Why Hockey Players are better than Football Players

Recently, it's been brought to my attention by a few select individuals (not on here,specifically) that some people think football players are "better" than hockey players. What does better mean? It means that these people believe football players have a higher endurance, and have more skill. It also seems like you guys are all football/basketball fans, so I thought this would be fun.

I'm here to prove otherwise. I’m going to break it down into a couple of different categories: Play time and Schedules, Team Success, and Individual ability. Now, let's get down to business.

--NOTE-- This is just for ****s and giggles. I thought it'd be fun to take a look at the actual stats and compare the two. Feel free to ignore this if you want.

Play Time
The average real play time of an NFL game is 3 hours and 6 minutes. When you see that, you think “hey, they play for a long time!” If you are thinking that, then you are wrong. According to Mickey Charles (CEO of sportsnetwork.com), a football game witnesses a total of 12 minutes of actual game play. Of those 12 minutes, some players do not even play, as the time is divided into an offensive portion, and a defensive portion. Quarterbacks, receivers, and offensive linemen are no where to be found when the defence is out. So, assuming the offense and defence have equal playing time, a football player plays an average of 6 minutes.

In hockey, the average real play time of an NHL game is roughly 2.5 hours. Within the 2.5 hours, an NHL game features 60 minutes of play time. Higher calibre NHL players are on the ice for roughly 18-27 minutes. Lower calibre NHL players are on the ice anywhere from 3-10 minutes. To put this in perspective, only 51 players play 3-10 minutes a game. That is 51 players out of the 333 players who make up the league. That number is roughly the max that an NFL team is allowed to have on their team. In addition to that, hockey players aren’t necessarily divided up into either defence or offense. A good portion of hockey players can also play in both defensive situations (i.e. penalty killing) and in offensives situations (i.e. power play, or as a top 6 forward).


Schedule
In the NFL, football teams play 16 games in a season, at a rate of 1 game per week. Teams also are given a bye week, where they don’t play at all. So, out of the 17 weeks of the football season, they play 16 games. Doing some simply math, it can be determined that they have 103 days off during the regular season.

For hockey players, they have an 82 game schedule. That’s already over 5 times the number of games that comprises the NFL regular season. Their season runs from October until mid April, or roughly 193 days. Once again applying my math skills, it can be determined that NHL teams have roughly 111 days off. So, for 8 more days off, hockey players play 5.125 times more, with 4 times as much gameplay (in minutes) per game. They also have a harder schedule, as they play some games back to back and in different cities. This is different from the NFL, where they play ONCE A WEEK. Some teams can play up to 4 times a week in the NHL.

Team Success
For an NFL team to win a championship, they don’t necessarily need all their players to be their best. There are a total of 11 players on each side during an NFL game. That means that when one player slips up, there are 10 more to correct his mistake. In an NHL game, there are only 6 players on each side (forwards, defence, and a goaltender). That means if a player makes a mistake, there are only 5 players on the ice to correct that mistake. That’s half the number of players. In the NFL playoffs, they play 4 games, assuming they make it to the finals. Once again, they play once a week. Also, only 12 teams make the playoffs. For an NHL team to win a championship, they have to win sixteen games, or 4 times the number of games required to win the Superbowl. Also, there are a total of 16 teams that make up the playoff bracket for the NHL. More teams, more competition, do the math.

On top of that, the maximum number of players allowed on an NHL team is 21, whereas the NFL allows for 53 players on a team. So, while there is half the number of players on the ice than football players on the field, NHL teams have less than half the number of roster players.

As for scoring, the NO Saints led the NFL with 34 touchdowns in 16 games. That’s the equivalent of 2.125 touchdowns per game. As for field goals, they had 1.35 per game. Even when combining the two statistics, the number is lesser in value than the scoring number found in the NHL, where the Detroit Red Wings led the league with 289 goals in 82 games, or 3.52 goals per game. That’s roughly 1.66 times more goals than touchdowns, and 1.0129 times more goals than field goals and TD’s, per game, combined.

Individual Ability

Overall, the top ten receivers only made for 6.03 touchdowns per game. In the top ten for NHL scoring, players combined for 428 goals in 782 games, or 0.547 goals per game. The number of games played for the top ten in hockey is a touch over 5 times greater than the number of games played by the top ten in the NFL. So, after a difference of 626 games, the NFL top ten only has 0.10 more TD’s per game than the NHL top ten has for goals per game. The difference can be accounted for by injuries. In the NFL top ten, only one player missed play time, and that was Anquan Boldin who missed 4 games. For the NHL top ten, they missed a combined total of 38 games. So, if you were to convert it so they are equal in terms of games played, it would be the equivalent of the NFL top ten missing 7.4 games, or almost half a season. Now, one could argue that the top ten running back's have a higher percentage in scoring (which holds true, as they have 0.88 touchdowns/game) than the top 10 goal scorer's in the NHL. The difference, however, is their percentage of completions. The top 10 in the NHL combined for 13.2% in shooting percentage, while the top ten in the NFL combined for 5.38% completions, showing that the NHL's best have a superior completion rate when comparing the two. This is under the assumption that you consider shots and rush attempts to be the same, as they both offer a chance for a goal and touchdown. While the NHL's top ten have a superior number of chances, they only have 392 more than the NFL'ers do. If you even things out, the top ten rushers in the NFL still have a lower completion rate than NHL'ers do, increasing their completion rate to a mere 5.4%. Also, the size of an end zone in football is 30 feet deep, and 53.333 feet wide. For hockey, the size of a net is 4 feet high and 6 feet high. The total scoring area for the NFL is about 1600 feet squared where as the scoring area of the NHL is 24 feet squared. That, and the net also has a goalie in front of it, taking up a large portion of the net.

Individual skills are also showcase in the NHL by the Shootout. Instead of a controversial OT, as the NFL employs, the NHL has a 5 on 5 OT period followed by a shootout. If the game doesn’t end in OT, it goes to the SO. Here, players face the opposition’s goaltender one on one, making for a dramatic finish. They each have one individual chance to put their team ahead on the scoreboard.

Lastly, NHL players aren’t limited in athleticism when placed on a field. If you were to place NFL players on the ice, chances are they wouldn’t be able to skate. Don’t even try to tell me that a 300 pound linesman can keep up with even the slowest player in the NHL. For NHL players, sprints and long distance running on foot are important for honing on ice skills. They could easily keep up with the majority of players in the NFL.

Miscellaneous
Hockey players are tougher. Guys play through broken jaws, separated shoulders, bone chips, broken bones, and other injuries. Hell, players have come back from broken necks and have played in the playoffs. In football, they have sixteen games, yet some of them manage to miss the entire season due to injuries. For the NHL, the only guys who miss the entire season are guys who broke their neck, had severe lacerations, torn muscles, or they have multiple surgeries that keep them from returning.

So to all you naysayers:



Now, I'm not trying to make you guys agree that hockey is better, but I just thought it'd be interesting to point out the stats.

One could argue that you could replace the NFL with the NBA, and make the same argument. I disagree, because of hte following:

While you could make a stronger case for the NBA, I think hockey would still win.

1.) Hockey games are longer in terms of minutes played. Hockey games = 60 minutes, basketball games = 48 minutes.
2.) Basketball is limited in contact. Hockey is a much more physical sport than basketball, which is a huge factor when determining endurance.
3.) Hockey players skate more when compared to the running distance of a basketball player. Ryan Kesler sported a pedometer for a regular season game, and it had him reaching a distance of roughly 8 miles. An average basketball player runs about 5 miles in a game.

The only thing you could argue, really, would be scoring. The schedules are the same, but the play time, endurance, and physical contact are completely different.

They are both over paid prats.

/thread

Originally Posted by Avalanchemike

They are both over paid prats.

/thread

Thanks for pointing this out. Clearly no one realized this already

The reason the NBA and NHL seasons are 82 games (and MLB 162) is precisely because these games are less physical than the NFL.

Incidentally, this is also why the NFL (not necessarily football) is a better league than the NBA, NHL, and MLB. Every game matters and a dedicated fan can realistically watch them all.

Making the playoffs is much harder in the NFL than the NBA (and probably the NHL, though I'm not certain), so it actually constitutes a real accomplishment.

Of course, these truisms are beside the point since we're discussing which players, not which league, is better.

The first sentence still applies, though. NFL players take much more punishment per game than NHL or NBA players. If the NFL season was 82 games long, there would be almost nobody left standing at the end.

In case you haven't noticed so yourself, your entire argument under the "schedule" section is undercut by the fact that MLB teams play 162 games. Those games can be ****ing long and everybody plays the whole game. Their postseason is just as lengthy and their travel schedule just as absurd. Are you therefore prepared to accept that MLB players are the toughest of all?

Now for the nature of the game itself . . .

With the NHL, you get your sanctioned fighting (which I've never understood) and your occasional heated moments with high contact (checks and what have you), but the physicality is not continuous and inevitable like it is in the NFL. In football:

-If you're a lineman, you take a beating by very big men* every play.
-If you're a QB, you're likely to be blindsided. You're expected to step up and take a hit to deliver the ball on target.
-If you're a WR, you might be bumped off the line. There will surely come a time where you'll be nailed coming across the middle.
-If you carry the ball at any time, you will be sent to the ground.

*I'd also like to emphasize the part about "big men." I'm sure NHL players are typically much bigger and stronger than an average guy pulled off the street, but NFL players, particularly the lineman, are a different breed. We're talking about athletic guys who are often well over 300 lbs. To take one example, consider Bryant Mckinnie, the Viking's starting left guard.



He is 6'8" and 335 lbs. He's a big man, but hardly an anomaly. There are plenty of players around those numbers. When you consider that small and big players alike get beat around by these beasts, you come to appreciate that the bodily toll is much higher for the NFL player than any other sport (except maybe boxing).

For an NFL team to win a championship, they don’t necessarily need all their players to be their best. There are a total of 11 players on each side during an NFL game. That means that when one player slips up, there are 10 more to correct his mistake. In an NHL game, there are only 6 players on each side (forwards, defence, and a goaltender). That means if a player makes a mistake, there are only 5 players on the ice to correct that mistake. That’s half the number of players.

This is really iffy reasoning. The games are completely different. This model naively assumes that every player is equally talented and every position equally important.

You contend that because there are fewer players, each one shoulders more of the burden. The only time this is indisputable is in a one player sport like golf or tennis. In that case, it really is accurate to say that 100% burden / 1 player = 100% burden for the player.

In basketball, 100% burden / 5 players = 20% burden per player.

Now, do you think every player on the court is going to contribute 20% to the winning effort? Of course not. Take the Lakers: Kobe's contribution is going to be well over 20% and Derek Fisher's is probably going to be under.

Still, it is a decent model for basketball because all of the positions do roughly the same thing.

It is a poorer model for hockey (as the goalie is quite distinct from all the other positions) and it is a worthless model for football.

You might naively think that 100% burden / 11 players = 9.9% burden per player, and conclude that each player bears a smaller responsibility for his team's success. This is completely wrong.

For a play to work, every component has to succeed. It won't be remembered as a great pass if the receiver drops it. The QB won't be able to get the ball down the field if a lineman misses a block. Your lock-down bump and run is irrelevant if the safety misses his assignment.

In football, you are reliant on the people around you to a far greater extent than basketball or hockey. At the same time, the whole breaks down if the parts don't do their job. Every player on the field is important. A single player cannot ever dominate a game like they can in hockey or basketball.

For example, when the team is playing like **** (often on the road), the Lakers will run isolation with Kobe Bryant and give him an opportunity to take over the game individually. It's not a great strategy, but there are times where it gives us the best chance to win. In such games, the other four players on the floor are not terribly important, even though the model you presented suggests that each should be making a 20% contribution. Kobe is not nearly dependent on a teammate as say, Adrian Peterson is on his blockers.

In football, every player is important on every play because there is a huge amount of dependence on each other.

Hockey players are tougher. Guys play through broken jaws, separated shoulders, bone chips, broken bones, and other injuries. Hell, players have come back from broken necks and have played in the playoffs. In football, they have sixteen games, yet some of them manage to miss the entire season due to injuries. For the NHL, the only guys who miss the entire season are guys who broke their neck, had severe lacerations, torn muscles, or they have multiple surgeries that keep them from returning.

That's ridiculous. There's no barometer to measure toughness and there's absolutely no reason to believe hockey players are tougher.

Toughness is a matter that comes down to the individual. The type of injury that would sideline an NFL player for a year would also sideline a hockey player for a year. For an injury that devastating, it is not a matter of toughness, but human capability. The toughest man alive is not going to be able to play with a broken leg.

In the NFL playoffs, they play 4 games, assuming they make it to the finals. Once again, they play once a week. Also, only 12 teams make the playoffs. For an NHL team to win a championship, they have to win sixteen games, or 4 times the number of games required to win the Superbowl. Also, there are a total of 16 teams that make up the playoff bracket for the NHL. More teams, more competition, do the math.

You only have a point if you talk about raw "work," which, for whatever reason, you seem to define as number of games played. If you're speak of probability of winning, the opposite is true. It is much harder for an NFL team to make the playoffs. And once they get there, if they lose even one game, they're out.

Hockey players skate more when compared to the running distance of a basketball player. Ryan Kesler sported a pedometer for a regular season game, and it had him reaching a distance of roughly 8 miles. An average basketball player runs about 5 miles in a game.

Something tells me that you'd burn more calories per mile ran than per mile skated. It also should be taken into consideration that this is not an evenly paced 8 mile jog. There is a lot of starting, stopping, cutting, and sprinting--which is obviously much harder on the body.

I'm not even going to respond to your section on individual ability because it is inane. Do you even realize how meaningless it is to compare stats from two different sports? Hopefully you were being facetious . . .

Originally Posted by Black_Mamba

The reason the NBA and NHL seasons are 82 games (and MLB 162) is precisely because these games are less physical than the NFL.

Incidentally, this is also why the NFL (not necessarily football) is a better league than the NBA, NHL, and MLB. Every game matters and a dedicated fan can realistically watch them all.

Making the playoffs is much harder in the NFL than the NBA (and probably the NHL, though I'm not certain), so it actually constitutes a real accomplishment.

Every game matters in the NHL. Yes, there are more games, but you have to win more than 40 games if you even want a chance at making the playoffs.

Originally Posted by Black_Mamba

In case you haven't noticed so yourself, your entire argument under the "schedule" section is undercut by the fact that MLB teams play 162 games. Those games can be ****ing long and everybody plays the whole game. Their postseason is just as lengthy and their travel schedule just as absurd. Are you therefore prepared to accept that MLB players are the toughest of all?

You seem to be missing the point. Hockey players are actually MOVING for 20 minutes or so PER game. Yes baseball players play more games, but they barely have to move. Watch a game of baseball, and then watch a game of hockey. You tell me who works harder.

Originally Posted by Black_Mamba

With the NHL, you get your sanctioned fighting (which I've never understood) and your occasional heated moments with high contact (checks and what have you), but the physicality is not continuous and inevitable like it is in the NFL. In football

I actually wrote an essay on the science behind hockey fights. To summarize: hockey fights are used for changing the pace of a game, luring a star player to the penalty box, retribution for a dirty hit, and for intimidating players.

Once again, you obviously don't watch hockey. If you are open for a hit, someone is going to hit you. Take Scott Stevens for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U7jUbKQYdw

He's a great example of an NHL hard hitter. Unfortunately, he retired a couple seasons ago.

There are also puck battles along the boards, shoving, fights (as you mentioned), and lots of hitting.

Originally Posted by Black_Mamba

If you're a lineman, you take a beating by very big men* every play.
-If you're a QB, you're likely to be blindsided. You're expected to step up and take a hit to deliver the ball on target.
-If you're a WR, you might be bumped off the line. There will surely come a time where you'll be nailed coming across the middle.
-If you carry the ball at any time, you will be sent to the ground.

*I'd also like to emphasize the part about "big men." I'm sure NHL players are typically much bigger and stronger than an average guy pulled off the street, but NFL players, particularly the lineman, are a different breed. We're talking about athletic guys who are often well over 300 lbs. To take one example, consider Bryant Mckinnie, the Viking's starting left guard.



He is 6'8" and 335 lbs. He's a big man, but hardly an anomaly. There are plenty of players around those numbers. When you consider that small and big players alike get beat around by these beasts, you come to appreciate that the bodily toll is much higher for the NFL player than any other sport (except maybe boxing).

There are guys in the NHL who play with separated shoulders, broken jaws, and broken bones. In the NFL, chances are you're going to be out for a while if something gets broken. Actually, not too long ago, Steve Ott was hit by a puck in the face. He broke his jaw, but instead of leaving the game, he had them freeze him up and he continued to play.

I'm not going to deny that the physical level in the NFL is fairly high, but don't discount the fact that NHL players play 82 games a season, all of which they are subjected to hits. Everyone is fair game, whereas in the NFL, only certain positions get hit the most.

Originally Posted by Black_Mamba

You might naively think that 100% burden / 11 players = 9.9% burden per player, and conclude that each player bears a smaller responsibility for his team's success. This is completely wrong.

For a play to work, every component has to succeed. It won't be remembered as a great pass if the receiver drops it. The QB won't be able to get the ball down the field if a lineman misses a block. Your lock-down bump and run is irrelevant if the safety misses his assignment.

I never said that they "bear a smaller responsibility". Some players obviously carry more weight than others. However, if you fumble the ball in football, you have 10 more players to try and recover it. In hockey, you have 4.

Originally Posted by Black_Mamba

In football, you are reliant on the people around you to a far greater extent than basketball or hockey. At the same time, the whole breaks down if the parts don't do their job. Every player on the field is important. A single player cannot ever dominate a game like they can in hockey or basketball.

For example, when the team is playing like **** (often on the road), the Lakers will run isolation with Kobe Bryant and give him an opportunity to take over the game individually. It's not a great strategy, but there are times where it gives us the best chance to win. In such games, the other four players on the floor are not terribly important, even though the model you presented suggests that each should be making a 20% contribution. Kobe is not nearly dependent on a teammate as say, Adrian Peterson is on his blockers.

In football, every player is important on every play because there is a huge amount of dependence on each other.

Your lack of hockey knowledge is painful. While there are very few players in the NHL who don't need a supporting cast, such as Sidney Crosby, Alex Ovechkin, Evgeni Malkin, and Ilya Kovalchuk, the vast majority of NHL players need contributions from their linemates. The best example of this is 2 years ago when Markus Naslund was still with the Vancouver Canucks. In order to spread their scoring out, Naslund played on the second line, while the Sedin Twins played on the first line. Unfortunately, the supporting cast for Naslund was extremely weak. He put up solid numbers considering he had ****ty linemates, but he was subjected to a lot of media abuse for being a shadow of his former self. What they didn't realize is that playing with weaker players isn't going to help you get points.

Everyone is reliant on each other, especially on penalty kills. If one person gets out of position, or fails to do their job, then the puck will be in the back of the net.

Originally Posted by Black_Mamba

That's ridiculous. There's no barometer to measure toughness and there's absolutely no reason to believe hockey players are tougher.

Toughness is a matter that comes down to the individual. The type of injury that would sideline an NFL player for a year would also sideline a hockey player for a year. For an injury that devastating, it is not a matter of toughness, but human capability. The toughest man alive is not going to be able to play with a broken leg.

Players who receive injuries such as Tom Brady, have successfully returned during the season. Hell, Erik Cole broke his neck midway through the season and still returned for the playoffs. Kevin Bieksa broke a bone in his foot during a game last season. He played 2 games before he even learned that it was broken. He sat out for a week and a half and then returned to play, despite the break.

Originally Posted by Black_Mamba

You only have a point if you talk about raw "work," which, for whatever reason, you seem to define as number of games played. If you're speak of probability of winning, the opposite is true. It is much harder for an NFL team to make the playoffs. And once they get there, if they lose even one game, they're out.

If the average football player plays 6 minutes, and an average hockey player plays 3 times as much, then yes, hockey players are going to be working harder than a football player.

It may be harder to make the playoffs in the NFL, but it's even harder to win a championship in the NHL. For the playoffs, there are four more teams in NHL playoffs when compared to the NFL. So really, the smaller number of teams means that they have a greater chance of winning a championship, as opposed to an NHL playoff contender.

Originally Posted by Black_Mamba

Something tells me that you'd burn more calories per mile ran than per mile skated. It also should be taken into consideration that this is not an evenly paced 8 mile jog. There is a lot of starting, stopping, cutting, and sprinting--which is obviously much harder on the body.

You do realize that players "start, stop, cut, and sprint" when they skate, don't you? Apparently you don't. It should also be "taken into consideration that this isn't an evenly paced 8 mile skate" .

Really, the only thing that you've brought up is the difference in physical punishment. While football players receive more head injuries, and harder hits, hockey players are subjected to 5 times as many games. The more games, the more potential hits. That, and players also do a little thing called shot blocking. It involves a rubber disc flying at you at speeds upwards of 100mph.

Originally Posted by Black_Mamba

I'm not even going to respond to your section on individual ability because it is inane. Do you even realize how meaningless it is to compare stats from two different sports? Hopefully you were being facetious . . .

The stats were for ****s. The real kicker, however, is that NHL players have a smaller scoring space when compared to the NFL (66.7 times smaller, to be exact). That, and they have a goalie. Yet, despite this, they still score nearly as much as an NFL player.

Originally Posted by Black_Mamba

Even if it did carry meaning (which I emphatically assure you it does not), you could just easily interpret your numbers to mean that NFL defenders are better.

That's where you are mistaken. All of the stats I took were from OFFENSIVE players from both sports. If you are going to say that NFL defenders are better, then you have to take into account that there are only 2 defencemen on the ice to defend 3 forwards, whereas there are 11 defenders on the field for a football team. This is if you look at defensive players only. Normally a centerman would cover the remaining forward, but not in this case.

Out of personal experience, hockey is harder. I've played contact football with high school football players, and it wasn't as bad as some of the hits I've taken in hockey. While you might say I'm biased, I'm going to reinforce that this is based strictly on personal experience. I've had my helmet torn off my head from a high hit in hockey, and that is twice as bad as having a 200+ pound tackle you.

Originally Posted by Black_Mamba

With the NHL, you get your sanctioned fighting (which I've never understood) and your occasional heated moments with high contact (checks and what have you), but the physicality is not continuous and inevitable like it is in the NFL.

What? In the NHL people get checked constantly. Watch more hockey.

If you're near the puck and not paying attention 9/10 chances you will get ****ed up. Here's a recent example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqanH27U338

Something tells me that you'd burn more calories per mile ran than per mile skated. It also should be taken into consideration that this is not an evenly paced 8 mile jog. There is a lot of starting, stopping, cutting, and sprinting--which is obviously much harder on the body.

You've never skated before have you? Plus as said previously, NHL players also do alot of starting, stopping, cutting and sprinting.

Only a Canadian would defend hockey. Oh wait.

Originally Posted by Mafoofoo

What? In the NHL people get checked constantly. Watch more hockey.

If you're near the puck and not paying attention 9/10 chances you will get ****ed up. Here's a recent example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqanH27U338

You've never skated before have you? Plus as said previously, NHL players also do alot of starting, stopping, cutting and sprinting.

Exactly. If your head is done, you're toast. Hell, even if your head is up, you're still going to get nailed. I've played hockey since I popped out of the womb. Bill, I'm betting you've never even played an ice hockey game within a league.

Sydney Crosby sucks.

^ Very true, but Fleury is now awesome and that was one helluva Game 7.

Hockey > All other sports

<- Bitter Flyers fan, Fleury can suck it. D:<

Hey fights break out in Hockey. Not so much in football. To me I've always known hockey is more violent. I'm not a fan of either sport since I don't find sports too much fun. Running hell yeah! But nothing fun to watch. And in the end I wouldn't want to piss off a person from either one of those sports. I'm already missing one tooth, don't want to make it another.

football is much better than hockey

Originally Posted by skittle link

football is much better than hockey

You should give reasons as to why you feel it is better.

Originally posted by Nostil
<- Bitter Flyers fan, Fleury can suck it. D:<

Hey, I'm no Pitt fan, either. I'm from Buffalo, you think we enjoyed the way the first Winter Classic turned out? And I'll readily tell ya that Ryan Miller could kick Fleury's ass in a fight.

But you've got to give credit to that final save. That's poster-worthy

Hockey is not a sport.

/thread

And what would a black guy know about hockey?

Originally Posted by Jeff

And what would a black guy know about hockey?

I resent that statement, as the Flyers goalie next season is a black motha ****a.

Originally Posted by Mikhael

Only a Canadian would defend hockey. Oh wait.

Only an American would call Handegg Football.

Originally Posted by Snow_Storm

Hockey is not a sport.

And playing catch is?