After reading the Grantland article by Bill Barnwell it seems that the NHL needs some drastic infusion of good applied sport science. While Moneyball has limits (I will blog later about current problems), the article by Bill was too crude in scoring to show a real practical understanding of the relationship of winning and “team size”. First the size of player weight was just too raw to create p
NHL Player Size- Desperate need of Sport Science
-
-
Participant -
Participant
That’s why I don’t advocate players looking like youngblood in the mid 80s! I realize this but that’s not something to worry about if you are big enough, but momentum is speed and weight.
-
Participant
Changing direction on ice is big reason too much size is a bad thing.
-
Participant
Daniel,
I agree, but how much is optimal? Taking hits or being able to move faster…..so long as no real compromise to performance (impairment) then things are good. This is not about what I think is optimal but having more accuracy and precision in measuring what is big and what is fast. Without real concrete numbers it’s just a beauty pageant.
CV
-
Participant
There is no reason to contrive some complicated predictor of performance based on complicated measures of physical parameters and the assumption that we know what combination of physical traits will or will not relate to elite performance. We can see and measure performance directly on the ice, the field, or the diamond. Moneyball isn’t about physical traits or characteristics….it the opposite. Its based only on performance. The idea of moneyball is to throw out the complicated predictors based on physical attributes that MIGHT lead to a great performer, and just find the great performers based on, of all the crazy things, their actual performance.
-
Participant
Star61,
Sounds great on a forum, but if you are right, then why train with sport science and not let the magic necklaces of pro athletes do the work? Why even prescribe reps? Why not get freaky big like David Boston as bigger is better. Notice it’s nice to sit on the sidelines and chant poo-poo but for many of us with skin in the game we can’t leave it to hoping to win the athletic lottery.
Progress will occur when performance has a direct purposeful cause, not just getting talent through the draft or recruiting. What the purpose is trying to find small competitive advancements, perhaps you have a list that is better?
-
Participant
There is no reason to contrive some complicated predictor of performance based on complicated measures of physical parameters and the assumption that we know what combination of physical traits will or will not relate to elite performance. We can see and measure performance directly on the ice, the field, or the diamond. Moneyball isn’t about physical traits or characteristics….it the opposite. Its based only on performance. The idea of moneyball is to throw out the complicated predictors based on physical attributes that MIGHT lead to a great performer, and just find the great performers based on, of all the crazy things, their actual performance.
I realize your point and I agree, but shouldn’t you make those that do make the team on performance healthy and sustaining performance form good training and be able to prove so somehow?
-
Participant
The discussion seemed to be focused on recruiting. My comment was about what variables do you measure to decide who to recruit. While injury history/propensity should be a factor, I believe it is silly to use any physical quantity, even more so a complicated set of variables, to try and predict performance when most athletes have a history of performance that can be reviewed. Why predict what you can measure directly?
Once they’re on the team, its a different story. Does increasing mass and strength help? Is speed and power the answer? That’s a different question with a different set of answers. From the article, it would seem that focusing on agility and speed would be more important than increasing size.
-
Viewing 8 reply threads
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.