KINE
4060
Independent
Study


Eye­Hand
Coordination
in
Elite
Athletes:



Relationship
of
Eye­Hand
Coordination
and
Physical
Fitness

Test
Results
and
NHL
Playing
Potential
in
Elite­Level
Ice

Hockey
Players

























































Erica
Robinson

#208
227
423

May
18,
2009

Prof.
Lauren
Sergio

KINE
4060

 

Relationship
of
Eye­Hand
Coordination
and
Physical
Fitness
Test
Results
and
NHL

Playing
Potential
in
Elite­Level
Ice
Hockey
Players



By
Erica
L.
Robinson



Abstract




 The
primary
purpose
of
this
study
was
to
determine
which
fitness
and
motor

control
variables
have
the
highest
capability
for
predicting
hockey
playing
potential
at
the

elite
level
as
determined
by
years
taken
to
get
to
the
NHL
(yNHL).

The
secondary

purposes
of
this
study
were
to
compare
if
these
variables
were
similar
to
previous

variables
found
to
predict
success
in
terms
of
draft
selection
order,
and
to
develop
and

test
a
predictive
model
for
year
of
entry
into
the
NHL
post‐NHLED
Combine
Testing.


Fitness
test
results
and
motor
control
(eye‐hand
coordination)
test
results
were
gathered

from
the
NHLED
Testing
Combine
from
years
2005‐2007
and
compared
with
years
taken

to
attain
NHL
status
on
a
total
of
276
players.

Regression
models
revealed
bimanual
time


from
the
eye‐hand
coordination
task
to
have
predictive
value
in
all
positions
except

goalies,
for
whom
total
time
(bimanual
+
slalom)
was
predictive.

The
only
similar
variable

found
in
previous
studies
that
determined
success
at
the
elite
level
as
determined
by
draft

selection
order
and
found
in
this
study
to
determine
success
in
terms
of
yNHL
was
long

jump
for
the
skating
positions
(forwards
and
defense).

The
predictive
model
was

developed
and
tested
on
data
gathered
from
the
2008
NHLED
Testing
Combine
and
found

predicted
yNHL
to
have
low
correlation
with
actual
yNHL.

This
should
be
updated
in

following
years
since
generally
more
players
make
it
to
the
NHL
in
years
2
and
3
after

testing
and
only
one
year
has
since
elapsed
for
players
tested
in
2008.

In
conclusion,
eye‐
hand
coordination
scores
have
predictive
value
in
determining
how
long
it
will
take
a

player
to
attain
NHL
status.





Introduction




 Ice
hockey
is
a
physically
demanding
contact
sport
that
relies
on
both
anaerobic

and
aerobic
energy
production
systems,
with
shifts
lasting
from
30
–
80
seconds
(Quinney

et
al
2008;
Burr
et
al
2008).

These
high‐intensity
skating
bouts
require
rapid
acceleration,

changes
in
velocity,
and
the
execution
of
a
multitude
of
skilled
maneuvers
(Quinney
et
al.,

2008).

While
previous
studies
have
examined
the
relationship
of
physical
fitness
test

results
derived
from
the
National
Hockey
League
Entry
Draft
(NHLED)
Combine
each
year

with
hockey
playing
potential,
there
are
to
date
no
studies
examining
the
predictive

impact
of
motor
control
scores
in
hockey
such
as
eye‐hand
coordination.

While
the

current
method
of
testing
eye‐hand
coordination
is
a
fairly
recent
inclusion
in
the

Combine
tests,
the
implications
of
these
scores
in
terms
of
player
success
as
measured
by

entry
into
the
NHL
is
of
interest.


 Several
studies
have
previously
examined
which
physical
fitness
test
results

demonstrate
a
relationship
with
hockey
playing
potential
in
players
from
the
NHLED

Combine
using
the
outcome
variable
of
draft
selection
order
(Burr
et
al
2008;
Bur
et
al

2007,
Vescovi
et
al
2006).

This
outcome
variable
was
used
as
a
measure
of
success
in



 1

hockey
because
it
includes
on‐ice
performance
as
assessed
by
central
scouting
and
the

combination
of
physical
fitness
variables
derived
from
the
Combine
(Burr
et
al,
2008).


The
authors
also
state
it
is
acknowledged
that
during
a
draft
a
team
will
always
choose
the

best
player
still
available
for
selection,
therefore
essentially
ranking
the
players
on
overall

playing
ability
within
each
year’s
draft
(Burr
et
al,
2008).

Vescovi
et
al
note
that
during

the
annual
NHL
draft,
each
team
has
the
opportunity
to
select
one
player
per
round
over

the
eight
rounds,
and
the
most
highly
touted
players
are
generally
selected
in
earlier

rounds
(2006).

For
the
purposes
of
this
study,
Year
of
Entry
into
the
NHL
(yNHL)
was

used
as
the
outcome
variable
as
this
is
an
objective
and
more
appropriate
measure
of

success
which
is
of
value
to
central
scouting
and
it
was
specifically
desirable
to
find
what

relationships
exist
between
data
gathered
at
the
Combine
and
year
of
entry
into
the
NHL.


While
the
majority
of
players
invited
to
participate
in
the
Combine
testing
are
drafted
at

the
NHL
Entry
Draft
(NHLED)
in
the
NHL
draft
following
testing,
only
roughly
1/3
of
these

players
go
on
to
the
NHL,
and
for
this
reason
it
is
desirable
to
understand
which
variables,

if
any,
play
a
role
in
this
differentiation.




 The
purposes
of
this
study
are
four‐fold:
primarily,
to
see
what
impact
motor

control
scores
have
on
making
it
into
the
NHL;
to
see
which
factors
(fitness
and
motor

control
testing
results)
predict
a
player’s
year
of
entry
into
the
NHL
and
to
what
extent;
to

examine
if
the
predictor
variables
for
year
of
entry
into
the
NHL
are
in
line
with
previous

findings
of
which
predictor
variables
are
related
to
draft
entry
order
(Burr
et
al
2008,

Vescovi
et
al
2006)
and
to
develop
and
test
a
predictive
model
based
on
the
predictor

variables,
using
data
gathered
at
the
2008
NHLED
Combine.







Methods




 All
data
was
obtained
from
the
NHLED
testing
combine
held
annually
in
May
/
June

during
which
members
of
the
Human
Performance
Laboratory
at
York
University
carry

out
all
tests
and
measures,
allowing
for
a
high
degree
of
control
in
data
collection
and

reporting
(Burr
et
al,
2008).

The
top
110
–
120
junior
ice
hockey
players
worldwide
are

invited
to
the
testing
combine,
where
they
participate
in
a
battery
of
off‐ice
hockey‐related

tests
designed
to
assess
player
fitness
(Burr
et
al,
2008)
and
motor
control
/
eye‐hand

coordination.

The
data
for
this
study
originally
included
years
2004
to
2008,
however

2004
was
excluded
as
the
eye‐hand
coordination
testing
procedure
was
still
being

developed.

Data
from
2008
was
not
used
in
examining
which
predictor
variables
are

related
to
year
of
NHL
entry,
but
instead
was
used
to
test
the
predictive
power
of
the

model.

Data
from
2005
to
2007
was
used
to
examine
which
variables
predicted
entry
and

for
development
of
the
predictive
model.


 Test
results
from
the
Human
Performance
Laboratory
collected
from
the
physical

fitness
measures
were
combined
with
data
gathered
from
the
Sensorimotor
Neuroscience

Laboratory
regarding
eye‐hand
coordination
scores
for
analysis.

Information
on
draft

selection
order
and
year
of
entry
into
the
NHL
following
Combine
testing
was
obtained

from
both
www.nhl.com
and
www.hockeydb.com.

Entry
into
the
NHL
is
defined
as
having

played
at
least
one
game
in
the
NHL.

Coding
was
used
for
position,
year
of
entry,
upper

and
lower
body
development
and
round
drafted.

Round
drafted
/
selected
was
reverse‐
coded
with
0
being
never
drafted
and
8
being
drafted
in
the
first
round;
while
year
of



 2

entry
into
the
NHL
was
broken
up
into
9
categories:
each
year
that
a
player
could

potentially
be
called
up
the
NHL
was
divided
in
half,
from
September
to
January
being
the

first
half,
and
February
to
June
the
second.

This
gave
a
possible
score
of
1
to
8
for
those

who
made
it
into
the
NHL
within
the
four
years
examined,
with
all
players
who
did
not

make
it
in
being
given
a
score
of
10.

From
the
physical
fitness
data
lean
body
mass
was

derived
by
subtracting
body
fat
(lbs)
from
(total)
weight
(lbs).

In
following
with
Burr
et

al,
2008,
a
body
index
score
was
created
based
on
anthropometric
measures
including
the

above
lean
body
mass
(lbs),
height
(cm),
and
upper
and
lower
body
muscular

development,
by
summing
the
z‐scores
for
each
measure.





Testing
Procedure


 


 The
NHLED
Testing
Combine
takes
place
over
a
two‐day
period
each
May
or
June

during
which
half
the
players
are
tested
on
each
day.

All
participants
conform
to

standardized
testing
instructions
and
no
practice
trials
are
allowed.

All
tests
and

measures
are
carried
out
by
York
University’s
Human
Performance
Laboratory.

The
tests

include
the
Wingate
30‐second
anaerobic
power
test
(peak
watts
and
fatigue
index),

aerobic
power
(VO2max),
physical
development,
height,
weight,
percent
body
fat
based
on

skinfold
thickness
at
six
sites
(chest,
triceps,
subscapular,
suprailliac,
abdomen,
and
thigh),

grip
strength,
bench
press,
sit‐ups,
push‐ups,
standing
long
jump,
vertical
jump
leg
power,

upper‐body
power,
flexibility,
and
isometric
push
and
pull
force.

Full
descriptions
are

given
in
table
1
as
taken
from
Burr
et
al
2008.


Body
fat
is
calculated
using
the
formula:



Percentage
Fat
=
(sum
of
skinfolds
x
0.0097)
+
3.64
(Vescovi
et
al,
2006);



Right
and
left
grip
strength
was
further
combined
into
a
single
score.
The
NHLED
testing

Combine
is
arranged
as
a
circuit
in
which
players
attempt
each
test
in
a
designated
order

that
allows
for
appropriate
recovery
time
between
tests
using
similar
muscle
groups,
and

so
that
completion
of
one
test
does
not
lead
to
severe
decrements
in
another
(Burr
et
al,

2008).

Motor
control
/
eye‐hand
coordination
scores
were
obtained
in
a
separate
area

using
a
Phantom
Robotic
Interface
developed
by
Thomas
Massie
of
SensAble

Technologies.

The
Phantom
robotic
arm
is
equipped
with
embedded
torque
motors
and
is

attached
to
a
hockey
stick
handle.

Players
must
stick‐handle
a
ball
through
four
pylons

spaced
an
even
distance
apart
on
a
computer
screen.

The
torque
motors
push
back

against
the
player
if
the
Phantom
detects
changing
velocity
or
if
the
player
is
getting
too

close
to
an
obstacle,
thus
making
it
harder
to
navigate
(Hartley,
2008).

Scores
used
from

this
testing
procedure
include
dominant
hand
slalom
time
to
complete
the
task,
bimanual

time,
and
total
time
(sum
of
slalom
and
bimanual).

Assessment
of
handedness
was
done

via
a
written
questionnaire
outlining
11
tasks
and
asks
the
player
which
hand
they
use
to

complete
them
including
writing,
throwing,
holding
utensils
and
which
hand
they
hold

lower
on
the
hockey
stick.

Only
dominant
hand
slalom
scores
were
used.















 3

Subjects


 


 The
study
sample
included
276
elite
junior‐level
hockey
players
ages
17‐19,
ranked

as
being
among
the
top
120
players
each
year
worldwide
by
NHL
central
scouting
(Burr
et

al,
2008).

Of
these,
159
(57.6%)
were
forwards,
87
(31.5%)
were
defense,
and
30
(10.9%)

were
goalies.

A
further
sub‐population
of
skating
players
was
created
from
combined

forwards
and
defense
as
per
Burr
et
al
2008,
resulting
in
246
(89%)
skating
players.

Any

players
who
missed
more
than
two
tests
at
the
Combine
were
excluded
from
the
sample,

for
a
total
of
46
exclusions.

Those
missing
two
tests
or
fewer
were
included
and
again
as

per
Burr
et
al
2008,
the
missing
value
was
replaced
with
the
overall
group
mean
for
that

specific
variable.




 In
accordance
with
York
University
policy,
this
investigation
was
approved
by
the

office
of
human
research
ethics,
and
written
informed
consent
was
obtained
by
the

participants
as
described
by
the
American
College
of
Sports
Medicine,
and
with
the

understanding
that
participant
names
would
remain
confidential.





Statistical
Analyses




 All
statistical
analyses
were
conducted
using
Matlab
7.4.0.

Stepwise
regression

was
run
on
all
positions,
skating
players,
forwards,
defense,
and
goalies
with
the
outcome

variable
as
year
until
entry
into
the
NHL,
as
well
as
the
outcome
variable
of
draft
order

selection
to
determine
if
similar
variables
had
predictive
value
as
seen
in
Burr
et
al

(2008).

Stepwise
regression
was
used
to
identify
the
significant
predictor
variables

(P=<0.05)
and
R2
for
each
of
the
ten
models
which
were
duplicates
of
the
same
five
–
all

positions
(n
=
276),
skating
players
(n=
246),
forwards
(n=159),
defense
(n=87)
and

goalies
(n=30)
–
but
the
first
five
having
the
outcome
variable
of
yNHL,
and
the
other
five

having
the
outcome
variable
of
draft
selection
order
for
a
total
of
10
models.

Based
on
the

results
of
the
stepwise
regression,
a
regression
equation
was
formulated
utilizing
the

significant
beta
weights.

This
equation
was
used
to
predict
year
of
entry
into
the
NHL

(yNHL)
using
data
gathered
in
2008,
and
the
predictions
were
measured
against
the

actual
year
of
entry
using
simple
correlation.





 4

 























 5

 Results

Table
2:
Multivariate
models
comparing
National
Hockey
League
Entry
Draft
predictor

variables
and
year
of
entry
into
the
NHL
as
outcome.

Model
 R
 R2
(adjusted
 Predictors
 B
(SE)
 P
value

R )

2

One:
All
positions
 0.298
 0.089
(0.076)
 Constant
 15.406
 


VO2max
 ‐0.976
 (p=0.0003)

Bimanual
Time
 ‐0.150
 (p=0.0016)

Push‐Ups
Max
#
 0.056
 (p=0.0470)

Two:
Skating
 0.305
 0.093
(0.082)
 Constant
 ‐5.9762
 

Bimanual
Max
#
 0.173
 (p=0.000)

Push
Ups
 0.614
 (p=0.006)

Three:
Forwards
 0.297
 0.088
(0.071)
 Constant
 ‐1.2795
 

Body
Index
 0.164
 (p=0.0112)

Bimanual
 0.115
 (p=0.0157)

Four:
Defense
 0.338
 0.114
(0.093)
 Constant
 ‐3.3025
 

Bimanual
Time
 0.174
 (p=0.0014)

Five:
Goalies
 0.858
 0.737
(0.671)
 Constant
 ‐6.3776
 

Eye‐Hand
Time
 0.157
 (p=0.035)

Combined
Grip
 0.030
 (p=0.011)

Bench
press
 ‐0.268
 (p=0.001)

Push‐Ups
Max
#
 ‐0.149
 (p=0.014)

Body
Index
 0.536
 (p=0.001)



Table
3:
Multivariate
models
comparing
National
Hockey
League
Entry
Draft
predictor

variables
and
draft‐selection‐order
outcome.

Model
 R
 R2
(adjusted
 Predictors
 B
(SE)
 P
value

R2)

One:
All
positions
 0.152
 0.023
(0.016)
 Constant
 7.291
 

Push
Ups
Max
#
 ‐0.061
 (p=0.011)

Two:
Skating
 0.212
 0.045
(0.033)
 Constant
 2.5976
 

Push
Ups
Max
#
 ‐0.068
 (p=0.007)

Long
Jump
(in)
 0.050
 (p=0.023)

Three:
Forwards*
 
 
 
 
 



Four:
Defense
 0.221
 0.049
(0.027)
 Constant
 8.3552
 

Push
Ups
Max
#
 ‐0.105
 (p=0.039)



Five:
Goalies
 0.420
 0.177
(0.118)
 Constant
 9.7008
 

Push
Ups
Max
#
 ‐0.227
 (p=0.021)




*
No
significant
predictor
variables
derived
from
stepwise
regression









 6

 Table
4:
Predictive
Capacity
of
Regression
Formula
for
Year
of
NHL
Entry
Using
2008

NHLED
Data

Model
 Formula
 Correlation
with
2008
NHL
Entry
Data

One:
All
positions
 yNHL
=
15.406
+
(‐0.97553
x
 ‐0.001

VO2max)
+
(‐0.15034
x
Bimanual

Time)
+
(0.056227
x
Push
Ups
Max#)

Two:
Skating
 yNHL
=
‐5.9762
+
(0.17317
x
 ‐0.034

Bimanual
Time)
+
(0.61379
x

VO2max)

Three:
Forwards
 yNHL
=
‐1.2795
+
(0.11519
x
 0.022

Bimanual
Time)
+
(0.16398
x
Body

Index)

Four:
Defense
 yNHL
=
‐3.3025
+
(0.17369
x
 0.034

Bimanual
Time)

Five:
Goalies
 yNHL
=
‐6.3776
+
(‐0.14852
x
Push
 *
Cannot
derive
(NaN)

Ups
Max
#)
+
(0.53575
x
Body
Index)

+
(‐0.26835
x
Bench
Press
#
(lbs))
+

(0.030021
x
Combined
Hand
Grip)
+

(0.157
x
Eye‐Hand
Time)



Table
5:
Comparison
of
Predictor
Variables
on
Outcome
Variables
for
Draft
Selection

Order
and
yNHL

Model:
 Burr
et
al
2008
Draft
 Current
Study
Draft
 Current
Study
yNHL

Selection
Order
 Selection
Order
 Predictor
Variables

Predictor
Variables
 Predictor
Variables

All
Positions
 Body
Index
 Push
Ups
(Max
#)
 Push
Ups
(Max
#)

Peak
Watts
 
 Absolute
VO2max

Bimanual
Time

Skating
Positions
 Body
Index
 Push
Ups
(Max
#)
 Absolute
VO2max

Peak
Watts
 Long
Jump
 Bimanual
Time

Fatigue
Index

Long
Jump

Forwards
 Body
Index
 No
significant
 Body
Index

Peak
Watts
 predictors
 Bimanual
Time

Defense
 Body
Index
 Push
Ups
(Max
#)
 Bimanual
Time

Peak
Watts

Fatigue
Index

Goalies
 N/A
 Push
Ups
(Max
#)
 Push
Ups
(Max
#)

Body
Index

Bench
Press

Hand
Grip

Eye‐Hand
Total
Time







 7


 With
yNHL
as
the
main
outcome
variable,
significant
predictors
for
all
positions

were
Push
Ups,
Absolute
VO2max,
and
Bimanual
Time.

For
skating
positions
which

included
forwards
and
defense,
significant
predictor
variables
were
absolute
VO2max
and

bimanual
time.

Bimanual
time
was
also
significant
in
the
forwards
only
model
along
with

body
index
which
was
also
found
to
be
a
predictor
variable
for
draft
selection
order
by

Burr
et
al
(2008),
and
bimanual
time
alone
was
found
to
be
a
significant
predictor
variable

for
the
defense
model.

The
goalies
model
had
the
highest
R2
with
roughly
67%
of
the

variability
being
accounted
for
by
the
model,
and
had
the
highest
number
of
significant

predictor
variables
including
push
ups,
body
index,
bench
press,
and
eye‐hand
total
time.





 When
comparing
models
using
draft
selection
order
as
the
outcome
variable,
push

ups
(max
#)
was
the
significant
predictor
in
all
models
but
forwards
(which
demonstrated

no
significant
predictor
variable)
and
long
jump
in
the
skating
model
which
was
not

subsequently
seen
in
either
forwards
or
defense
alone.

This
may
be
due
to
the
larger
size

of
the
skating
model
being
able
to
detect
significant
predictor
variables.

In
line
with
Burr

et
al,
the
best
model
(goalies)
only
accounted
for
11%
of
the
variability.




 When
multiple
regression
equations
were
derived
using
the
beta
weights
from
the

significant
predictor
variables
as
deemed
by
the
stepwise
regression,
they
were
used
to

predict
yNHL
for
the
players
tested
at
the
2008
NHLED
Combine.

These
predictions
were

measured
against
the
actual
yNHL
using
simple
correlation
to
detect
how
well
the

predictive
model
functioned.

The
correlation
with
all
models
was
low,
and
is
complicated

by
the
fact
that
many
players
are
currently
listed
in
category
10
(never
made
it
into
the

NHL)
however
they
have
only
had
two
opportunities
or
potential
entry
points
thus
far

using
the
current
study’s
coding
system
(September
–
January
=
1,
February
–
June

2).


Only
the
top
few
players
each
year
make
it
into
the
NHL
within
the
first
year
and
the

likelihood
increases
in
the
coming
two
years,
and
then
proceeds
to
drop
by
year
four

following
the
NHLED
Combine
testing.

Therefore
this
predictive
model
may
prove
to
be

more
accurate
when
2008
players
are
followed
and
recorded
for
yNHL
in
the
coming
two

to
three
years.





Discussion




 In
comparing
results
for
predictor
variables
for
draft
selection
order
with
findings

by
Burr
et
al
(see
table
5),
the
only
similarity
exists
between
skating
positions
and
the
long

jump
variable.

In
comparing
predictor
variables
for
Burr
et
al’s
(2008)
draft
selection

order
vs.
the
current
study’s
yNHL,
the
only
similarity
exists
for
forwards
and
body
index.


This
may
suggest
firstly
that
body
index
is
of
importance
for
forwards
in
terms
of
overall

hockey
success,
both
in
being
drafted
in
an
earlier
round
and
in
making
it
to
the
NHL,
but

also
that
predictor
variables
attaining
to
draft
selection
order
are
not
highly
reflective
of

success
in
hockey
as
measured
by
attainment
of
playing
in
the
NHL,
which
is
a
more

accurate
measure
of
success
of
increased
value
to
central
scouting.

This
is
demonstrated

as
well
by
the
fact
that
while
93.5%
(258
players)
of
the
entire
sample
was
drafted,
only

28.6%
(79
players)
of
the
total
sample
ever
played
a
game
in
the
NHL.

This
outcome

variable
is
likely
still
somewhat
predictive
of
yNHL
since
the
players
that
do
make
it
to
the

NHL
tend
to
be
selected
in
the
earlier
rounds,
with
this
sample
in
particular

demonstrating
72
players
drafted
in
the
first
round,
62
in
the
second,
4
in
the
3rd,
34
in
the

4th
round,
and
18
or
less
in
each
of
rounds
5
–
8.





 8


 In
comparing
results
to
those
found
by
Vescovi
et
al
(2006),
who
found
there
to
be

no
predictor
variables
in
terms
of
draft
selection
order
as
the
outcome
variable,
the

results
of
this
study
contrast
that
as
noted
by
Push
Ups
being
a
significant
predictor

variable
amongst
most
models.

Vescovi
et
al
also
note
that
using
draft
selection
order
as

an
outcome
variable
may
be
limiting,
so
this
study
features
an
alternative
outcome

variable
(yNHL)
as
a
strength.




 Of
particular
interest
is
the
role
played
by
eye‐hand
coordination
scores
as

predictor
variables
in
yNHL.

Bimanual
time
was
a
significant
predictor
in
all
models

except
goalies,
in
which
total
time
was
a
significant
predictor
variable,
which

demonstrates
that
eye‐hand
coordination
scores
were
of
significant
importance
for
all
five

models.

This
shines
light
on
the
importance
of
the
newer
eye‐hand
coordination
testing

and
its
possible
predictive
value
in
terms
of
years
it
takes
to
get
into
the
NHL.

It
also
gives

credit
to
the
importance
of
off‐ice
testing
which
is
in
contrast
with
conclusions
by
Vescovi

et
al
(2006).




 Limitations
of
the
current
study
include
the
smaller
sample
size
which
is
nearly
¼

that
of
Burr
et
al
(2008)
and
may
be
the
reason
why
more
predictor
variables
were

detected
by
those
authors
for
the
outcome
variable
of
draft
selection
order.

While
the

goalies
model
had
the
highest
R2,
it
was
a
fairly
small
subpopulation
of
only
30
players.



Also
the
skating
players
subpopulation
as
well
as
forwards
and
defense
subpopulations

may
have
been
too
small
to
detect
additional
predictor
variables.

Further
research
using

larger
sample
sizes
is
needed.

Other
limitations
include
not
being
able
to
use
data
earlier

than
2005
due
to
lack
of
or
improper
testing
of
eye‐hand
coordination,
leading
to
a
limited

sample
size.

Also
of
limitation
is
that
the
predictive
model
using
data
from
2008
only

allows
for
two
possible
time
points
of
entry
into
the
NHL
although
the
predictive
model

goes
beyond
this
first
year,
so
more
data
will
have
to
be
collected
in
the
future
to
test
the

predictive
capacity
of
the
model.




 The
strengths
of
this
study
include
using
yNHL
as
the
outcome
variable
which
has

yet
to
be
studied,
as
well
as
the
development
of
a
predictive
model
/
equation
that
may
be

used
in
the
future.

It
is
important
to
note,
however,
that
the
majority
of
the
models

accounted
for
7
–
9%
of
the
variability,
with
goalies
presenting
the
highest
R2
accounting

for
67%
of
the
variability.

This
entails
that
while
physiological
and
motor
control
scores

have
some
importance
in
predicting
draft
selection
order
or
yNHL,
there
are
a
large

number
of
extraneous
factors
including
past
performance,
game
observation,
player

aggressiveness,
psychological
factors,
and
professional
scouting
intuition
(Burr
et
al.,

2008).

While
physiological
and
motor
control
scores
do
not
represent
a
large
percentage

of
the
variation,
they
can
serve
as
useful
benchmark
measurements
to
track
player

progress
and
development
during
the
season
and
their
career.




Acknowledgments




 This
project
did
not
receive
any
rewards,
monetary
or
otherwise,
from
external

companies
or
equipment
manufacturers,
with
the
exception
of
York
University’s
working

contract
with
the
NHL
for
the
purposes
of
the
central
scouting
combine
fitness
testing.

I

would
like
to
acknowledge
Roni
Jamnik
for
providing
the
physiological
data
and
Lauren

Sergio
for
the
motor
control
data
as
well
as
sincere
gratitude
for
her
guidance
in

completing
this
study.





 9



References


Burr, J.K., Jamnik, R.K., Baker, J., Macpherson, A., Gledhill, N., McGuire, E.J.
(2008). Relationship of physical fitness test results and hockey playing
potential in elite-level ice hockey players. Journal Of Strength and Conditioning
Research. 22(5):1535-1543.


Burr, J.F., Jamnik, V.K., Dogra, S., Gledhill, N. (2007). Evaluation of jump protocols to
assess leg power and predict hockey playing potential. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research. 21(4):1139-1145


Green, M.R., Pivarnik, J.M., Carrier, Womack, C.J. (2006). Relationship between
physiological profile and on-ice performance of a national collegiate athletic
association division I hockey team. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research. 20(1) 43-46.

Hartley, M. (2008, September 22). Prospects keep hand on the stick, eye on the
screen. Globe and Mail

Quinney, H.A., Dewart, R., Game, A., Snydmiller, G., Warburton, D., Bell, G.
(2008). A 26 year physiological description of a national hockey league team.
Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 33: 753-760

Vescovi, J.D., Murray, T.M., Fiala, K.A., VanHeest, J.L. (2006). Off-ice
performance and draft status of elite ice hockey players. International
Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 1:207-221.









 10