Is hockey slowly becoming an aristocracy? (Need help answering this question)

[Zenos]

Nobody's doing this. But ascribing athletic superiority to genetics is really bankrupt mentality, and aligns too closely with eugenics and various forms of scientific racism.

Is that seriously your takeaway from my posts so far in this thread?

 

[Fantomas]

Don't be that guy. You have to be able to state facts about genetics without being racist or being accused of being one.

I'm not accusing anyone (or you) of being a racist. But people - and the media - aren't "stating facts" about genetics when they say casually stupid things about certain players coming from "great bloodlines."

This topic simply doesn't deserve the amount of ink it gets and, whether you like it or not, it does echo a lot of those discredited theories I mentioned.

 

[ChuckLefley]

Nobody's doing this. But ascribing athletic superiority to genetics is really bankrupt mentality, and aligns too closely with eugenics and various forms of scientific racism.

Do honestly believe that genetics has nothing to do with athletic ability? Or academic ability? Or artistic ability?

 

[barriers]

If hockey was about genetic talent, we'd get to cheer on the name Gretzky again.

Isn't Gretz' son a baseball player?

 

[Fantomas]

Do honestly believe that genetics has nothing to do with athletic ability? Or academic ability? Or artistic ability?

If we are to accept the premise that there are more hockey dynasties, it's completely superficial for us to jump into a discussion of genetics. Which is something we're so predisposed to do, because hockey discourse loves to talk about "bloodlines."

There is a much more real and significant issue of accessibility of opportunities in athletics to the children of affluent and connected families. On the list of all factors, genetics would be way down on my list.

 

[ChuckLefley]

If we are to accept the premise that there are more hockey dynasties, it's completely superficial for us to jump into a discussion of genetics. Which is something we're so predisposed to do, because hockey discourse loves to talk about "bloodlines."

There is a much more real and significant issue of accessibility of opportunities in athletics to the children of affluent and connected families. On the list of all factors, genetics would be way down on my list.

That’s a nice little blurb, but you didn’t answer my question. I’m not surprised, though.

 

[Fantomas]

That’s a nice little blurb, but you didn’t answer my question. I’m not surprised, though.

Your questions ascribe something to me which I didn't say. You either know this or don't know it because you didn't read what I wrote.

 

[ChuckLefley]

Your questions ascribe something to me which I didn't say. You either know this or don't know it because you didn't read what I wrote.

Nice gain, avoiding answering the question. It’s not hard, give it a try.

 

[Fantomas]

Nice gain, avoiding answering the question. It’s not hard, give it a try.

Don't be daft.

 

[Fantomas]

Isn't Gretz' son a baseball player?

What do you think this proves?

 

[ChuckLefley]

Don't be daft.

How am I being “daft?” I asked you a simple question. First you responded with some blurb that avoided answering the question. Then you responded by claiming I am saying you said something, while not answering the question. Now, you are commenting about me…while still avoiding the question. This could be an interesting discussion happening, if you had just answered.

 

[barriers]

What do you think this proves?

That it was an awful example

 

[Pittsburgh1776]

Thread already devolving into shallow claims of racism and eugenics. Ridiculous.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

"Legacy" players aren't that uncommon in baseball or basketball either. If you've devoted your entire life to playing a sport- quite literally- why would that suddenly change when you started a family?

Football is the exception, imo it's because of two factors, the brutal nature of the sport means getting to the pros without suffering debilitating injury or burnout is luck of the draw (pun unintended), and the risks of playing it mean less people are having their kids play it, former athletes included.

 

[Shinjuku Calling]

It's always been a rich kid sport.
In the US anyway.

 

[HBK27]

If we are to accept the premise that there are more hockey dynasties, it's completely superficial for us to jump into a discussion of genetics. Which is something we're so predisposed to do, because hockey discourse loves to talk about "bloodlines."

There is a much more real and significant issue of accessibility of opportunities in athletics to the children of affluent and connected families. On the list of all factors, genetics would be way down on my list.

Good for you. Most still recognize though it IS a factor and that it is worth discussing, which you apparently seem to have a problem with. Why you somehow brought racism into this conversation is completely baffling.

 

[Fantomas]

How am I being “daft?” I asked you a simple question. First you responded with some blurb that avoided answering the question. Then you responded by claiming I am saying you said something, while not answering the question. Now, you are commenting about me…while still avoiding the question. This could be an interesting discussion happening, if you had just answered.

I did answer your question and clarified my position very well. My point is that some people place too much emphasis on the role of genetics as a predictor of athletic excellence in sports. There are too many additional environmental, personal and economic factors in play to justify making such simplistic connections.

I'm not arguing that genetics have nothing to do with athleticism, or anything to that sort.

 

[Fantomas]

Good for you. Most still recognize though it IS a factor and that it is worth discussing, which you apparently seem to have a problem with. Why you somehow brought racism into this conversation is completely baffling.

Maybe you wouldn't be so baffled if you did some research on the topic.

 

[ChuckLefley]

I did answer your question and clarified my position very well. My point is that some people place too much emphasis on the role of genetics as a predictor of athletic excellence in sports. There are too many additional environmental, personal and economic factors in play to justify making such simplistic connections.

I'm not arguing that genetics have nothing to do with athleticism, or anything to that sort.

No, you really didn’t answer my question. You twisted it into something to prove you’re right. A simple yes or no is all that is needed. Give it a try.

 

[BondraTime]

Elite athletes give birth to kids with elite athletic genes.

More at 11

 

[Fantomas]

That it was an awful example

It's not a bad example. The Gretzky family has exactly one unqualified sporting genius.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The problem with that idea is that there is no evidence that we are seeing more family dynasties.

IMO simply looking at the number of sibling pairs in the NHL is strong anecdotal evidence.

A decade ago when the Benns arrived, they made 15 brother combinations playing in the NHL simultaneously. That accounted for 31 players, or about 5% of the league who were brothers. This does not even touch dads, uncles, etc who were former players.

I mean... let's wrap our heads around that. It's an insane number. There's no way a merit-based competitive system would spit out that kind of result.

It's worth noting that this isn't solely a hockey issue.

• There are 9 pairs of brothers in the NBA, of whom nearly all are children of pro or high-end college players. That would represent about 3% of the NBA. Of course, basketball has a much more clear-cut genetic component than nearly any other sport with a clear ban on normally proportioned humans, so it's perhaps no surprise that we would see NBA-proportioned parents producing NBA-proportioned families.
• I can't find any real data on the NFL, but their website identifies what looks like about 10 pairs of brothers who were active players when the list was made a couple of years ago. That would represent about 1% of the NFL, assuming all of them were active simultaneously.
• Baseball, as usual has the most obsessively-tracked data available. It's hard to parse the data visually, but I think I count 10 pairs of brothers who made appearances in 2019, or about 2-3% of MLB. I think this is the most useful data point, not just because it's closely tracked but also because baseball is a relatively accessible, globalized sport with a low genetic and economic barrier for entry.

I would love to have these figures for top-level soccer globally, but that's so complicated I wouldn't know where to begin.

Anyway, putting this all together it certainly appears that professional advancement in elite hockey is about twice as likely to be based on purely family connections compared the other major sports. As a proxy for inefficiencies in the development pipeline, that speaks very clearly to the sport falling behind and possibly even moving in the wrong direction with regard to youth development.

 

[Fantomas]

No, you really didn’t answer my question. You twisted it into something to prove you’re right. A simple yes or no is all that is needed. Give it a try.

I understand that you don't like my answer and I'm sorry you feel this way. Maybe you should move on.

 

[ChuckLefley]

I understand that you don't like my answer and I'm sorry you feel this way. Maybe you should move on.

I don’t like your answer because it was not a direct answer to my question. It was the kind of answer that someone gives when they know they can’t “win” a discussion. Perhaps you should move on since you clearly are too afraid to have a real discussion on the topic.

 

[mr figgles]

It seems to me that it’s the same way it’s always been. There might be more now, because there’s more teams, so more chances to make a team. As a percentage though, it’s probably similar to years past.