Player Discussion: Cole Perfetti 10th OA pick

[Buffdog]

It's not as simple as that, at least not to me.

The chances that I know more about the piloting and operation of an airplane than an experienced pilot is zero percent.

On the other hand, I could fill a medium-sized concert venue with people I've met in the casino industry (from players all the way up to casino managers) who assert their decades of experience in the industry mean they know more than I do about some aspects of our industry, banking only on superstition and half-information and conspiratorial thinking.

Ever see a grown man with silver hair in a $5k suit flicking birdseed under a craps table at one of the dealers with the genuine heartfelt belief that this would help? That doesn't even crack my top 10.

Now yes, I know that "casino industry" and "airline industry" are different; the former is soggy with superstition whereas there's none in the latter (Dr. Jason Leong's comedy routine about 'traditional pilots' not withstanding) but when it comes to sports, in terms of superstition and "traditional thinking", it's also a whole lot closer to the former than the latter. There's a lot that still gets done that's provably rubbish or just plain sub-optimal, but that's how it's been done for decades so by god, they're going to be done by practitioners for decades.

Appeal to authority is, overall, a pretty solid sign, but it's by no means infallible. And when you have people who think experience makes them infallible, well, like you said, Dunning-Kruger in action.

I'm curious where you've gotten your insight into the behinds thr scenes workings of NHL franchises. Have you been employed by one at some time? I'm legitimately wondering how you have insight into the hiring process of an NHL coach and what goes into them making personnel decisions beyond just observing from afar

Not all jobs are formally schooled. Surgeons and pilots receive formal institutionalize training. Last time I checked, there isn't an "NHL Coach" faculty at the U of M. Sure there are Hockey Canada coaching certs... have you taken any? Again, legit curious

The way NHL coaches and GMs aquire their knowledge bases is through time in the industry and experience

 

[snowkiddin]

I don't get "appeal to athority" being thrown around

We appeal to authority all the time. We trust trained pilots to fly us around. We trust surgeons to operate on us. We trust accountants to do our taxes. It would be pretty stupid for someone to pull up a couple of web pages and then perform a tonsillectomy on someone

Yet some people can't wrap their head around the idea that a guy who has been behind an NHL bench in some capacity for over 40 years has a better idea of how to handle things like line combos and playing time

It's gotta be some sort of Dunning Kruger effect

Bones might have 40 years’ experience behind an NHL bench but I’ve surpassed him at this point with all the hours I’ve logged on EA Sports NHL

 

[DRW204]

How long did Perfetti get with Monahan? Not long.

Perfetti's underlying numbers have remained pretty good right through his slump. He has been good on the 4th line, creating chances.

Iafallo might actually return to life on that line, we'll see. But as soon as Vilardi gets back he will be back on the 4th line.

I'd like to see Barron get an opportunity further up. Lets see what he can do.

So what if it wasn't long? His production had been declining since end of November and didn't improve with a new Center. What's the minimum the team has to continuously play an unproductive player in the top 6?

I'm sure his underlying stats are fine. Our 2nd liners normally have good underlying stats since they're with ehlers a lot, and the team and D group behind them played really well defensively.

If it had been any other player with this level of unproductivity I guarantee folks would be crying to get them demoted, ie: Iafallo. But it's typical prospect or young player overhype and coddling that occurs around here.

I agree on Barron as well. If Vilardi comes back this wouldn't really be a discussion any longer really.

 

[AlphaLackey]

I'm curious where you've gotten your insight into the behinds thr scenes workings of NHL franchises. Have you been employed by one at some time? I'm legitimately wondering how you have insight into the hiring process of an NHL coach and what goes into them making personnel decisions beyond just observing from afar

Not all jobs are formally schooled. Surgeons and pilots receive formal institutionalize training. Last time I checked, there isn't an "NHL Coach" faculty at the U of M. Sure there are Hockey Canada coaching certs... have you taken any? Again, legit curious

The way NHL coaches and GMs aquire their knowledge bases is through time in the industry and experience

I would say the same about poker players, in that there was no way to receive formal training (perhaps an MIT course or two notwithstanding), and I stand by what I said about being ahead of the curve of even a few great veteran players in some specific ways.

As for the other questions, of course I have no insight into how they make their personnel decisions. I'm simply offering specific examples to refute, by counterexample, the notion that "decades of experience" means "infallibility", which is why the questioning of "appeal to authority" is a thing.

But specifically for personnel usage -- can you honestly say you've never felt justified in questioning personnel usage when the reason offered is logically inconsistent? Even something as simple as "we put this provably very bad player out on the shootout because they were 'hot' today"?

Like, no, I've never been formally trained in phrenology. The two biggest textbooks chronicling this practice are over 2000 pages between them. But that doesn't mean I feel anything but utterly confident in dismissing it as quackery because it is bankrupt in some very fundamental way. And "hot shooter" is bankrupt reasoning, so in that specific case, I can be confident that a coach made the wrong choice there.

Heck, remember the first days of the shootouts? The coaches with decades of experience were making what we now know for certain were provably horrible choices in shootouts, whereas the teams that "got it" early were reaping a big advantage.

 

[Huffer]

IMO it's a luxury that we can have Perfetti on a line with Names and one of Barron or Iafallo (when everyone is healthy). Perfetti and Names have played well together, and it wasn't that long ago that those two accounted for 2/3 of our second line, and the team was winning.

When everyone is healthy, one of Perfetti, Iafallo, Barron will be sitting depending on play, and what the coach wants to do (and you can include lesser names like Kupari, Gus, AJF, Toninato, etc as well). For a team looking to make some noise in the playoffs, I don't see the downside.

 

[Jets 31]

If the Jets were horrible and not going to make the playoffs absolutely play Perfetti 20 minutes a night on the 1st line but this team is one of the best in the league fighting for home ice advantage , i think Bowness is doing a great job. Perfetti is a very smart guy i would think he's ok with playing 4th line if the team is winning. Sometimes it just sounds like i don't like Bowness, i like Perfetti so Bowness is a dumbass play my favorite player more.

 

[enuffidiotsalready]

hockey professor is a self-appointed title.
i learned that on hfboards!

 

[Buffdog]

I would say the same about poker players, in that there was no way to receive formal training (perhaps an MIT course or two notwithstanding), and I stand by what I said about being ahead of the curve of even a few great veteran players in some specific ways.

As for the other questions, of course I have no insight into how they make their personnel decisions. I'm simply offering specific examples to refute, by counterexample, the notion that "decades of experience" means "infallibility", which is why the questioning of "appeal to authority" is a thing.

But specifically for personnel usage -- can you honestly say you've never felt justified in questioning personnel usage when the reason offered is logically inconsistent? Even something as simple as "we put this provably very bad player out on the shootout because they were 'hot' today"?

Like, no, I've never been formally trained in phrenology. The two biggest textbooks chronicling this practice are over 2000 pages between them. But that doesn't mean I feel anything but utterly confident in dismissing it as quackery because it is bankrupt in some very fundamental way. And "hot shooter" is bankrupt reasoning, so in that specific case, I can be confident that a coach made the wrong choice there.

Heck, remember the first days of the shootouts? The coaches with decades of experience were making what we now know for certain were provably horrible choices in shootouts, whereas the teams that "got it" early were reaping a big advantage.

I think I'm doing a poor job of expressing my position, which wouldn't be a first for me

What I'm trying to say is that when I see someone make a decision that's different than the one I'd make, my default first question is "I wonder if they know something that I don't know that would explain that they're right and im wrong". That goes extra for someone who has more knowledge and experience in a field than I do. By being open to the possibility that I'm the one that's wrong, I'm.setting myself up to learn something

The opposite seems to be the case with many people, including posters here. When Bones makes a decision that they disagree with, they immediately assume its because THEY know something that Bones doesn't. Which is extremely arrogant

So whether it's combining schief and ehlers or demoting Cole to the 4th line, if you disagree with Bones (which is your right), which one of these three scenarios is most likely?

1. You (random hockey fan) knows something he doesn't know
2. He knows what you know but is too "prejudiced" to make the same choice you'd make
3. He knows something you don't know

If you apply Occom's razor, the answer is #3

 

[AlphaLackey]

I think I'm doing a poor job of expressing my position, which wouldn't be a first for me

What I'm trying to say is that when I see someone make a decision that's different than the one I'd make, my default first question is "I wonder if they know something that I don't know that would explain that they're right and im wrong". That goes extra for someone who has more knowledge and experience in a field than I do. By being open to the possibility that I'm the one that's wrong, I'm.setting myself up to learn something

The opposite seems to be the case with many people, including posters here. When Bones makes a decision that they disagree with, they immediately assume its because THEY know something that Bones doesn't. Which is extremely arrogant

So whether it's combining schief and ehlers or demoting Cole to the 4th line, if you disagree with Bones (which is your right), which one of these three scenarios is most likely?

1. You (random hockey fan) knows something he doesn't know
2. He knows what you know but is too "prejudiced" to make the same choice you'd make
3. He knows something you don't know

If you apply Occom's razor, the answer is #3

You're doing fine, I assure you. And, I get what you're saying, and honestly, that self-question is a great one to ask. "If I'm wrong, how would I know?" I'm sure it's not lost on you that my specific counter-examples are edge cases with very simple pass/fail tests, and nowhere near as nuanced as something like overall line usage -- Bowness may have myriad reasons for keeping Connor and Scheifele together unto eternity that go beyond such a superficial examination, same for having Perfetti on the fourth line.

I think there's also a #4 that could go in there, "he's sticking to conventional wisdom for other reasons". A coach who engages in mathematically-correct but optically-poor plays (Patrick Roy with his sixth attacker, NFL coaches who aren't hyper-conservative on 4th down, etc.) are opening themselves up to criticism, scrutiny, and ridicule. Maybe it's a case of not wanting to look foolish, maybe it's a case of not wanting to get fired, maybe it's a case of sticking with some "Old Faithful" that's nevertheless suboptimal, etc.

At the end of the day, he's the coach and I'm not, and I try and take solace in the fact that by and large, the coach's impact is very small compared to that of the players; the only remotely smart thing Don Cherry said about hockey applies here -- "show me a Vezina winner and I'll show you Coach of the Year".

But please do pardon me if there are certain topics a coach will talk about that make me want to stick my fist in my mouth

 

[BarnabyJones PI]

Rick Bowness is 69.

When Do Your Mental Powers Peak in Life?

Have you ever wondered what age your brain is at its peak? Research suggests that mental abilities are sharpest at different ages, with some later than you'd think.

www.verywellmind.com

 

[Buffdog]

View attachment 834736

Rick Bowness is 69.

When Do Your Mental Powers Peak in Life?

Have you ever wondered what age your brain is at its peak? Research suggests that mental abilities are sharpest at different ages, with some later than you'd think.

www.verywellmind.com

Exactly. It's why it's a good thing that all the politicians are so old lol

 

[Gm0ney]

View attachment 834736

Rick Bowness is 69.

When Do Your Mental Powers Peak in Life?

Have you ever wondered what age your brain is at its peak? Research suggests that mental abilities are sharpest at different ages, with some later than you'd think.

www.verywellmind.com

Indeed...

 

[BarnabyJones PI]

Indeed...

View attachment 834746

You still never answered that question...

 

[jetdiehard]

I hope the future Draft picks are close to 6-2. 220 with Speed.
In the playoffs it is a rough and rugged game.

 

[KingBogo]

I don't get "appeal to athority" being thrown around

We appeal to authority all the time. We trust trained pilots to fly us around. We trust surgeons to operate on us. We trust accountants to do our taxes. It would be pretty stupid for someone to pull up a couple of web pages and then perform a tonsillectomy on someone

Yet some people can't wrap their head around the idea that a guy who has been behind an NHL bench in some capacity for over 40 years has a better idea of how to handle things like line combos and playing time

It's gotta be some sort of Dunning Kruger effect

Agree on this. I've always found it an annoying comeback, for the very reasons you stated. In Bones' case, he has either played or coached professional hockey for 50 years, and is making decisions with 99% more information than any of us. I did it myself throughout my career. I gave out work assignments, based on past accomplishments and who I trusted the most to get the job done. You would work to bring along promising new employees, but they needed to understand performance leads to greater opportunities not the other way around. Also having all available information is crucial in decision making, I've seen people make absolute asses of themselves arguing a point when the lacked the most crucial pieces of information that went into making a decision.

 

[bustamente]

Jets version of the odd couple

 

[Buffdog]

Agree on this. I've always found it an annoying comeback, for the very reasons you stated. In Bones' case, he has either played or coached professional hockey for 50 years, and is making decisions with 99% more information than any of us. I did it myself throughout my career. I gave out work assignments, based on past accomplishments and who I trusted the most to get the job done. You would work to bring along promising new employees, but they needed to understand performance leads to greater opportunities not the other way around. Also having all available information is crucial in decision making, I've seen people make absolute asses of themselves arguing a point when the lacked the most crucial pieces of information that went into making a decision.

It should also be noted that even IF something falls under a logical fallacy, it could still be true

For example, if I'm arguing with a flat-earther and I say "all the experts agree that the earth is round", they can scream "HAHA, LOGICAL FALLACY, APPEAL TO AUTHORITY" all they want but the goddamn earth is still round

 

[10Ducky10]

Yeah, I knew that. And I knew as soon as I posted that that Iafallo would score last night too.
You're welcome.

Can I have the 6 49 numbers?

 

[Gm0ney]

You still never answered that question...

I believe the only questions you've ever actually asked me are:

"So, ignore everything? Play it safe? Never ask any questions? Don't look for correlations?"

I clearly wasn't saying any of those things. That was your response to me saying that you were making a mistake by attributing a causal relationship to Ehlers TOI and his scoring or team W-L results.

But you elsewhere claimed that you're not asserting any cause and effect relationship between those things. You theorized that maybe PoMo and Bones noticed this weird correlation and mistakenly attributed cause and decided to play Ehlers less? Maybe...I kind of doubt that's it. I'd be surprised if they're looking at it going "Hey, when Ehlers' plays 17+ minutes, we lose! Let's bench him at 16:59 and we should be fine..."

And as has been said a number of times, TOI played beyond 17 minutes can't retroactively affect what's already happened in less than 17 minutes (i.e. Ehlers' individual scoring)...that's a real causality violation.

My theory is that coaches are naturally conservative (that part is pretty well established) and Ehlers scares them. They don't trust him. Too east-west and unpredictable, not enough north-south, chip & chase. Especially fossilized er crystalized old intelligences like Bones...So as the game wears on and the Jets are defending a lead, we see more Lowry and less Ehlers...games we're chasing sees the bench shortened and more Ehlers.

 

[BarnabyJones PI]

I believe the only questions you've ever actually asked me are:

"So, ignore everything? Play it safe? Never ask any questions? Don't look for correlations?"

I clearly wasn't saying any of those things. That was your response to me saying that you were making a mistake by attributing a causal relationship to Ehlers TOI and his scoring or team W-L results.

But you elsewhere claimed that you're not asserting any cause and effect relationship between those things. You theorized that maybe PoMo and Bones noticed this weird correlation and mistakenly attributed cause and decided to play Ehlers less? Maybe...I kind of doubt that's it. I'd be surprised if they're looking at it going "Hey, when Ehlers' plays 17+ minutes, we lose! Let's bench him at 16:59 and we should be fine..."

And as has been said a number of times, TOI played beyond 17 minutes can't retroactively affect what's already happened in less than 17 minutes (i.e. Ehlers' individual scoring)...that's a real causality violation.

My theory is that coaches are naturally conservative (that part is pretty well established) and Ehlers scares them. They don't trust him. Too east-west and unpredictable, not enough north-south, chip & chase. Especially fossilized er crystalized old intelligences like Bones...So as the game wears on and the Jets are defending a lead, we see more Lowry and less Ehlers...games we're chasing sees the bench shortened and more Ehlers.

The question was "How does he put up a higher PPG average in less time, than in games where he plays more?"

Just for reference, this was the information that I put at the beginning of that specific post.

Post-Game Talk: - Kraken 4 - Jets 3

I still say they are holding off announcing bad news until after the deadline. They have been very coy on him. You thinking out for the season? If that's the case Chevy definitely has to pick up a decent winger

forums.hfboards.com

Here are all of the games, when Ehlers played less than 17 minutes (below).

Goals: 120
Assists: 144
PPG: 0.78
Games: 338

Just to compare, vs whenever he played 17 minutes and up:

Goals: 74
Assists: 101
PPG: 0.72
Games: 244

We'll move past the wins/losses, but just zoom in on his PPG difference. He's putting higher point totals in less time. Which brings us back to the question, "How does he put up a higher PPG average in less time, than in games where he plays more?"

Also, can we start questioning the validity of P/60 as it applies (specifically) to Ehlers?

 

[BarnabyJones PI]

And as has been said a number of times, TOI played beyond 17 minutes can't retroactively affect what's already happened in less than 17 minutes (i.e. Ehlers' individual scoring)...that's a real causality violation.

I suppose that this answers the question, or how you see it. I get that.

But, I'm thinking when he's playing more minutes in the 1st and 2nd periods, than he's accustomed to usually getting, that he's wearing down faster than the average player; he's not recovering well enough. IMO, there's evidence of this, when he's stuck out there on an extended shift, and he's gassed, barely making it to the bench, and then he's still sucking air on the bench. I don't see this type of reaction (in general) from the other players around the league.

I think he thrives being deployed in a balanced amount of ice time, and when he plays more, and deviates from that time frame, he quickly regresses.

[Edited to add] That's why I don't think P/60 works well with Ehlers. I don't think his production scales well like other players. His game logs say different.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Can I have the 6 49 numbers?

Its a reverse jinx kind of a thing. I can give you the numbers but they are guaranteed to not win.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

So what if it wasn't long? His production had been declining since end of November and didn't improve with a new Center. What's the minimum the team has to continuously play an unproductive player in the top 6?

I'm sure his underlying stats are fine. Our 2nd liners normally have good underlying stats since they're with ehlers a lot, and the team and D group behind them played really well defensively.

If it had been any other player with this level of unproductivity I guarantee folks would be crying to get them demoted, ie: Iafallo. But it's typical prospect or young player overhype and coddling that occurs around here.

I agree on Barron as well. If Vilardi comes back this wouldn't really be a discussion any longer really.

It was short enough that I can't remember it happening. Not saying it didn't, but it was damn short.

His production had disappeared but he was still playing well.

What do you mean folks would be crying if it was any other player? It is not any other player and folks are crying to trade him, never mind demote him.

The discussion when Vilardi comes back won't be whether to play Perfetti on the 4th line or not. It will be whether to PB him or not.

Maybe we should be wondering what has gone wrong with Perfetti because he was living up to expectations until about 20-25 games ago. Then suddenly went cold.

 

[Buffdog]

Maybe we should be wondering what has gone wrong with Perfetti because he was living up to expectations until about 20-25 games ago. Then suddenly went cold.

He had a 3 point night on Jan 9 vs Columbus, and 2 assists since then

He had a great November (12 points), cooled off in December (5 points) then had 6 points in his first 6 games in January before the cold streak

Does anyone remember the timeline on the wrist issue? That seems to be something that could impact his offensive production but would allow him to maintain decent defensive metrics through his hockey sense and body positioning, etc

 

[surixon]

He had a 3 point night on Jan 9 vs Columbus, and 2 assists since then

He had a great November (12 points), cooled off in December (5 points) then had 6 points in his first 6 games in January before the cold streak

Does anyone remember the timeline on the wrist issue? That seems to be something that could impact his offensive production but would allow him to maintain decent defensive metrics through his hockey sense and body positioning, etc

I mean slumps happen to even the best of players. Crosby for instance only has 2 points in his last 8 games and is -12.

I think it's probably just as simple as he went cold, then got down on himself because he hasn't got the experience yet to deal with the ebbs and flows on a season and then started second guessing himself. Once that happens play suffers.

Seems like he's found his game again and if he keeps playing like this he will start scoring again.