Swedesessed Posted May 31, 2012 Report Posted May 31, 2012 http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7986703/fast-small-vs-slow-big-ice Not a huge ESPN guy, but this was a good piece about size and how it relates to success in the NHL playoffs. Since we Sabres fans have discussed this over the years, I thought this would be an interesting read.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted May 31, 2012 Report Posted May 31, 2012 Interesting.....he tries to say it doesn't matter, but 40% of the small team success came from Detroit. Then in explaining that off, he lists Draper, Maltby and McCarty. Those guys had grit. It isn't the size in itself that matters it is grit that gets thing done. It's a lot easier to have grit when you are 6'3" 220lb than 5'9"......but we appreciate it all the more when it comes from a small guy because he is going above and beyond. You don't need to build a team of goons or huge guys....but when your most important offensive positions contain little to no grit....it becomes open season.
5th line wingnutt Posted May 31, 2012 Report Posted May 31, 2012 I seem to remember an interview DR gave where he was asked about this point. His reply was something like "all things being equal big is better than small". So maybe size counts but skill counts more. How much does grit count? Some guys play above their weight, others below.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted May 31, 2012 Report Posted May 31, 2012 I seem to remember an interview DR gave where he was asked about this point. His reply was something like "all things being equal big is better than small". So maybe size counts but skill counts more. How much does grit count? Some guys play above their weight, others below. Andreychuk always took heat because his physical game was almost non-existant. He pretty much had Vanek's game but was not a good skater. At the time he was a physical beast but played like a mouse. I think as he got older he played a little harder defense and away from the puck, but he could have been a legend in Buffalo if he had just average grit. That's why guys love Gare and Foligno so much. I see those jerseys popping up around town every so often. Can't say I remember an Andreychuk one anytime in the past decade.
TrueBlueGED Posted May 31, 2012 Report Posted May 31, 2012 As I've said in the past, I think it all comes down to having a balanced roster. Given identically talented players, I'll take the bigger guy. But there's probably more skilled small guys than big guys out there, so it's far more complicated than that in reality. You can't just collect a bunch of big, bruising goons and expect to win a damn thing if they can't skate or can't shoot or pass. On the flip side if you have a team full of Gerbes you're not going to win anything either. Winning requires a good mix and going too far in one way or the other will result in an early playoff exit.
Weave Posted May 31, 2012 Report Posted May 31, 2012 As I've said in the past, I think it all comes down to having a balanced roster. Given identically talented players, I'll take the bigger guy. But there's probably more skilled small guys than big guys out there, so it's far more complicated than that in reality. You can't just collect a bunch of big, bruising goons and expect to win a damn thing if they can't skate or can't shoot or pass. On the flip side if you have a team full of Gerbes you're not going to win anything either. Winning requires a good mix and going too far in one way or the other will result in an early playoff exit. I don't think anyone is suggesting collecting a bunch of goons. Collecting a bunch of grit is what alot of us ask for though. Dwight noticed something that I was tempted to take the time to look into, Detroit having 40% of the successful "small" teams. I don't know how you account for that to "normalize" things. That organization just plain wins with whatever they've had for a couple decades now. Maybe attempting to normalize it isn't the correct thing to do, but it is interesting nonetheless that Detroit seems to have the bulk of the small team success.
tom webster Posted May 31, 2012 Report Posted May 31, 2012 Does the fact that one team had a majority of the success really weaken the argument?
Weave Posted June 1, 2012 Report Posted June 1, 2012 Does the fact that one team had a majority of the success really weaken the argument? I honestly don't know. It will be interesting to see how much success that small team has with their HOF defenseman out to pasture.
TrueBlueGED Posted June 1, 2012 Report Posted June 1, 2012 I don't think anyone is suggesting collecting a bunch of goons. Collecting a bunch of grit is what alot of us ask for though. Dwight noticed something that I was tempted to take the time to look into, Detroit having 40% of the successful "small" teams. I don't know how you account for that to "normalize" things. That organization just plain wins with whatever they've had for a couple decades now. Maybe attempting to normalize it isn't the correct thing to do, but it is interesting nonetheless that Detroit seems to have the bulk of the small team success. Does the fact that one team had a majority of the success really weaken the argument? I know Weave, I was just using extremes to make a point about balance being important--it's not just as simple as getting more grit, because not all grit is created equal. No need to normalize for Detroit at all. It just means if you have the requisite amount of talent, you can be smaller as a team. But they always had some guys who did the dirty work in the corners and in front of the net.
dudacek Posted June 1, 2012 Report Posted June 1, 2012 I'm sick of this size/speed/skill/grit/smarts arguments. It's the ability to create and limit scoring chances that matters. The five qualities above are simply tools to achieve that. We're not dominant in any of those categories and deficient in two. That's why we're an average team.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted June 1, 2012 Report Posted June 1, 2012 I'm sick of this size/speed/skill/grit/smarts arguments. It's the ability to create and limit scoring chances that matters. The five qualities above are simply tools to achieve that. We're not dominant in any of those categories and deficient in two. That's why we're an average team. Out of 5....2/4/4/2/3.....That's a fair statement. I prefer a 4/3/3/4/4 makeup if you need to budget. It seems like Darcy aims for a 3/5/5/2/3 in his makeup, but comes short. If we actually had average size, grit and smarts....then yes, the team would have a shot to win it all. But all too often they aim for skill and speed and that comes up short. That's the good thing about size, grit and smarts.....you can't come up short in that area. You HAVE it. Your skill is the question. That's why i feel it's safer to aim for those types of players. That's the Rangers system to me. Eventually when you are surrounded by big guys that can grit it out and follow a system, you will add enough skill to get over the hump. If you always ignore size and grit....you better be damn near perfect in drafting for speed and skill.
drnkirishone Posted June 1, 2012 Report Posted June 1, 2012 Rangers lost and can't win the cup this year. can we not use them as a template now please? :flirt:
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted June 1, 2012 Report Posted June 1, 2012 Rangers lost and can't win the cup this year. can we not use them as a template now please? :flirt: Should we use the team that fired their coach before the season.....or the team that fired their coach midseason? :huh:
dEnnis the Menace Posted June 1, 2012 Report Posted June 1, 2012 Out of 5....2/4/4/2/3.....That's a fair statement. I prefer a 4/3/3/4/4 makeup if you need to budget. It seems like Darcy aims for a 3/5/5/2/3 in his makeup, but comes short. If we actually had average size, grit and smarts....then yes, the team would have a shot to win it all. But all too often they aim for skill and speed and that comes up short. That's the good thing about size, grit and smarts.....you can't come up short in that area. You HAVE it. Your skill is the question. That's why i feel it's safer to aim for those types of players. That's the Rangers system to me. Eventually when you are surrounded by big guys that can grit it out and follow a system, you will add enough skill to get over the hump. If you always ignore size and grit....you better be damn near perfect in drafting for speed and skill. For once I really agree with just about everything you say here. I cannot argue with the ratings you put down there.
carpandean Posted June 1, 2012 Report Posted June 1, 2012 Does the fact that one team had a majority of the success really weaken the argument? Yes and no. It may not weaken the argument that a well constructed and well coached smaller skill team can have a (slight) advantage over a larger team, but it may suggest that it is easier for teams to build a contending large team, as few other than Detroit have successfully created such a small team. Think about it this way: if a team is defined as a type (for simplicity, let's call it small skilled or big physical) and how well constructed it is (say, on a scale of 0-10.) Detroit winning may show that a 9+ small skilled team beats a 9+ big physical team more often. However, if it is very difficult to build a small skilled team above a 7, and either (a) it's easier to build a 7+ big physical team, or (b) once you get below 9, then comparably constructed big physical teams start winning more often, then you better be sure that you are really good at building a smaller skilled team before you go that way. I would love to have time to gather and analyze the data used (I'd actually model it differently) to see what the results show, because I do question the modeling choices made by the author. Not that they're wrong, per se, but I do believe that there may be better choices.
darksabre Posted June 1, 2012 Report Posted June 1, 2012 Should we use the team that fired their coach before the season.....or the team that fired their coach midseason? :huh: Minnesota, Florida, Ottawa, Dallas and Winnipeg, or St. Louis, Washington, Carolina, Montreal, Columbus and Anaheim?
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted June 1, 2012 Report Posted June 1, 2012 Minnesota, Florida, Ottawa, Dallas and Winnipeg, or St. Louis, Washington, Carolina, Montreal, Columbus and Anaheim? His point was NYR can't win the Cup so they shouldn't be looked at as a model to follow. If we are limited to 2 teams....that's the biggest thing I see in common. Although it is interesting that 4 of the final 8 changed coaches this year.
LastPommerFan Posted June 1, 2012 Report Posted June 1, 2012 His point was NYR can't win the Cup so they shouldn't be looked at as a model to follow. If we are limited to 2 teams....that's the biggest thing I see in common. Although it is interesting that 4 of the final 8 changed coaches this year. Pretty close to statistically insignificant given that 11 teams changed coaches this year. Including 7 of the 14 who didn't make the playoffs. I believe the interesting point is that it furthers my contention that the whole coaching question doesn't really matter.
darksabre Posted June 1, 2012 Report Posted June 1, 2012 Pretty close to statistically insignificant given that 11 teams changed coaches this year. Including 7 of the 14 who didn't make the playoffs. I believe the interesting point is that it furthers my contention that the whole coaching question doesn't really matter. Nailed it.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted June 1, 2012 Report Posted June 1, 2012 Pretty close to statistically insignificant given that 11 teams changed coaches this year. Including 7 of the 14 who didn't make the playoffs. I believe the interesting point is that it furthers my contention that the whole coaching question doesn't really matter. Help me out here... How many teams changed coaches? I see 14......and 6 made it to the playoffs....4 won a round.....2 won 2 rounds.....2 won 3 rounds......1 won 4 rounds Of teams that kept their coaches..... I see 16......10 made the playoffs.......4 won a round....2 won 2 rounds.....0 won 3 rounds.....0 won 4 rounds..... That's 14 new coaches winning 9 rounds 16 tenured coaches winning 6 rounds Of those 16 that were kept this year.....12 had made it to the playoffs last year Of those 14 new coaches......4 had made it to the playoffs last year and had won a total of 1 round That means of teams that replaced their coaches this year......there was a 50% improvement in making the playoffs and an 800% improvement in playoff performance Of the past 20 Stanley Cup Winners.....their coaches were in their: LA/NJ 1st year Bos 4th year Chi 2nd year Pit 1st year Det 3rd year Ana 2nd year Car 2nd year TB 4th year NJ 1st year Det 9th year.....who was Scotty Bowman who had won 3 with Detroit and 9 cups total Col 3rd year NJ 1st year Dal 4th year Det 5th year Bowman Det 4th year Bowman Col 2nd year NJ 2nd year NY 1st year Pit 1st year Edm 1st year Of the past 20 Stanley Cup Champions......7 had 1st year coaches......5 had 2nd year coaches.....and when you remove the outlier, the greatest coach in the history of the NHL who won 9 Stanley Cups......the average tenure of the Stanley Cup winning coach was Under 2 years when you take midseason changes into account!!!! Now PLEASE......SOMEBODY.........EXPLAIN TO ME HOW CHANGING A COACH OF AN UNDERACHEIVING TEAM IS A BAD THING AND HOW LINDY RUFF AND HIS 15 YERS OF TENURE WITH ZERO STANLEY CUPS IS GOING TO WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP IN BUFFALO??????? Thank you for your time Nailed it. Yep.....right into both of your backsides
SwampD Posted June 1, 2012 Report Posted June 1, 2012 Pretty close to statistically insignificant given that 11 teams changed coaches this year. Including 7 of the 14 who didn't make the playoffs. I believe the interesting point is that it furthers my contention that the whole coaching question doesn't really matter. If it really is insignificant, then why is it alweays brought up that the Sabres would be even worse if the got rid of Ruff? Can't have it both ways. (not necessarily you LPF)
darksabre Posted June 1, 2012 Report Posted June 1, 2012 Help me out here... How many teams changed coaches? I see 14......and 6 made it to the playoffs....4 won a round.....2 won 2 rounds.....2 won 3 rounds......1 won 4 rounds Of teams that kept their coaches..... I see 16......10 made the playoffs.......4 won a round....2 won 2 rounds.....0 won 3 rounds.....0 won 4 rounds..... That's 14 new coaches winning 9 rounds 16 tenured coaches winning 6 rounds Of those 16 that were kept this year.....12 had made it to the playoffs last year Of those 14 new coaches......4 had made it to the playoffs last year and had won a total of 1 round That means of teams that replaced their coaches this year......there was a 50% improvement in making the playoffs and an 800% improvement in playoff performance Of the past 20 Stanley Cup Winners.....their coaches were in their: LA/NJ 1st year Bos 4th year Chi 2nd year Pit 1st year Det 3rd year Ana 2nd year Car 2nd year TB 4th year NJ 1st year Det 9th year.....who was Scotty Bowman who had won 3 with Detroit and 9 cups total Col 3rd year NJ 1st year Dal 4th year Det 5th year Bowman Det 4th year Bowman Col 2nd year NJ 2nd year NY 1st year Pit 1st year Edm 1st year Of the past 20 Stanley Cup Champions......7 had 1st year coaches......5 had 2nd year coaches.....and when you remove the outlier, the greatest coach in the history of the NHL who won 9 Stanley Cups......the average tenure of the Stanley Cup winning coach was Under 2 years when you take midseason changes into account!!!! Now PLEASE......SOMEBODY.........EXPLAIN TO ME HOW CHANGING A COACH OF AN UNDERACHEIVING TEAM IS A BAD THING AND HOW LINDY RUFF AND HIS 15 YERS OF TENURE WITH ZERO STANLEY CUPS IS GOING TO WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP IN BUFFALO??????? Thank you for your time Yep.....right into both of your backsides Your point was about this year. Not sure what all that other stuff has to do with it. Just so, less than half of teams that changed coaches made the playoffs, and more than half of teams that didn't made the playoffs. As we know, once you're in the playoffs anything can happen. Seeings as whether or not changing a coach is a wash as far as chances of making the playoffs, I don't see how it's as important as having a quality team on the ice once in the playoffs. That's quite a lot of weight attributed to one factor.
LastPommerFan Posted June 1, 2012 Report Posted June 1, 2012 Help me out here... How many teams changed coaches? [some selective mathematics regarding the performance of coaching changes over a single year that doesn't not really take statistical significance or sample size into account] [A list of things that prove my point] [a bolded statement that shows that outside of bowman coaching doesn't matter] [AN ALL CAPS STATEMENT IMPLORING SOMEONE TO PROVE A POINT DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE BEING RESPONDED TO] Thank you for your time I'm not saying firing ruff would be a bad thing. I'm saying firing ruff would be an irrelevant thing. I don't care either way. if 60% of the coaches who win the Cup are in their first 2 years (70% excluding Bowman) by all means fire the coach every other year. That almost by definition means he doesn't matter!
darksabre Posted June 1, 2012 Report Posted June 1, 2012 I'm not saying firing ruff would be a bad thing. I'm saying firing ruff would be an irrelevant thing. I don't care either way. if 60% of the coaches who win the Cup are in their first 2 years (70% excluding Bowman) by all means fire the coach every other year. That almost by definition means he doesn't matter! :thumbsup:
darksabre Posted June 1, 2012 Report Posted June 1, 2012 I guess the rub Ghost, is that you argue that changing coaches has a definitively positive relationship with success. But LPF and myself have a bit of a nihilistic approach that it doesn't matter how long the coach has been there. Al Arbour won four in a row with the Isles. Bowman won four in a row with the Canadiens. Sather won 4 in 5 years with the Oilers. How much of that had to do with the coaches? How much of that was because those teams were special? If the evidence shows anything, it's that building a good team is much more important than having the right coach. By that logic it shouldn't matter if Ruff is here another 15 years so long as a Stanley Cup contender is built beneath him. Simply two different ways of looking at the numbers. Just another thought, but think about college hockey. Coaches stay in positions for decades in college hockey and it's the norm, regardless of whether or not they even bring in a championship in their tenure. But the makeup of the players changes every year and that change in players is what allows college coaches to win championships. It all starts on the ice as far as I'm concerned.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.