-70 y.o random people, and the other was done on rhesus monkeys. According to you, those articles dispute that age is the primary factor that one should pay attention to in the career arc of NHL players. I've never engaged you on a causative argument because, frankly, neither of us has the *ing data at hand to make an actual argument about it... if you did, I assume you would have cited it.

What I know? Players with games that rely on strength develop slower than players with games that rely on agility and quickness... there aren't too many studly 22 y/o power forwards, whereas they begin to show up a bit after that (Tim Kerr and John LeClair being prime examples of that in Flyers history)... whereas there are lot of studly forwards that rely on their speed and hands at earlier ages.

So, before we go off the wheels, why don't you supply some hockey related correlative data... because citing causative factors that don't jive with, ya know, actual reality isn't really doing much for me. There aren't too many 33 y/o guys that were at their peak in NHL history despite the fact that your research suggests they should be doing just fine if they avoided playing too many games early on.


Last edited by Jester: 07-12-2011 at 12:12 AM.
Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:06 AM
  #259
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,966
vCash: 500
To clarify, I believe that games played is a factor in an athlete's development solely because of the veteran experience gained. In terms of wear and tear on a players body, you can't just argue games played...you'd need to factor in how many minutes a night they're playing as well, and the natural growth and aging process is obviously always there. On top of that, some players are more efficient than others. They take less hits, their skating form is better, etc.

The number of games and minutes you're playing probably only really starts mattering once you begin getting older and your body naturally begins breaking down. Of course, with the more "efficient" players, this effect is less. For instance, I doubt Timonen would have looked as worn out at the end of this season if he hadn't played so many minutes in so many games in such a short period of time. However, in a younger player, (like Richards) it's likely only really going to have an effect when it comes to mental fatigue or when an injury crops up and you continue playing on it. However, being young, such a player should be able to recover with a decent rest period. Timonen...who knows. He IS getting old, and his body is going to heal slower.

I don't think there's a concrete formula. I think saying "It's only this" or "it's only that" isn't telling the whole story, and every situation is going to be unique.

I'm tired, so I doubt I communicated my point accurately or clearly. My bad.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:08 AM
  #260
KimiFerrari
Messi Is God
 
KimiFerrari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal, Qc
Country: Argentina
Posts: 3,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
To clarify, I believe that games played is a factor in an athlete's development solely because of the veteran experience gained. In terms of wear and tear on a players body, you can't just argue games played...you'd need to factor in how many minutes a night they're playing as well, and the natural growth and aging process is obviously always there. On top of that, some players are more efficient than others. They take less hits, their skating form is better, etc.

The number of games and minutes you're playing probably only really starts mattering once you begin getting older and your body naturally begins breaking down. Of course, with the more "efficient" players, this effect is less. For instance, I doubt Timonen would have looked as worn out at the end of this season if he hadn't played so many minutes in so many games in such a short period of time. However, in a younger player, (like Richards) it's likely only really going to have an effect when it comes to mental fatigue or when an injury crops up and you continue playing on it. However, being young, such a player should be able to recover with a decent rest period.

I don't think there's a concrete formula. I think saying "It's only this" or "it's only that" isn't telling the whole story, and every situation is going to be unique.

I'm tired, so I doubt I communicated my point accurately or clearly. My bad.
Lines have been drawn, there is no going back.

KimiFerrari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:16 AM
  #261
Jtown
Registered User
 
Jtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 16,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I've just showed you correlation between age.

Why don't you show us correlation between games played (independent of age)?

And, I assure you, I'm not too stupid for anything.

Its this type of insecurity that makes discussions with you impossible. I hate to say something like that on a message board ,since the chances are unless i knew you very well i would not say that to your face, but it needs to be done. Clearly you are more well versed in the art of rhetoric than you are hard science.

You have made observations i have critiqued those observations. YOu have been unwilling to provide any empirical data to prove your observations. instead offering info that prove the correlation of your observation. Yes age and performance correlate, but age and games played correlate as well so which one is it?

Jtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:19 AM
  #262
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimiFerrari View Post
Lines have been drawn, there is no going back.
Not really, what JTown refuses to address is the fact that "Age" as a variable directly correlates to games played. "Age" as a variable umbrella is going to have games played, hours spent training, as well as physiological factors all rolled up.

You're not going to find a 20 y.o kid that has played 500 games of elite level hockey, let alone NHL games. You're going to find a lot of 25 y.o pro players (regardless of what level they have reached at that point) that have played 500 games of elite level hockey.

JTown wants games to be a variable that operates in parallel to age, as opposed to one that operates in conjunction with it... and is actually dependent on it (age). Which is why there was the joke about the theoretical ancient superstar above if only he stayed out of enough games.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:23 AM
  #263
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jtown View Post
Its this type of insecurity that makes discussions with you impossible. I hate to say something like that on a message board ,since the chances are unless i knew you very well i would not say that to your face, but it needs to be done. Clearly you are more well versed in the art of rhetoric than you are hard science.
Yes, it was insecurity. I was responding to your temper tantrum of "Jester are you too stupid to realize that Correlation does not equal causation." If you were such a secure individual, would you resort to that being your opening sentence?

Quote:
You have made observations i have critiqued those observations. YOu have been unwilling to provide any empirical data to prove your observations. instead offering info that prove the correlation of your observation. Yes age and performance correlate, but age and games played correlate as well so which one is it?
You just claimed I was not versed in "hard science" and then come back with I haven't provided any empirical data. Do you know what empirical data is? Because you follow that claim by acknowledging that I provided info (which is empirical data). This whole paragraph is a disaster.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:23 AM
  #264
Jtown
Registered User
 
Jtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 16,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I've just showed you correlation between age.

Why don't you show us correlation between games played (independent of age)?

And, I assure you, I'm not too stupid for anything.

So far you have made a claim (and not supported it), and cited two abstracts one of which had a subject population of 11-70 y.o random people, and the other was done on rhesus monkeys. According to you, those articles dispute that age is the primary factor that one should pay attention to in the career arc of NHL players. I've never engaged you on a causative argument because, frankly, neither of us has the *ing data at hand to make an actual argument about it... if you did, I assume you would have cited it.

What I know? Players with games that rely on strength develop slower than players with games that rely on agility and quickness... there aren't too many studly 22 y/o power forwards, whereas they begin to show up a bit after that (Tim Kerr and John LeClair being prime examples of that in Flyers history)... whereas there are lot of studly forwards that rely on their speed and hands at earlier ages.

So, before we go off the wheels, why don't you supply some hockey related correlative data... because citing causative factors that don't jive with, ya know, actual reality isn't really doing much for me. There aren't too many 33 y/o guys that were at their peak in NHL history despite the fact that your research suggests they should be doing just fine if they avoided playing too many games early on.


Yes I'll just go to the Journal of Hockey physiology, and look at there most recent data on professional players.


First off what you are asking for in terms of research has not only been done at the professional level but will never be done at the professional level. Scientific research needs strict guidelines for any testing. Very rarely do professional athletes offer there bodies up as guinea pigs to scientific test, let alone professional athletes in the middle of a season.

So science comes up with ways to work around that, but testing populations of all varieties, since a more varied population would infer more range of data. So when data is identical with a varied range it can be inferred that all populations follow that same deviation within the data field. Including nhl players, even though they were not in the study.

Jtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:26 AM
  #265
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
To clarify, I believe that games played is a factor in an athlete's development solely because of the veteran experience gained. In terms of wear and tear on a players body, you can't just argue games played...you'd need to factor in how many minutes a night they're playing as well, and the natural growth and aging process is obviously always there. On top of that, some players are more efficient than others. They take less hits, their skating form is better, etc.

The number of games and minutes you're playing probably only really starts mattering once you begin getting older and your body naturally begins breaking down. Of course, with the more "efficient" players, this effect is less. For instance, I doubt Timonen would have looked as worn out at the end of this season if he hadn't played so many minutes in so many games in such a short period of time. However, in a younger player, (like Richards) it's likely only really going to have an effect when it comes to mental fatigue or when an injury crops up and you continue playing on it. However, being young, such a player should be able to recover with a decent rest period. Timonen...who knows. He IS getting old, and his body is going to heal slower.

I don't think there's a concrete formula. I think saying "It's only this" or "it's only that" isn't telling the whole story, and every situation is going to be unique.

I'm tired, so I doubt I communicated my point accurately or clearly. My bad.
There is no concrete formula. Its statistical distribution over time. One cannot say a player's peak years are 23-27 in a specific statement... but you can expect the peak years to be there, and there really isn't any data to suggest that changes depending on when you start the clock on a NHL players career.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:27 AM
  #266
Jtown
Registered User
 
Jtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 16,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Not really, what JTown refuses to address is the fact that "Age" as a variable directly correlates to games played. "Age" as a variable umbrella is going to have games played, hours spent training, as well as physiological factors all rolled up.

You're not going to find a 20 y.o kid that has played 500 games of elite level hockey, let alone NHL games. You're going to find a lot of 25 y.o pro players (regardless of what level they have reached at that point) that have played 500 games of elite level hockey.

JTown wants games to be a variable that operates in parallel to age, as opposed to one that operates in conjunction with it... and is actually dependent on it (age). Which is why there was the joke about the theoretical ancient superstar above if only he stayed out of enough games.

i believe i addressed that when i said, "Yes age and performance correlate, but age and games played correlate as well so which one is it"

Jtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:31 AM
  #267
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jtown View Post
Yes I'll just go to the Journal of Hockey physiology, and look at there most recent data on professional players.


First off what you are asking for in terms of research has not only been done at the professional level but will never be done at the professional level. Scientific research needs strict guidelines for any testing. Very rarely do professional athletes offer there bodies up as guinea pigs to scientific test, let alone professional athletes in the middle of a season.

So science comes up with ways to work around that, but testing populations of all varieties, since a more varied population would infer more range of data. So when data is identical with a varied range it can be inferred that all populations follow that same deviation within the data field. Including nhl players, even though they were not in the study.
But we're not talking about a varied population, are we? If I wanted to know the risk of heart failure in France, I wouldn't look at a sampling of the GLOBAL population's risk of heart failure, I'd look at a sampling of the French population's risk of heart failure.

So, that scientific argument you're trotting out isn't really all that useful, because athletes as a population are different from a normal population in a ton of really really important ways. For example, Athletic Heart Syndrome is something unique to athletes and their physiology.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:32 AM
  #268
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jtown View Post
i believe i addressed that when i said, "Yes age and performance correlate, but age and games played correlate as well so which one is it"
I'm still waiting on you to prove games played as a correlative property independent of age. You want that to be an important variable, provide some empirical data science man.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:36 AM
  #269
Jtown
Registered User
 
Jtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 16,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Not really, what JTown refuses to address is the fact that "Age" as a variable directly correlates to games played. "Age" as a variable umbrella is going to have games played, hours spent training, as well as physiological factors all rolled up.

You're not going to find a 20 y.o kid that has played 500 games of elite level hockey, let alone NHL games. You're going to find a lot of 25 y.o pro players (regardless of what level they have reached at that point) that have played 500 games of elite level hockey.

JTown wants games to be a variable that operates in parallel to age, as opposed to one that operates in conjunction with it... and is actually dependent on it (age). Which is why there was the joke about the theoretical ancient superstar above if only he stayed out of enough games.


age= games + training, as well as physiological factors(whatever that means)

ok so you basically just proved my point, that increase in games leads to change in physical response of the body.

But if we use mario lemieux as an example of that ancient superstar preserved in a glass jar we are witness to an incredible observation. after a 3 year hiatus he was able to come back and play at an incredibliy high level. One of his highest ppg marks ever. And he did this at age 35? But you see he did this playing less games, allowing more recovery time for his body. So while an athlete is fully capable of performing at an extremley high level, what prevents athletics success in the long term is recovery time. Recovery is too difficult with age, hence games are the determining factor here since they control how much recovery time a player gets.

Jtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:37 AM
  #270
Jtown
Registered User
 
Jtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 16,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
But we're not talking about a varied population, are we? If I wanted to know the risk of heart failure in France, I wouldn't look at a sampling of the GLOBAL population's risk of heart failure, I'd look at a sampling of the French population's risk of heart failure.

So, that scientific argument you're trotting out isn't really all that useful, because athletes as a population are different from a normal population in a ton of really really important ways. For example, Athletic Heart Syndrome is something unique to athletes and their physiology.
are you talking about hypertrophy of the left ventricle?

because that is a specific adaptation, the study i was refering to was a study on muscle elasticity and strength. There was no changes in the sacromere of the myofibril that was biopsied, except in very advanced age.

Jtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:49 AM
  #271
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jtown View Post
are you talking about hypertrophy of the left ventricle?

because that is a specific adaptation, the study i was refering to was a study on muscle elasticity and strength. There was no changes in the sacromere of the myofibril that was biopsied, except in very advanced age.
I'm not addressing your study specifically, I'm addressing the problem of population sample that you are glossing over.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:51 AM
  #272
OriginJM
watch out im smart
 
OriginJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,364
vCash: 500
this is some next-level forum debating, holy ****

like this ****:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jtown View Post
There was no changes in the sacromere of the myofibril that was biopsied, except in very advanced age.
**** that, you win. i need to get high as **** and spend 7 years at yale to read this.

OriginJM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:53 AM
  #273
Jtown
Registered User
 
Jtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 16,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I'm not addressing your study specifically, I'm addressing the problem of population sample that you are glossing over.
so basically its muscle biopsies from danny briere and giroux or the study is irrelevant, from your professional point of view.

Jtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:55 AM
  #274
Jtown
Registered User
 
Jtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 16,784
vCash: 500
BRB, coffee break. Hope i dont get pancreatic cancer since there is a correlation between the two.

Jtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 12:57 AM
  #275
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jtown View Post
age= games + training, as well as physiological factors(whatever that means)

ok so you basically just proved my point, that increase in games leads to change in physical response of the body.

But if we use mario lemieux as an example of that ancient superstar preserved in a glass jar we are witness to an incredible observation. after a 3 year hiatus he was able to come back and play at an incredibliy high level. One of his highest ppg marks ever. And he did this at age 35? But you see he did this playing less games, allowing more recovery time for his body. So while an athlete is fully capable of performing at an extremley high level, what prevents athletics success in the long term is recovery time. Recovery is too difficult with age, hence games are the determining factor here since they control how much recovery time a player gets.
Since I'm a rhetorical expert (but not that smart) it would be a good idea if you fact checked yourself before making points with supposedly accurate statements in support of your opinion.

Lemieux came back at age 35 and posted a 1.77 PPG pace (he had posted 1.61 the year before he retired). He played 43 games that year, and didn't play his first game until December 27th. That was the 37th game of the Penguins season that year. Meaning when Lemieux joined the team they had 46 games remaining... he missed 3 games that year once he returned.

His PPG pace that year ranked 8th in his career...

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:07 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.