Helping Hockey Players Help Themselves
James Surowiecki, writer for The New Yorker's Financial Page, recently ruminated on the current Congressional debate on a bill to raise automotive fuel economy standards. The article, while brief by New Yorker standards (then again, so is Gone with the Wind), makes for a very intriguing read.
Clearly a discussion about fuel economy legislation is better left to the political arena; but Surowiecki referenced an example to illustrate his point that you may find as interesting as I did:Back in the nineteen-seventies, an economist named Thomas Schelling, who later won the Nobel Prize, noticed something peculiar about the NHL. At the time, players were allowed, but not required, to wear helmets, and most players chose to go helmet-less, despite the risk of severe head trauma.But when they were asked in secret ballots most players also said that the league should require them to wear helmets. The reason for this conflict, Schelling explained, was that not wearing a helmet conferred a slight advantage on the ice; it gave the player better peripheral vision, and it also made him look fearless. The players wanted to have their heads protected, but as individuals they couldn't afford to jeopardize their effectiveness on the ice.
Making helmets compulsory eliminated the dilemma: the players could protect their heads without suffering a competitive disadvantage. Without the rule, the players' individually rational decisions added up to a collectively irrational result. With the rule, the outcome was closer to what players really wanted.
Surowiecki goes on to posit, "In calling for a law requiring better gas mileage in our cars, then, voters are really saying that they're unhappy with the collective result of the choices they make as buyers. Sometimes, they know, we need to save ourselves from ourselves."
Besides being an interesting debate in and of itself, it got me thinking about the NHL dilemma regarding face protection. Visors, a.k.a. half-shields, are currently optional in the National Hockey League. In 2004, approximately 35% of NHL players wore visors. [1] Like the helmet-optional days of yore, many players choose to forgo safety in favor of a slight competitive advantage -- though with top-notch players like Alex Ovechkin and Sidney Crosby wearing visors, one might understandably wonder if the "advantage" is more perception than reality. Regardless, a majority of current NHL players still go visor-free--a situation that sounds remarkably similar to the 1970s' helmet debate.
The half-shield issue rears its head each time a player is injured in a way that a visor could have prevented . . . and it's a surprisingly long injury list, including Saku Koivu, Dany Heatley, Owen Nolan, Bryan Berard, and Steve Yzerman to name a few prominent examples.
Even the great Stevie Y, a tough-as-nails player by any reckoning, had a change of heart after his injury:Yzerman, when talking to reporters days after his injury in the 2004 playoffs, had changed his opinion on visors.Unfortunately it is human nature to have difficulty embracing lessons learned by others. It took a personally-sustained injury for Yzerman and many others to realize that the return-on-investment of wearing a visor makes it a smart investment indeed."Sitting in the hospital that night, I really wished I'd been wearing a visor," Yzerman said. "I played 21 years and never had an eye injury. My cheekbone didn't really hurt at the time. The first thing that went through my mind was, 'I don't want to lose my eyesight.' I really believe guys should be wearing them. I didn't say that (a week before the injury occurred)."
Yzerman said that he would support the idea of mandatory visors. He added that he had no trouble adjusting to the visor. [2]
Speaking of investment, visors protect more than the players who wear them. Owners pay millions of dollars to bring the right players to a team; coaches and GMs spend countless hours on plans based around those players; fans invest hard-earned money to see those players, not to mention fans' emotional connection to their team's success. Donning a half-shield seems a small inconvenience with a potentially huge payoff that benefits more than just the player.
Now I am a fan of hockey pugilism--proper fighting (not cowardly hits from behind, elbows, and the like) has a place in the game. Regardless of where one stands on the fighting debate, visors need not impact fighting at all; when two players drop the gloves, they can simply drop the helmet as well. Not only would it make the moment as two players square off even more dramatic, but it would also reduce hand injuries from punching an opponent's helmet. And if a player is unwilling to remove his helmet for a fight, well, perhaps he should just turtle and not be fighting in the first place.
Companies like ITECH and Oakley now boast optically-correct visors that are practically bulletproof, thus significantly reducing the one player complaint that seemed to hold up to scrutiny: that visors made it more difficult to see. Clearly NHL teams would provide their players with the best visors available; thus players would be less likely to deal with the fogging/distortion issues plaguing pickup hockey players' shields. Still, any fractional vision impediment caused by visors would be irrelevant if everyone wore them--and Yzerman, by his own admission, easily adjusted to playing with a half-shield after 21 years without one.
So the debate comes back to Surowiecki's point in the New Yorker article: when individuals are incapable or unwilling to make smart decisions (whether due to a perceived or real competitive disadvantage, or just plain machismo) shouldn't the relevant governing body to help protect the individual as well as the investment of others? Or, to put it in socio-economic terms, when the parties in a given market cease to operate as rational actors, shouldn't the powers-that-be step in to correct the problem?
Whether it's the automotive industry's seat belts and safety glass, or the NHL's helmets and visors, the answer is a resounding "Yes."
Leave a comment