Prospect Info: Jesperi Kotkaniemi: The Eagle has landed (Made the team!)

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

I'm pretty 50/50. I kind of prefer Finland but I think either way will work fine. If he deserves to stay keep him. I think he's tank poison which sucks. I do understand worrying about injuries but so far he's not looked too physically outmatched.

 

[1909]

I'm pretty 50/50. I kind of prefer Finland but I think either way will work fine. If he deserves to stay keep him. I think he's tank poison which sucks. I do understand worrying about injuries but so far he's not looked too physically outmatched.

If he cannot stick with the Habs, I would prefer him to play with Laval. He will have tons of icetime, get used to NA ice surfaces, as well as receive good guidance by Bouchard instead of his own father in Finland. They can also recall him anytime.

 

[Tourist]

Ok let's stop this farce.
There is no such thing as "hockey IQ" (it's just dumb political correctness to say "it's a smart person when it comes to hockey").
There are high and lows IQ.
High IQ at school, would learn and be good at hockey as well. It's perfectly scalable and transferable. Not all high IQ person are however willing and able (athletic genetics of their cardio vascular and muscular systems) to put their body in the grinder.

Jonathan Drouin vs. McDavid ... McDavid is probably 20 IQ points higher. Same or similar athletic genetics...

Hockey IQ is a frequently used expression in hockey talks that I'm sure most people understand and link to intelligence displayed on ice: ability to read plays, process what is happening and quickly take optimal decision etc. It's lingo. I would not call it dumb or a farce. I don't think anyone who uses the expression thinks it's some scientifically proven concept or that it could not simply be referred to as IQ like you wrote. I don't at least. I think the way the expression is used in my post and the overall point of my post is pretty clear.

Otherwise I agree with what you've written.

 

[Kaako Kappo]

Some of you are really using urban legends to justify sending Kotkaniemi back to Finland ...

It's very simple. Either he handles the NHL and stays or doesn't and goes back. Nothing more.

 

[SOLR]

Hockey IQ is a frequently used expression in hockey talks that I'm sure most people understand and link to intelligence displayed on ice: ability to read plays, process what is happening and quickly take optimal decision etc. It's lingo. I would not call it dumb or a farce. I don't think anyone who uses the expression thinks it's some scientifically proven concept or that it could not simply be referred to as IQ like you wrote. I don't at least. I think the way the expression is used in my post and the overall point of my post is pretty clear.

Otherwise I agree with what you've written.

It's absolutely a farce. It's to omit dealing with the hot potato related to discussing IQ in general. It's political correctness, it needs to end.

Hockey IQ is IQ.

"ability to read plays, process what is happening and quickly take optimal decision"

There is no such thing as a person who is hockey smart and not overall smart.

 

[DAChampion]

It's absolutely a farce. It's to omit dealing with the hot potato related to discussing IQ in general. It's political correctness, it needs to end.

Hockey IQ is IQ.

"ability to read plays, process what is happening and quickly take optimal decision"

There is no such thing as a person who is hockey smart and not overall smart.

Ummmm, no. There are different facets to "intelligence", and it has been demonstrated that they are not perfectly correlated.

It's not about political correctness versus taboo, it's about science versus pseudoscience. There are multiple independent components that contribute to intelligence. When psychologists assogn IQ tests they tabulate multiple separate scores at the end.

There is no reason to assume that McDavid could have been a great mathematician or musician or both .

 

[Kudo Shinichi]

Production wise, if he can get 4-5 pts in those 9 games, then he should stay

 

[StiffSquid]

2g4a in 9 games. Stays , will play 79 regular season games 15g 32a. Next year , destroys the league playing with Kakko.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

As much as the 9 game marker is one to watch, a better marker might be the 40 game marker.

I think J2K playing <40 games, dominating the WJC, and playing half a year in AHL (and in their playoffs hopefully) would be the all around best year for his development.

 

[SOLR]

Ummmm, no. There are different facets to "intelligence", and it has been demonstrated that they are not perfectly correlated.

It's not about political correctness versus taboo, it's about science versus pseudoscience. There are multiple independent components that contribute to intelligence.

There is no reason to assume that McDavid could have been a great mathematician or musician or both .

There is every reason to assume that McDavid would be a good mathematician and musician, if he only puts (or had put) some time on it.
You seem to know nothing about the science...apparently.

When we talk about hockey IQ, we seem to think about practical IQ vs. analytical IQ, this is a contentious differentiation that apparently can't be experimentally verified.



Look, I know it's not a comfortable subject, but if you were to correlate general IQ with hockey IQ, you get a near 100% match.

Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr...all 140 IQ+ according to most evaluations. McDavid is probably in that range as well.

+IQ tends to be higher in the first born. Look at all the hockey families and their career...etc.

 

[417]

Why are people continually bringing up the 9 game mark?

 

[DAChampion]

There is every reason to assume that McDavid would be a good mathematician and musician, if he only puts (or had put) some time on it.
You seem to know nothing about the science...apparently.

When we talk about hockey IQ, we seem to think about practical IQ vs. analytical IQ, this is a contentious differentiation that apparently can't be experimentally verified.



Look, I know it's not a comfortable subject, but if you were to correlate general IQ with hockey IQ, you get a near 100% match.

Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr...all 140 IQ+ according to most evaluations. McDavid is probably in that range as well.

+IQ tends to be higher in the first born. Look at all the hockey families and their career...etc.

In the real world, if you take an IQ test, you will likely be given a range of scores corresponding to the different subcomponents of IQ, which is itself a subcomponent of intelligence . The reason that there are different categories is that people get different scores on them, otherwise they would save money by just testing one category .

 

[SOLR]

In the real world, if you take an IQ test, you will likely be given a range of scores corresponding to the different subcomponents of IQ, which is itself a subcomponent of intelligence . The reason that there are different categories is that people get different scores on them, otherwise they would save money by just testing one category .

The real IQ test, the one that takes 3 hr to complete in a timed setting, does not have a large range (and obviously test all categories).

The issue here is that you are confusing consumerism in the IQ test category with actual science.

But that was not your initial assertion, you claimed that hockey IQ is not IQ. This is a demonstrably false statement.

I just happen to know IQ research well, because it's often used in virology as way(proxy) to teach the pitfalls of multi-factor analysis in virus virulence factors.

 

[G0bias]

Why are people continually bringing up the 9 game mark?

Prospects who have yet to play 10 NHL games can be re-assigned to a lower league without having the first year on their entry-level deal burned.

 

[DAChampion]

The real IQ test, the one that takes 3 hr to complete in a timed setting, does not have a large range (and obviously test all categories).

The issue here is that you are confusing consumerism in the IQ test category with actual science.

But that was not your initial assertion, you claimed that hockey IQ is not IQ. This is a demonstrably false statement.

I've taken a real IQ test that took three hours, I did so with a psychiatrist at one of the top medical schools on the continent. This was recent, roughly ten years ago.

It was a test within a clinical setting, and I got six different scores. Some were similar and some were different. However, other people get much larger differences.

I have demonstrated that the people who work in the field believe that IQ has different subcomponents, and that people regularly score different scores on those tests.

It is also the case, separately, that your statement is ridiculous. Of our 20,000 genes (never mind the proteome and the microflora), one third are expressed primarily in the brain. That suggests several thousand independent variables at a minimum. Your belief, that intelligence is a single variable, is extremely unlikely. For that to be true, those 7,000 genes would have to always vary in unison, and gene-environment interactions would have to be zero.

But we have a researcher in neuroscience on this forum, so we can get a second opinion from an actual expert: @Ozymandias , how many principal components are there to "intelligence"? Is it obviously true that hockey IQ and IQ are identical?

 

[417]

Prospects who have yet to play 10 NHL games can be re-assigned to a lower league without having the first year on their entry-level deal burned.

Yes I know that rule...but I don't that's as much of an issue now.

It's the 40 game mark that's the key

 

[Tourist]

It's absolutely a farce. It's to omit dealing with the hot potato related to discussing IQ in general. It's political correctness, it needs to end.

Hockey IQ is IQ.

"ability to read plays, process what is happening and quickly take optimal decision"

There is no such thing as a person who is hockey smart and not overall smart.

Never claimed otherwise. I have no issues discussing IQ. I did not use the term "hockey IQ" in my original post to avoid discussing IQ in general, because I think it's a hot potato topic or something. I used the expression because I feel other hockey fans, regardless on their views on IQ in general, know this expression and their understanding of it is likely similar to mine. As such they can easily get the point I am trying to make. That is all. Doing so is not something I would qualify as a farce.

 

[417]

Pretty crazy how quickly things change in sports...

If on July 1st I had told you Jesperi Kotkaniemi would make the Montreal Canadiens opening night roster...

And that Henrik Borgstrom would not make the Panthers opening night roster...

I'd have been called a nut by that Panthers poster who spent all summer posting here telling us how there's no potential package the Habs could put together to acquired Borgstrom.

lol

P.S. I still think Borgstrom is a stud...doesn't change anything for me, but still funny

 

[SOLR]

I've taken a real IQ test that took three hours, I did so with a psychiatrist at one of the top medical schools on the continent. This was recent, roughly ten years ago.

It was a test within a clinical setting, and I got six different scores. Some were similar and some were different. However, other people get much larger differences.

I have demonstrated that the people who work in the field believe that IQ has different subcomponents, and that people regularly score different scores on those tests.

It is also the case, separately, that your statement is ridiculous. Of our 20,000 genes (never mind the proteome and the microflora), one third are expressed primarily in the brain. That suggests several thousand independent variables at a minimum. Your belief, that intelligence is a single variable, is extremely unlikely. For that to be true, those 7,000 genes would have to always vary in unison.

But we have a researcher in neuroscience on this forum, so we can get a second opinion from an actual expert: @Ozymandias , how many principal components are there to "intelligence"? Is it obviously true that hockey IQ and IQ are identical?

I never claimed intelligence is a single variable. My statement was precise, that you can infer hockey IQ (assuming you could measure it) by knowing the general IQ and vice-versa (with the appropriate amount of scientific prudence and variability).

Kindly, please do read what I said again.

 

[DAChampion]

I never claimed intelligence is a single variable. My statement was precise, that you can infer hockey IQ by knowing the general IQ and vice-versa (with the appropriate amount of scientific prudence and variability).

Kindly, please do read what I said again.

This is what you wrote:

"you claimed that hockey IQ is not IQ. This is a demonstrably false statement."
"Hockey IQ is IQ."

You did not write that hockey IQ is a subcomponent of IQ, or that it correlates with IQ. You wrote that they're the same, equivalent, identical, hence the word "is". You also wrote that McDavid and Crosby could obviously have become mathematicians or musicians if they had wanted to.

 

[SOLR]

Never claimed otherwise. I have no issues discussing IQ. I did not use the term "hockey IQ" in my original post to avoid discussing IQ in general, because I think it's a hot potato topic or something. I used the expression because I feel other hockey fans, regardless on their views on IQ in general, know this expression and their understanding of it is likely similar to mine. As such they can easily get the point I am trying to make. That is all. Doing so is not something I would qualify as a farce.

Fair. Sorry.

I sometime get overly expressive when reading the term and how it is generally understood or discussed.

Thinking about it, I wasn't really coming after you for using it when I initially wrote the first post. Was going after the usage itself overall. ie. the farce is that we still use this term.

 

[SOLR]

This is what you wrote:

"you claimed that hockey IQ is not IQ. This is a demonstrably false statement."
"Hockey IQ is IQ."

You did not write that hockey IQ is a subcomponent of IQ, or that it correlates with IQ. You wrote that they're the same, equivalent, identical, hence the word "is". You also wrote that McDavid and Crosby could obviously have become mathematicians or musicians if they had wanted to.

Yes, because it is true.
IQ researchers have the hardest time making one subcomponent of IQ standout in a multi-factor analysis.
I didn't like pointing to Jordan Peterson on this, but his explanation of this is clear in the video (General IQ being extremely hard to differentiate from Subcomponent IQ). I've had better teachers on this, but obviously didn't video them.

"You also wrote that McDavid and Crosby could obviously have become mathematicians or musicians if they had wanted to"

Yes, obviously, they could.

1) Of course if they practice hockey 10hrs per day, that doesn't leave much time for anything else to be good at.
2) Also, consider than when you think about a mathematician-musician (Many mathematician also play an instrument and vice-versa), you are thinking about someone who have invested these hours while they were young as well.

The brain has fluid and crystallized intelligence, obviously this means that most hockey players don't have a ton of crystallized math or music knowledge given their time investment decisions. Fluid intelligence also goes down as we age. So if they decided to learn now, their fluid intelligence would be lower than when they were young, making it harder to learn math-music now.

 

[Tourist]

Fair. Sorry.

I sometime get overly expressive when reading the term and how it is generally understood or discussed.

Thinking about it, I wasn't really coming after you for using it when I initially wrote the first post. Was going after the usage itself overall. ie. the farce is that we still use this term.

No problem. I get your point. It's a very interesting subject to discuss, and @DAChampion also brings up some very good points...

Back to Kotkaniemi, I just raise the possibility that due to the outstanding intelligence he displays on the ice, perhaps the environment in which he will evolve the most is the environment that is the most challenging to him mentally, provided of course his body holds up. There are some tiny players out there in the NHL, so I am not too concerned on that front. One would also think smarter players are better at avoiding injuries, all else being equal. It would be interesting to see some science on that...

 

[Habs Halifax]

Yes I know that rule...but I don't that's as much of an issue now.

It's the 40 game mark that's the key

The 9 games vs 40 games threshold could make a difference of having to give a monster 8 contract one year earlier or later. I guess it just depends on how good he is after the ELC. In a way, it's a good debate at supporting the idea of burning the 1st year of his ELC but not his RFA status. If he is really good but hasn't broken out yet, we might get a chance to lock him up for 8 years prior to a break out season.

The difference between one season on talents like this could be a huge difference. Lets say he plays less than 40 games but more than 9 this year. His ELC is done when he is age 20 and turning 21 for his new contract. The difference between age 21 or 22 could be massive with a player on such a steep learning curve. Trying to lock up a 8 year deal could mean millions in the difference

 

[SOLR]

No problem. I get your point. It's a very interesting subject to discuss, and @DAChampion also brings up some very good points...

Back to Kotkaniemi, I just raise the possibility that due to the outstanding intelligence he displays on the ice, perhaps the environment in which he will evolve the most is the environment that is the most challenging to him mentally, provided of course his body holds up. There are some tiny players out there in the NHL, so I am not too concerned on that front. One would also think smarter players are better at avoiding injuries, all else being equal. It would be interesting to see some science on that...

There's plenty.

IQ predicts injuries and life expectancy overall in normal life.