Hockey analytics: Does size really matter in the NHL?

[SDS]

The Department of Hockey Analytics first looked to see if bigger players performed better using the most obvious measure of performance: points. And there it was: bigger players did produce more. From the 1967-68 to 1979-80 seasons, that is. During that time, forwards less than 200 pounds scored at a clip of 0.55 points per game. The rate of production ticks up until it gets to 0.68 points per game for players in the 210-220 pound range. Over 80 games (which was the season length by the end of this time frame), this translates into 10 additional points.

After 1980, however, we could find no effect. Nothing. Zero. Performance is pretty much flat across the height and weight spectrum. If anything, there’s a gradual decrease as players get bigger. The graph depicts scoring for forwards at the beginning of the expansion era along with scoring in the post-lockout era. The line depicts the best guess as to the relationship between size and scoring based on the data. However, since there is some variation in the data, the shaded area shows the region in which the true relationship most likely lies.

 

I find it completely unsurprising that the same group of people who regularly reference hockey in the 70s, also regularly reference fighting and size as keys components in a winning hockey team. 

https://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/2014/03/13/hockey_analytics_does_size_really_matter_in_the_nhl.html

 

[North Buffalo]

6 hours ago, SDS said:

The Department of Hockey Analytics first looked to see if bigger players performed better using the most obvious measure of performance: points. And there it was: bigger players did produce more. From the 1967-68 to 1979-80 seasons, that is. During that time, forwards less than 200 pounds scored at a clip of 0.55 points per game. The rate of production ticks up until it gets to 0.68 points per game for players in the 210-220 pound range. Over 80 games (which was the season length by the end of this time frame), this translates into 10 additional points.

After 1980, however, we could find no effect. Nothing. Zero. Performance is pretty much flat across the height and weight spectrum. If anything, there’s a gradual decrease as players get bigger. The graph depicts scoring for forwards at the beginning of the expansion era along with scoring in the post-lockout era. The line depicts the best guess as to the relationship between size and scoring based on the data. However, since there is some variation in the data, the shaded area shows the region in which the true relationship most likely lies.

 

I find it completely unsurprising that the same group of people who regularly reference hockey in the 70s, also regularly reference fighting and size as keys components in a winning hockey team. 

https://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/2014/03/13/hockey_analytics_does_size_really_matter_in_the_nhl.html

 

I am not sure how the things like speed and talent.. hand eye coordination, stick handling and moxie are held constant... Not sure you could measure those things accurately with size.  Gotta think size does matter, but not enough big guys have the talent of some of the speedy shifty small guys with heart.  If a bigger guy has all those things like Mario and Jagr than sure size matters... but those kind of guys are hard to find and gotta think pure hockey talent matters most, however you quantify it.  

Edited November 19, 2021 by North Buffalo

[PerreaultForever]

okay but that's pretty much a strawman argument. Don't think anybody argues that bigger guys are generally scoring more points than smaller guys, the question is do they help you win hockey games? A balanced team is required to win the Stanley Cup. I don't understand how anyone can still argue against that. Tampa got rocked by Columbus when they were all speed and skill because of people like Nick Foligno banging them around relentlessly. Tampa added big bodies and toughness and went on to win after that. Is that not convincing enough? 

Virtually every team that wins in the playoffs can play hard minutes and physical hockey and teams that do not have that become "choke" teams and disappoint (eg. Toronto or Edmonton). It's not all that complicated.

2 scoring lines, 1 checking line and 1 line of grit and toughness, preferably big. That's still the formula for success.

As much as he's an overpaid big dummy, does anyone want to argue that we wouldn't be better off with Lucic on our side ramming one of their players into the boards rather than him destroying Miller? Somebody probably will, but they'd be wrong. 

Balance. 

[Radar]

5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

okay but that's pretty much a strawman argument. Don't think anybody argues that bigger guys are generally scoring more points than smaller guys, the question is do they help you win hockey games? A balanced team is required to win the Stanley Cup. I don't understand how anyone can still argue against that. Tampa got rocked by Columbus when they were all speed and skill because of people like Nick Foligno banging them around relentlessly. Tampa added big bodies and toughness and went on to win after that. Is that not convincing enough? 

Virtually every team that wins in the playoffs can play hard minutes and physical hockey and teams that do not have that become "choke" teams and disappoint (eg. Toronto or Edmonton). It's not all that complicated.

2 scoring lines, 1 checking line and 1 line of grit and toughness, preferably big. That's still the formula for success.

As much as he's an overpaid big dummy, does anyone want to argue that we wouldn't be better off with Lucic on our side ramming one of their players into the boards rather than him destroying Miller? Somebody probably will, but they'd be wrong. 

Balance. 

I agree. Particularly on having balance. You do need toughness in your lineup somewhere. Personally I'm glad they've cut down on the fighting as so much of it was show time but you still need the toughness you refer to.

[LGR4GM]

8 hours ago, SDS said:

The Department of Hockey Analytics first looked to see if bigger players performed better using the most obvious measure of performance: points. And there it was: bigger players did produce more. From the 1967-68 to 1979-80 seasons, that is. During that time, forwards less than 200 pounds scored at a clip of 0.55 points per game. The rate of production ticks up until it gets to 0.68 points per game for players in the 210-220 pound range. Over 80 games (which was the season length by the end of this time frame), this translates into 10 additional points.

After 1980, however, we could find no effect. Nothing. Zero. Performance is pretty much flat across the height and weight spectrum. If anything, there’s a gradual decrease as players get bigger. The graph depicts scoring for forwards at the beginning of the expansion era along with scoring in the post-lockout era. The line depicts the best guess as to the relationship between size and scoring based on the data. However, since there is some variation in the data, the shaded area shows the region in which the true relationship most likely lies.

 

I find it completely unsurprising that the same group of people who regularly reference hockey in the 70s, also regularly reference fighting and size as keys components in a winning hockey team. 

https://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/2014/03/13/hockey_analytics_does_size_really_matter_in_the_nhl.html

 

 

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

okay but that's pretty much a strawman argument. Don't think anybody argues that bigger guys are generally scoring more points than smaller guys, the question is do they help you win hockey games? A balanced team is required to win the Stanley Cup. I don't understand how anyone can still argue against that. Tampa got rocked by Columbus when they were all speed and skill because of people like Nick Foligno banging them around relentlessly. Tampa added big bodies and toughness and went on to win after that. Is that not convincing enough? 

Virtually every team that wins in the playoffs can play hard minutes and physical hockey and teams that do not have that become "choke" teams and disappoint (eg. Toronto or Edmonton). It's not all that complicated.

2 scoring lines, 1 checking line and 1 line of grit and toughness, preferably big. That's still the formula for success.

As much as he's an overpaid big dummy, does anyone want to argue that we wouldn't be better off with Lucic on our side ramming one of their players into the boards rather than him destroying Miller? Somebody probably will, but they'd be wrong. 

Balance. 

Where is it a formula for success?

I firmly believe in toughness and grit or tenacity. However you have and continue to equate those with size and it simply is not true. 

[inkman]

4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

 

Where is it a formula for success?

NHL94 I believe. 

[LGR4GM]

8 hours ago, North Buffalo said:

I am not sure how the things like speed and talent.. hand eye coordination, stick handling and moxie are held constant... Not sure you could measure those things accurately with size.  Gotta think size does matter, but not enough big guys have the talent of some of the speedy shifty small guys with heart.  If a bigger guy has all those things like Mario and Jagr than sure size matters... but those kind of guys are hard to find and gotta think pure hockey talent matters most, however you quantify it.  

Now you are getting it. If Marco Rossi was 6'2" 210lbs it would matter. However the inverse is not true in that him being 5'9" 185lbs matters. 

[bob_sauve28]

Size is important, but so is speed and skill. It's all about balance. We seem to be more of a smaller, faster team now, while the Flames seem to have a much better balance of speed, size and toughness. They also sure throw a lot of interference for each other without getting penalized 

[LGR4GM]

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

okay but that's pretty much a strawman argument. Don't think anybody argues that bigger guys are generally scoring more points than smaller guys, the question is do they help you win hockey games? A balanced team is required to win the Stanley Cup. I don't understand how anyone can still argue against that. Tampa got rocked by Columbus when they were all speed and skill because of people like Nick Foligno banging them around relentlessly. Tampa added big bodies and toughness and went on to win after that. Is that not convincing enough? 

Virtually every team that wins in the playoffs can play hard minutes and physical hockey and teams that do not have that become "choke" teams and disappoint (eg. Toronto or Edmonton). It's not all that complicated.

2 scoring lines, 1 checking line and 1 line of grit and toughness, preferably big. That's still the formula for success.

As much as he's an overpaid big dummy, does anyone want to argue that we wouldn't be better off with Lucic on our side ramming one of their players into the boards rather than him destroying Miller? Somebody probably will, but they'd be wrong. 

Balance. 

No because that isn't what happened. Did they add toughness, sure. 

Weights: 

2018: 201.714lbs

2019: 203.548lbs

2020: 202.844lbs

12 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Size is important, but so is speed and skill. It's all about balance. We seem to be more of a smaller, faster team now, while the Flames seem to have a much better balance of speed, size and toughness. They also sure throw a lot of interference for each other without getting penalized 

We literally weigh the same amount as Calgary.

[bob_sauve28]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

No because that isn't what happened. Did they add toughness, sure. 

Weights: 

2018: 201.714lbs

2019: 203.548lbs

2020: 202.844lbs

We literally weigh the same amount as Calgary.

So? Did you measure toughness and skill, too? 

[Topshelf13]

I wonder if these numbers are consistent for playoff hockey. I also think it depends on the opponent, which position has the size (defenseman) and how the game is officiated.   

[Curt]

5 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

So? Did you measure toughness and skill, too? 

This is a strange comment.

He said right in his post the he thought they did add toughness.

@LGR4GM has never said that toughness doesn’t matter, or skill for that matter.  He is arguing that people say they want size, but that size in itself isn’t that valuable.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Curt

[bob_sauve28]

2 minutes ago, Curt said:

This is a strange comment.

He said right in his post the he thought the did add toughness.

@LGR4GM has never said that toughness doesn’t matter, or skill for that matter.  He is arguing that people say they want size, but that size in itself isn’t that valuable.

It's not a strange comment at all. And you are wrong. He was replying to someone else for the toughness part. 

[Weave]

5 minutes ago, Curt said:

He is arguing that people say they want size, but that size in itself isn’t that valuable.

That is an argument noone is challenging, which is why these conversations turn into circle jerks.  The “we need to get bigger” crowd isn’t lamenting over not having a Richard Shmelik or Mike Wilson in the lineup.  Everyone asking for more size is asking for more of the attributes that size compliments well.  
 

Personally, I don’t think size is the issue.  I think this team needs to be good enough to play for something before the fight in the dog can really be seen and evaluated.  A good chunk of that is talent, although an actual NHL goalie that the team can trust would certainly puff out chests some more.  I think a team that was set up to win now would probably more accurately display the fight this team may or may not have.

[SDS]

I’m just curious if anyone is reading the article before pontificating…

[bob_sauve28]

3 minutes ago, SDS said:

I’m just curious if anyone is reading the article before pontificating…

I didn't. Sorry 😞

[North Buffalo]

20 minutes ago, SDS said:

I’m just curious if anyone is reading the article before pontificating…

Yes and my point remains... it made blanket conclusions without explaining how other factors were held constant... Even the stats they used were simplistic and not at all conclusive... 

[SwampD]

13 minutes ago, North Buffalo said:

Yes and my point remains... it made blanket conclusions without explaining how other factors were held constant... Even the stats they used were simplistic and not at all conclusive... 

It’s also only about individual players and not team size.

St Louis was the heaviest team by toi the year they won. Tampa and Dallas were in the top 4 heaviest teams (iirc).

I hate these all or nothing arguments. Size matters when it matters and yes smaller players can be really good at hockey. An article that starts off using the greatest ever small player to make its point loses me from the start.

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

I didn't read any of the replies yet, but I predict this will eventually happen if hasn't happened already:

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Curt said:

This is a strange comment.

He said right in his post the he thought they did add toughness.

@LGR4GM has never said that toughness doesn’t matter, or skill for that matter.  He is arguing that people say they want size, but that size in itself isn’t that valuable.

That's it in a nutshell. A 5'10" guy with toughness and skill is more valuable to me than a 6'4" guy who weighs 235lbs. 

56 minutes ago, SDS said:

I’m just curious if anyone is reading the article before pontificating…

I did

[LGR4GM]

17 minutes ago, SwampD said:

It’s also only about individual players and not team size.

St Louis was the heaviest team by toi the year they won. Tampa and Dallas were in the top 4 heaviest teams (iirc).

I hate these all or nothing arguments. Size matters when it matters and yes smaller players can be really good at hockey. An article that starts off using the greatest ever small player to make its point loses me from the start.

I like that after height was thoroughly debunked we have now moved to weight which at least can matter in regard to muscle. 

I posted Tampa's weight for the last 3 years. If averaging 1 or 2 extra pounds really made that much of a difference, I would be surprised. Toughness is not the same as size. 

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, bob_sauve28 said:

So? Did you measure toughness and skill, too? 

Obviously Calgary has more skill. No idea how one could objectively isolate and measure "toughness" but being a resilient team is more interesting than talking about how "big" Calgary is while Johnny Gaudreau rams pucks down the Sabres throats. 

[bob_sauve28]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Obviously Calgary has more skill. No idea how one could objectively isolate and measure "toughness" but being a resilient team is more interesting than talking about how "big" Calgary is while Johnny Gaudreau rams pucks down the Sabres throats. 

Maybe some big players create more space, opportunity and situations that allow smaller skilled players to thrive. 

[LGR4GM]

Just now, bob_sauve28 said:

Maybe some big players create more space, opportunity and situations that allow smaller skilled players to thrive. 

They don't. 

[SwampD]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

I like that after height was thoroughly debunked we have now moved to weight which at least can matter in regard to muscle. 

I posted Tampa's weight for the last 3 years. If averaging 1 or 2 extra pounds really made that much of a difference, I would be surprised. Toughness is not the same as size. 

When was height debunked? I know you are trying to use a “moving the goalposts” argument, but the title of the thread says it’s about size, of which both height and weight are a factor.

I know nobody is going to convince you of anything so I’m not going to try. The better teams at the end of the SC playoffs are usually on the heavier end of the spectrum. Take from that what you want.

And to further show you where I stand on this, for as small and speedy as Jacob Bryson is, I find him to be an incredibly physical player who uses his body really well. With that said, I thought last night was the first time I saw his size come in to play and he was losing battles because of it,… maybe, he may have just been having a bad night.