StoneHands
Registered User
- Feb 26, 2013
- 6,608
- 3,674
I wish I could follow this post to see if someone gets offended. Please give me a tag if/when it happens.to be fair, there are a lot of brothers in basketball
I wish I could follow this post to see if someone gets offended. Please give me a tag if/when it happens.to be fair, there are a lot of brothers in basketball
Any data for other sports?Just off the top of my head, here is a list of families with at least two active brothers on NHL rosters:
-the Tkachuks
-the Staals
-the Reinharts
-the Subbans
-the Stromes
-the Benns
-the Stones
-the Folignos
-the Ritchies
-the Schenns
-the Hughes (as of 2019)
That's not including the list of historical NHL bros (Niedermayers, Sutters, Bures, Sedins, Richards, Koivus, and on and on).
As far as I can think of no other major sport has or has had nearly as many siblings playing professionally at the same time. So what is about hockey that makes it such a family affair?
There are a lot of siblings in American football. Most players are well known outside of QB’s and Skill players. Most people don’t know Cam Newton’s older brother played in the NFL.
Does football have a similar phenomenon? My educated guess would be that not all families can afford hockey so that's why.
Wealthy to upper middle class Caucasian families are able to have multiple children in a sport that is cost restrictive to other families.
More at 11.
There are a lot in football as well, but hockey is kind of on another level.
Wikipedia has family relationship lists for most sports.
In the NFL, there have been 200 "family relationships" in NFL history. Thats with more teams, and rosters twice as big, and includes things like Paul Perkins Great Uncle played in the NFL.
There have been 300 pairs of Siblings alone in the NHL. Another 180 Father/sons relationships and 70 sets of cousins.
Almost a perfect summary, but this phenomenon is not discriminatory based on race. Case in point, the Subbans. Wealthy families in general are able to have multiple children in a sport that is cost restrictive to other families.
Yeah, but way, way, waaaaaaaaaaaaay more people play football in North America. We're not talking a factor of 2-1 here, more like 50-1, at least. So it is statistically more significant that so many family members have played in the NFL.
It's very misleading to say you need to be "wealthy". That is so far from the truth it's not funny. "Working class and willing to forgo luxuries like exotic family vacations" is a lot more accurate. We were lower working class and I played from around 6 to 14.
562,000 played hockey here in the US, in 2018.
5,220,000 played football.
I suppose this depends on your reference point. If you compare the demographic to sports like basketball, the contrast is extreme, wouldn't you say? If you compare to soccer on the world scale, even more so.
I may be a simple moonshiner from the back woods, but wouldn't sports that cost less to play have greater probability of multiple siblings making the big leagues? Am I missing something?
Hockey is absolutely cost prohibitive. With football, all you need is a ball and a field and you're pretty much there. Street hockey isn't even close to the real thing. In the US, most high schools have the football equipment paid for by the school. Hockey equipment is almost always paid for by the parent, unless your at a top tier school.I don’t agree with any of that.
It starts at the fundamental aspect that these kids are born with great genes. Also having someone to grow up with who is amazing at sports helps that person get better and produces a work ethic to get to said spot.
Cost has nothing to do with it. Many pee wee football leagues provide equipment for the kids. There typically is not a cost involved.
Hockey is absolutely cost prohibitive. With football, all you need is a ball and a field and you're pretty much there. Street hockey isn't even close to the real thing. In the US, most high schools have the football equipment paid for by the school. Hockey equipment is almost always paid for by the parent, unless your at a top tier school.
I also don't buy the great genes argument because that should apply to all sports, and all professions for that matter.
You can make an argument that there is easier access to become a pro athlete if a parent was one. They can provide all the lessons needed to work your way through the process as opposed to someone that doesn't know about specific summer league camps, gym regimens, specific coaches to play for, etc. These are all barriers to entry. This also applies to any other highly skilled profession. Kids who's parents are doctors have an advantage of having someone that can tell you exactly what you need to do to get into med school. A kid who's parents work in a production factory doesn't have that advantage.
Hockey is the least inclusive sport in my opinion, which is one reason why we're seeing the same last names pop up year after year.
OK, so 9 to 1. Historically, it would have probably been a far greater disparity (way more football and way less hockey).
And I even find those numbers very hard to believe. They take into account all of the kids playing football on school teams?
More people playing a sport reduces the chance of an individual making that sport's major league. Thus, a lower chance of, say, two siblings in a family both making that major league.