View Single Post
02-19-2013, 04:06 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 836
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
5'10 is stretching it as far as inclusion into the "very smallest of NHL players" category. Look at the sharp divide in relative proportions you get if you count the number of 5'10"+ players vs 5'9" and below. Then see how much farther it drops if only 5'8" and below are counted. Wanna go 5'7" and below?

Then ask, why exactly aren't there more of these guys in the past ~30/40 years of the NHL, because we see dozens of them tear up junior leagues offensively each year in North America alone, let alone world-wide at this point. The answer is: the physical demands of the North American pro hockey game - not lack of skills.
Yes you would have a more clearly defined group if you took players
5'8" and under. But I'm guessing the effect would show up if you looked
at a 5'10" and under sample. And you'd certainly get a much better sample
size. Anyhow, the point is; being much shorter than average isn't related to
a much greater chance of serious injury. Being much taller is to a greater degree.

The difficulty of competing successfully against taller players is for reasons
other than chance of injury.

The reason I'm still posting about this is because there a conventional
wisdom that small players are more vulnerable to injury. I do not believe
that is true.

Habaddict is offline   Reply With Quote