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

[MikeyMike01]

but aren't talking about any specifics, and it sounds like people spouting off on stuff they don't know.

on the internet? never

 

[Benttheknee]

You do need money to play, so that is true, but genetics is a big factor. You need both. Ex NHLers have those genes, the money and the access, so it isn't a surprise that the opportunities favour them. You could call this "privilege" if you wish, but players need to put in the effort to rise to the top.

When you look a the tips of the spear you can always find privilege, but few people are at the tip of the spear, so it is irrelevant to normal people. Moving towards the tip is what regular people should try to do. My father grew up in abject poverty. He got himself educated, married and has managed to get to upper middle class. He is a smart man, and a very hard worker. He started at the base of the spear and without any privilege beyond his own intelligence and character carved out a really good life for his family.

My point is that when you study the tip of the spear, you miss what is important to the vast majority of people. The vast majority can move up the spear without any access to privilege.

 

[majormajor]

Note the word, "relative" expert.

You mention the states a place where it's clear there's almost no one has first hand experience.

I'm sure if someone is from portions of quebec they are equally familiar.

And I'm not claiming to be a master of europe, I'm claiming to be a relative expert compared to most anglo north Americans.

Also the "many european" nations bit is the typical cliche that gets mentioned and it usually turns into a whole lot of nothing when you actually investigate the situation. The dutch have super high income equality and yet have some of the most extreme wealth inequalities in the world, turns out with high taxes the rich stay rich as they live off their assets and not income. non capitalistic models are pretty dam predictable in how they fail, it's not some advanced economic theory, it's some basic premises that tend to bulldoze over convoluted theory. Most of the actual success stories(germany) typically span out from embracing capitalism and modifying it with rational regulation.

Should also mention a whole lot of those "world ranking lists" are derived from having a nice climate and preferable population densities. Most of the claims are entirely subjective nonsense, used for political purposes and usually have little to do with political prowess.

This is just pointlessly off topic.

You can always find something to learn from other countries experiments, regardless of how you feel about their total economic system. I don't have to like the way the Dutch economy works to learn something from them about urban design. Likewise I would like to learn about how access to hockey works in Finland, Sweden, etc...

Certainly just living in Newfoundland doesn't make you a "relative" expert on the European experience.

I'll add that you seem to think Germany and Netherlands are very different but they share many features when it comes to taxation and regulation. Both nations tax the rich heavily. "Wealth" and "Wealth inequality" measures can be very misleading. They vary dramatically depending on whether pensions are private or public, on whether houses are treated like financial assets, and on how many rights stockholders have in each country. Incomes tell you more about a society.

 

[93LEAFS]

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.

NHL level is pure merit. But, don't kid yourself about lower levels. There are always a couple kids on high-end AAA teams in the GTA who are primarily there because their dad will foot the bill sponsorship-wise. Which limits the opportunity for certain kids to move up.

 

[DuckyGirard]

I should move to Canada if teachers are making six figures on average. Of course after looking I see a couple of provinces list six figures for the highest earning teachers. Of course to be among the highest earners involves being near the end of your career, which we aren’t.

Regardless you can live in a relatively rural hockey dominated town if you're a teacher. Two teachers in average town Canada is absolutely rich.

And unlike most careers you can be "end of your career" in your late 40s.

If two teachers marry they absolutely qualify as rich people. You're using creative math to suggest otherwise.

 

[DuckyGirard]

This is just pointlessly off topic.

The topic is directly about whether or not economics is creating a hockey aristocracy. So it's a direct offshoot.

You can always find something to learn from other countries experiments, regardless of how you feel about their total economic system. I don't have to like the way the Dutch economy works to learn something from them about urban design. Likewise I would like to learn about how access to hockey works in Finland, Sweden, etc...

You're going off topic, this was directly relating to the idea about whether or not capitalism is the cause of the issue. Lots of places do things well, but there's nothing in any of that, which suggests it's gonna change the nature of how costly it is to develop talent.

Certainly just living in Newfoundland doesn't make you a "relative" expert on the European experience.

Compared to most Americans absolutely. Just the same if you're from quebec or europe. Again "relative" in context of whether or not a country between the soviet system and Canadian system is gonna develop talent.

I'll add that you seem to think Germany and Netherlands are very different but they share many features when it comes to taxation and regulation.

I never said they were vastly different, my point was specifically there is no magical non capitalistic paradise in europe. Germany rarely gets attributed the narrative of a socialist paradise because it is too well known as a country that obviously embraces capitalism.

Both nations tax the rich heavily. "Wealth" and "Wealth inequality" measures can be very misleading.
They vary dramatically depending on whether pensions are private or public, on whether houses are treated like financial assets, and on how many rights stockholders have in each country. Incomes tell you more about a society.

It can be misleading, but in most of western Europe it isn't. Classism and inter generational wealth are mainstays of most of the people living in the banana.

 

[DuckyGirard]

He doesn't know what he's talking about. The Soviet Union made hockey accessible to people from coast to coast. There were makeshift rinks almost everywhere.

Hockey is a sport for elites under capitalism.

A) the soviets did some crazy schemes that would never fly in most situation.

B) It's a place where outdoor rinks actually work.

C) as I said quite a while ago it was obvious the soviets were all in, using hockey as a propaganda element for Russian/soviet nationalism.

 

[DuckyGirard]

Someone referenced Wellwood....I can guarantee that even he was strong. In order to skate at an NHL level and shoot you have to be strong. To skate fast, you have to exert force into the ice. So I would say every NHL player is strong in the lower body and core. Without it they couldn't survive. They couldn't bend their knees enough (without adequate quad, lower back and core strength) to skate fast enough, or shoot hard enough and even to be able to absorb a check from opposing players.

It's all about the metric of the bull curve

I don't have a chart for human strength but I think you can draw from this a similar conclusion.

You obviously need to be stronger than average. But the further you go above average the less and less people there are. So if you were drafting super strong or tall athletes you'd have a tiny handful of people to draft from.

There's a sweet spot where people are above average but not so far above that the talent pool is tiny.

And it's not like we have zero data.

Each year Canada has something like 50,000 men that are draft eligible. And you can do the math and realise at best 5,000 of those people may have spent enough time on the ice to be considered for a draft.

Of the roughly 5,000 the vast majority aren't putting in the time to be a pro. Either they skated too late, were lazy, never ate right, bad attitudes etc that would prevent them from developing.

So you have to start asking yourself how does roughly 5,000 turn into 120 draft picks?

It could be that 75 % are cut for being too lazy =1,250
It could be that another 75% are cut because of bad genetics =363
at which point you could assume 1/3rd couldn't make it because of money.

You could play with the numbers all day long, but the point is there isn't much wiggle room. The vast majority of people aren't putting in the time for genetics and wealth to be enough of an issue.

My guess is that there is less than a thousand people who are really putting in the effort.

When you factor in the magical power of anabolic steroids and that number shrinks even further.

Regardless of income or genetics very few people are motivated to go on steroids at age 14-15, and dedicating their time to eating right, working out, and truly willing to learn and listen to actual criticism.

I use numbers that are easy to appreciate they aren't meant to be accurate, but you can use your own and can be stuck with the same conclusions. At best wealth and genetics end up being the lesser filters when hockey requires so much sacrifice.

 

[majormajor]

The topic is directly about whether or not economics is creating a hockey aristocracy. So it's a direct offshoot.


You're going off topic, this was directly relating to the idea about whether or not capitalism is the cause of the issue. Lots of places do things well, but there's nothing in any of that, which suggests it's gonna change the nature of how costly it is to develop talent.


Compared to most Americans absolutely. Just the same if you're from quebec or europe. Again "relative" in context of whether or not a country between the soviet system and Canadian system is gonna develop talent.




I never said they were vastly different, my point was specifically there is no magical non capitalistic paradise in europe. Germany rarely gets attributed the narrative of a socialist paradise because it is too well known as a country that obviously embraces capitalism.



It can be misleading, but in most of western Europe it isn't. Classism and inter generational wealth are mainstays of most of the people living in the banana.

I think you can have a strongly capitalistic country that just happens to support public sporting facilities and subsidizes coaching. You can certainly have a country closer to socialism in many ways that considers hockey a purely private matter, not to be supported publicly. That's why I'd rather look case by case without generalizing from archetypes about economies.

Speaking of which, the idea that Germany especially embraces capitalism is surprising to me. I suppose it depends on your circles, but I work in an economics department where Germany is fawned over by socialists. It is the most perfect country to them for a number of reasons - co-determination, kurzarbeit, limited shareholder rights, etc...

 

[DuckyGirard]

I think you can have a strongly capitalistic country that just happens to support public sporting facilities and subsidizes coaching. You can certainly have a country closer to socialism in many ways that considers hockey a purely private matter, not to be supported publicly. That's why I'd rather look case by case without generalizing from archetypes about economies.

The point is you can't make talent development much better than it is by rejecting capitalism.

Speaking of which, the idea that Germany especially embraces capitalism is surprising to me. I suppose it depends on your circles, but I work in an economics department where Germany is fawned over by socialists. It is the most perfect country to them for a number of reasons - co-determination, kurzarbeit, limited shareholder rights, etc...

It's a mixed system which is sort of the point. Germany didn't get where its at by fighting against capitalism.

And in relation to hockey seems to be little evidence that anything they do would create much of a different outcome for hockey.

I have no idea what socialism means, as it seems to be a "anything that is about sticken it to the man". My response was specifically about someone referring to "capitalism" as this thing that is antagonistic against merit.


"Germany, like other Western European countries, is not a socialist country, but a capitalist economy with social democratic features, taking the roughest edges off of pure capitalism."

Random quote but it seems to be the default statement made by most rational people. In short people are trying to equate democracy and government involvement as socialism. By this logic the us military is a socialist institution. The reality is people are trying to equate EU countries with the US when the far better comparison is US states against EU countries. It's very easy to run an organised country when it's the size of Alabama.

The reality is a Greek person can't collapse their economy and run to berlin as easily as someone in California can run to Austin Texas. Language and culture is delaying a problem that is bound to break "socialist" europe and there's a steady argument that it already happened in 2008.

 

[Leafs87]

I noticed this trend recently too.
When watching the drafts it’s always, oh great guy from great family, dad played here uncle here so on. Every second draft pick has “hockey bloodlines” now

 

[Streetsamurai]

They are exposed to the game very early on and get the best possible training and guidance available in order to excel at the game throughout their entire development. No doubt their name opens doors along the way as well.

This.

While it's true that hockey is based on result, having a name will make it a lot easier to achieve theses results cause you'll be getting more opportunities than a similar talent with no name

 

[ChuckLefley]

Regardless you can live in a relatively rural hockey dominated town if you're a teacher. Two teachers in average town Canada is absolutely rich.

And unlike most careers you can be "end of your career" in your late 40s.

If two teachers marry they absolutely qualify as rich people. You're using creative math to suggest otherwise.

1) Nobody is talking about rural towns. If you’ve been reading my posts you would know that.
2) I don’t live in Canada.
3) What is an “average town?” That’s a pretty vague description and could mean just about anything.
4) “Rich” in the way you’re using it is also a very vague term.
5) I’m thinking numbers 3 and 4 were done purposefully since you seem to have an agenda here and ignore anything that doesn’t work.

In summation, as I have said before my wife and I are both teachers and we are nowhere near being rich.

 

[DuckyGirard]

1) Nobody is talking about rural towns. If you’ve been reading my posts you would know that.


2) I don’t live in Canada.

Well mid size towns are where it's relatively easy to be a rich pairing of teachers.

3) What is an “average town?” That’s a pretty vague description and could mean just about anything.

Not one of the 10-15 largest cities. Moncton, Kingston, Brantford Thunder Bay-Regina, Kelowna, Cape Breton, Lethbridge etc.

4) “Rich” in the way you’re using it is also a very vague term.

Combined household income of $120 k plus, i.e. in the top quarter of income.

In a world where few people are married and even fewer married to people with steady employment.

5) I’m thinking numbers 3 and 4 were done purposefully since you seem to have an agenda here and ignore anything that doesn’t work.

List of census metropolitan areas and agglomerations in Canada - Wikipedia

Basically any anglophone city on the list that experienced less than 10 percent growth since the last census.


For income any household that has more than 3 times the median canadian income. Because when you factor in the tax advantages of 2 incomes versus 1 large one you're really far ahead.

In summation, as I have said before my wife and I are both teachers and we are nowhere near being rich.

Lol the majority of people would do anything to be in your position.

I think you might want to look at the finances of most people. You're in a career that is super stable, and you have the ability to pick and choose where you want to live. Especially powerful if you're married.

Most Canadians are stuck moving to places of super high costs of living to find work. They often don't start their careers until late and will have to switch jobs multiple times in a career. Teachers have stability, can usually work in the same area as their spouse, rarely need two cars etc.


Rich people never believe they're rich, it's part of the proof that they are rich.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Confused Turnip]

I know and having a family member who plays and rinks to play at makes it much easier. The issue I have is the idea that you have to be rich to be able to play.


As I said, I looked and very few maxed in the six figures.

Look better, or don't count boards with 1 teaching job and 10,000 teaching jobs both as '1'. For a start any GTA or GVA board (the majority of teaching jobs in Canada I'd wager) pays that. Average public board GTA elementary salary in 2020 was $105k, average secondary $110k, for instance. ( https://www.tdsb.on.ca/Portals/0/docs/Financial_Facts_Feb_2019_2020_FINAL_2020_03_09_FINAL-ua.pdf )

 

[DuckyGirard]

I know I said I was done and I will be after this:

Only someone with an agenda does the following:
-Continues arguing about teaching, as if they are an expert, with an actual teacher.

My expertise "father in law, how much you make?"

Your expertise "where's Canada?"

EDIT: FYI wife also teaches at a university.

People from actual Canada keep telling you the same thing, and you're the one who sees to have a chip on his shoulder.

-Makes sure to completely ignore multiple points that don’t fit his/her agenda.

Like what?

-Says things with zero logic or proof to back them up.

Employment data etc is readily available.

Teaching wages are the literally one of the easiest career types to know something about.

Teachers are literally everywhere, their wages are transparent and their career trajectories are easy to understand.

Stop acting like you have some magical inside knowledge about one of the best known careers.

Seriously if we're talking about agenda it seems quite obvious it's teachers that top the list.

We all grew up in the school system, it's not some secret career option. And it's not like it isn't one of the most common careers. And it's also a top of chart profession where those working in it have the least experience elsewhere. And the ones that do usually get the math.

I apologize for being a rich person who can work wherever and when’re he wants…in your addled mind.

Have a great weekend, internet “winner.”

"wherever" don't twist what I was saying.

 

[SML2]

I did think the number of times the relative of an NHL player not making a team they try out for is very low. Best teams, best coaching, best competition equals best finished product.

 

[Czechboy]

Hockey is a very small sport.. only 5 countries are gold medal contenders and Russia and US are focused on other sports as well.

Regarding Czechs and connections... it's a crazy expensive sport and rich parents with names have an advantage. I'd argue it's a sport that doesn't embrace the lower class very well (yes, I know there are exceptions).

 

[abo9]

NHL level is pure merit. But, don't kid yourself about lower levels. There are always a couple kids on high-end AAA teams in the GTA who are primarily there because their dad will foot the bill sponsorship-wise. Which limits the opportunity for certain kids to move up.

I'm not even sure if the NHL is "purely" merit-based.
At similar playong level, I would not be surprised if the GM's friends kid has an opportunity before his teammate who has no connection

 

[MikeyMike01]

Gotta love extremely-bold conclusions without supporting data of any kind.

 

[txpd]

I'm not even sure if the NHL is "purely" merit-based.
At similar playong level, I would not be surprised if the GM's friends kid has an opportunity before his teammate who has no connection

Don't over think it. When professional sports really started to pay the children of players saw the value in using their genetic gifts. Cal Ripken Jr, Fernando Tatis, Jr, Chase Elliott. Look at freaking Seth Jones. Look at Wes McCauley and the other officials and MLB umpires that are second and third gen.

Look, a lot of you know the guy that gets hired in the office that is tall and good looking while everyone knows thats why he got hired instead of the no brainer hire of the short, fat person. It happens so much that its a punchline. Its true in hockey. The big player has to prove he cant and the small player has to prove he can if he gets a shot.

The people known to the scouts and management have that first step. For every Jeff Halpern, who grew up in Washington and skated with the Capitals while at Princeton and signed as a undrafted free agent, there is a John Carlson who grew up in New Jersey and was well known to the Flyers and Devils. Rather than select him in the draft the Flyers trade their pick to the Capitals, who took him. Dont over think it