Hockey Combine Physical Testing
Here is a great talk by Malcolm Gladwell speaking on how to hire the right person. What interested me was his analysis of the draft systems in professional sports.
The ‘draft’ is where professional sports teams choose who to sign onto a professional contract from a group of young up-and-coming players. Teams spend large sums of money looking at potential players, and send scouts to the ‘combine’ where they view and analyse physical data on the young men.
Check out this clip to see a little of what goes on at the combine:
This is something young athletes train very hard for as it is believed the higher score you get, the better player you will be, and the better contract you will sign.
But is this the case? Gladwell’s analysis would suggest no.
Two interesting points from the talk if you don’t have time to watch the whole video:
- NBA Rookie of the year for 2008 ranked 78th out of 81 Basketball prospects on physical testing in his year.
- IQ testing for Quarterbacks (NFL) show similar results: The most successful players ranked lowest on the intelligence test.
It seems scouts tend to test physical measures because it gives them an objective result to base their decision on. But many of the testing criteria are negatively correlated with performance in the professional leagues – based on history, if you were interested in recruiting a good Basketball player in the NBA you should choose an athlete who scores low on physical testing, and if you are interested in recruiting a successful professional quarterback you should choose one that scores low on the IQ test.
Gladwell seems to have analysed the NFL and IQ score over a number of years. I would be interested to see if this was the case over longer periods of time in the NHL performance and physical testing also.
If he is right it would seem being strong, good endurance, power etc is pointless once you get to the draft stage. So is there a need for physical conditioning at all?
When it comes to judging how good a player will be it may be best to simply look at how well they do on the field (ice, court, pitch etc). Other measures may be appropriate to see how the player will fit into the team environment etc, but by far the previous success of the athlete in a game situation is the important factor.
So if physical conditioning is so un-important then why do so many athletes credit it with their improved performance?
It is a chicken and the egg scenario: In this case the chicken comes well before the egg – that is to say physical conditioning makes a huge difference to the professional athlete, but it does not turn an ordinary athlete into a great one.
It is similar to the train your weakness theory – to become a better athlete you should train your weakness.
Players entering the draft who are not well physically conditioned have made it as far as they have on ‘skill’. Once they get into professional team environments where they will come under the supervision of full time conditioning coaches, strength coaches etc then they can become even better athletes/players – that is they have the most room to improve, and so may represent the best buys for the scouts.
The reverse may be true for the kids testing high on these physical tests: They have gotten as far as they have (partly) because they are so well conditioned physically – they have been boxing above their weight and have less room for improvement in the professional environment.
Of course I am a big advocate for conditioning beyond the direct needs of the sport you play. Undoubtedly a stronger athlete is less likely to get injured would be the most obvious benefit of strength and conditioning.
I think the take home message is that it is great to measure things – but only if you can use that information to your benefit. I think the smart scouts should actually be looking for athletes that are weak, inflexible, have low lactate thresholds, VO2max, and power levels because it is these athletes that are the ones they could make into the next great one.
