Toggle sidebar

Longevity as a proxy for hockey iq?

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
895

895

Registered User
Jun 15, 2007
8,930
8,507
Intuitively this makes sense. As players get older, more injured, as they lose speed, they have to compensate for this somehow to remain elite. This compensation comes in the form of playing smarter, better decision making, picking spots, etc. Therefore a player who remains elite until late 30s or early 40s probably has very high hockey iq.

When you look at players who remained elite until late 30s and 40s, you see guys like Lidstrom, Chelios, Bourque, etc. All known to have high hockey iq. Larionov, "the professor" despite being only 5'9" was an effective player into his 40s.

Meanwhile you have guys like Subban, Cheechoo, Heatley, etc, who had a few elite seasons and then fell off a cliff. I think we can reasonably infer they didn't have high hockey iq.

I think Ovechkin doing what he's doing at age 39 shows his hockey IQ is probably underrated. People like to contrast the physical dynamo Ovechkin with the cerebral tactician Crosby and this is true mostly but Ovechkin's smarts are underrated, as well as Crosby's immense physical gifts.

Can anyone think of low hockey iq players who had a long and productive player? Or a very smart player who declined early? Wayne Gretzky, despite being the greatest hockey player of all time and widely considered the smartest, declined a couple of years earlier than you might expect.
Click to read more...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
Yes, there's certainly a positive relationship between longevity and hockey smarts (and smarts in general).

However, there's no reason to look at it in generalties; best to look at every case individually to explain each player.

Other factors are injuries, peculiarities of specific eras, personal desire to play longer (for financial reasons, etc.), talent level of player, etc.

But, certainly, smarter players adapt better in general, train harder, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Farkas and Summer Rose
there has to be some correlation.

i wonder how much of it is having good fundamentals and work ethic from not having been blessed with an insane athleticism or skill. kind of like how the best coaches who were former players were mostly roster fillers to average.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Midnight Judges
It's way too strong to call it a proxy, but I do agree that it is a factor. As pretty much mentioned, things like style of play, era, motivation, usage, physical characteristics, even just luck are going to impact how long a player plays or how long they play at a high level. Patrick Marleau had a lot of longevity as the guy with the most games ever played and someone who was good/very good for most of that span, but hockey iq is low on the list of reasons I would give for Marleau's success.

Short version - proxy is too strong of a word, but hockey intelligence is a factor in longevity.

I agree with the Ovechkin example. That he managed to still score a ton of goals even long after losing some steps is a testament to his intelligence.
 
IMO it's logical to conclude that the abilities to reinvent, adapt, adjust over time (often required for longevity) are evidence of learning and intelligence.

There are plenty of examples of players who don't do those things, so it should be regarded as a positive attribute for those who do.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: authentic
Staniowski said:
Yes, there's certainly a positive relationship between longevity and hockey smarts (and smarts in general).

However, there's no reason to look at it in generalties; best to look at every case individually to explain each player.

Other factors are injuries, peculiarities of specific eras, personal desire to play longer (for financial reasons, etc.), talent level of player, etc.

But, certainly, smarter players adapt better in general, train harder, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't think it's too surprising that the periods that saw the most notable veterans hanging on and doing well are immediately after expansion and the dead puck era. Compare with how quickly many stars were phased out throughout the eighties. Finances were big parts of both periods, but I think there's also a factor of league quality decreasing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: authentic
Chelios-Bourque were also physical-training-Vo2max freak athlete.

Being a Jagr sized, genetic freak that do 1,000 leg squat every day is also a big factor for longevity.

Smart help you being able to play more minutes in some ways I can imagine, wasting lest energy, being more efficient, but to play 28 minutes in a half as a 40 years old of high level playoff hockey, that being a great athlete.

Adaptation is one of the biggest sign of intelligence we can think of, so I would tend to agree to longevity and not even long age, but just having more than a short peak can be a sign of intelligence for stars.

All the players and coach will try to stop you, if you are not some overpowering phenom, it can require to change what worked in junior and as a second line young player a little bit.


WarriorofTime said:
The ratio of roster fillers to average is way higher than star players. Since coaches are not judged by their own athletic ability, it would make sense that a much higher percentage of coaches would be roster fillers to average.
Click to expand...

And the ratio of those that can feel they need to work since an early retirement to their death without having a nice media job open to them could even be bigger.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WarriorofTime
WarriorofTime said:
The ratio of roster fillers to average is way higher than star players. Since coaches are not judged by their own athletic ability, it would make sense that a much higher percentage of coaches would be roster fillers to average.
Click to expand...

True but it's a struggle to think of a former star who was a successful coach. Hell even Gretzky and Roy washed out
 
IQ is one factor but so are work ethic, injury “luck”, desire to play for longer and peak value (if you are ahead of the pack, you can lose a step you are now just at the same level as the pack)
 
BigBadBruins7708 said:
True but it's a struggle to think of a former star who was a successful coach. Hell even Gretzky and Roy washed out
Click to expand...
Toe Blake had immense success as both a player and a coach.

Larry Robinson was a fairly successful coach. Randy Carlyle coached a long enough time. Milt Schmidt and Sid Abel.

In the early days it was common. Dick Irvin. Lester Patrick. Art Ross. Jack Adams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: authentic
BigBadBruins7708 said:
True but it's a struggle to think of a former star who was a successful coach. Hell even Gretzky and Roy washed out
Click to expand...
Larry Robinson won the cup and had a nice coaching career in the league, Patrick Roy in junior and nhl had his moments.

Jacques Lemaire is one of the great coach I think in some ways. Brian Sutter, it depends what the bar we put as a star, if we are talking about a Kariya or more than we are talking of a smaller and smaller candidate pool and people that can retire independent of fortune with a lot of other opportunities open.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: authentic
Roy is currently active, has four and a half seasons under his bet, a winning record thus far, and was given a Jack Adams award - a far cry from Gretzky's career, and I think if that counts as "washed out", you'd end up with a very low amount of coaches that meet the bar for a successful career.

Toe Blake was certainly a star is his time, Lemaire and Brindamour were first liners. Eddie Shore ran an AHL dynasty.

The other thing is, we're not even looking at the ratio of stars to roster fillers, we're looking at the ratio of stars to every single other person who has ever been involved in organized hockey. For example, who in the heck is Jon Cooper? I'm pretty sure there are 2 or 3 guys currently at my workplace with a more illustrious background in hockey than that guy, but he's still part of the broader talent pool for coaches and it turns out he's good at it. In a pool that big, former NHL stars are a practically nonexistent portion and I'd say they even overperform that ratio.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bear of Bad News
895 said:
Intuitively this makes sense. As players get older, more injured, as they lose speed, they have to compensate for this somehow to remain elite. This compensation comes in the form of playing smarter, better decision making, picking spots, etc. Therefore a player who remains elite until late 30s or early 40s probably has very high hockey iq.

When you look at players who remained elite until late 30s and 40s, you see guys like Lidstrom, Chelios, Bourque, etc. All known to have high hockey iq. Larionov, "the professor" despite being only 5'9" was an effective player into his 40s.

Meanwhile you have guys like Subban, Cheechoo, Heatley, etc, who had a few elite seasons and then fell off a cliff. I think we can reasonably infer they didn't have high hockey iq.

I think Ovechkin doing what he's doing at age 39 shows his hockey IQ is probably underrated. People like to contrast the physical dynamo Ovechkin with the cerebral tactician Crosby and this is true mostly but Ovechkin's smarts are underrated, as well as Crosby's immense physical gifts.

Can anyone think of low hockey iq players who had a long and productive player? Or a very smart player who declined early? Wayne Gretzky, despite being the greatest hockey player of all time and widely considered the smartest, declined a couple of years earlier than you might expect.
Click to expand...

Gretzky had more points than anyone besides Jagr in the calendar year of 1998. In the 1997 playoffs he went 10-10-20 in 15 games, peak Ovechkin in a slightly higher scoring season had 11-10-21 in 14 games.
 
I am not sure how much Gretzky could bench, power skate and win board battle from strength in 97 and 98, him being third in points in the NHL still at that point goes more with OP points than disproving it for sure.
 
Regarding the OPs question, Brent Burns is a fairly interesting case of pure animal vitality doing its thing while pushing 40.
 
Gartner & Marleau certainly maintained their speed into their late 30's. And had great eye-hand coordination.

Messier was 3rd in career games played but as a prospect lacked hockey sense, scoring high on every other metric Edmonton formulated. He frustratedly showed little IQ in Vancouver.

Andreychuk is top 10 in NHL games played but is a predictable tumble and shoot from the slot, most often on the pp.

OV goes up and down and awaits passes. When he was young he saw puck carrier, HIT pick carrier. I am a longtime OV fan but not for hockey IQ.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom