Player Discussion Jesperi Kotkaniemi - Part 18

[CHfan1]

I mean improve it to the point of it being a plus and being able to dodge hits like Suzuki and Caufield that we mentioned before. He’s also too big to weave in and out of multiple attackers, his stick handling not good enough. To me his only option is to become much more physical and stronger. He’ll have to win puck and board battles rather than avoid them like the other two.

He does win a bunch of puck and board battles already. He lead the Habs in takeaways in the regular season this year.

 

[26Mats]

Ray Ferraro is an expert in genetics?

Genes and innate talent have always been excuses in sports when people can't explain skills. It's a gap filler.

Seriously, physical development is about doing the right things to get the right results and very few know the right things to do. It also takes a willingness and drive to correct, practice and master. If Point became better when he was almost a full grown adult, it's because he had a willingness and accurate help to correct and practice the right things.

Ferrero also mentioned willingness and accurate help. But in his view/experience it also takes genetics.

 

[Mrb1p]

i remember running into Heatley at a pool in the 2000's... while he was still in his productive peak. relatively smallish guy, considering he played a pretty aggressive game at the time.

the other thing i noticed... how little refined muscular development there was... i wondered to myself how well he'd do in his 30's, as you could see he didn't have the physique of someone who had put in a ton of work to that effect. We saw how his career flammed out.

I don't think people realize just how many elite athletes don't actually put in the kind of physical work required for maximizing both their potential and their longevity.... and likewise, how many pros are there with a much smaller degree of "talent" but with impeccable work ethic.

the threshold for physical ability to be in the game is much lower than many appreciate. Getting there is one thing (and often the most talented get there without having needed to put in the same work as their less talented peers)... staying there, and squeezing out every ounce of potential is something else all together.

JKO has already shown he has the mindset/work ethic piece down. He's got a high degree of skill, and, as you point out, has dealt with the relative challenge of a late teen massive growth spurt (which throws off a lot). When the physical coordination catches up again, layering that onto his skill, vision and work ethic, we'll see a big improvement curve in impact, i'll be quite surprised if we see anything less than that.

Its very very true in hockey especially. As a sport, it is so far behind in exercise science... and you guessed it, use of PEDs.

Compare the average football player to hockey players, its crazy how far behind hockey is. Its acceptable to be pudgy like Emelin.

 

[Habs10Habs]

Not what you would call a scientific term, but I call it "Man Strength". Kotkaniemi is only 20 and hasn't quite developed that yet. It's like my neighbours kid. He's 6'2 about 185lbs at 19 years old. He's training to be an MMA fighter. I spar with him once in awhile. I'm 5'7 between 175/185lbs. I currently throw him around like a rag doll. Partly due to experience and technique and a lot of it having to do with the fact that his man strength hasn't kicked in yet. Once it does, it wouldn't surprise me if I'm the one that is going to get rag dolled.

 

[Ozmodiar]

Ray Ferraro is an expert in genetics?

Genes and innate talent have always been excuses in sports when people can't explain skills. It's a gap filler.

Seriously, physical development is about doing the right things to get the right results and very few know the right things to do. It also takes a willingness and drive to correct, practice and master. If Point became better when he was almost a full grown adult, it's because he had a willingness and accurate help to correct and practice the right things.

Natural ability plays a major role.

some kids are born to be fullbacks, while others are born to be tailbacks. ... and some tailbacks are Bo or Barry. There’s no amount of gym time that will change that. Bo didn’t lift weights until he was at Auburn ... didn’t know the right things to do.

Mcdavid, Barzal, ... even Byron, are elite skaters but they don’t have elite training regimens. These athletes all use the same training orgs.

 

[Ozmodiar]

Not what you would call a scientific term, but I call it "Man Strength". Kotkaniemi is only 20 and hasn't quite developed that yet. It's like my neighbours kid. He's 6'2 about 185lbs at 19 years old. He's training to be an MMA fighter. I spar with him once in awhile. I'm 5'7 between 175/185lbs. I currently throw him around like a rag doll. Partly due to experience and technique and a lot of it having to do with the fact that his man strength hasn't kicked in yet. Once it does, it wouldn't surprise me if I'm the one that is going to get rag dolled.

The Habs should send KK to work on a farm in Saskatchewan or on a fishing boat in nfld or NS. That should accelerate things.

2 groups that I’ve had the misfortune of competing against, albeit recreationally.

 

[SakuKoivu11]

He’s suited to the grinding playoffs. Reminds me more of a Jordan Staal than Anze Kopitar

 

[Ozmodiar]

Ferrero also mentioned willingness and accurate help. But in his view/experience it also takes genetics.

True
Hard work, drive, training, diet, coaching... all impact how that ability is put to use.

 

[OnTheRun]

Ferrero also mentioned willingness and accurate help. But in his view/experience it also takes genetics.

Genetics only give you predispositions, which would loosely translate in needing less willingness and accurate help to achieve the objectives. It's not a hard ceiling tho.

 

[Gravity]

Thats pseudo science

You're guessing, right?

Guys, seriously this was a quick google search away.....Is athletic performance determined by genetics?: MedlinePlus Genetics. There's absolutely no doubt that genetics play a major role in athletic performance, as does epigenetics (environmental stimuli) such as diet and training regimes etc...

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

there are some genetic markers that do contribute to sport success... David Epstein's book, sport gene, discusses it in good detail.

but, the nature of the sport plays a huge role in how that genetic advantage impacts player selection... contact team sports have so many interconnected variables at play, that they are probably the least subject to that (outside of the height gene in basketball... # of 6'10+ NBAers vs the general population is a huge outlyer, for obvious reasons).

one of the more interesting ones has to do with visual acuity and baseball... there's some gene tied to heightened visual acuity that is present in miniscule % in the general pop, but at exponentially large numbers in baseball... the correlation seems to be that it helps with batting at an early age (can see cues of the ball when it is pitched sooner/better than without it, that leads to better swing adjustments, leads to better batting success, leads to being selected to better teams (and more external motivation from parents/teammates/coaches) all of which contributes to earlier and better environment for "choosing" to put in the work to get better at baseball... all that to say that possessing the gene doesn't make you a better baseball player, it just sets in motion a bunch of interrelated factors that increases the selection odds at play to drive the work required to get to the big leagues.

i don't recall him referencing anything about hockey... aside from the social markers like being from a wealthier community, a hockey family and/or a community where hockey is the be all end all sport, i don't know that there are any genetic markers that positively correlate to ending up in professional hockey (there would be negative correlations like extreme height or shortness or other factors that would work against being able to play) aside from general athleticism and perhaps earlier physical maturation, both of which would be strongly tied to the social markers (Canadians excel at hockey not because we're wired for it, but because from a young age, the best athletes get the most social reward from excelling there as opposed to in other disciplines... plus the idols, plus the community emphasis, plus the abundance of access to rinks et.).

all of this is why the draft seems like such a crapshoot... and some scouts/scouting departments do better at hitting on later gems... dissecting the noise and immediacy of performance results that are more driven by external factors than internal ones... an inexact science but certainly not without some applicable frameworks to improve success.

Oof. First off, a genetic marker is about genetic expression. We are just starting to understand how expressions arise.

Okay, here's a good one about visual acuity and epigenetic markers. Take a kid and stick it in a dark room for its first few years of life and the optical nerves won't develop. Why? Because there are specific periods at which these expressions are supposed to unfold and if there's no input, there's no development and then it's over, never to be activated. To go a little further, since the expression follows a pattern of need/necessity and takes its cues from the immediate environment, it is a sound hypothesis to presume infant visual acuity will be raised or weakened depending on their environmental input at the moment when these developmental plateaus are reached.

Also, it's never ONE gene, but many genes that cater to specific systems/assembly. That one gene popping-up expressed might just be a sign of similar development path at those specific stages. The "one gene" associated to something is deeply misunderstood. People always assume its a 1:1 ratio, but can't explain why the same phenomenom arises without that gene popping-up and I can bet you all the money I have that you'll find players with high acuity and they won't have that gene, despite a given percentage who do have the gene and the same acuity, and you'll also find some who have that gene and have lower acuity.

Even phenotypes are getting reconsidered when it comes to gene expression and developmental plateaus. We are at the very beginning of our true understanding of genetics, yet people assume so much based on fallacious interpretations of statistical majorities of unique genes that never actually explains the phenomena they supposedly cause.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Natural ability plays a major role.

some kids are born to be fullbacks, while others are born to be tailbacks. ... and some tailbacks are Bo or Barry. There’s no amount of gym time that will change that. Bo didn’t lift weights until he was at Auburn ... didn’t know the right things to do.

Mcdavid, Barzal, ... even Byron, are elite skaters but they don’t have elite training regimens. These athletes all use the same training orgs.

These athletes don't use all the same specific coaches for skating, from youth to pro. I stopped reading at natural abilitiy. Go read more.

 

[Miller Time]

Oof. First off, a genetic marker is about genetic expression. We are just starting to understand how expressions arise.

Okay, here's a good one about visual acuity and epigenetic markers. Take a kid and stick it in a dark room for its first few years of life and the optical nerves won't develop. Why? Because there are specific periods at which these expressions are supposed to unfold and if there's no input, there's no development and then it's over, never to be activated. To go a little further, since the expression follows a pattern of need/necessity and takes its cues from the immediate environment, it is a sound hypothesis to presume infant visual acuity will be raised or weakened depending on their environmental input at the moment when these developmental plateaus are reached.

Also, it's never ONE gene, but many genes that cater to specific systems/assembly. That one gene popping-up expressed might just be a sign of similar development path at those specific stages. The "one gene" associated to something is deeply misunderstood. People always assume its a 1:1 ratio, but can't explain why the same phenomenom arises without that gene popping-up and I can bet you all the money I have that you'll find players with high acuity and they won't have that gene, despite a given percentage who do have the gene and the same acuity, and you'll also find some who have that gene and have lower acuity.

Even phenotypes are getting reconsidered when it comes to gene expression and developmental plateaus. We are at the very beginning of our true understanding of genetics, yet people assume so much based on fallacious interpretations of statistical majorities of unique genes that never actually explains the phenomena they supposedly cause.

Yes... And forgive my oversimplification, I took some liberties to avoid going into great depth...

But while I'd agree that there is far more uncertainty and unknowns in the fields of genetics & neurobiology, and that many existing models and frameworks remain in place/practice despite evidence of their inaccuracies simply because no better explanation has yet been demonstrated... I do think there is some rather robust evidence that certain markers do reflect greater ranges in physical potential that correlate to biological advantages relevant to certain professions.. which explain why their presence in those professions far exceed their expression in the general population.
As in the examples I provided...
7 footers in b-ball, or visual acuity in baseball

If a baby with the genetic markers for that kind of height is kept in a box in infancy, then of course, they won't grow to that height, and a baby with those visual genes kept in the dark won't develop proper sight, let alone heightened acuity... The point is moreso that without those markers, nothing in the environment will allow for that height or visual acuity to be expressed (short of bio engineering, but that's a whole other can of worms lol)

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Guys, seriously this was a quick google search away.....Is athletic performance determined by genetics?: MedlinePlus Genetics. There's absolutely no doubt that genetics play a major role in athletic performance, as does environmental stimuli such as diet and training regimes etc...

Environmental stimuli is much more than just diet and training regimes. It's everything that happens to you and impacts your development at a wide variety of stages. From in utero up to adulthood and even further (should read up on how anxiety/high degrees of stress impacts your gene expression and changes to help you produce even more cortisol, well into adulthood).

 

[Gravity]

Environmental stimuli is much more than just diet and training regimes. It's everything that happens to you and impacts your development at a wide variety of stages. From in utero up to adulthood and even further (should read up on how anxiety/high degrees of stress impacts your gene expression in adult life to help you produce even more cortisol, well into adulthood).

No doubt and there is not disagreement on my part on that point. Still, there is equally no doubt that gene complexes also play a crucial role in creating a foundational base for an athlete to build upon.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Yes... And forgive my oversimplification, I took some liberties to avoid going into great depth...

But while I'd agree that there is far more uncertainty and unknowns in the fields of genetics & neurobiology, and that many existing models and frameworks remain in place/practice despite evidence of their inaccuracies simply because no better explanation has yet been demonstrated... I do think there is some rather robust evidence that certain markers do reflect greater ranges in physical potential that correlate to biological advantages relevant to certain professions.. which explain why their presence in those professions far exceed their expression in the general population.
As in the examples I provided...
7 footers in b-ball, or visual acuity in baseball

If a baby with the genetic markers for that kind of height is kept in a box in infancy, then of course, they won't grow to that height, and a baby with those visual genes kept in the dark won't develop proper sight, let alone heightened acuity...

Dude, everytime you say "marker" you're talking about epigenetics and when you're talking about epigenetics, the cascade that leads to expression is more often than not environmental.

I can tell you that there's no such thing as robust proof of any one gene creating something specific.

Like i told you, you will find the same trait WITHOUT the gene, no matter the percentages.

 

[Miller Time]

No doubt and there is not disagreement on my part on that point. Still, there is equally no doubt that gene complexes also play a crucial role in creating a foundational base for an athlete to build upon.

Potential, more than base.

The Enviro stimuli allowing for, or optimizing, that potential, is the equally crucial factor.

 

[Ozmodiar]

These athletes don't use all the same specific coaches for skating, from youth to pro. I stopped reading at natural abilitiy. Go read more.

So defensive. Why so insecure?

You thought I meant that they literally all had the same coach?

“Read more”. lol
maybe you should get out to a rink or two.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

No doubt and there is not disagreement on my part on that point. Still, there is equally no doubt that gene complexes also play a crucial role in creating a foundational base for an athlete to build upon.

I used to believe that. I don't anymore.

It depends on what you define as an athlete.

 

[Gravity]

Potential, more than base.

The Enviro stimuli allowing for, or optimizing, that potential, is the equally crucial factor.

Same thing, different wording. In that case, it's just interchanging synonymous terms.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

So defensive. Why so insecure?

You thought I meant that they literally all had the same coach?

“Read more”. lol
maybe you should get out to a rink or two.

There's no insecurity, stop projecting.

Yes read more if all you can come up with is "natural ability".

 

[Miller Time]

Dude, everytime you say "marker" you're talking about epigenetics and when you're talking about epigenetics, the cascade that leads to expression is more often than not environmental.

I can tell you that there's no such thing as robust proof of any one gene creating something specific.

Like i told you, you will find the same trait WITHOUT the gene, no matter the percentages.

Add an s... My bad.

 

[Gravity]

I used to believe that. I don't anymore.

It depends on what you define as an athlete.

Let's say a professional athlete. The argument of endocrine shifts, mental health and many other complexes can go both ways as it can be stated that a lot of health issues that may arise in an individual which may prevent him/her from being a professional athlete are largely due to genetics. Not only must a professional athlete hit the professional jackpot health-wise, further traits such as muscle fiber twitching (which also do contain a significant genetic portion) can also aid or hamper an athlete.

With all due respect, to dismiss genetics entirely from athletic performance would be quite foolish.

 

[Miller Time]

Same thing, different wording. In that case, it's just interchanging synonymous terms.

Semantics? Perhaps... But alsom maybe not.

I'd infer from "base" something more firm or constant than "potential"... More accurately, the base gets built from the potential being optimized, and from that base, the movement ability to excel refined to elite levels.

 

[Gravity]

Semantics? Perhaps... But alsom maybe not.

I'd infer from "base" something more firm or constant than "potential"... More accurately, the base gets built from the potential being optimized, and from that base, the movement ability to excel refined to elite levels.

A base is simply the foundation off which anything is built. Call it potential or whatever, a base need not be firm or concrete. A foundation can equally be flimsy.