You're trying to argue that experience doesn't matter, which is absurd. It's undeniable that experience is a valuable asset that helps someone go through situations better in sports and life in general.
Actually, no, that's what you inferred.
No one said experinde isn't a valuable asset, but experience doesn't help win a faceoff in itself.
Its quite possible that Owen Beck is a better faceoff guy than Jake Evans or even Nick Suzuki.
Now, there's more to good performance than just having experience, so a 40-year-old veteran with a broken body might not be able to defend better than a 22-year-old. However, if given the choice between the same player, but in his prime vs his rookie year, that player when he is in his prime is much more likely to make the correct decisions than when he was a rookie. A 25-year-old Suzuki is much less likely to mess up than a 20-year-old Suzuki.
So you understood what I meant? No need for the charade then.
This idea that experienced players are less likely to make mistakes vs younger players is out dated and it really only exists as such in hockey.
In soccer when there's a penalty to be taken, they don't send their most experienced, they send their best PK taker.
The Chicago Bears aren't going to sub out Caleb Williams on a game winning drive to plug in the veteran back up QB.
If we're using the example of the isolated game situation of faceoffs, coaches or most of them, prefer using veterans because it is comfortable for them (the coach), not necessarily because that veteran is a better option than a younger player (unless that young player just totally sucks at said faceoffs).
Its normal to be more at ease with trusting a task to someone you know, rather than someone you're not as familiar with.
I get it. But lets not act like its about anything else.