Hockey analytics: Does size really matter in the NHL?

[bob_sauve28]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

They don't. 

None? 

[LGR4GM]

7 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

None? 

There is not a correlation between player size and scoring opportunities unless you get to the extremes. Calgary's top line has a 2 guys at about 200lbs and 1 guy at about 185lbs. No one is absurdly big because they don't need to be. 

Tampa's top line consists of no one over 200lbs and no one taller than 6' and yet they are 4th, 5th, and 6th on that team in scoring. Their top 2 forwards in scoring are both 6'1" and between 195 and 199lbs. 

Again where is this correlation between size coming from? Sure there are big guys who use size to their advantage but their are small guys who do the same. 

Edited November 19, 2021 by LGR4GM

[bob_sauve28]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

 

Again where is this correlation between size coming from? Sure there are big guys who use size to their advantage but their are small guys who do the same. 

Yes

Edited November 19, 2021 by bob_sauve28

[SDS]

14 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

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

Read. The. Article. 

[bob_sauve28]

17 minutes ago, SDS said:

Read. The. Article. 

Ok, read it. Not really impressed. I mean I'd rather have Chara clearing out the front of the net than Will butcher, for instance. 

 

 

[LGR4GM]

11 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Ok, read it. Not really impressed. I mean I'd rather have Chara clearing out the front of the net than Will butcher, for instance. 

I too would rather have hall of fame defender Zdeno Chara over college UFA Will Butcher. 

 

[SDS]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

I too would rather have hall of fame defender Zdeno Chara over college UFA Will Butcher. 

 

It truly boggles the mind. 

[bob_sauve28]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

I too would rather have hall of fame defender Zdeno Chara over college UFA Will Butcher. 

 

Oh, well let's see. 

 

Look at how Chara used his size to become a future hall of famers while smallish, though skilled, Butcher will probably not have a long NHL career 

 

See what I did there? 

 

 

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Oh, well let's see. 

Look at how Chara used his size to become a future hall of famers while smallish, though skilled, Butcher will probably not have a long NHL career 

See what I did there? 

Ya, you took the BIGGEST nhl player who is also very skilled and compared him to a jag. 

Here, I can play that game in reverse. I would rather have 6'1" Nicklas Lidstrom  than 6'7" Logan Stanley. 

Also we are about to have 6'6" Owen Power who is good and has size but is not simply good because of his size. 

Edited November 19, 2021 by LGR4GM

[bob_sauve28]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Ya, you took the BIGGEST nhl player who is also very skilled and compared him to a jag. 

Here, I can play that game in reverse. I would rather have 6'1" Nicklas Lidstrom  than 6'7" Logan Stanley. 

Also we are about to have 6'6" Owen Power who is good and has size but is not simply good because of his size. 

Fine, switch Chara for, oh, how about Hagg? That ok? Who would you rather have clear out front of net? 

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Fine, switch Chara for, oh, how about Hagg? That ok? Who would you rather have clear out front of net? 

There's more to defense than just clearing the net. Who would I rather have Hagg or Butcher, neither because I don't think either has enough TALENT. Talent kids is the deficit here, not size, not some mystical crystal energy, but talent. 

 

[bob_sauve28]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

There's more to defense than just clearing the net. Who would I rather have Hagg or Butcher, neither because I don't think either has enough TALENT. Talent kids is the deficit here, not size, not some mystical crystal energy, but talent. 

 

Still gotta clear out front of net, and win battles in corner. 

 

So, if two players are equal in talent, but one is bigger and strong than the other, who would you pick to play on your team? 

[LGR4GM]

Who would you rather have playing defense for your team? Cale Makar or Robert Hagg? Makar is only 5'11" 

What about Adam Fox? 5'11" 

Talent is the key and if you have good talent then yes your size can be an asset but for everyone who says "we need more size!" no you are not correct we need more talent. 

Just now, bob_sauve28 said:

Still gotta clear out front of net, and win battles in corner. 

 

So, if two players are equal in talent, but one is bigger and strong than the other, who would you pick to play on your team? 

Obviously the bigger one but this will literally never happen. 

1 minute ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Still gotta clear out front of net, and win battles in corner. 

And you apparently think that a 5'11" defender cannot do that even though we know that isn't the case. Size for sizes sake is a terrible way to build a team and if you pay enough attention to Sabres history we are in this place right now in part because in 2012 we said "oh man, we need more size so Lucic can run us" and here we are. 

[bob_sauve28]

6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

 

Obviously the bigger one but this will literally never happen. 

 

Obviously.  

[bob_sauve28]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Who would you rather have playing defense for your team? Cale Makar or Robert Hagg? Makar is only 5'11" 

What about Adam Fox? 5'11" 

Talent is the key and if you have good talent then yes your size can be an asset but for everyone who says "we need more size!" no you are not correct we need more talent. 

 

And you apparently think that a 5'11" defender cannot do that even though we know that isn't the case. Size for sizes sake is a terrible way to build a team and if you pay enough attention to Sabres history we are in this place right now in part because in 2012 we said "oh man, we need more size so Lucic can run us" and here we are. 

Sure, talent is key, I'm not arguing otherwise. Never did. But bigger stronger players are valuable and necassary. Do you think a whole team of high talent but smaller players is the way to go? 

 

[LGR4GM]

Here's the problem. In the real world what happens is you have a player who is an 8 on the talent level but is say 5'10" and you have another player who is a 6.5 or a 6 on the talent scale but is 6'4" and teams routinely talk themselves into the 6 even though it is a mistake and it revolves around size. 

1 minute ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Sure, talent is key, I'm not arguing otherwise. Never did. But bigger stronger players are valuable and necassary. Do you think a whole team of high talent but smaller players is the way to go? 

Do I think that an entire team made up of Cale Makar's and Martin St Louis could win it all, ***** yes. 

[inkman]

24 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Ya, you took the BIGGEST nhl player who is also very skilled and compared him to a jag. 

Here, I can play that game in reverse. I would rather have 6'1" Nicklas Lidstrom  than 6'7" Logan Stanley. 

Also we are about to have 6'6" Owen Power who is good and has size but is not simply good because of his size. 

Or to my knowledge, uses his size for anything other than reaching for the puck (Power that is). 

[bob_sauve28]

6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Here's the problem. In the real world what happens is you have a player who is an 8 on the talent level but is say 5'10" and you have another player who is a 6.5 or a 6 on the talent scale but is 6'4" and teams routinely talk themselves into the 6 even though it is a mistake and it revolves around size. 

Do I think that an entire team made up of Cale Makar's and Martin St Louis could win it all, ***** yes. 

Yes, humans have biases. That's why auditions for orchestras are done blind. Before they did them blind women never got hired. 

 

I have no idea, would depend on the other team. If it had a team of Marios L's and V. Hedmans, I'd go with that team. 

4 minutes ago, inkman said:

Or to my knowledge, uses his size for anything other than reaching for the puck (Power that is). 

Which is still an advantage of size 

[LGR4GM]

12 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Yes, humans have biases. That's why auditions for orchestras are done blind. Before they did them blind women never got hired. 

 

I have no idea, would depend on the other team. If it had a team of Marios L's and V. Hedmans, I'd go with that team. 

Which is still an advantage of size 

Yes, I too would like a team of hall of famers. 

It is an advantage but we are ignoring the advantages to players in the 5'10"-6'2" range. Speed, specifically quickness and elusiveness. 

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

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. 

This illustrates how you keep twisting the argument to make your point, which is a non issue and a non point. 

Sure, I'd rather have Brad Marchand on the team than Pat Maroon (an example that comes to me quickly not sure if their actual heights and weights match so feel free to tell me I'm off by 10 lbs. or something because that will be so meaningful) but I'd rather have a 235 lb guy with skill and toughness than a 5'10" guy with skill. 

 

The real point of the argument, which for your agenda you want to dance around, is are the Sabres big enough and tough enough to play that sort of hockey, and they are not. 

and now you can go big isn't tough and carry on around the issue ad in infinitum if you want...................

[LGR4GM]

11 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

This illustrates how you keep twisting the argument to make your point, which is a non issue and a non point. 

Sure, I'd rather have Brad Marchand on the team than Pat Maroon (an example that comes to me quickly not sure if their actual heights and weights match so feel free to tell me I'm off by 10 lbs. or something because that will be so meaningful) but I'd rather have a 235 lb guy with skill and toughness than a 5'10" guy with skill. 

 

The real point of the argument, which for your agenda you want to dance around, is are the Sabres big enough and tough enough to play that sort of hockey, and they are not. 

and now you can go big isn't tough and carry on around the issue ad in infinitum if you want...................

to the bolded, SO WOULD EVERYONE

[LGR4GM]

18 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

This illustrates how you keep twisting the argument to make your point, which is a non issue and a non point. 

The real point of the argument, which for your agenda you want to dance around, is are the Sabres big enough and tough enough to play that sort of hockey, and they are not. 

and now you can go big isn't tough and carry on around the issue ad in infinitum if you want...................

The rest in this response is a lazy attack that does the very thing you are accusing me of doing. Twisting the argument. 

The Sabres are not talented enough to play the way you want. Size has nothing to do it with it. I think with the players they have drafted they will be tough enough, idk if they will be talented enough. 

To the bolded I have used height, I have used weight, I have used the fact we have larger players coming in the pipe, to make my argument and you just say the Sabres aren't big enough at this point as some old-time back in the 80s argument that gets recycled over and over and over. The Sabres literally weigh as much as calgary and calagary's top line isn't even that big. I remember when I believed it back in 2012. The only thing we needed then was to add some size and toughness and we can then .... still not make the playoffs or have enough talent. 

Do I wish the Sabres had 9 guys with Cozens size, Quinns shot, Rosen's skating, and Peterka's grit? Hell yes but that is not the reality and if you were in charge of drafting I would bet all the money I have if you had a talented 5'10" guy, lets call him Newhook and a bigger 6'4" guy who we will call Lagare, you would pick Legare because you CONTINUALLY equate size with toughness by linking them together. 

Edited November 19, 2021 by LGR4GM

[SwampD]

I'll just throw this pack of firecrackers into the room.

All things being equal: hands, speed, vision, skating,... would Tage thompson be as affective if he was 6'?

 

For the record, I don't think size makes that much of a difference in the regular season, but Newton's laws of motion absolutely come into to play a lot more in the playoffs.

[Norcal]

I think the question of size can and must be answered in two parts and yes I read the article.

Part One:

Regular Season- Size doesn't matter as much in the regular season because although some teams play a tight checking game and there is  proclivity for some rough treatment at times, there is still opportunity for small highly skilled players to create offense.

This is especially true in the last several years as the league has introduced more young players sooner in their careers.

Part Two:

Playoffs- Size matters more in the playoffs. I'm not saying you need a team of 6'4" 225s but when the going gets tough, and there is no tougher playoffs than the NHL playoffs, you need a big defenseman or two to lean on opposing players and protect the front of your net. 

A big forward to fly in on the forecheck and rattle defenders bones with huge hits.

You need someone to stand in and protect the small skilled guy who just got caved in in the corner for the third time tonight and can't find any open ice. 

The good teams have found that balance. A good Sabres team will need to as well. 

 

[LGR4GM]

If only Brayden Point had been bigger, he could have scored more in the playoffs. 

Again, lots of equating size with toughness.