Again, I'm by no means advocating that Rielly will not be a star NHL defenseman, just that the odds of him making it are fairly low statistically.
Far be it for me to say it's impossible *looks at avatar*
How are his chances fairly low statistically? You've provided no argument. All you said was that 26% of NHL defensemen are Rielly's size or smaller, all that means is that his height is below average for an NHL defensemen. That isn't at all statistical evidence that it's harder for him to make the NHL at that height though. You're just making stuff up. Your argument holds as much weight as me saying that there are even less NHL defensemen that are 6'4 or taller, therefore Hamilton has low odds of being a star NHL defensemen.
How are his chances fairly low statistically? You've provided no argument. All you said was that 26% of NHL defensemen are Rielly's size or smaller, all that means is that his height is below average for an NHL defensemen. That isn't at all statistical evidence that it's harder for him to make the NHL at that height though. You're just making stuff up. Your argument holds as much weight as me saying that there are even less NHL defensemen that are 6'4 or taller, therefore Hamilton has low odds of being a star NHL defensemen.
If you go by the statistic of % of population that is over 6-4 and % of NHL defensemen over 6-4, it will prove his point.
You compared Hamilton to Cody Franson and for some reason you think/thought Seguin was completely over-hyped. I don't know if your opinion really carries any weight. Might be a little bias in there. Not sure why
Actually it does. The lets say the average male is 5'-9.5". 1 standard deviation from the mean height (average) is about 2.8 inches. 1 Standard deviation is about 68% of the total population. So 68% of the population is between 5-6.5 and 6 feet. If you take 68% from 100% you get 32% falls out of that range. Half of that will be less than 5"-6.5" and half of that will be above 6 feet so 84% (68+16) of the male population is under 6 feet tall.
If we go by this previous post here, we find that only 26% of NHL defensemen are 6 feet and under, yet this accounts for 84% of the general male population.
So, yes, being shorter does hinder your chances in the NHL as a defensemen.
Note: I don't think it will hinder Reilly too much. He is the real deal. I am merely warming up for my all-night study session for my calculus exam in the morning by pointing out how illogical your statement is.
In statistics and probability theory, standard deviation (represented by the symbol sigma, σ) shows how much variation or "dispersion" exists from the average (mean, or expected value). A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean; high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values.
The standard deviation of a random variable, statistical population, data set, or probability distribution is the square root of its variance. It is algebraically simpler though practically less robust than the average absolute deviation. A useful property of standard deviation is that, unlike variance, it is expressed in the same units as the data.
Actually it does. The lets say the average male is 5'-9.5". 1 standard deviation from the mean height (average) is about 2.8 inches. 1 Standard deviation is about 68% of the total population. So 68% of the population is between 5-6.5 and Just under 6 feet. If you take 68% from 100% you get 32% falls out of that range. Half of that will be less than 5"-6.5" and half of that will be above 6 feet so 84% (68+16) of the male population is under 6 feet tall.
If we go by this previous post here, we find that only 26% of NHL defensemen are 6 feet and under, yet this accounts for 84% of the general male population.
So, yes, being shorter does hinder your chances in the NHL as a defensemen.
Note: I don't think it will hinder Reilly too much. He is the real deal. I am merely warming up for my all-night study session for my calculus exam in the morning by pointing out how illogical your statement is.
Wow. First off, terrible way of getting accurate percentages. Just terrible. Learn math.
Second, NHL hockey players are not your average males. The general population averages do not apply in the world of hockey.
Third, correlation does not mean causation. Just because there are less defenceman of a certain height in the NHL, it doesn't automatically mean that is because it is harder at that height.
Fourth, you have no idea the other factors that enter into the discussion with shorter people. I assume shorter people have more trouble mainly because of strength, but that is not a problem for Rielly.
Fifth, Rielly is listed as 6'1 in a few places, and he still has time to grow.
Wow. First off, terrible way of getting accurate percentages. Just terrible. Learn math.
Second, NHL hockey players are not your average males. The general population averages do not apply in the world of hockey.
Third, correlation does not mean causation. Just because there are less defenceman of a certain height in the NHL, it doesn't automatically mean that is because it is harder at that height.
Fourth, you have no idea the other factors that enter into the discussion with shorter people. I assume shorter people have more trouble mainly because of strength, but that is not a problem for Rielly.
Fifth, Rielly is listed as 6'1 in a few places, and he still has time to grow.
You don't seriously think that being short isn't a disadvantage for a dman do you? Even if we ignore a possible strength advantage that might come from being bigger, the reach alone provides a huge advantage, particularly when defending big forwards down low.
It is possible for a small dman to be effective but they have to be more skilled/smarter than their bigger counterparts.
You don't seriously think that being short isn't a disadvantage for a dman do you? Even if we ignore a possible strength advantage that might come from being bigger, the reach alone provides a huge advantage, particularly when defending big forwards down low.
It is possible for a small dman to be effective but they have to be more skilled/smarter than their bigger counterparts.
No, being 6'1 (or higher) is not a disadvantage. Rielly is not at any disadvantage with strength (actually, one of the strongest in his draft class), and the reach difference is negligible from the average.
It is not about size. It is about how well you use whatever size you do have to your advantage. And Rielly has no problems with this.
Wow. First off, terrible way of getting accurate percentages. Just terrible. Learn math.
Second, NHL hockey players are not your average males. The general population averages do not apply in the world of hockey.
Third, correlation does not mean causation. Just because there are less defenceman of a certain height in the NHL, it doesn't automatically mean that is because it is harder at that height.
Fourth, you have no idea the other factors that enter into the discussion with shorter people. I assume shorter people have more trouble mainly because of strength, but that is not a problem for Rielly.
Fifth, Rielly is listed as 6'1 in a few places, and he still has time to grow.
What is wrong with the math? So I did a little rounding and used feet and inches instead of just inches. You said height didn't factor into chances of making it into the NHL. I merely provided statistics to show you that it does play a bigger role than you think. If it didn't most of the D would be under 6 feet tall, since most of the population is. It is not strength, it's the reach that makes height so important. Tyler Myers is the second tallest guy in the league but I bet his 5-5 teammate Gerbe crushes him in the weight room and also would win a corner battle. Also, I said Reilly will be a stud and the height will not hinder him too much. Yes people grow after they turn 18. I went from 5-7 to 6 feet in college (probably a statistical outlier).
If you go by the statistic of % of population that is over 6-4 and % of NHL defensemen over 6-4, it will prove his point.
No, it would prove nothing. It's such a ridiculous oversimplification. Correlation =/= causation. How many guys that are 6'0 and have reached Rielly's level at his age? Why would we consider lesser players having trouble with their height automatically means that Rielly will suffer the same fate? Or even that he is likely to? It's just such a silly argument. But judging from what I have seen of suevres, he just likes crunching numbers to say whatever benefits his argument, he doesn't actually think about the logic or reasoning behind what he is doing and if it makes sense.
What is wrong with the math? So I did a little rounding and used feet and inches instead of just inches. You said height didn't factor into chances of making it into the NHL. I merely provided statistics to show you that it does play a bigger role than you think. If it didn't most of the D would be under 6 feet tall, since most of the population is. It is not strength, it's the reach that makes height so important. Tyler Myers is the second tallest guy in the league but I bet his 5-5 teammate Gerbe crushes him in the weight room and also would win a corner battle. Also, I said Reilly will be a stud and the height will not hinder him too much. Yes people grow after they turn 18. I went from 5-7 to 6 feet in college (probably a statistical outlier).
Pretty much everything you did with the math was wrong. Used standard deviations wrong. The samples for the averages you used made no sense. Did the averages wrong. Used arbitrary cutoffs and groups. Etc., etc.
None of those statistics even proved that it is harder to make the NHL as a smaller guy. It just said there are less of them, which could be for a ton of reasons.
Of course when you compare two players who are over a foot in height apart there are going to be reach advantages. But nothing significant when comparing a 6'1 or higher defenceman and the average player.
Reach for a really tall guy can be an advantage, if utilized properly, much like advantages that small guys get over big guys.
I'm not sure I buy that Rielly is 6'1". Compared to the other players on the ice, he looks closer to 5'11".
Draft combine he was measured in at 6'0.5". On the ice he's a bit hunched over, but he could end up 6'1", 210 pounds by the time he's an NHL regular. Don't think size is a concern.
What is wrong with the math? So I did a little rounding and used feet and inches instead of just inches. You said height didn't factor into chances of making it into the NHL. I merely provided statistics to show you that it does play a bigger role than you think. If it didn't most of the D would be under 6 feet tall, since most of the population is. It is not strength, it's the reach that makes height so important. Tyler Myers is the second tallest guy in the league but I bet his 5-5 teammate Gerbe crushes him in the weight room and also would win a corner battle. Also, I said Reilly will be a stud and the height will not hinder him too much. Yes people grow after they turn 18. I went from 5-7 to 6 feet in college (probably a statistical outlier).
Even though I agree that height factors into your chances of making it into the league, just primarily based on common sense, I'd have to agree with Whydidijoin. You're statistics makes assumptions and a sweeping statement without substantial information.
The biggest assumption is that 26% of a certain only make it in the league when 84% of the male population is of that height. The thing is, you have no idea what percent of that 84% actually play hockey nor what percentage of the remaining 8%(for people over 6 feet if distribution is normal) actually play hockey.
Also it takes height as the only arbitrary value for making it as a hockey player without considerations of other factors that could contribute to, or compound, the discrepancy.
Even though I agree that height factors into your chances of making it into the league, just primarily based on common sense, I'd have to agree with Whydidijoin. You're statistics makes assumptions and a sweeping statement without substantial information.
The biggest assumption is that 26% of a certain only make it in the league when 84% of the male population is of that height. The thing is, you have no idea what percent of that 84% actually play hockey nor what percentage of the remaining 8%(for people over 6 feet if distribution is normal) actually play hockey.
Also it takes height as the only arbitrary value for making it as a hockey player without considerations of other factors that could contribute to, or compound, the discrepancy.
Um, I didn't say height was the deciding factor. I merely refuted a claim that height doesn't matter for an NHL defensemen. It must be of some importance if 74% of NHL defensemen come from a group that represents 16% of the male population. Height is a good tiebreaker when the ability/skill is the same. If you are more normal in size, you have to be more exceptional in ability/skill to separate yourself from the pack. Hall Gill is a terrible skater with stone hands and mediocre at best vision, but he is really tall. Had a nice long career with the skills he had to work with. Can you name any short defenders with his skillset that had any sort of longevity?
Care to use any facts/stats that Whydidijoin used that back-up that height doesn't matter?
And just for the record (again). I don't think Reilly's height will effect him at all. When your skating is that good, it makes up for any of the length/reach that a lankier skater has.
So what you're saying is that any source that has him being projected as a franchise defenseman hasn't seen him play?
What legit sources have called him a franchise defenseman? I've seen this guy play since his St. Kitts days, and no matter how big he is, he doesn't have a mean streak. The comparisons to Chara are hilarious - he'll never be nearly as dominant as Chara is. This guy gets outmuscled by 17 year old kids who weigh 170 pounds some nights. Maybe saying 30 points before was a bit too low as he is good offensively, but he's not gonna be what people here are expecting him to be.
Not disputing that Rielly isn't 6' but junior measurements are often (sometimes?) overestimated/measured. Galchenyuk was what, close to 2 inches taller than in draft combine?
You don't seriously think that being short isn't a disadvantage for a dman do you? Even if we ignore a possible strength advantage that might come from being bigger, the reach alone provides a huge advantage, particularly when defending big forwards down low.
It is possible for a small dman to be effective but they have to be more skilled/smarter than their bigger counterparts.
I can't believe people on here are actually that silly that they would argue about someone's odds of making the NHL based on height statistics. For starters, weight means more than height (if you don't believe me, ask yourself why sports don't break their divisions by height class, rather they choose weight classes). In addition, for his age group he has proven himself to physically be one of the strongest in several categories. Beyond all of that, here's a far more simple statistical measure that probably has a million times more relevance than any of those measures:
Statistically, based on draft position, where does he stand to pan out? Then consider he was drafted there while going most of the season playing next to no games.
Um, I didn't say height was the deciding factor. I merely refuted a claim that height doesn't matter for an NHL defensemen. It must be of some importance if 74% of NHL defensemen come from a group that represents 16% of the male population. Height is a good tiebreaker when the ability/skill is the same. If you are more normal in size, you have to be more exceptional in ability/skill to separate yourself from the pack. Hall Gill is a terrible skater with stone hands and mediocre at best vision, but he is really tall. Had a nice long career with the skills he had to work with. Can you name any short defenders with his skillset that had any sort of longevity?
Care to use any facts/stats that Whydidijoin used that back-up that height doesn't matter?
And just for the record (again). I don't think Reilly's height will effect him at all. When your skating is that good, it makes up for any of the length/reach that a lankier skater has.
And that's all I was trying to say as well . All else being equal, being taller increases your odds of being an NHL defenseman.
