Why is it rare for hockey players to start playing at a later age?

[LuckyDucky]

I think some folks try to attack this question from the wrong end.

What they see is a league full of extremely tall people, and they say to themselves "this is a league where they pick the most-skilled players out of all the tall guys".

What they're missing is that there are millions and millions and millions of young athletes out there trying to make the NBA. More than the number of hockey players by probably a factor of at least 10.

So it's not a league where they pick the most-skilled players out of the tall guys. It's a league where they pick the tallest guys out of a pool of absurdly athletic, miraculously skilled prodigies who can do pretty much anything they want physically. The difference in a game is that extra inch of reach or elevation, hence the league being full of tall guys.

Amen. As an anecdote, I went to high school at one of the top schools in the US for basketball; consistently ranked in the top 15 (usually higher) in the nation. Most, if not all, of these players are getting D1 scholarships. There have been a total of 6 players from my high school who have made it to the NBA since 2000, and NONE of those guys played as a starter.

 

[majormajor]

You do realize why that is, right? There are so few 7' tall humans on the planet that, of course, the proportion that make it to a sport (where height could be advantageous) would be greater than more common human heights. Also, those 7 footers who are in the NBA, and this goes for every guy in the NBA, are absolute athletic freaks. I don't think some of the posters in this thread fully understand how incredibly difficult it is for people that big to move as well as they do.

Certainly it is difficult to move quickly at that height. And like every other height bracket it is the most athletic within each bracket that make it pro. The percentages are starkly different though.

There was a study not long ago that found that the probability of an American 7-footer playing in the NBA was 17%. For a 6-footer it is closer to 1 in 100,000. A 6-footer has to be incredibly-freakishly athletic to make it. A 7-footer just has to be a bit more athletic than your average person of that height.

 

[majormajor]

And 2) The whole neuroplasticity argument is bizarre to me. Doing more with your hands, skating is completely different than running, etc. Dribbling a basketball is not something most grow up doing. On top of that, we are talking about the ability for these athletes to adapt based off of new/changing stimuli (play by play). I'd argue that certain NBA players have to process and adapt more than an NHL player game over game (especially if we consider how much more time they are on the court vs ice time).

Personally, I think it comes down to access. If you don't start young, then you are so far behind the 8 ball that it's tough to catch up. There is far less money/time/effort placed in developing players in the lower levels. In other words, if you adopt the game late, then you are most likely not going to be playing major junior hockey and would probably be lucky to be playing in Junior A. You can equate this to the snowball effect.

TLDR: weird takes by some posters, early start = more likely access to better development tools/facilities/etc., and once you're behind the 8 ball, it tends to snowball.

I think what you are missing about neuroplasticity here is that the human brain is greatly devoted to manipulating objects with our hands in diverse ways. The neural pathways are much more devoted to our hands than to our feet. You can teach a fifteen year old how to stickhandle a puck or dribble a basketball, because everything is a recombination of movements they've been doing with their hands since they were infants, that there are already thick neural pathways for. Trying to learn skating at that age is trying to build off a much smaller neural network.

 

[majormajor]

I think some folks try to attack this question from the wrong end.

What they see is a league full of extremely tall people, and they say to themselves "this is a league where they pick the most-skilled players out of all the tall guys".

What they're missing is that there are millions and millions and millions of young athletes out there trying to make the NBA. More than the number of hockey players by probably a factor of at least 10.

So it's not a league where they pick the most-skilled players out of the tall guys. It's a league where they pick the tallest guys out of a pool of absurdly athletic, miraculously skilled prodigies who can do pretty much anything they want physically. The difference in a game is that extra inch of reach or elevation, hence the league being full of tall guys.

It really depends how tall they are. There have been many millions of boys under 6'4 who dreamed of making the NBA. We can rest assured that a six-footer who achieved that dream must be a freakish athlete, perhaps more so than your average NHLer.

But there aren't millions of boys taller than that. And by the time you get to seven-footers there aren't even thousands! The starting pool for NBA big men is much much smaller than it is for other sports.

 

[Ezpz]

Can't agree with your assessments. Basketball is clearly a lower skill sport compared with hockey both physically and mentally. Hockey is objectively the faster and more physical sport. There is no advantage in hockey from being bigger or smaller. It is almost entirely skill dependent. Basketball is more like prize fighting where your body shape is equally important as your skill level. What you think I am inferring is that basketball players don't have skill; which is not the case. The point is lower skill players with good physical attributes can make the NBA, but not so much the NHL. This is worse considering as you said, the NBA has a much bigger pool of talent to pull from. Since fighters got phased out of the NHL, hockey is arguably the most skilled major league sport on the planet.

 

[Garyboy]

Much more difficult to get to an elite level at. Not played on foot like the others, entire different movement pattern.

 

[Toronto makebeleifs]

Theres far too many components to the game to be able to pick it up late. Late being literally any age after 8. You have the hand-eye requirements in order to both handle a puck, receive a pass, and shoot- all while not getting annihilated on the ice. You have major contact at every professional and semi professional level- where if you dont know how to spin off or avoid youll get hurt, badly. Theres the literal act of shooting the puck, where again, you do it wrong then not only is it a muffin that will never beat a quality goalie but can also break wrist bones or result in tendonitis if done wrong for long enough. Then, after you factor all that in, you strap on blades where you live and die from edgework and speed. The game is almost constantly moving at above 20km/h (pro leagues) on edges, with other guys that can skate, and will blow by you if your crossovers while skating backwards (this takes alot of on ice awareness to begin with) arent near immaculate. It doesnt even begin with being a good skater, there is so much more.

Basically, hockey is like a trade. If you expect to become a master, you need 5 thousand hours. To be a leader in the field and an example to look up to, probably 20 thousand hours (nhl'ers). There isnt enough time to master anything if you start late. Maybe you can get to jr.b... maybe, if youre some god-gifted freak of nature. Ive played or been around the game my whole life, and watching 8yr olds who have had blades on since they were 3 skate around me like im a pylon with cement shoes on while in quicksand is quite telling- as most of those kids wont ever come close to the show.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Guys, 7 footers aside. Basketball is by and large a skill game. If you've followed the NBA and college ranks, the League is getting smaller and more skill-based than ever. It's a game of dribbling, passing and shooting to score and consequently stop your opponent from scoring. Even the 7 footers like Jokic that are superstars have to be immensely skillful to reach that level. Describing basketball as a bunch of tall guys that can jump is an oversimplification.

 

[Baaaaaaaaaaaaah]

I can't speak for the US, but in Canada getting to the elite levels is generally a racket. Cream will rise to the top eventually but it may take all the way until Midget or even Junior, and by then you will potentially miss out on the Junior A draft, etc. If you don't start your kid early enough, politics can keep them off the best teams for at minimum a few years. If I remember correctly Jake Sanderson couldn't even play on his community's top PeeWee team due to politics (might have been Atom level though). It is getting so disgusting in Western Canada you pretty much need to go to paid elite schools and bypass affordable community/quadrant minor hockey if you want to get junior drafted.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Can't agree with your assessments. Basketball is clearly a lower skill sport compared with hockey both physically and mentally. Hockey is objectively the faster and more physical sport. There is no advantage in hockey from being bigger or smaller. It is almost entirely skill dependent. Basketball is more like prize fighting where your body shape is equally important as your skill level. What you think I am inferring is that basketball players don't have skill; which is not the case. The point is lower skill players with good physical attributes can make the NBA, but not so much the NHL. This is worse considering as you said, the NBA has a much bigger pool of talent to pull from. Since fighters got phased out of the NHL, hockey is arguably the most skilled major league sport on the planet.

I agree with that to the extent that there’s no skating in basketball, and skating skill is THE differentiator in hockey in the same way height is in basketball. Objectively, skill comes to the forefront and stays at the forefront in hockey.

Disagree that basketball is less mentally challenging. High level basketball is not a place for guys who just put their heads down and grind. Even the big-body guys are under an extremely high level of pressure to make a perfect play every time they touch the ball. That might be 20 times a game for even a low skill player, and every one of those touches requires high aptitude. There’s no “just put it on net or dump it in the corner” in the NBA.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

Can't agree with your assessments. Basketball is clearly a lower skill sport compared with hockey both physically and mentally. Hockey is objectively the faster and more physical sport. There is no advantage in hockey from being bigger or smaller. It is almost entirely skill dependent. Basketball is more like prize fighting where your body shape is equally important as your skill level. What you think I am inferring is that basketball players don't have skill; which is not the case. The point is lower skill players with good physical attributes can make the NBA, but not so much the NHL. This is worse considering as you said, the NBA has a much bigger pool of talent to pull from. Since fighters got phased out of the NHL, hockey is arguably the most skilled major league sport on the planet.

There is absolutely a size advantage. Who are you trying to convince otherwise? Sundin and Thornton couldn't do what they did if they were 5'10, 190.

 

[WarriorofTime]

What is considered the maximum age a player can start playing and realistically make the NHL? Maybe age 8? This gives a good two years for a kid who is a naturally good athlete and fast learner to make it to the Tier 1 minor league in his region to play catch up with the other kids that started at 5 or 6, and kids are still developing fine motor skills so they may not be too far behind at that point. May be a different question entirely if you ask at which age did they start skating, an 8 year old that is already very comfortable on ice skates is obviously much different than one who is just learning.

 

[Ezpz]

There is absolutely a size advantage. Who are you trying to convince otherwise? Sundin and Thornton couldn't do what they did if they were 5'10, 190.

Martin St. Louis has two Art Ross trophies. Size is not important to success. There is no short NBA player in it's entire history with that kind of impact. Look at the top players in the league now; they're a bunch of different sizes. Look at recent Art Ross winners: Nikita Kucherov, Jamie Benn, Patrick Kane, Evgeni Malkin, Crosby and Ovechkin. None of these guys play the same way and are all different sizes.

 

[majormajor]

Yeah, hockey sits pretty perfectly at the intersection of requiring skills that are almost impossible to learn at an elite level after childhood, and also being difficult for people who have body proportions that might help make up the skill gap.

Basically if you want to be a NHL player you are almost required to be a stoutly-built 5'9 - 6'6" man who ...

I think you might be getting the body proportions argument a bit wrong.

Most men have the height and potential muscle mass to play in the NHL. There are a lot of players that are less muscular than what you'd get if you had an average man train regularly. And big men can play too, the proportions of super tall men in the NHL closely track the proportions of the overall population.

They just don't have a particularly big advantage like in some other sports, they still have to be freakishly athletic even if they're already freakishly tall. There's nothing stopping a 6'10 guy from succeeding in hockey, there's just not much of an advantage either. The range and power roughly compensates for having less quickness. The reason there haven't been men taller than that in the NHL is probably just that there are so few to draw from in the general population. You have to be freakishly athletic to play in the NHL and that super tall and super athletic combination just hasn't happened yet.

 

[PALE PWNR]

Martin St. Louis has two Art Ross trophies. Size is not important to success. There is no short NBA player in it's entire history with that kind of impact. Look at the top players in the league now; they're a bunch of different sizes. Look at recent Art Ross winners: Nikita Kucherov, Jamie Benn, Patrick Kane, Evgeni Malkin, Crosby and Ovechkin. None of these guys play the same way and are all different sizes.

Iverson led the league in scoring 4 times, and was MVP once. He's listed as 6'0", but that's like listing St. Louis at 5'10".

 

[Jared Dunn]

You see a lot of NBA players who haven't started playing until they were like 16-18 or even 20; Siakam, Rodman, Hakeem, Mutumbo, Embiid, etc. Granted those are big dudes but I'm sure if you went down a little you might find guards that Steve Francis who didn't start until 13.

What about with hockey players? Can you really "fast-track" develop your skills? How often does a hockey player start at the age of 14 then out of nowhere becomes extremely talented in a 3-5 year span? Does hockey really require an insane amount of early development? Or can you skip that in the later ages and fast-track it?

I mean I know you mentioned it briefly but you're really glazing over the fact that the basketball players you mentioned are freaks of nature and in many cases a lot of the training is just teaching them how to properly use their bodies. Also having to learn how to skate in your teenage years would sure slow down any other skill development

 

[majormajor]

Guys, 7 footers aside. Basketball is by and large a skill game. If you've followed the NBA and college ranks, the League is getting smaller and more skill-based than ever. It's a game of dribbling, passing and shooting to score and consequently stop your opponent from scoring. Even the 7 footers like Jokic that are superstars have to be immensely skillful to reach that level. Describing basketball as a bunch of tall guys that can jump is an oversimplification.

The average height has gone from what, 6'7 to 6'6? You're still talking about a much narrower part of the human population.

 

[TGWL]

Training is just much easier when you start young. You watch videos of how McDavid, Eichel, or whoever trains and it's a lot harder to start doing that at a later age. I know plenty of players who started later on, but those are wreck league/beer league players, or inline darlings.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I think you might be getting the body proportions argument a bit wrong.

Most men have the height and potential muscle mass to play in the NHL. There are a lot of players that are less muscular than what you'd get if you had an average man train regularly. And big men can play too, the proportions of super tall men in the NHL closely track the proportions of the overall population.

They just don't have a particularly big advantage like in some other sports, they still have to be freakishly athletic even if they're already freakishly tall. There's nothing stopping a 6'10 guy from succeeding in hockey, there's just not much of an advantage either. The range and power roughly compensates for having less quickness. The reason there haven't been men taller than that in the NHL is probably just that there are so few to draw from in the general population. You have to be freakishly athletic to play in the NHL and that super tall and super athletic combination just hasn't happened yet.

Anyone who will grow to be 6'10 and athletic is likely being filtered into Basketball at a young age as well.

 

[SI90]

Skating. It’s the only major sport where you’re not doing something natural.

 

[Ezpz]

Iverson led the league in scoring 4 times, and was MVP once. He's listed as 6'0", but that's like listing St. Louis at 5'10".

My mistake then. From my understanding point guards can be shorter than other positions. Where as anyone on the planet who is 7' could play center or power forward.

 

[LuckyDucky]

Certainly it is difficult to move quickly at that height. And like every other height bracket it is the most athletic within each bracket that make it pro. The percentages are starkly different though.

There was a study not long ago that found that the probability of an American 7-footer playing in the NBA was 17%. For a 6-footer it is closer to 1 in 100,000. A 6-footer has to be incredibly-freakishly athletic to make it. A 7-footer just has to be a bit more athletic than your average person of that height.

Do you have access to that study?

 

[majormajor]

Do you have access to that study?

It's easy to find. It's the Torre study.

There is a good discussion here on how its numbers are probably wrong. But whether its 17% or 7% you get the idea, it's a very small talent pool.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Do you have access to that study?

It's based on false data, it takes at face value every player that is listed at "7 feet" despite that many of the League's "7 footers" aren't officially above 7'0.00000000. As I said earlier, this can have a massive effect on the actual probabilities if we assume that the data regarding how many people are actually 7 feet tall in the U.S. in general as accurate, given how rare it is amongst the general population.

 

[LuckyDucky]

It's easy to find. It's the Torre study.

There is a good discussion here on how its numbers are probably wrong. But whether its 17% or 7% you get the idea, it's a very small talent pool.

Ok, so we’re basing this off of a study that was conducted in 2011, only uses the US as a sample, and doesn’t take into account the effectiveness of those 7 foot players. Tacko Fall is 7’5” and has played a total of 26 games played at 6.5 minutes per game. Height does not mean you’re going to be a successful/effective NBA player.