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

[DuckyGirard]

Bingo. Calling it genetics is hiding behind Capitalism's blatant impact on the entire world.
Eugenics is just Fancy White Supremacy is just Colonialism.

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

I don't think you understand how markets work.

If we had a non capitalistic version of hockey, non hockey parents couldn't buy coaching.

Parents who know hockey would teach their kids very well, while the average pleb would be reliant on community coaches who if talented would be impossible to get coached by unless your dad had a position of power in government.

Your entire narrative is counter factual.

The russian system didn't even focus on stick work. You'd skate for years before people would invest in your stick work. Now imagine if your dad had you starting stick work at 5, when the government system had you teaching stickwork at 10.

Not to mention there's absolutely zero rational for hockey rinks in a non capitalistic society, as the resources to make ice is incredibly extreme. The only reason the soviet union had the system they had was purely based on a rather extreme variant of russian militaristic-nationalism, the kind that persists today.

I'd be perfectly happy living in a world where far less money went into hockey. It'd be a northern sport, limited to the winter months.

But it'd be far less talented and who your parents are and where you were born would end up being virtually everything.

 

[DuckyGirard]

This is an interesting aspect to me too. Certainly a lot is spoken about kids of NHL players and the advantages (often nepotism) at play there...

But just looking at the Oilers roster for example (just because it's the one I'm most familiar with), you have guys like Darnel Nurse who's dad was a Canadian football WR (and his sister is a Canadian Basketball Olympian, cousin is a hockey Olympian) or Caleb Jones who's father was an NBA power forward. Even JJ Khaira's parents were apparently high-level volleyball players. So it seems that success in athletics in general is nearly as important as success in hockey specifically.

Chalking this up to wealth alone seems awfully simple.

Nurse is an awful example because he's an exception in terms of genetics. You don't play the way he did in game 4 without those genetics.

That's an exception not the norm in this league.

 

[Pointteen]

I don't think you understand how markets work.

If we had a non capitalistic version of hockey, non hockey parents couldn't buy coaching.

Parents who know hockey would teach their kids very well, while the average pleb would be reliant on community coaches who if talented would be impossible to get coached by unless your dad had a position of power in government.

Your entire narrative is counter factual.

The russian system didn't even focus on stick work. You'd skate for years before people would invest in your stick work. Now imagine if your dad had you starting stick work at 5, when the government system had you teaching stickwork at 10.

Not to mention there's absolutely zero rational for hockey rinks in a non capitalistic society, as the resources to make ice is incredibly extreme. The only reason the soviet union had the system they had was purely based on a rather extreme variant of russian militaristic-nationalism, the kind that persists today.

I'd be perfectly happy living in a world where far less money went into hockey. It'd be a northern sport, limited to the winter months.

But it'd be far less talented and who your parents are and where you were born would end up being virtually everything.

I don't have to imagine anything about being forced to work on my hockey at a young age.

Nor do I think you understand that my point was about the accessibility issues being a problem.
I didn't say anything about markets in the post you quoted.

 

[majormajor]

It’s also one of the few fields where merit is pretty much the single deciding factor in determining who “makes it”, at least when it comes to players. No doubt there is some nepotism off ice, but I don’t think you can really read anything into the fact that Radko Gudas has a sister who played in the Olympics, for example.

"Nepotism" is the wrong word for it.

This is just the same phenomenon as kids from well-off parents getting the best educations, the best out of school opportunities, instant access to private tutoring if they have any difficulties, someone to drive them around, etc... It's not nepotistic to give your child the best education money can buy, you don't begrudge those people. It's just unfair on the macro level because that means the kids with the most "merit" are going to be those same kids who had the most invested in them in the first place, and so on the cycle goes...

Ice hockey is becoming increasingly closed off in that same way. The kids who get the most invested in them are more and more the ones who end up having the most "merit".

Agreed, but hockey is more widespread and more popular than ever. The number of NHL teams (and thus roster spots) have increased significantly since the early 1990s. Is there something different, or worthwhile examining, that changed recently and can explain the sharp increase in percentage of players who have a family connection?

Forty years ago it didn't matter whether you were from rural Saskatchewan or suburban Toronto, or whether you were from Cape Breton or Halifax. If you had ice time you could play and you could keep up. What changed is now money can buy a lot better skills training at young ages. On ice camps with specialist coaches, off-ice training with very expensive equipment and private coaches, etc... It is five figures or maybe even six figures annually to give a kid the best training. And to get that you have to be rich and be in proximity to where those specialist coaches are. Retired players can perhaps somewhat substitute their knowledge for some of the cost, but the better explanation is that those retired players also tend to be rich.

A good example is the falling proportion of players from Saskatchewan, and the increasing proportion of players from Metro Toronto. There isn't enough concentrated wealth in Saskatchewan to support a base of niche trainers and coaches who specialize in developing skills in children. Likewise, if you know a rookie is coming from Nova Scotia, you can now bet that they are in the half of the population in and around Halifax. They won't be from Cape Breton. Al Macinnis and Norm Batherson came from Cape Breton, and now their sons are in the NHL. But their sons developed elsewhere, in larger metros where they had specialist training.

 

[DuckyGirard]

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.

scientific racism revolved around denying statistical evidence to fit a racial-political agenda.

Factual science is the polar opposite of that, you couldn't be more wrong.

Natural athleticism is almost entirely genetic.

Skills can be developed but genetics is huge in sports like basketball.

Even something like "hockey iq" correlates to IQ score. Which is also largely genetic.

The problem with the genetic issues isn't that genetic isn't important, it's that you only get half of your genes from your parent, and it's a random assortment of genes. So if your dad has a perfect royal flush, you get half of those cards at random. Yes you may end up with a ace king, or you may end up with a jack and a 10, and loose out to an average joe with a pair of 3s.

The randomness of it all is enough of a factor that you can't assume genetics is that substantial. There's nothing to suggest that nhlers are created by natural athleticism.

If physical traits were so important they'd have far more influence in drafting.

The reality is it is very likely the average nhlers isn't any more athletic than the captain of your highschool football team. Above average sure, but nothing that is gonna be setting any records.

There are obviously a select few nhlers that are pure freaks but they are a minority.

 

[majormajor]

I don't think you understand how markets work.

If we had a non capitalistic version of hockey, non hockey parents couldn't buy coaching.

Parents who know hockey would teach their kids very well, while the average pleb would be reliant on community coaches who if talented would be impossible to get coached by unless your dad had a position of power in government.

Your entire narrative is counter factual.

The russian system didn't even focus on stick work. You'd skate for years before people would invest in your stick work. Now imagine if your dad had you starting stick work at 5, when the government system had you teaching stickwork at 10.

Not to mention there's absolutely zero rational for hockey rinks in a non capitalistic society, as the resources to make ice is incredibly extreme. The only reason the soviet union had the system they had was purely based on a rather extreme variant of russian militaristic-nationalism, the kind that persists today.

I'd be perfectly happy living in a world where far less money went into hockey. It'd be a northern sport, limited to the winter months.

But it'd be far less talented and who your parents are and where you were born would end up being virtually everything.

I am an expert on the Soviet Union, and I can see you understand some aspects of Soviet society - how access depended on who you knew, how ice hockey was promoted for nationalistic prestige reasons, etc...

But why is that the only alternative possible to capitalism? Is it that hard to imagine a system where children could have equal access, where it didn't depend purely on money or purely on connections? We can do better than both!

 

[majormajor]

It's almost as if someone who has the genetic make up to make it to the NHL's relative would have a similar genetic make up...

Certainly a factor, but how would you explain it if family relation was becoming an increasingly important factor?

 

[majormajor]

For context:
I'm involved in public policy, and there's a phenomenon that social scientists and economists have noticed in the past 30 years: a consolidation of opportunity, resources, social capital, and institutional knowledge by ~10% - 20% of the population. A class Richard Reeves calls the "dream hoarders." I'd be happy to speak more broadly about this in my DMs if you are interested, but I'm making this post because I think it applies to the hockey world as well. Basically, I don't think it's true anymore that hockey is just a rich, white guy's sport. It has become controlled by a select, shrinking number of families.

I remember 10 years ago how big a deal the Staal and Sutter families were for being so ingrained in hockey. And everybody could name the handful of brothers who played in the league simultaneously. Now, it seems like every other NHLer (and every high end prospect) has a family member who was a professional athlete either in the NHL or in Europe. I.e. the likelihood of a boy making it to the NHL is becoming more and more dependent on whether or not he was born to a family who has already made it.

The little project I'm undertaking is trying to figure out how much more common it has become over time for any given NHLer to have professional sports ties. What I am currently doing is looking at the Florida Panthers rosters in 2021, 2016, and 2011, and going through the players to see if they have any of these familial connections. EliteProspects has a great feature that helps with this.

Obviously I'm not going to do this for all teams, but if you are interested in answering this posts' titular question, look up your favorite team's roster in 2021, 2016, and 2011, and let's see if there are any trends that can be found.

Florida Panthers 2021.....33% (11/33) have a family connection

• Spencer Knight (cousin is a female pro)
• Kevin Connauton (brother was an NCAA Division I)
• Gustav Forsling (brother was a pro in Sweden)
• Radko Gudas (father was drafted by the Flames, sister was a Czech Olympian, brother-in-law is Michael Neuvirth)
• Mackenzie Weegar (uncle played in NHL)
• Keith Yandle (uncle worked in NHL front offices, brother played in ECHL)
• Aleksander Barkov (uncle was a pro in Finland and Russia)
• Grigori Denisenko (brother is a pro in Russia)
• Mason Marchment (father played in NHL, cousin played in AHL, cousin is a female pro)
• Owen Tippett (cousin is Mitchell Stephens)
• Alex Wennberg (cousin is a pro in Sweden)

Florida Panthers 2016.....35% (13/37) have a family connection

• Roberto Luongo (brother is an AHL goaltending coach)
• Brian Campbell (brother played in ECHL)
• Erik Gudbranson (brother played in AHL)
• Jakub Kindl (brother is a pro in Czechia)
• Dylan Olsen (uncle was a pro in Germany)
• Aleksander Barkov (uncle was a pro in Finland and Russia)
  
• Nick Bjugstad (uncle played in NHL)
• Connor Brickley (father drafted by Kings, cousins played in AHL)
• Jiri Hudler (father was a pro in Czechia)
• Jussi Jokinen (brother was a pro in Finland)
• Greg McKegg (uncle played in NHL)
• Kyle Rau (brother played in NHL)
• Reilly Smith (brother is Brendan Smith)

Florida Panthers 2011.....18% (7/40) have a family connection

• Tyler Plante (father and brother played in NHL)
• Keaton Ellbergy (cousins are Shane Doan and Carey Price)
• Niclas Bergfors (brother was a pro in Sweden)
• Michael Frolik (brother was a pro in Czechia)
• Mike Santorelli (brother played in the AHL)
• Cory Stillman (son is Riley Stillman, father played in the NHL)
• Stephen Weiss (uncle is NHL coach)

I'd like to see a study just look at the change in the proportion of players whose fathers played professional hockey in a high level league.

Having siblings or cousins who played amateur or low level pro isn't as telling, I don't think. It could be because both siblings benefited from parental wealth. It could also be largely genetic. And it's possibly going to be biased if eliteprospects improves their record keeping over time, as they cover more and more lower leagues.

If we just look at players whose fathers played professional hockey, it is more likely that it will tell us something about wealth and advantage being passed down intergenerationally.

 

[DuckyGirard]

It has always been fascinating how many people cling to the "work hard and you can make it" thing. I mean, pretty much everyone at a top level works hard. But that is the point. These are genetic freaks. A very good predictor of athletic ability is Standing Vertical Jump. (SVJ). IF you get someone who can jump 34", you have the makings of a high level athlete. But here's the thing: you can improve your SVJ some, but not a lot. Meaning, my 24" SVJ when I was in my early twenties might be able to get to 27", but 34" was never happening. You either have it or you don't.

The "all-hard work, no talent" guys you hear about on NHL teams or baseball teams or whatever, were almost guaranteed the best players in their area growing up, unless they grew up with a current league all-star in their cohort. These guys still have more talent in one hand than 95% of the population. Hard work differentiates between talent, but having no talent is going to keep you on the sideline.
Problem with your jumping narrative is the nature of the bell curve.

Maybe 10 percent of the population can hit 34 inches, but maybe only 1 percent can hit 36 inches.

So if you get to the 90ths percentile you're not facing that much competition from people with 37 inch jumps.

As a result once you qualify as a 34incher, the jumping metric is no longer much of a predictor.

Being amazing at any one thing won't make you successful being above average on multiple fronts is far more important once you qualify. In which case training is likely far more important.

I've never seen anything to suggest that nhlers have phenomenal genetics.

In contrast 99 percent of people lack the height for basketball and without speed and strength height's useless.

Seems to be the case if you're best athlete in your gym class you're nhl material.

Everyone of us knows at least one guy who no matter what sport it is, they are quite good at it, and often without having played it very often. Genetics.

My bet is that there's a whole lot of transferable skills between sports. In my opinion being able to pace and position yourself within context of natural genetics is everything.

 

[Michael HOMERUNing]

In the future it'll still be a rich family league, only those who can afford to genetically modify their children will have the chance to raise a NHLer

 

[DuckyGirard]

I am an expert on the Soviet Union, and I can see you understand some aspects of Soviet society - how access depended on who you knew, how ice hockey was promoted for nationalistic prestige reasons, etc...

But why is that the only alternative possible to capitalism? Is it that hard to imagine a system where children could have equal access, where it didn't depend purely on money or purely on connections? We can do better than both!

It's the only working example in connection to actual hockey, isn't all that more complicated.

"purely on connections" again this is the rarest in capitalistic societies, in almost all other examples it gets far worst.

The reason I'm making the blanket statement is because "the system" pretty much highlights capitalism at its best. Capitalism provides the freedom to waste vast sums of money on a sport that requires more resources than it gives back. In turn capitalism also allows for some overcharged hyper competitive development system to exist.

Can't think of another system that would encourage such waste and such specialisation for a hobby.

 

[Michael HOMERUNing]

Nhl Hockey has always been a good ol boys network that rewards legacies and those with simular pedigrees over others... its also rather xenophobic, and there is a pecking order even among North Americans... its a weird culture to say the least

Ontario boys --> Canadians (outside of Ontario and Quebec) --> Americans --> French Canadiens

 

[majormajor]

It's the only working example in connection to actual hockey, isn't all that more complicated.

"purely on connections" again this is the rarest in capitalistic societies, in almost all other examples it gets far worst.

The reason I'm making the blanket statement is because "the system" pretty much highlights capitalism at its best. Capitalism provides the freedom to waste vast sums of money on a sport that requires more resources than it gives back. In turn capitalism also allows for some overcharged hyper competitive development system to exist.

Can't think of another system that would encourage such waste and such specialisation for a hobby.

-- I don't know how access to hockey works in Finland or in Sweden, we might look into that to see if there are any differences.

-- In any case, I think it is ridiculous if you can only argue in terms of the extreme Soviet Union or extreme capitalism. People are very capable of doing better than both, and your brain is capable of imagining it!

-- Waste is going to be pretty relative here. A very large proportion of each advanced economy goes towards hobbies, sport/exercise, aesthetics, and all manner of other stuff that isn't a pivotal need. I don't know why waste is a topic here for you. Borrowing your terms, the Soviet Union "wasted" more on ice hockey than capitalist Russia has "wasted". Czechoslovakia "wasted" dramatically more on hockey than its capitalist successor states.

 

[DuckyGirard]

"Nepotism" is the wrong word for it.

This is just the same phenomenon as kids from well-off parents getting the best educations, the best out of school opportunities, instant access to private tutoring if they have any difficulties, someone to drive them around, etc... It's not nepotistic to give your child the best education money can buy, you don't begrudge those people. It's just unfair on the macro level because that means the kids with the most "merit" are going to be those same kids who had the most invested in them in the first place, and so on the cycle goes...

Ice hockey is becoming increasingly closed off in that same way. The kids who get the most invested in them are more and more the ones who end up having the most "merit".

Don't get too far ahead of yourself. We could see a reversal of the trend, as internet technology and more relevantly trainers who know how to learn from the internet become more relevant.

Then you have things like synethetic ice, motion capture technologies, and vr that could level the playing field in ways we can't currently imagine.

As much as people waste money on training it isn't clear that it is as critical as people believe, provided 2nd tier/affordable systems emerge.

Obviously in the current era so much of everything is about being absorbed into the competitive junior hockey stream, and making your way into the chl.

But this is already changing with ncaa hockey etc.

Also our prospect system is also becoming broader so players that were missed because of their less than stellar development years are getting looks they've never gotten before.

Forty years ago it didn't matter whether you were from rural Saskatchewan or suburban Toronto, or whether you were from Cape Breton or Halifax.

Problem with that narrative is that you really don't know.

One wild card factor that people are ignoring is the simple influence of steroids, and more relevantly the willingness to put your kid on hormones at a young age.

Simply looking at the faces of 25 year old nhlers and it becomes clear, hormones are heavily used while young. It's also a fact that steroids have radical influence on performance.

Steroids are such a radical advantage especially when you're 14-15.

I would suspect willingness to send your kid to a "weight gainer" camp is a huge issue, something an nhl dad wouldn't think twice about and yet the average person would pull their kids out of the sport.

But the steroid issue is completely forbidden for whatever reason.

And again steroids don't just make your muscles bigger. In fact steroids can actually make your muscles stronger and smaller by reworking your ratio of fast twitch muscle fibres.

It's funny because in Newfoundland it was obvious that steroids weren't heavily used. But it was always funny when someone came back from mainland hockey and was obviously using.

Met a number of people who deny the steroid usage, and it was usually from people who flunked out of the system.

 

[DuckyGirard]

-- I don't know how access to hockey works in Finland or in Sweden, we might look into that to see if there are any differences.

My guess is it's pretty similar to whatever goes on in Canada, with the exception being those countries are far far smaller and likely get the same concentration of resources that occurs in southern ontario.

-- In any case, I think it is ridiculous if you can only argue in terms of the extreme Soviet Union or extreme capitalism. People are very capable of doing better than both, and your brain is capable of imagining it!

I'm from newfoundland have a good idea of what the middle looks like.

Community owned rinks etc. None of this changes the equation.

I talk about the extremes because it illustrates the point.

No offence but Newfoundland makes you a relative expert on the topic. We see both extremes(people working in the tar sands/welfare recipients) and a whole lot of crossover.

Borrowing your terms, the Soviet Union "wasted" more on ice hockey than capitalist Russia has "wasted". Czechoslovakia "wasted" dramatically more on hockey than its capitalist successor states.

And by your own logic these were extreme situations, and were heavily motivated by extremist nationalism.

It's the how you'd get people to invest in a system in a democracy.

-- Waste is going to be pretty relative here. A very large proportion of each advanced economy goes towards hobbies, sport/exercise, aesthetics, and all manner of other stuff that isn't a pivotal need. I don't know why waste is a topic here for you.

Because I can only assume you're referring to a system where governments contribute more to the sport.

And creating artificial ice is incredibly resource intensive.

Why would you take the resources allocated for 10 soccer fields or 10 basketball courts and dump it into hockey.

 

[majormajor]

My guess is it's pretty similar to whatever goes on in Canada, with the exception being those countries are far far smaller and likely get the same concentration of resources that occurs in southern ontario.


I'm from newfoundland have a good idea of what the middle looks like.

Community owned rinks etc. None of this changes the equation.

I talk about the extremes because it illustrates the point.

No offence but Newfoundland makes you a relative expert on the topic. We see both extremes(people working in the tar sands/welfare recipients) and a whole lot of crossover.

So I'm hearing from you that those other countries are probably like Southern Ontario, and Newfoundland is in the middle of the spectrum between both extremes so you're an expert... I'm a bit skeptical that that cuts it. Canada has a lot to learn from many European nations. I'm originally from Cape Breton and I live in the States. I wouldn't say that those two pieces of experience cover half of what I'd want to know here.

 

[Zenos]

Nurse is an awful example because he's an exception in terms of genetics.

Sweet. Did you actually read what I wrote and consider the meaning before blasting it as an awful example?

 

[Voight]

It's not about nepotism.
It's about Radko Gudas' father having the hockey experience and genes that he passed down to his children.
His daughter then married an NHL player, which means that child will have two parents (and an uncle, and a grandparent) immersed in the hockey world. Sure, that kid might have the genes and merit to become an NHLer, but you can't ignore his lineage. Somebody with that much support is of course going to have a massive leg up on a regular kid.

I'm not making a moral or value judgement on this. I'm just pointing out that it's happening, and I think it's accelerating.

It doesn't always work that way. Gretzky's son played baseball and wasn't very good at hockey.

 

[golfortennis]

It doesn't always work that way. Gretzky's son played baseball and wasn't very good at hockey.

In fairness, Gretzky didn't want his boys playing hockey. It was a no-win proposal for them.

But the athletic ability passed down is what is the key. Only a small percentage of players play professional baseball. The number of top athletes whose parents were world class in other sports is huge.

 

[golfortennis]

Maybe 10 percent of the population can hit 34 inches, but maybe only 1 percent can hit 36 inches.

So if you get to the 90ths percentile you're not facing that much competition from people with 37 inch jumps.

As a result once you qualify as a 34incher, the jumping metric is no longer much of a predictor.

Being amazing at any one thing won't make you successful being above average on multiple fronts is far more important once you qualify. In which case training is likely far more important.

I've never seen anything to suggest that nhlers have phenomenal genetics.

In contrast 99 percent of people lack the height for basketball and without speed and strength height's useless.

Seems to be the case if you're best athlete in your gym class you're nhl material.



My bet is that there's a whole lot of transferable skills between sports. In my opinion being able to pace and position yourself within context of natural genetics is everything.

It's not about who jumps highest. It's about someone having a 34" SVJ has the neural-muscular efficiency to perform athletic functions at an elite level.

And it is far lower than 10% who can legit jump 34".

If you think there are not phenomenal genetics in NHL players, you are entitled to your opinion. If that is the case, why are some players better than others? They all work hard, so it's not that.

 

[SomeDude]

Becoming? The NHL and hockey has historically been filled by generations of families.

 

[rambo97]

Interesting topic OP. I can see how and why you came up with your conclusions but this is just my humble opinion - I think it's not accurate and I'll explain why below.

I have an 11 year old son that plays hockey here in Edmonton. He started late (7-8 years old in Novice) which was 4 years ago. He learned to skate young (about 3) in those learn to skate programs but he was functional - not good. He joined hockey and was placed in the worst tier (6). Last year (though messed up due to Covid) he got into tier 1. That's still not elite for his age group as there is double-A (which you have to apply for and try-out) and someone also started something called a super league (which may also have much better players though I'm not very knowledgeable about it). But he's improved a lot.

We have gone on quite a journey to improve his hockey skills and I have learned a lot about what is needed to be a good hockey player. Hockey is much different than other sports as the skills needed are quite unique. You need to really develop your gross motor skills in order to excel. Hockey requires excellent skating (therefore need to practice it a lot), great stickhandling (again need to practice a lot), ability to shoot, hockey IQ, and strength and power (which means learning which exercises are needed to produce the effect you want) to skate well, stickhandle and shoot. And then you need to be able to combine all of the above skills together to be effective.

I put my son in a bunch of camps around Edmonton to improve all the above. Some instructors are very knowledgeable and some aren't. And even putting him into a bunch of camps doesn't mean anything. Instructors aren't able to provide personalized coaching to your kid. So it's either up to the kid to figure it out or the parents and child to figure it out together.

In any case, I strongly believe being knowledgeable about hockey (which former players are) gives their kids an advantage. And that is why their kids end up in the best league in the world more often.

Going back to my kid as an example, I put him into a bunch of edge and skating classes to improve his skating and stickhandling classes. It did help him improve but to get him to the next level I had to become knowledgeable enough about all these different aspects to get him to the next level.

For skating, when to use what technique in given situations, for stickhandling we had to learn dribbling because in order to look up while you are skating you need to dribble to puck and back and forth to know where it is without looking down. For shooting, how to shoot in stride, how to change angles of your shot etc. To be effective you really need to build a base and you need to build a lot of these at the right age or it becomes harder for kids to excel as they move up.

With kids of former players, the Parents understand all this and put their kids in the right camps, with the correct instruction and then they are able to provide their own expertise to help their kids excel.

Hockey is quickly becoming a sport with specialized knowledge. If you have it or can pay for someone to provide it to your kid, they will have an advantage. If you don't know this then your kid will likely struggle.

I didn't know any of this when I started out.....I have had to do a ton of research and learn a lot along the way. And I made so many mistakes. In the first year, I put him into hockey year-round (winter & spring hockey) with lots of camps cause I thought that was the way to improve (using Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hour rule as a guide). I then learned that was one of the worst mistakes parents can do (in any sport) after I read an ESPN article about the damage year round basketball was having on kids in the US (also researched a bunch of development models in Canada, US, Sweden and Finland to learn of my faulty logic). His first year going into Atom I made him jog with me for 20 min 3 times a week and learned afterward how that is one of the worst types of training for hockey players and will diminish how effective they are on the ice. Even something as simple the right stick length eluded me. I was shocked to see how the right stick length will improve skating for example.

This is all something former hockey players already know and can impart that wisdom on their kids and thus giving them an advantage in the development phase. That is why I think you are seeing more former NHLers kids in the league.

Also, I haven't read all the posts in this thread (just the last page). I see some discussion about genes.....they obviously matter but I encourage you to read the book "The Sports Gene". It will make you rethink your "genetics" angle.

Also, someone mentioned that the internet now has all the training information anybody needs to excel these days so it shouldn't matter where they are from. This statement is kind of true but I will say for hockey, the training information is not as readily available or organized. Lots of information out there but some of it is accurate and others exist for monetary purposes only. Just research "right stick length" and see what you get (hint: you will get lots of posts about your chin, nose, eyebrow, etc but none of it is correct). And the right stick length will impact proper skating to such a great degree as well as stickhandling but it's crazy that it's so hard to find).

This is very different for other sports. For example, for my son to learn and improve in basketball, baseball and lacrosse was much easier. There is much better information available for those sports vs hockey.

That is why having a former NHLer is such an advantage for these kids. The development model is more laser-focused and proper/accurate. The kids get the right information, at the right time to accelerate their development. And as others have said, I think if you don't have money, hockey is a very difficult sport to play and/or excel in. I have learned a lot but I don't think I could have without spending money on camps to see what they were doing and trying to understand the logic and then learning. So I could have researched on the internet but I wouldn't know which advice to follow and which not to etc.

If you have money and the knowledge/connections I think it gives your kids a competitive advantage. Obviously, no guarantees (as your size and IQ will impact your goals) but all these former NHLers kids have all these factors working in their favor to help them get to the NHL.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

Weird, my wife and I are both teachers and our son plays high level club hockey. We certainly aren’t rich.

How many rinks/teams/programs are accessible in under an hour drive from where he was raised/played hockey? Does your son have relatives that play at any level?

Honest question.

I think affluence is just part of it, but acessibility and popularity are another. (If your son had a ton of similarly aged kids to play with, whether organically or found from programs), I think that may be part of him playing.

Affluence gives people a leg up, but experience/exposure plays in, and in case of the OP point, especially if you have a familiar connection to it at any level.

 

[robertmac43]

Basically, I don't think it's true anymore that hockey is just a rich, white guy's sport. It has become controlled by a select, shrinking number of families.

This is a really interesting post and hypothesis. I think you are definitely on to something here. I have season tickets to an OHL team and my Dad and I often do a thought experiment where we make a team of all the former NHL relatives playing in the game. The number is astounding in Junior hockey and think that would be a great place to look at the numbers as well.

 

[MadLuke]

My guess is it's pretty similar to whatever goes on in Canada, with the exception being those countries are far far smaller and likely get the same concentration of resources that occurs in southern ontario.

Depend on the city I would imagine, there is a small sweden single city: Örnsköldsvik - Wikipedia where the famous Modo team play, the city is around 32K, like Val-d'Or in Quebec and from that city you have that list of NHLER:
NHL Players from Örnsköldsvik, Sweden - Regular Season Stats

Sedin
Sedin
Forsberg
Naslund
Hedman
Hedberg-Sundstrom

Could be an small number aberration, could be popularity but :
Victor Hedman on how minor hockey is different in Sweden - Sportsnet.ca

Victor Hedman played hockey for the same organisation from 6 to 18 when he did leave for the NHL, without travel team, try out for level or camps you have to pay for.