Player Discussion Connor McDavid Part IV (Nominated For The Calder)

[McPuritania]

Pretty bold prediction by THN:

They are way off. Connor is hitting at least 120 points. ??

 

[McTrashBoat]

They are way off. Connor is hitting at least 120 points. ??

By the all star break right?

 

[McPuritania]

By the all star break right?

By Christmas.

 

[Bryanbryoil]

The guy that ends up growing to 4'6" and 85lbs. just needs to train the same as the guy that is 6'2" and 200lbs. to make the NHL since it's nothing but work to get to the NHL.

I'm the same height as Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant. I could spend every waking hour playing basketball and training and I'd never be as good as either guy at basketball. You could train your entire life and chances are that you'd never come close to being as good at marathon running as the best that Kenya produces. God given talent is a real thing, however it's up to the individual in terms of what they do with that talent. If they don't give a crap and waste it you get a Jason Bonsignore, if you get a guy that busts his tail then you get a Ryan Smyth. Hard work can overcome some obstacles but you need some talent to start with.

This applies to all things in life not just sports. I don't think that we could get 4 people from HF and become the second coming of The Beatles no matter how hard we tried.

Everyone has an individual talent, some are athletic, strong, smart, artistic, musically inclined, etc. That said you simply cannot be what you were not meant to be physically.

 

[Bryanbryoil]

They are way off. Connor is hitting at least 120 points. ??

If we have a good PP and a threat from the point, **** it, I'll say that he can hit that mark this season.

 

[McShogun99]

By Christmas.

I remember when that was the answer to when will the Oilers be eliminated from playoff contention.

 

[Zaddy]

The guy that ends up growing to 4'6" and 85lbs. just needs to train the same as the guy that is 6'2" and 200lbs. to make the NHL since it's nothing but work to get to the NHL.

Height is obviously one of the things you need to be blessed with, but even so 5'8 157lbs Johnny Gaudreau is having tremendous success in this league. You think he got where he is because of some inherited talent, or do you think he got where he is today because of a gigantic amount of hard work, stemming from everyone telling him he is too small? I know which one I'd pick.

I'm the same height as Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant. I could spend every waking hour playing basketball and training and I'd never be as good as either guy at basketball. You could train your entire life and chances are that you'd never come close to being as good at marathon running as the best that Kenya produces. God given talent is a real thing, however it's up to the individual in terms of what they do with that talent. If they don't give a crap and waste it you get a Jason Bonsignore, if you get a guy that busts his tail then you get a Ryan Smyth. Hard work can overcome some obstacles but you need some talent to start with.

Like I said in another post, I think it mostly comes down to the environment you grow up in, how you spend those first 13-15 years of your life. It's not just about training either, it's about how you train. That's what that book I talked about The Talent Code goes into. It's not necessarily the quantity of training, it's quality that's important.

As for Kobe, his father was a professional basketball player, which I'm sure helped quite a lot. From wikipedia:

Bryant started playing basketball when he was 3 years old,[9] and his favorite team growing up was the Lakers.[10] Bryant's grandfather would mail him videos of NBA games, which Bryant would study.[10] At an early age he also learned to play soccer and his favorite team was A.C. Milan.[11] Upon Joe Bryant's retirement from playing basketball in 1991, the Bryant family moved back to the United States.

That's a pretty good base to stand on. Starting early, getting good advice/coaching, studying the game, being dedicated but also exploring other sports to diversify.

This applies to all things in life not just sports. I don't think that we could get 4 people from HF and become the second coming of The Beatles no matter how hard we tried.

Because it's a bit late to start with that when you're in your 20's and beyond. You could still probably become a successful musician if you worked hard but if you want to be truly elite at something you have to start relatively young.

Everyone has an individual talent, some are athletic, strong, smart, artistic, musically inclined, etc. That said you simply cannot be what you were not meant to be physically.

In a way yes, but it depends on the sport. I think in track and field it seems physical attributes play a huge role. Like nobody seems to be able to beat Usain Bolt no matter how hard they work. So he definitely has something going for him, but then you look at a guy like swedish high jumper Stefan Holm. He's 5'11 but he still managed to win an Olympic gold and a number of world championships, and that's while competing against guys who are 6'5 and 6'7. Pretty astonishing.

 

[The Nuge]

Height is obviously one of the things you need to be blessed with, but even so 5'8 157lbs Johnny Gaudreau is having tremendous success in this league. You think he got where he is because of some inherited talent, or do you think he got where he is today because of a gigantic amount of hard work, stemming from everyone telling him he is too small? I know which one I'd pick.



Like I said in another post, I think it mostly comes down to the environment you grow up in, how you spend those first 13-15 years of your life. It's not just about training either, it's about how you train. That's what that book I talked about The Talent Code goes into. It's not necessarily the quantity of training, it's quality that's important.

As for Kobe, his father was a professional basketball player, which I'm sure helped quite a lot. From wikipedia:

That's a pretty good base to stand on. Starting early, getting good advice/coaching, studying the game, being dedicated but also exploring other sports to diversify.



Because it's a bit late to start with that when you're in your 20's and beyond. You could still probably become a successful musician if you worked hard but if you want to be truly elite at something you have to start relatively young.



In a way yes, but it depends on the sport. I think in track and field it seems physical attributes play a huge role. Like nobody seems to be able to beat Usain Bolt no matter how hard they work. So he definitely has something going for him, but then you look at a guy like swedish high jumper Stefan Holm. He's 5'11 but he still managed to win an Olympic gold and a number of world championships, and that's while competing against guys who are 6'5 and 6'7. Pretty astonishing.

How does Kobe's father being a professional basketball player not help show that you're born with natural athletic ability? You simply cannot take an uncoordinated person and train them to be the best in the world. Training makes people better. Nobody will argue that. However, everyone tops out somewhere.

 

[Bryanbryoil]

Height is obviously one of the things you need to be blessed with, but even so 5'8 157lbs Johnny Gaudreau is having tremendous success in this league. You think he got where he is because of some inherited talent, or do you think he got where he is today because of a gigantic amount of hard work, stemming from everyone telling him he is too small? I know which one I'd pick.

Matt Hendricks does not work hard enough to be a 1st line player then I guess, same with Boyd Gordon. If you think that Gaudreau does not have exceptional talents to be a great hockey player then I am in total disagreement with you. Of course he has worked extremely hard but that is not specific to Gaudreau in the sporting world. I guess every other sub 5'10" player that didn't make the NHL just didn't work hard enough? Or maybe just maybe Gaudreau has some great talents that when honed with hard work made him the player that he is today, I know that's the angle that I pick.

Like I said in another post, I think it mostly comes down to the environment you grow up in, how you spend those first 13-15 years of your life. It's not just about training either, it's about how you train. That's what that book I talked about The Talent Code goes into. It's not necessarily the quantity of training, it's quality that's important.

Do me a favor then, if you have or will have children. If it's a boy and hes tall, train him to be better than Jordan and Lebron. If not then better than Gretzky. If it's a girl teach her to sing better than Aretha Franklin, be the best athlete at whatever sport you or her choose for her. If none of these are done then I guess it's simply because you didn't instill the proper work ethic in them and not because they have limitations and because the others were straight up exceptionally gifted athletes.

As for Kobe, his father was a professional basketball player, which I'm sure helped quite a lot. From wikipedia:

That's a pretty good base to stand on. Starting early, getting good advice/coaching, studying the game, being dedicated but also exploring other sports to diversify.

Hence he already had good GENETICS to be a basketball payer, he also had a great drive, height and athleticism. Not everyone is built in such a way to be the worlds strongest or fastest person.

Because it's a bit late to start with that when you're in your 20's and beyond. You could still probably become a successful musician if you worked hard but if you want to be truly elite at something you have to start relatively young.

Then what are you going to be elite at? I know what I am/am not good at. If I applied myself and worked hard towards it I probably could've been a worlds strongest man type or a NFL player, not a pro basketbll player or a pro musician, those simply are not talents that I have.

In a way yes, but it depends on the sport. I think in track and field it seems physical attributes play a huge role. Like nobody seems to be able to beat Usain Bolt no matter how hard they work. So he definitely has something going for him, but then you look at a guy like swedish high jumper Stefan Holm. He's 5'11 but he still managed to win an Olympic gold and a number of world championships, and that's while competing against guys who are 6'5 and 6'7. Pretty astonishing.

He must've just trained harder, OR he is just gifted at that sport and he worked hard to harness that gift. Again I'll take the latter.

Everyone wants to be the next Gretzky, Jordan, Ali, etc. but there's a reason why these guys were who they were, incredible gifts AND work ethics. One alone does not get you to the top of the sports world, you can't tell me that Ales Hemsky works harder than Matt Hendricks yet one was seen as a 1st liner while the other has been a career 3rd/4th liner. You can't just choose 100 random babies and turn them into Gretzky, Jordan, Ali, Montana, The Beatles, Elvis, Metallica, Da Vince, Einstein, etc.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Gladwell's 10,000 hours to mastery theory is largely intact, but the difference is opportunity.

Gretzky, had the right coaches and right influences at the right time in their lives to get to where they were going. He got to play 1st line minutes against kids 5 years older than him. He got favorable zone starts, and learned how to not get hit.


It wasn't simply just his will alone, he had a LOT of help, and a lot of luck on the way.


Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Founder of Sun Microsystems and such, if they were born today they wouldn't make more than any other above average programmer. During the 60s and early 70s, anyone who could program was a 40-something stable income married with kids, with a house in the burbs working at IBM.

They simply had the opportunity to learn programming during their high school years (back when only universities had computers), and by the time they were 'masters' they were young and bold enough to take massive risks with their careers and lives.



I worked on a video Game: Tony Hawk #6 (Underground 2). If I had been there 3 years earlier to work on #3, I could have been a millionaire.

My friend got a job at Blizzard Entertainment 2 months after World of Warcraft shipped. Those that worked on the first game bought multi-million dollar homes in SoCal, and drive Ferrarri's.


There's mastery luck and opportunity involved with all of this.

 

[Bryanbryoil]

Gladwell's 10,000 hours to mastery theory is largely intact, but the difference is opportunity.

Gretzky, had the right coaches and right influences at the right time in their lives to get to where they were going. He got to play 1st line minutes against kids 5 years older than him. He got favorable zone starts, and learned how to not get hit.


It wasn't simply just his will alone, he had a LOT of help, and a lot of luck on the way.


Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Founder of Sun Microsystems and such, if they were born today they wouldn't make more than any other above average programmer. During the 60s and early 70s, anyone who could program was a 40-something stable income married with kids, with a house in the burbs working at IBM.

They simply had the opportunity to learn programming during their high school years (back when only universities had computers), and by the time they were 'masters' they were young and bold enough to take massive risks with their careers and lives.



I worked on a video Game: Tony Hawk #6 (Underground 2). If I had been there 3 years earlier to work on #3, I could have been a millionaire.

My friend got a job at Blizzard Entertainment 2 months after World of Warcraft shipped. Those that worked on the first game bought multi-million dollar homes in SoCal, and drive Ferrarri's.


There's mastery luck and opportunity involved with all of this.

The difference of course being that there aren't as many Gretzky's as there are game programmers.

That said I agree in terms of wealth that a lot of times it is a right time/right place type of a thing. However sometimes it also takes money to make money, etc. It's not the exact same as sports IMO.

 

[Zaddy]

Gladwell's 10,000 hours to mastery theory is largely intact, but the difference is opportunity.

Exactly. Opportunity is a huge deal. I wouldn't say opportunity is the only thing that matters but rather your circumstances as a whole. For me, "talent" boils down to three things: hard work, a burning passion and the right circumstances.

As an example, I was way ahead of the curve when it came to schoolwork in my earliest school years. I could probably have been in a grade or two higher than I was because of how far ahead I was. Everyone asked me for help and I was basically like a second teacher. To an outsider it might just look like I was way smarter than the rest of the kids, but that was absolutely not the case. I was just fortunate to have an older sister who had gone through the same stuff in school 2 years earlier and who actively wanted to teach me that stuff, while I myself was very receptive to this. So thanks to this relationship I had a very solid base to stand on and already knew pretty much everything I needed to know to be successful in school. I wasn't smarter, I just had the right circumstances to succeed.

The same thing is true for sports and many other arenas in life. McDavid wanted to learn and be the best and his parents made sure he was afforded every opportunity to follow that dream, getting the best coaches, playing for the best teams etc. What differentiates him from everyone else in the hockey world is not "talent", it's his insatiable hunger to get better and work hard every day. Seriously, I challenge you to find any other kid that worked as hard as he did when he was 11, 12, 13 years old and continued with that up until this day. I'm pretty sure it's going to be close to impossible to find.

Also, the whole "the right circumstances" thing is pretty evident in the hockey world right now with just how much parity there is both at the NHL and the international level. It's especially evident at the junior level where Sweden, Finland and USA has closed in on Canada. They've not done so because all of a sudden they had more kids with the special gene X playing hockey. They've done so because they've improved their hockey programs and given these kids better opportunities at succeeding than before. The american USNTDP program being a good example of this.

Another example is Russia, or the USSR and the Red Army rather I wasn't born back then but I'm sure people in the West saw them as just supremely talented hockey players, even today russian players are known for their skill. Where did that come from? Did they just have more talent than everyone else? Or did they work insanely hard to perfect their game?

From http://www.theplayerstribune.com/miracle-on-ice-hockey-russia/

At Red Army, you were a hockey player. That was your entire existence. We trained for 11 months straight and lived in simple barracks-style housing. The furniture was like a Motel 6, but after a few months it started to feel like Shawshank prison. There was one telephone for 25 players and you would have to stand in line to wait your turn to call your family or your girlfriend (you had to pick). We would practice on the ice for four hours a day and then lift weights, run, and do off-ice training for another five to six hours. We might watch film for two hours after that. Off days? That’s funny. No off days. You skated every single day. I remember before and after the 1984 Olympics, we were given six “nights off†the entire year. This meant that if the game ended at 9:30 p.m., you could leave the facility and go see your family until practice the next morning.

Talent, or hard work?

 

[Zaddy]

Matt Hendricks does not work hard enough to be a 1st line player then I guess, same with Boyd Gordon. If you think that Gaudreau does not have exceptional talents to be a great hockey player then I am in total disagreement with you. Of course he has worked extremely hard but that is not specific to Gaudreau in the sporting world. I guess every other sub 5'10" player that didn't make the NHL just didn't work hard enough? Or maybe just maybe Gaudreau has some great talents that when honed with hard work made him the player that he is today, I know that's the angle that I pick.

Hard work in itself doesn't mean anything if you don't work/train in the right way. Do you think Matt Hendricks did any of the drills McDavid did in these videos when he was growing up? Do you think he stickhandled as much as Gaudreau did? It's not talent, it's single-minded training with a purpose.

Do me a favor then, if you have or will have children. If it's a boy and hes tall, train him to be better than Jordan and Lebron. If not then better than Gretzky. If it's a girl teach her to sing better than Aretha Franklin, be the best athlete at whatever sport you or her choose for her. If none of these are done then I guess it's simply because you didn't instill the proper work ethic in them and not because they have limitations and because the others were straight up exceptionally gifted athletes.

Yeah, that's not how it works. You can't force your children to do something. That's not a recipe for success. It has to come from within the child itself. If it doesn't have the passion to pursue any of these things it doesn't matter what I, as a parent, do. But if that child does indeed have the passion and I have the means (money/connections) to help them get everything they need, then yes that child is likely to be very successful. It's not a coincidence so many children of former NHLers become NHLers themselves. It's not that they inherited a special gene from parents that guarantee athlethic success, it's world-class advice combined with access to world-class training/coaching.

Hence he already had good GENETICS to be a basketball payer, he also had a great drive, height and athleticism. Not everyone is built in such a way to be the worlds strongest or fastest person.

Genetics, in a scientific sense, doesn't mean anything (at least as far as I'm aware, if there's science on this feel free to enlighten me), but as mentioned above having a parent who have been there and done that helps tremendously.

Then what are you going to be elite at? I know what I am/am not good at. If I applied myself and worked hard towards it I probably could've been a worlds strongest man type or a NFL player, not a pro basketbll player or a pro musician, those simply are not talents that I have.

Again, it's not about talents. You could've been a pro musician if you had been passionate about music as a kid and wanted to learn everything about it (while also getting the right opportunities when you've become good enough to live off it).

Everyone wants to be the next Gretzky, Jordan, Ali, etc. but there's a reason why these guys were who they were, incredible gifts AND work ethics. One alone does not get you to the top of the sports world, you can't tell me that Ales Hemsky works harder than Matt Hendricks yet one was seen as a 1st liner while the other has been a career 3rd/4th liner. You can't just choose 100 random babies and turn them into Gretzky, Jordan, Ali, Montana, The Beatles, Elvis, Metallica, Da Vince, Einstein, etc.

As I mentioned at the top of this post, a guy like Hemsky probably worked a lot more on the skill elements of hockey while growing up than Hendricks did. It's possible that Hendricks got pigeon-holed into a certain role in hockey and that's what he adapted himself and his training to, instead of working on his overall game. That's a real thing and a big problem among youth in sports overall. It all comes back to opportunity.

As for the 100 random babies thing, well that's pretty obvious. Most human beings doesn't have an innate burning passion to be the best in the world at something. Humans are lazy and want instant gratification beyond all. That's why a kid like McDavid is so special. Having that passion from such a young age and not trailing off the path despite years of hard work and intense scrutiny and pressure from the outside world. That's incredibly rare.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

Ninth of the THN Top 50 NHLer's list.

 

[Draiskull]

Genetics, in a scientific sense, doesn't mean anything (at least as far as I'm aware, if there's science on this feel free to enlighten me), but as mentioned above having a parent who have been there and done that helps tremendously.

There is a lot more to having a professional athlete for a parent than just someone who has been there.


"Heritability of sub-traits
The heritability of a trait is generally considered an estimation of the importance of genetic factors to that trait. For example, the heritability of athletic status (regardless of sport) is estimated to be 66% (4). Height, which is critical for success in some sports, is highly heritable, with about 80% of the variation due to genetic factors (5). Body type (having mesomorphic or ectomorphic somatotype) is also highly heritable (6). These somatotypes are classically associated with power or endurance athlete status, respectively (7).

Costa et al. (8) recently reviewed the existing family and twin studies related to specific endurance and muscular strength phenotypes. Aerobic endurance, as reflected by VO2max has a heritability of about 50% (9). Heritability estimates for muscular strength, and power range from 30 to 83%, depending on the specific muscle and type of contraction (8)."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3993978/

 

[Dorian2]

Everyone is right here. It's a combination of physical attributes, the way you think, genetics which are part of physical and mental attributes, hard work, fortitude, practice, emotion, where you live, where you grew up, family situations, everything.

This stuff can't be pigeon holed into a category or 2. It's also a huge decision to either take it to the next 10 levels or not. There's way too much involved to just say Physical attributes, talent, and hard work. That's just the basis of what is really going on.

 

[40oz]

Lots of Connor McContent over at @BiosteelSports right now for their annual camp, Nurse's there too (and Hall )

 

[McOvechking]

Lots of Connor McContent over at @BiosteelSports right now for their annual camp, Nurse's there too (and Hall)

Hall looks jacked. ****, I miss him already.

 

[Dorian2]

Hall looks jacked. ****, I miss him already.

What a machine Hall is. Awesome!

 

[Aequitas]

There is a lot more to having a professional athlete for a parent than just someone who has been there.


"Heritability of sub-traits
The heritability of a trait is generally considered an estimation of the importance of genetic factors to that trait. For example, the heritability of athletic status (regardless of sport) is estimated to be 66% (4). Height, which is critical for success in some sports, is highly heritable, with about 80% of the variation due to genetic factors (5). Body type (having mesomorphic or ectomorphic somatotype) is also highly heritable (6). These somatotypes are classically associated with power or endurance athlete status, respectively (7).

Costa et al. (8) recently reviewed the existing family and twin studies related to specific endurance and muscular strength phenotypes. Aerobic endurance, as reflected by VO2max has a heritability of about 50% (9). Heritability estimates for muscular strength, and power range from 30 to 83%, depending on the specific muscle and type of contraction (8)."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3993978/

Obviously there is some genetics involved in sports. Someone who got a genetic disease from their parents won't make a pro league. From where I stand the point isn't that genetics account for nothing but more so that to reach pro/elite status has WAY more to do with hours practiced (and effective practice) than any inherited genes. If you read the biography of any star in any sport the overriding story is how much time they invested in their sport from an incredibly young age. Sure maybe genetics were the reasons why they initially had success or were more likely to be involved but at the end of the day the work put in is much more important than anything else.

I heard about a study on team 1260 where they looked at violinists from a prestigious school and tried to capture what could possibly be the difference between the elite and the ones that became teachers. The only thing they could find (and they looked for pretty much any common point) was the hours practiced was the only common denominator on level of success. Physical sports are a little different as someone who is taller or bigger will have an advantage and probably need to achieve less mastery of the sport than someone who had a disadvantage but at the end of the day anyone who makes it put in more effort than those who don't (barring injuries).

 

[The Head Crusher]

By Christmas.

By the end of the first period on opening night

 

[40oz]

Hall looks jacked. ****, I miss him already.

Team Nurse's top pick


Nurse is really filling out (bonus Gazdic)

 

[snipes]

Team Nurse's top pick


Nurse is really filling out (bonus Gazdic)

Our pup is looking jacked .

Oh man, other teams and their fans are going to hate Darnell when he grows into being an alpha dog.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

There's no on ice contact stuff with these guys, right? I would hate to see Torres do something stupid to someone.

 

[duul]

Nurse looks like a 45 year old MMA fighter.

He looks 2x the size he did last offseason. Holy smokes.