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?

 

[Miller Time]

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

Qualified:
Game of hockey = score more than opposition
Individual contributions vary, but the ability to help your team score and help your team prevent being scored on is the objective of each player.

Hockey IQ is the ability to leverage one's skills & physical attributes towards that objective as effectively and in as many facets as possible.

Quantified:
Go look up yourself where Slaf sits across a diverse range of statistical metrics relevant to scoring and puck possession (which is required as a precursor to scoring and a preventative measure to being scored upon)...
Tops in most categories vs his draft peers.
Upper tier of players in the NHL U25
Top 2-3 in most categories on Habs

You're welcome

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

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.)


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?

Ask this question in five years.

 

[CheldishGamibno]

Slaf's best game of the season last monday. Had a slow start offensively but he is far from a liability, he's heating up.

 

[Miller Time]

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.

This is both overly simplistic and an incorrect way to describe and or understand "reactive vs proactive" decision making in sport performance.

Proactive decision making can better be described, and observed, as the often small and nuanced physical adjustments performers make that allows them to collect and process greater information as they navigate their dynamic environment.

Reactive desicion making is when players act without full information, relying instead on anticipation (elite performers ) or hope/guesses (weak performers) to execute...

High IQ players would better be described as those who make higher percentage decisions, both proactively in putting themselves in optimal postures and positioning, and reactively in effectively anticipating via instinct/experience, more consistently than others ... that applies equally to proactive or reactive actions.

There's a ton of great literature on this, in particular on the ways to develop motor learning and performance.

Interestingly, what the Habs did with Slaf from the start was very aligned with the best research out there... And the outcomes this far match what a person familiar with the lit would recognize... Namely the dip in his performance as he rebuild fundamentals, the superficial appearance of "slow" processing, and the lack of fluidity in his movements.... Followed by a rapid upward trajectory as the new motor skills became imbedded and he was once again able to tap into both his immense physical attributes and his higher end processing (ie decision making, ie hockey IQ).

 

[Miller Time]

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?

Yes, he certainly does. I invite you to bookmark this and revisit it when Slaf has played another 160 games...

Suzuki, for obvious reasons, has had to rely more on refining his game, however what we've seen from Slaf thus far is that he shares a high committment to that kind of refinement. What both players share, is an ability to process and impact the game through their decision making at a level above most of their peers... Slaf, with the physical advantages he has, was just able to translate that processing prowess to NHL impact far earlier.

Comparing a 20 year old, 137 game Slaf, to a 25 year old, 392 game Suzuki is either disingenuous or a very large lack of understanding of how sport performance develops.

Unless you think hockey IQ is a static attribute like say height... If that's the case, I'd invite you to consider volcano age & eruption patterns

 

[ReHabs]

Qualified:
Game of hockey = score more than opposition
Individual contributions vary, but the ability to help your team score and help your team prevent being scored on is the objective of each player.

Hockey IQ is the ability to leverage one's skills & physical attributes towards that objective as effectively and in as many facets as possible.

Quantified:
Go look up yourself where Slaf sits across a diverse range of statistical metrics relevant to scoring and puck possession (which is required as a precursor to scoring and a preventative measure to being scored upon)...
Tops in most categories vs his draft peers.
Upper tier of players in the NHL U25
Top 2-3 in most categories on Habs

You're welcome

So no citation? Just empty words to grandstand.

What’s the point?

To which “statistical measures” do you refer, name them so we can understand.

 

[Miller Time]

So no citation? Just empty words to grandstand.

You can go look up stats yourself.

What’s the point?

To which “statistical measures” do you refer, name them so we can understand.

I responded to you. The use of "we" speaks volumes.

Choose the ones you think are relevant... That's the thing, it's so across the board it doesn't really matter.

 

[ReHabs]

You can go look up stats yourself.

You cited the stats, just name the ones where Slaf is top 2 or 3 on the Habs, in his age group, with players within 5 years of him, etc.

I responded to you. The use of "we" speaks volumes.

We readers desire to substantiate your commentary.

Choose the ones you think are relevant... That's the thing, it's so across the board it doesn't really matter.

Which stats? You made the claim, so name them. It's the least you could do.

I took the time to verify your claim, Slafkovsky is unfortunately only top3
---

I don't know to what stats you've been referring so I went to the puck possession page of NHL.com and filtered out Habs players with fewer than 10gp. Slafkovsky is top3 in three of seven categories: Unblocked Shots on Target%, On-ice Goals For 5v5%, and On-Ice Shooting %.

I suspect he won't be top3 in these categories among players within "5 years of him" but this is your opportunity to help us understand what you mean when you've made the initial claim.

 

[Miller Time]

You cited the stats, just name the ones where Slaf is top 2 or 3 on the Habs, in his age group, with players within 5 years of him, etc.

There isn't just one... that's the point. I'm sorry you don't get that.

We readers desire to substantiate your commentary.

Yup... "we"...

Which stats? You made the claim, so name them. It's the least you could do.

Nope. Rather keep you confused... or maybe I'd rather teach you how to fish than feed you for a day

 

[Mrb1p]

ITT: people trying to tell me Slaf has a similar IQ as Suzuki.

If Suzuki had the physical abilities of Slaf he'd literally be the best player in the world. What a ridiculous notion. Were so far off reality.

There isn't just one... that's the point. I'm sorry you don't get that.


Yup... "we"...


Nope. Rather keep you confused... or maybe I'd rather teach you how to fish than feed you for a day

Lmao actually pathetic.

You made the claim that there was quantifiable measures to prove Slaf had greater IQ than his peers, of course the stat doesn't exist and now you're scrambling

 

[Miller Time]

ITT: people trying to tell me Slaf has a similar IQ as Suzuki.

If Suzuki had the physical abilities of Slaf he'd literally be the best player in the world. What a ridiculous notion. Were so far off reality.

If Suzuki had similar physical abilities to Slaf, he'd likely have been as impactful as he is at the same age... which he wasn't.

Volcanoes...

Lmao actually pathetic.

You made the claim that there was quantifiable measures to prove Slaf had greater IQ than his peers, of course the stat doesn't exist and now you're scrambling

No, there is no "one stat" that quantifies hockey IQ. That you think there would be highlights a very poor interpretation of that attribute

 

[ReHabs]

Quantified:
Go look up yourself where Slaf sits across a diverse range of statistical metrics relevant to scoring and puck possession (which is required as a precursor to scoring and a preventative measure to being scored upon)...
Tops in most categories vs his draft peers.
Upper tier of players in the NHL U25
Top 2-3 in most categories on Habs

No, there is no "one stat" that quantifies hockey IQ. That you think there would be highlights a very poor interpretation of that classification

Which stats and which categories? Help us understand.

 

[Miller Time]

Which stats and which categories? Help us understand.

PIM
GVA
+/-
A2
F/O