Player Discussion The Slaf Thread - Parabolic Growth Edition

[Artaud]

Because both things don't belong to each other. IQ helps you anticipate and understanding where the play will go. Passing vision is just that, you often do this prepared in your mind. "Oh, X player is coming up on the net and the defender hasn't pivoted yet. I will make a pass".

It's reactivity vs proactivity.

Serious question : have you ever played hockey?

 

[Mrb1p]

Serious question : have you ever played hockey?

No, I've never played any level of hockey that is relevant to the discussion.

You know what's cool? As a geophysician I can explain to you how volcanoes work, but I've never been inside one, sadly.

 

[ReHabs]

How can you be dumb as a hockey player with great vision?

I don’t think “hockey IQ” is the same as “dumb/smart”

I don’t want to use the term “hockey IQ” going forward because of all the implications that come with it and all the ways bad faith commentators will intentionally twist its usage. Personally speaking I don’t like the term in the first place.

As I said in the comment above, talking with the soccer tactics coach gave me a ton of insight into how pros approach their game. The term the coach used was tactical thinking or decision making. I prefer that term.

Because both things don't belong to each other. IQ helps you anticipate and understanding where the play will go. Passing vision is just that, you often do this prepared in your mind. "Oh, X player is coming up on the net and the defender hasn't pivoted yet. I will make a pass".

It's reactivity vs proactivity.

I think you’re splitting hairs here. If you want to dig into why his decision making quality is behind his other skills, sure then it’s a discussion worth having but if you insist to use “hockey IQ” then you have to concede that both of these factors contribute to “hockey IQ”

 

[Mrb1p]

I don’t think “hockey IQ” is the same as “dumb/smart”

I don’t want to use the term “hockey IQ” going forward because of all the implications that come with it and all the ways bad faith commentators will intentionally twist its usage. Personally speaking I don’t like the term in the first place.

As I said in the comment above, talking with the soccer tactics coach gave me a ton of insight into how pros approach their game. The term the coach used was tactical thinking or decision making. I prefer that term.

I think you’re splitting hairs here. If you want to dig into why his decision making quality is behind his other skills, sure then it’s a discussion worth having but if you insist to use “hockey IQ” then you have to concede that both of these factors contribute to “hockey IQ”

I don't think i am. Think of passing and shooting and how we perceive both.

Passing is just shooting on a stick instead of goal

 

[ReHabs]

I don't think i am. Think of passing and shooting and how we perceive both.

Passing is just shooting on a stick instead of goal

I disagree with that as well.

The goal is both fixed and always in the same spot. The goal is protected by layers of defenders. The technique of shooting on goal is different. The requisite height of the puck is different.

Passing targets are always moving in multiple dimensions. The target is meant to be not covered. The technique to pass the puck is almost entirely different. The pass is often no higher than a foot off the ice.

At this point the differences aren’t in degrees but in kind.

 

[Artaud]

Passing is just shooting on a stick instead of goal

It's really not, and this is quite obvious, but I will explain to you anyways.

The goal is stationary, the players move. Chaotically.

You have to pass where a player will be rather than where he is. This requires anticipation, and that anticipation comes from understanding what your teammate is thinking. Furthermore, a passing lane is not some whack-a-mole that just appears and you react to it. You have to anticipate the opening of a passing lane from reading the play, or even create the passing lane by feinting/moving in a way that shifts the defense. More often than not, passes are premeditated and to be a great playmaker requires a mind for the game.

A passer who relies on reflexes will never be a great playmaker.

Slaf is not a dumb player. He has a lot to learn, but he also has a lot to build on.

 

[Mrb1p]

I disagree with that as well.

The goal is both fixed and always in the same spot. The goal is protected by layers of defenders. The technique of shooting on goal is different. The requisite height of the puck is different.

Passing targets are always moving in multiple dimensions. The target is meant to be not covered. The technique to pass the puck is almost entirely different. The pass is often no higher than a foot off the ice.

At this point the differences aren’t in degrees but in kind.

Eh, you're seeing way too far. Shooting and passing require the same kind of reactive vision. Goalscoring and playmaking can require IQ but can also be achieved through physical means. (I.e. Being an accurate shooter, an accurate passer.)

It's really not, and this is quite obvious, but I will explain to you anyways.

The goal is stationary, the players move. Chaotically.

You have to pass where a player will be rather than where he is. This requires anticipation, and that anticipation comes from understanding what your teammate is thinking. Furthermore, a passing lane is not some whack-a-mole that just appears and you react to it. You have to anticipate the opening of a passing lane from reading the play, or even create the passing lane by feinting/moving in a way that shifts the defense. More often than not, passes are premeditated and to be a great playmaker requires a mind for the game.

A passer who relies on reflexes will never be a great playmaker.

Slaf is not a dumb player. He has a lot to learn, but he also has a lot to build on.

Yes players aren't rock em sockem and they have free will and are required to problem solve. The point is that some aren't as good as others.

Slaf is not a dumb player but he is surely not a smart one. A smart one is Suzuki. Do you think Slaf comes close to Suzuki in IQ?