Player Discussion The Slaf Thread - Parabolic Growth Edition

[Mrb1p]

No, it's exaggeration posts like these that are awful. I'm sure you are a nice enough person.

Words have meaning. People don't always agree on said meaning. Far from a waste of time, clarifying the intended meaning is important if any attempt at dialogue is desired, let alone debating ideas or opinions.

What does seem like a waste of time is the constant empty complaining and "poor me" victim posts... Not sure I get the point of that

What you and @ReHabs seem to have in common is posting opinions that are often incoherent in the context of your own implied or stated meaning, then clogging up threads with these kinds of posts rather than just talking hockey.

Slaf has "low IQ" is a meaningless comment unless you categorize what low vs high IQ is (in your opinion)... When pressed on that, the response you provided was inconsistent to the point of making the whole statement incoherent. Stating that was never meant to imply anything about you as a person... Aside from being a person who at times makes incoherent posts and terrible takes.

I'd argue it's a pretty terrible assessment of Slaf to suggest he has low hockey IQ... Relative to his draft class, he's clearly among the elite. Relative to U25 NHL forwards, he's easily among the top 10%.

Hope that helps clear up the confusion

Lmao crazy that you still don't understand that a player can have lower IQ and still be very successful.

Evan Bouchard is one of the dumbest hockey player I've ever seen, yet he produces more than almost any other D in the league? Why ? Phenomenal vision, insane shooting mechanics and timing. None of those are IQ related.

This is me clarifying for the 7777777th time to you, by the way.

 

[Miller Time]

Lmao crazy that you still don't understand that a player can have lower IQ and still be very successful.

Crazy that you miss the point of my response entirely

Evan Bouchard is one of the dumbest hockey player I've ever seen, yet he produces more than almost any other D in the league? Why ? Phenomenal vision, insane shooting mechanics and timing. None of those are IQ related.

Production does not equal IQ. I didn't suggest that. Who are you arguing with?
Regardless, your assessment here is poor.

Vision and hockey sense is literally the first attribute listed in his draft profile lol

Strengths
Hockey sense and vision
Cutting off the gaps
Shot
Strength and size

And while prospect profiles are far from the definitive assessment of a player, it does speak to the skills that got him to the show...

This deep dive into his game provides ample statistical evidence of how out to lunch your take is...

An in-depth analysis of Evan Bouchard’s game using stats and video

<span style="font-weight: 400">Evan Bouchard is having a phenomenal se...

oilersnation.com

Bottom line, your Bouchard take much like your Slaf & Matheson takes point to a very poor grasp of what "hockey IQ" is... That, or your meaning of it lacks coherence with the realities of the game of hockey. Either way, terrible take with no substance to it.

This is me clarifying for the 7777777th time to you, by the way.

Clarifying that your assessments are poor? We already addressed that.

 

[ReHabs]

Lmao crazy that you still don't understand that a player can have lower IQ and still be very successful.

Evan Bouchard is one of the dumbest hockey player I've ever seen, yet he produces more than almost any other D in the league? Why ? Phenomenal vision, insane shooting mechanics and timing. None of those are IQ related.

This is me clarifying for the 7777777th time to you, by the way.

I met with a soccer tactics coach recently and we had a deep dive conversation. I basically cornered him as soon as I learned what he did for a profession but to his credit he obliged me.

What he revealed and reinforced in my understanding of sport is that pro athletes are very athletic and skilled (top x%) but their decision-making (what he constitutes under tactics) is often lacking and rarely improved by coaching. Coaches motivate and plan the team’s approach to win but they rarely have the bandwidth to improve individual players.

(I think this will change in the very near future with AI tracking and cheaper video coaching.)

But my point is that it is very likely players don’t have good hockey IQ but success comes to them with their other qualities.

One example I thought of was a Jeff Petry. Athletic player with good skills, very capable in a supporting role, but when he played up the lineup and faced superior opposition more often than not he performed worse than expected. Because his decision making was (let’s pull a number out of a hat) 75% right, that 25% got punished with more TOI and more capable oppo. He didn’t get worse necessarily, he was just punished in aggregate. Hockey like soccer is a game of duels and mistakes.

As an aside: Therrien coached to minimize mistakes. We found it extremely difficult to enjoy but his approach didn’t trust that the players could try anything audacious or ambitious. Hard ceiling for success with such a game plan but a higher floor than structure less pond hockey.

In every duel and at every inflection point is a decision and players don’t always make the optimal decision — some due to vision, some due to confidence, some due to tactical misunderstanding or miscommunication.

Anyway, with Slaf it’s clear his decision making has to improve for him to hit higher highs and find consistency in success. Whatever names the usual suspects have to call those of us who make this assertion doesn’t change reality.

 

[Mrb1p]

Crazy that you miss the point of my response entirely

Production does not equal IQ. I didn't suggest that. Who are you arguing with?
Regardless, your assessment here is poor.

Vision and hockey sense is literally the first attribute listed in his draft profile lol

Strengths
Hockey sense and vision
Cutting off the gaps
Shot
Strength and size

And while prospect profiles are far from the definitive assessment of a player, it does speak to the skills that got him to the show...

This deep dive into his game provides ample statistical evidence of how out to lunch your take is...

An in-depth analysis of Evan Bouchard’s game using stats and video

<span style="font-weight: 400">Evan Bouchard is having a phenomenal se...

oilersnation.com

Bottom line, your Bouchard take much like your Slaf & Matheson takes point to a very poor grasp of what "hockey IQ" is... That, or your meaning of it lacks coherence with the realities of the game of hockey. Either way, terrible take with no substance to it.


Clarifying that your assessments are poor? We already addressed that.

I think you're the one with the poor grasp on what IQ is.

There is no "statistical evidence" for a players non physical skill, lol. Speed? Sure. Strength? Measurable.

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

What is strange is Slaf goals numbers..... Did we not draft him for his ability to score and his size. Only goal is not looking good for him.

For some strange reason he refuses to shot.

 

[austin316]

Got his payday and he’s checked out. 1 goal and on pace for 4. Not good for a first overall pick. Significant regression before our very eyes.

 

[Miller Time]

I think you're the one with the poor grasp on what IQ is.

Right...
Can't "waste time" clarifying meaning, yet you don't offer any coherent description of what you mean except for terrible comparisons that are factually incorrect by any reasonable or statistical measure.

There is no "statistical evidence" for a players non physical skill, lol. Speed? Sure. Strength? Measurable.

What are you even talking about?

Bottom line. Slaf makes better decisions with and without the puck to create advantages for his team at a higher level than the vast majority of players his age, players within a 5 year window, and certainly on this roster.

To argue otherwise is silly.

 

[Team_Spirit]

Try Slafwatch instead of Statwatch?

bad takes central today

 

[lou4gehrig]

Got his payday and he’s checked out. 1 goal and on pace for 4. Not good for a first overall pick. Significant regression before our very eyes.

So he's on pace for a career high in points, playing the most minutes of his career and he has a zero plus minus. Luckily he doesn't read all the toxic nonsense from this thread from our "fans". The team isn't particular good at anything right now because we're young. He's 20 and perfectly fine.

 

[Bouboumaster]

11 points in 16 games, not bad

Hopefully he'll score a bit more goals but he's putting points at least

 

[morhilane]

For some strange reason he refuses to shot.

Slaf is 6th in shots attempts per game on the team. The players above him are Caufield, Matheson, Hutson, Suzuki and Gallagher. Only Gallagher play less minutes than Slaf on that list.

He is 2nd for unblocked high danger chances shots behind Caufield. 3rd in medium danger chances. But he doesn't take a lot of low danger chances shot attempts.

Despite the point blank shots, he miss the net a lot. His sh% is also abysmal on the shot on net.

But statistically, he should have 4 goals right now. It should fix itself over time, it did last year.

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

Slaf is 6th in shots attempts per game on the team. The players above him are Caufield, Matheson, Hutson, Suzuki and Gallagher. Only Gallagher play less minutes than Slaf on that list.

He is 2nd for unblocked high danger chances shots behind Caufield. 3rd in medium danger chances. But he doesn't take a lot of low danger chances shot attempts.

Despite the point blank shots, he miss the net a lot. His sh% is also abysmal on the shot on net.

But statistically, he should have 4 goals right now. It should fix itself over time, it did last year.

I stand corrected then, thank you.

 

[morhilane]

I stand corrected then, thank you.

I think people believe he doesn't shoot that much because near half his shots misses.

 

[ReHabs]

Bottom line. Slaf makes better decisions with and without the puck to create advantages for his team at a higher level than the vast majority of players his age, players within a 5 year window, and certainly on this roster.

To argue otherwise is silly.

Wow. Citation needed, my lying eyes would love to see this quantified and qualified.