View Single Post
11-16-2012, 09:48 PM
Registered User
Sureves's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,108
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by eyeball11 View Post
It's also statistically less likely for people born with red hair to become NHL stars. It holds about as much merit as your heighth argument.
The fact that you would even post such a stupid comment shows me you aren't capable of understanding anything.

But just for closure, what percent of Canadian males (as a proxy for overall NHLers) are red-headed? What percent of Canadian NHLers have red hair? I would imagine it's a very similar percentage because it is totally irrelvant.

Now, what percent of the Canadian male population is smaller than 6'1? What percent of Canadian defenseman are smaller than 6'1? I just told you that 26% are. Are you meaning to tell me that only 26% of the male population in Canada is under 6'0? Because if you are you're exceptionally wrong.

And because I can see from your previous comment that you're going to need this: please don't get hung up on the Canadian part of the post it's only going to confuse you.

Originally Posted by Whydidijoin View Post
Tall players (and we're talking freak tall, not the difference between 6'1 and the average player) have a reach advantage, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have a hockey advantage, since there are also advantages to a shorter height.
So being 6,8 (ie. freakishly tall) gives you a reach advantage over a guy who is 6'0, but being 6'3 doesn't give you a reach advantage over a guy who's 6'0? Yeah that makes sense.

Originally Posted by eyeball11 View Post
Height has so little bearing on his level of success it borders on stupid. If he was a shrimp, perhaps. He is not. He is at or above average in virtually every meaningful attribute. It's not rocket science but it is confusing you.
How's that again? Did you read the numbers I posted? Are you saying it's a coincidence? What are you saying?

For your consumption, over the past 30 years, only 5 times has the Norris winner been taller than Reilly is at 18. In addition, only 9 times has that person weighed more than Reilly does at 18. I'd be willing to bet his weight will go up from where he is at 18. Athletic weight means far more than height. There's a reason sports break classes by weight and not height. Add to this the fact he was a top finisher in several strength classes amongst his peers at combine. Then add being considered such a high pick despite basically not playing for the season. It really is beyond ridiculous how little of a role height will play in his success.
The argument isn't that you can't be 6'0 and be outstanding. Hell, the best defenseman in the league right now is 6'0 and Doughty is also 6'0. It's just a rare breed, that's all anyone was ever saying, I can't believe we are still discussing this.

Originally Posted by chrisx101 View Post
Being freakishly tall also hinders your ability is some instances as well. How many NHL D are 6'5" and above? Granted there are much less in the total population, but that does not negate the numerous instances in which height was a hinderance (stability, skating, agility) rather than a benefit.
You answered your own question right here. Furthermore, the "freakishly" tall ones play basketball so there's that too.

Sureves is offline   Reply With Quote