HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Do big players get injured less often?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-15-2011, 08:14 PM
  #26
LesHabsRock
Registered User
 
LesHabsRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
No difference. **** happens on the ice to large, tall, small and short players. It is a violent sport with lots of hitting and instances of freak accidents.
To sum it up. Bingo!

LesHabsRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 08:26 PM
  #27
SouthernHab
Not a Fanboy
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesHabsRock View Post
To sum it up. Bingo!
With that said, I wish that the Habs had bigger forwards. Not so much regarding the injury bug that is affecting this team but moreso for the physical presence in front of the net and better grinding strength along the boards.

I found October 2010 stats for average size and posted it. Its on the previous page.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 08:36 PM
  #28
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
People should ask that question to Eric and Brett Lindros...

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 08:37 PM
  #29
ChemiseBleuHonnete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jigger77 View Post
Care to elaborate on that? (disclaimer: not attempting to be snarky, sarcastic or anything I genuinely would like to know)

I've wondered if Cammy trains a bit TOO much sometimes actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
Such as?....

Is it "stupid stuff" or is it stuff you don't understand?
LOL @ the comment that it's stuff that I don't understand. I won't go in details about my background. Too long to explain. But I'll take some time to explain what I found stupid in his case.

Cammelleri was doing partial reps back squats with a fairly heavy load after his knee injury. In this particular case, the range of motion was short and in a portion of the movement that puts the most stress on the knee. The way it was done (low partial reps and explosively) puts a lot of sheer forces on the ligaments.

ChemiseBleuHonnete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 08:45 PM
  #30
Habaneros
Habs Cup champs 2010
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,858
vCash: 500
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle1955920/

Habaneros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 10:07 PM
  #31
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 25,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
People should ask that question to Eric and Brett Lindros...
And Marc Savard. Wait... I'm doing it wrong.

Ohashi_Jouzu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 10:24 PM
  #32
SouthernHab
Not a Fanboy
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habaneros View Post
Right. Injuries killed our chances at moving forward in the playoffs. Damned injuries. Screwed Martin out of a chance at finally winning a Stanley Cup.

Wait a minute.....

Rk Teams GP MGL MGL/G

6 Nashville 73 307 4.21 *

7 Vancouver 73 306 4.19 * ++

12 Detroit 73 232 3.18 *

14 Wash 73 218 2.99 *

15 Phila 72 197 2.74 *

17 Montreal 74 194 2.62


* Teams that won their first round playoff series.
++ Team that made it to the Stanley Cup Final.

Great find and great post.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 10:32 PM
  #33
LesHabsRock
Registered User
 
LesHabsRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
And Marc Savard. Wait... I'm doing it wrong.
You're both right and wrong. Injuries happen to both. Concussions favour no one. Neither do joint and ligament injuries, bone fractures, back injuries, etc. If anything the more you weigh the more strain on the joints. Basketball players are notorious for ankle and other joint injuries. So weight bearing has a lot to do with injuries.

LesHabsRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 10:40 PM
  #34
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 25,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesHabsRock View Post
You're both right and wrong. Injuries happen to both. Concussions favour no one. Neither do joint and ligament injuries, bone fractures, back injuries, etc. If anything the more you weigh the more strain on the joints. Basketball players are notorious for ankle and other joint injuries. So weight bearing has a lot to do with injuries.
Very true. But that still isn't going to change my understanding of why there are many, many fewer players under 5'10" in the league than there are over 6'3". There is a certain point at the lower end where small size DOES = injury susceptibility, and the same really can't be said that the other end of the spectrum (for the biggest of talented hockey players). If there wasn't, we'd never here GMs discuss the physical readiness/development of prospects when entering the league. In fact, we hear such things from GMs all the time. Also, using an example nearer and dearer to our hearts, how many people around here chose to emphasize Halak's size in the context of his future durability in the Price vs Halak debate(s), hmm? I trust you weren't one of them.


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 11-15-2011 at 10:47 PM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 10:42 PM
  #35
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
And Marc Savard. Wait... I'm doing it wrong.
That wasn't the point of my post. Did I say it happens only to bigger players? No. What is the question of the thread? That might help you understand the point I was trying to make.

Being a huge fan of Pat Lafontaine, I know fairly well that it can happen to small players. Crosby, and then bigger, Bergeron.

Since you seem to have a hard time getting the point, it's that the worst type of injury, CCs, happen to both smaller and bigger players, Eric and Brett Lindros being the best known cases (of bigger players) in modern hockey.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 10:48 PM
  #36
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Couple of things. First of all, Malkin is somewhat tall - he is not "big-bodied". I think there are only, like, 5 guys that weigh less than him on the team, and yet no one is taller than him except Staal, Tangradi, and MacIntyre.

Second of all, no list of specific examples of "injury-prone" big men negates the fact that in general, and with regards to hockey specifically, bigger players are more resistant to injury, hence why so many talented small players never make the NHL full-time. Similarly, you can't just pick out some examples of small players who were lucky enough to escape injury, as most small players never get their chance at the NHL because it's a generally accepted fact that you have to have boatloads of skill for a team to take a risk that you'll avoid injury long enough to be productive and thus worth a pick/roster spot/whatever.

In any body contact sport, all you have to do is look at the proportion of the very smallest players versus the proportion of the very largest players, and realize that skill level certainly doesn't provide the explanation for one group far "outweighing" the other (pun intended) - even at the very top level of a given sport.

Size doesn't guarantee immunity from injury, but it's a major advantage in avoiding them in just about any physical sport.
i'm interested to know how in "general" , "bigger" players are less injury-prone. I would think that how the body takes different movements of the body (pressure and pulling motion) would determine one's "injury proneness". That and previous injury history.
Only thing i can see making a difference would be that a larger mass absorbs the pressure more.
Also, you think most injuries in hockey are result of hits?


did quick search, came up with two interesting articles.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...juryprone.html
http://blog.bioethics.net/2011/10/ge...-injury-prone/

uiCk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 10:48 PM
  #37
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Very true. But that still isn't going to change my understanding of why there are many, many fewer players under 5'10" in the league than there are over 6'3". There is a certain point at the lower end where small size DOES = injury susceptibility, and the same really can't be said that the other end of the spectrum (for the biggest of talented hockey players). If there wasn't, we'd never here GMs discuss the physical readiness/development of prospects when entering the league. In fact, we hear such things from GMs all the time.
That might have more to do with reach and size and their impacts on the play rather than GMs seeking players who are less likely to get injured.

Mario Lemieux had huge injury problems in the latter part of his career and he wasn't small by any means. And inversely, a player like Gionta or Gomez have rarely been injured in their respective careers.

Injuries have a lot more to do with situational circumstances, rather than difference in size. But keep believing what you will.

Also, bigger doesn't mean tougher when it comes to injuries. They're just more prone to a different set of injuries, as their physical load is higher, straining ligaments and joints a lot more.

As for the Price / Halak tangent you added, you might want to accept the fact that you're using the one position that is entirely different from any other position in hockey, and has less to do with durability (Hasek was only 5'11 and played great till his 40's), but rather with a higher success rate at playing the angles and fending off charges to the net, AND being taller and seeing over the shoulders of players. Sure, smaller goalies will adapt and use different methods to compensate, it's just that with a bigger goalie, there's less need to compensate.


Last edited by Ozymandias: 11-15-2011 at 10:55 PM.
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 10:52 PM
  #38
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 25,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
That wasn't the point of my post. Did I say it happens only to bigger players? No. What is the question of the thread? That might help you understand the point I was trying to make.

Being a huge fan of Pat Lafontaine, I know fairly well that it can happen to small players. Crosby, and then bigger, Bergeron.

Since you seem to have a hard time getting the point, it's that the worst type of injury, CCs, happen to both smaller and bigger players, Eric and Brett Lindros being the best known cases (of bigger players) in modern hockey.
Right. But concussions, while "the worst type" (don't agree necessarily, as I've seen just as many careers ended by knee/back injuries, for example), are just one example of potential injuries. If you guys are gonna focus on concussions as a prime example of how injuries happen to anyone, so be it, but let's not pretend that bigger players are actually just as likely to enter circumstances which may lead to a concussion. Head height relative to elbows/shoulders just doesn't bear out that likelyhood.

Ohashi_Jouzu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 10:56 PM
  #39
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 25,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
i'm interested to know how in "general" , "bigger" players are less injury-prone. I would think that how the body takes different movements of the body (pressure and pulling motion) would determine one's "injury proneness". That and previous injury history.
Only thing i can see making a difference would be that a larger mass absorbs the pressure more.
Also, you think most injuries in hockey are result of hits?


did quick search, came up with two interesting articles.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...juryprone.html
http://blog.bioethics.net/2011/10/ge...-injury-prone/
Did I say that somewhere? Also, larger mass doesn't just absorb pressure more, it exerts more pressure on whatever it contacts. Huge factor in a body contact sport, which makes comparison to other athletes in sports such as basketball and baseball, for example, pretty much inapplicable. Furthermore, we're not talking about obese people with "unusual" amount of strain on joints and ligaments; we're talking about well-trained athletes.

Ohashi_Jouzu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 11:02 PM
  #40
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Did I say that somewhere? Also, larger mass doesn't just absorb pressure more, it exerts more pressure on whatever it contacts. Huge factor in a body contact sport, which makes comparison to other athletes in sports such as basketball and baseball, for example, pretty much inapplicable. Furthermore, we're not talking about obese people with "unusual" amount of strain on joints and ligaments; we're talking about well-trained athletes.
It was a question.
Also, i was comparing the factors of how the body "behaves", from athlete to athlete, given certain extreme movements that happen all the time in all sports, and the question was more related to how much of this factor(s) are relevant to a contact sport.

uiCk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 11:03 PM
  #41
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Right. But concussions, while "the worst type" (don't agree necessarily, as I've seen just as many careers ended by knee injuries, for example), are just one example of potential injuries. If you guys are gonna focus on concussions as a prime example of how injuries happen to anyone, so be it, but let's not pretend that bigger players are actually just as likely to enter circumstances which may lead to a concussion. Head height relative to elbows/shoulders just doesn't bear out that likelyhood.
Knee injuries aren't career ending anymore, it's now more on the exception side than the norm. CCs is the new bane for players. It's the one injury I don't want any of our players to get.

As for the whole height thing, you yourself said that the prevelance is that we have more 6'3 players nowadays than 5'11, so they are as likely to get that type of injury from a player their own size hitting them. You make it sound as if 5'11 players are a foot smaller than 6'3 players. 6'3 players aren't Chara's, and 5'11 players aren't Gionta's. There is absolutely no solid data to show that smaller players are more prone to CCs because of their height. There is, however, data that shows bigger craniums to be less likely to be proned to CCs, but head size isn't always proportionate to height, and the genetic makeup and gene history (different active genes) have also something in relation to it. A guy like Pac might've had stronger cranial bones than Lindros, although having a smaller cranium, but in the end there's just a lot more to it then size.


Last edited by Ozymandias: 11-15-2011 at 11:10 PM.
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 11:29 PM
  #42
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Found this article about concussions ending careers.

http://www.totalprosports.com/2011/0...y-concussions/

Richter 5'11
Grimson 6'6
Courtnall 6'0
Vaske 6'2
Scatchard 6'2
Chynoweth 6'2
Primeau 6'5
Stevens 6'1
Deadmarsh 6'0
Moore 6'2
Lindros 6'4
Lafontaine 5'10

They forgot about Brett Lindros, 6'4.

Kinda shots your whole theory about smaller players being more prone to concussions because of their height.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 11:31 PM
  #43
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
i'm interested to know how in "general" , "bigger" players are less injury-prone. I would think that how the body takes different movements of the body (pressure and pulling motion) would determine one's "injury proneness". That and previous injury history.
Only thing i can see making a difference would be that a larger mass absorbs the pressure more.
Also, you think most injuries in hockey are result of hits?


did quick search, came up with two interesting articles.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...juryprone.html
http://blog.bioethics.net/2011/10/ge...e-injury-prone

Ouch. That pic in the last link, I don't want to ever see again. Man, that must've hurt.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 11:31 PM
  #44
Habaneros
Habs Cup champs 2010
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
i'm interested to know how in "general" , "bigger" players are less injury-prone. I would think that how the body takes different movements of the body (pressure and pulling motion) would determine one's "injury proneness". That and previous injury history.
Only thing i can see making a difference would be that a larger mass absorbs the pressure more.
Also, you think most injuries in hockey are result of hits?


did quick search, came up with two interesting articles.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...juryprone.html
http://blog.bioethics.net/2011/10/ge...-injury-prone/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0W1D...feature=relmfu

Habaneros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 11:38 PM
  #45
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 25,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Knee injuries aren't career ending anymore, it's now more on the exception side than the norm. CCs is the new bane for players. It's the one injury I don't want any of our players to get.

As for the whole height thing, you yourself said that the prevelance is that we have more 6'3 players nowadays than 5'11, so they are as likely to get that type of injury from a player their own size hitting them. You make it sound as if 5'11 players are a foot smaller than 6'3 players. 6'3 players aren't Chara's, and 5'11 players aren't Gionta's. There is absolutely no solid data to show that smaller players are more prone to CCs because of their height. There is, however, data that shows bigger craniums to be less likely to be proned to CCs, but head size isn't always proportionate to height, and the genetic makeup and gene history (different active genes) have also something in relation to it. A guy like Pac might've had stronger cranial bones than Lindros, although having a smaller cranium, but in the end there's just a lot more to it then size.
Again, there is no need to focus on concussions. Man games lost are man games lost, regardless of cause. Furthermore, I think I used 5'10 (I probably should have used 5'11", since that would leave both of my "limits" equidistant from the league average of 6'1"), and I maintain that there IS a huge gap between the damage dealing/absorbing potential of a 6'3" player versus a 5'10" player; especially in a game as fast and physical as pro hockey. On top of that, given the relative proportion of larger players in the league, it's logical to assume that the smaller players find themselves contacted by players bigger than them with a much greater frequency than bigger players find themselves in the same situation.

I guess the OP should have used the phrase "less easily" instead of "less often", since larger players DO constitute a much larger percentage of the population, and thus "frequency" would bear out that bigger players obviously get injured more often since there are much fewer "small" players to get injured in the first place.

Basically, it isn't a question of whether or not bigger players injure themselves on occasion... they obviously do. It's more about the likelyhood that a smaller player is going to have to come out of the losing side of a momentum equation unscathed more often than is true for bigger players, hence the higher "susceptibility to injury". Of course, if they continue to pansify (to coin a phrase) the league any further, this will become less and less of an issue. Smaller and quicker/more nimble players might enjoy more of an advantage as the league "evolves" towards flag/two-hand touch hockey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Found this article about concussions ending careers.

http://www.totalprosports.com/2011/0...y-concussions/

Richter 5'11
Grimson 6'6
Courtnall 6'0
Vaske 6'2
Scatchard 6'2
Chynoweth 6'2
Primeau 6'5
Stevens 6'1
Deadmarsh 6'0
Moore 6'2
Lindros 6'4
Lafontaine 5'10

They forgot about Brett Lindros, 6'4.

Kinda shots your whole theory about smaller players being more prone to concussions because of their height.
Those are just the career enders though. How about simply tracking down the actual totals for all concussions? Also, remember that most smaller players don't even get the chance to be in the position to receive a concussion-dealing blow, since they are filtered out at the minor league level, often because of their size and concerns of their durability. I mean, if there was only one 5'7" player in the league, and he somehow escaped injury (I hate that you've baited me into a specific tangent on concussions, since the category "injury" is significantly broader), would you logically conclude that 5'7" players in general are less susceptible to injury than 6'5" players simply because 10 of 100 of them got injured somehow because it's 0% vs 10%? I mean, seriously, would you?


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 11-15-2011 at 11:45 PM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 11:48 PM
  #46
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Again, there is no need to focus on concussions. Man games lost are man games lost, regardless of cause. Furthermore, I think I used 5'10 (I probably should have used 5'11", since that would leave both of my "limits" equidistant from the league average of 6'1"), and I maintain that there IS a huge gap between the damage dealing/absorbing potential of a 6'3" player versus a 5'10" player; especially in a game as fast and physical as pro hockey. On top of that, given the relative proportion of larger players in the league, it's logical to assume that the smaller players find themselves contacted by players bigger than them with a much greater frequency than bigger players find themselves in the same situation.

I guess the OP should have used the phrase "less easily" instead of "less often", since larger players DO constitute a much larger percentage of the population, and thus "frequency" would bear out that bigger players obviously get injured more often since there are much fewer "small" players to get injured in the first place.

Basically, it isn't a question of whether or not bigger players injure themselves on occasion... they obviously do. It's more about the likelyhood that a smaller player is going to have to come out of the losing side of a momentum equation unscathed more often than is true for bigger players, hence the higher "susceptibility to injury". Of course, if they continue to pansify (to coin a phrase) the league any further, this will become less and less of an issue. Smaller and quicker/more nimble players might enjoy more of an advantage as the league "evolves" towards flag/two-hand touch hockey.
The problem here is that you're relying too much on height, while a lot of small players compensate by having huge mass, like Gionta, Cammalleri, Bouillon and others.

You then have taller players who have less mass than smaller players.

The beef I have with your theory is just that. It's a theory, there's no solid data to correlate smaller height with a higher frequence/prevelance of injuries. Even when it comes to mass. It's all based on assumptions. Yes, they are logical, but just like with CCs, you'd expect smaller players to be more prone, yet it seems to be the opposite, and among the most known cases, were very tall players, playing in an era where league wide height average was smaller than what it was today. Like Stevens (6'1) hitting Lindros (6'4).

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 11:58 PM
  #47
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Those are just the career enders though. How about simply tracking down the actual totals for all concussions?
Kinda hard to track down, but that's what I was doing when I came upon that article. I'll come back tomorrow, maybe with something, maybe UICK'll find it before I do.

Quote:
Also, remember that most smaller players don't even get the chance to be in the position to receive a concussion-dealing blow, since they are filtered out at the minor league level, often because of their size and concerns of their durability.
Again, you suppose it's because of durability. It's an assumption. IMO, like I said before, the true tangent is more related to reach and overcoming size, than durability. Also, you are contradicting yourself. We're not talking of only 5'7 players here, but players who are closer to 6, but under league average, and you said they are more likely to get concussions because they are at shoulder height. Yet guys like Gio and Cammy and DD have a very small history of CCs, if none at all. Guys like Bergy in TB, and MSL, and many others have not had this type of injury. It has NOTHING to do with height.


Quote:
I mean, if there was only one 5'7" player in the league, and he somehow escaped injury (I hate that you've baited me into a specific tangent on concussions, since the category "injury" is significantly broader), would you logically conclude that 5'7" players in general are less susceptible to injury than 6'5" players simply because 10 of 100 of them got injured somehow because it's 0% vs 10%? I mean, seriously, would you?
Don't worry, I'm fully aware of the smaller number causing a smaller yeild, the problem is you don't seem to realize that among the 5'6 / 5'9 range, there seems to be less cases on average. The only notable I can think of is Bouillon, and he's probably the most massive (built) of them all and theoretically, would be more likely to fend off most hits compared to his smaller player counterparts, and he even has a tendency to 'jump' a bit in the air when giving or receiving a hit.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 11:58 PM
  #48
Bloumeister
Party like it's 1984
 
Bloumeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Morrison Hotel
Posts: 7,633
vCash: 500
Latendresse says hi

Bloumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 12:01 AM
  #49
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 25,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
The problem here is that you're relying too much on height, while a lot of small players compensate by having huge mass, like Gionta, Cammalleri, Bouillon and others.

You then have taller players who have less mass than smaller players.

The beef I have with your theory is just that. It's a theory, there's no solid data to correlate smaller height with a higher frequence/prevelance of injuries. Even when it comes to mass. It's all based on assumptions. Yes, they are logical, but just like with CCs, you'd expect smaller players to be more prone, yet it seems to be the opposite, and among the most known cases, were very tall players, playing in an era where league wide height average was smaller than what it was today. Like Stevens (6'1) hitting Lindros (6'4).
No, it's not just a theory. We know of countless smaller players who never got their chance in the NHL (or even got drafted in the first place) despite their incredible level of talent, and if you deny that a major factor was GMs' concern over their durability and physical suitability in NHL play, you're deluding yourself.

Backing up, yes, I am kind of "relying" on height a bit much. But like you bring up with cranium size vs actual body size, while there's not an actual 100% direct correlation between height and contribution to momentum/damage dealing potential, the range of body types in pro hockey is limited enough to work under the premise that in general taller players weigh more (on top of having their heads further away from likely areas of contact, re: concussions), and we accept that there are freaks like Douglas Murray who bend the "definition" to one side or the other. We should also understand that with larger size usually comes a significant amount of extra muscle mass, hence why a slash from Zdeno Chara doesn't deal the same amount of damage as a slash from Nathan Gerbe. Furthermore, with extra muscle mass and perhaps bone structure that generally comes with extra height (there aren't too many Dikembe Mutombo-type body types in the NHL, lol), the ability to deal with slashes from Chara (or Gerbe, I suppose) increases.

So, I think there's more than enough logical premise to work with if one were to suggest that bigger players are more durable and less susceptible to injury than smaller players in the NHL.

Ohashi_Jouzu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 12:03 AM
  #50
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,768
vCash: 500
A player who is 6'2 is more common than a player who is 5'9


Pulling out examples of players that are above x feet that got injured is useless as they are common.

This study should investigate only on small players

Than we can compare those numbers to the rest of the players of the league.

coolasprICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:08 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.