Hockey analytics: Does size really matter in the NHL?

[LGR4GM]

If only Nikita Kucherov were bigger he wouldn't have been such a liability in the playoffs for the Lightning. Wonder they won at all with him on the ice. 

[Norcal]

31 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

If only Nikita Kucherov were bigger he wouldn't have been such a liability in the playoffs for the Lightning. Wonder they won at all with him on the ice. 

Balance. Thanks for proving my point. 

 

 

[SwampD]

37 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

If only Nikita Kucherov were bigger he wouldn't have been such a liability in the playoffs for the Lightning. Wonder they won at all with him on the ice. 

Curious that you didn’t mention the Conn Smythe winner to make your point.

[LGR4GM]

5 minutes ago, Norcal said:

Balance. Thanks for proving my point. 

lol

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

Curious that you didn’t mention the Conn Smythe winner to make your point.

Like Conn Smythe winner Ryan O'Reilly? Or Conn Smyth winner Andre Vasilevski? Or Patrick Kane? Or Sydney Crosby? Justin Williams? Maybe you meant Henrik Zetterberg?

I suppose you mean Victor Hedman which doesn't prove your point but I understand now none of you are arguing in good faith. This is just about cherry picking as many things as possible because it's easier to say the Sabres need to get bigger than admit this team has real issues. 

Oh and I will stop you now. I am not cherry picking even though I know that will be the come back because none of you have a legitimate argument and that is very obvious. The Sabres are average in height and weight for the NHL, they are losing because they lack the talent to win consistently. 

[bob_sauve28]

10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Like Conn Smythe winner Ryan O'Reilly? Or Conn Smyth winner Andre Vasilevski? Or Patrick Kane? Or Sydney Crosby? Justin Williams? Maybe you meant Henrik Zetterberg?

I suppose you mean Victor Hedman which doesn't prove your point but I understand now none of you are arguing in good faith. This is just about cherry picking as many things as possible because it's easier to say the Sabres need to get bigger than admit this team has real issues. 

Oh and I will stop you now. I am not cherry picking even though I know that will be the come back because none of you have a legitimate argument and that is very obvious. The Sabres are average in height and weight for the NHL, they are losing because they lack the talent to win consistently. 

Who isn't admitting the team--or any damn team for that matter--doesn't have real issues?? Huh? Ya, they need to get better and part of that if being tougher and more physical. 

 

This is at the point of screaming in an echoing cave 

[SwampD]

8 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Like Conn Smythe winner Ryan O'Reilly? Or Conn Smyth winner Andre Vasilevski? Or Patrick Kane? Or Sydney Crosby? Justin Williams? Maybe you meant Henrik Zetterberg?

I suppose you mean Victor Hedman which doesn't prove your point but I understand now none of you are arguing in good faith. This is just about cherry picking as many things as possible because it's easier to say the Sabres need to get bigger than admit this team has real issues. 

Oh and I will stop you now. I am not cherry picking even though I know that will be the come back because none of you have a legitimate argument and that is very obvious. The Sabres are average in height and weight for the NHL, they are losing because they lack the talent to win consistently. 

That's kinda my point about you mentioning Kucherov.

You are cherrypicking, and you ignore everyone's comebacks so why bother.

No response to my Tage question?

And we all know why the Sabres suck. It's not their size.

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

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. 

You just don't get it. That comment that was made asking if you thought the games took place in your computer had me in stitches cause that's it. You just don't understand the game on the ice. 

This has absolutely nothing to do with 80s hockey, that's a convenient trope you keep using to imply out of touch with the modern game and it means nothing. Everyone knows the game is different now but it's still physical and it's still played with the body and it always will be. It ain't figure skating and until the league decides to start calling every little touch McDavid whines for it'll be the same on that level. 

You need to go watch the Calgary game again slowly and carefully. There's no fights, there's a handful of hits but aside from Lucic pasting Miller they didn't really lay into us because they didn't need to. But now pay attention and go watch this carefully..............

Watch how the Calgary players drive the play and maintain possession by using their bodies and shielding the puck keeping their own body between the defender and the puck time and time again. It's a strength and leverage thing. It's not 80s hockey, in the 80s you be hooked or checked out of the play but in today's game with today's rules it's how bigger and stronger players dominate. You stick handle and you can be checked, you place your body into the opposition and maybe Tage can reach around you but otherwise defenders have to get in closer and it becomes a strength issue. 

The only guy on our team who can play that is Cozens (and he's not fully there yet, but he will get there). Tuch as well but he's not here yet. 

So is it clear now??? Go watch it again. Watch the body positioning, watch the strength on the puck and the sticks, watch the leg drive. 

As a team we just can't play like that and when the other team starts to play us hard it's like men against boys. We are just too damn soft that's it. 

 

[SwampD]

8 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

You just don't get it. That comment that was made asking if you thought the games took place in your computer had me in stitches cause that's it. You just don't understand the game on the ice. 

This has absolutely nothing to do with 80s hockey, that's a convenient trope you keep using to imply out of touch with the modern game and it means nothing. Everyone knows the game is different now but it's still physical and it's still played with the body and it always will be. It ain't figure skating and until the league decides to start calling every little touch McDavid whines for it'll be the same on that level. 

You need to go watch the Calgary game again slowly and carefully. There's no fights, there's a handful of hits but aside from Lucic pasting Miller they didn't really lay into us because they didn't need to. But now pay attention and go watch this carefully..............

Watch how the Calgary players drive the play and maintain possession by using their bodies and shielding the puck keeping their own body between the defender and the puck time and time again. It's a strength and leverage thing. It's not 80s hockey, in the 80s you be hooked or checked out of the play but in today's game with today's rules it's how bigger and stronger players dominate. You stick handle and you can be checked, you place your body into the opposition and maybe Tage can reach around you but otherwise defenders have to get in closer and it becomes a strength issue. 

The only guy on our team who can play that is Cozens (and he's not fully there yet, but he will get there). Tuch as well but he's not here yet. 

So is it clear now??? Go watch it again. Watch the body positioning, watch the strength on the puck and the sticks, watch the leg drive. 

As a team we just can't play like that and when the other team starts to play us hard it's like men against boys. We are just too damn soft that's it. 

 

Yep.

And it's even more pronounced in the playoffs.

It's why I'd rather have a team that is good and big, instead of just good.

[bob_sauve28]

13 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

You just don't get it. That comment that was made asking if you thought the games took place in your computer had me in stitches cause that's it. You just don't understand the game on the ice. 

This has absolutely nothing to do with 80s hockey, that's a convenient trope you keep using to imply out of touch with the modern game and it means nothing. Everyone knows the game is different now but it's still physical and it's still played with the body and it always will be. It ain't figure skating and until the league decides to start calling every little touch McDavid whines for it'll be the same on that level. 

You need to go watch the Calgary game again slowly and carefully. There's no fights, there's a handful of hits but aside from Lucic pasting Miller they didn't really lay into us because they didn't need to. But now pay attention and go watch this carefully..............

Watch how the Calgary players drive the play and maintain possession by using their bodies and shielding the puck keeping their own body between the defender and the puck time and time again. It's a strength and leverage thing. It's not 80s hockey, in the 80s you be hooked or checked out of the play but in today's game with today's rules it's how bigger and stronger players dominate. You stick handle and you can be checked, you place your body into the opposition and maybe Tage can reach around you but otherwise defenders have to get in closer and it becomes a strength issue. 

The only guy on our team who can play that is Cozens (and he's not fully there yet, but he will get there). Tuch as well but he's not here yet. 

So is it clear now??? Go watch it again. Watch the body positioning, watch the strength on the puck and the sticks, watch the leg drive. 

As a team we just can't play like that and when the other team starts to play us hard it's like men against boys. We are just too damn soft that's it. 

 

Tage does well shielding the puck, also. But good points 

[GASabresIUFAN]

Size only matters when it matters.  Size certainly has an effect on the draft.  Smaller players are typically under drafted.  Also the trend in goaltending is bigger is better.  It’s was clearly a factor in 6’ Levi going in the 7th rd vs. 6’6 Portillo going in the 3rd.  

Did guys like Cirelli and Pointe fall in their draft partly because of their height?  

I also believe a team of mighty mites isn’t a great strategy.  Montreal tried it a few years ago and it didn’t exactly work out.

[Curt]

54 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

You just don't get it. That comment that was made asking if you thought the games took place in your computer had me in stitches cause that's it. You just don't understand the game on the ice. 

This has absolutely nothing to do with 80s hockey, that's a convenient trope you keep using to imply out of touch with the modern game and it means nothing. Everyone knows the game is different now but it's still physical and it's still played with the body and it always will be. It ain't figure skating and until the league decides to start calling every little touch McDavid whines for it'll be the same on that level. 

You need to go watch the Calgary game again slowly and carefully. There's no fights, there's a handful of hits but aside from Lucic pasting Miller they didn't really lay into us because they didn't need to. But now pay attention and go watch this carefully..............

Watch how the Calgary players drive the play and maintain possession by using their bodies and shielding the puck keeping their own body between the defender and the puck time and time again. It's a strength and leverage thing. It's not 80s hockey, in the 80s you be hooked or checked out of the play but in today's game with today's rules it's how bigger and stronger players dominate. You stick handle and you can be checked, you place your body into the opposition and maybe Tage can reach around you but otherwise defenders have to get in closer and it becomes a strength issue. 

The only guy on our team who can play that is Cozens (and he's not fully there yet, but he will get there). Tuch as well but he's not here yet. 

So is it clear now??? Go watch it again. Watch the body positioning, watch the strength on the puck and the sticks, watch the leg drive. 

As a team we just can't play like that and when the other team starts to play us hard it's like men against boys. We are just too damn soft that's it. 

 

The things you are saying about the advantages of being bigger/stronger are true.  There are undoubtedly advantages to being larger.

Why do you think then that larger players do not produce at a higher rate than smaller players?

Thats an open question for anyone actually, and a much more relevant question regarding the article cited by the OP.

[Marvin]

The discussion above, with various posters writing past each other, is like a talk between political opponents on a bad political chat show.  We have failed to acknowledge what the data show and examine why it happens.  If we look at the graphs given in the article, we see that, if anything, size is slightly negatively correlated to scoring.  This is very peculiar to me because, all other things being equal, I would imagine that height and weight (as a proxy for strength) should correlate to higher scoring.

So what do the data tell us?  IMHO, GMs, scouts, coaches, and fans over-estimate the advantages which size gives.  For instance, how often do we hear about a highly-touted prospect who is "a big, physical kid" but he has minimal hockey sense, is a plodding skater, has an average shot, and does not stickhandle particularly well compared to his peers?  Meanwhile, the smaller player who skates like the wind, reads plays like a hockey version of Emmy Noether, has a cannon of a shot, is a brilliant stickhandler, and is mentally and physically tough plummets down the draft charts.  It seems that, far too often, the former is taken earlier as a "project," is given more chances to succeed, is always given the benefit of the doubt, and fails far more often than the latter.  Based on the charts, the latter should be the preferred player more often than he is now.  I am sure that GMs, scouts, and coaches are thinking, "you can't teach 6'6", but you can teach better skating, better stickhandling, better shooting, and better situational awareness" -- and they over-estimate how many things can be improved upon and how much those skills can be improved upon.

Obviously, there will be trade-offs.  I would love it if the Sabres had a team of guys who are big, strong, tough, fast, skilled, smart, and can finish something other than a bag of popcorn.  So until they can get a better blend, where do you start?  Kevin Adams clearly believes that for the Sabres to shake of the yoke of a losing culture, his short-term plan is to choose "a little more will over a little more skill" overall, with "a little more skill over a little more size" on offence and "strength with some skill" on defence.  I see he clearly believes in not over-spending on goaltending in the short term, which I understand is the overall analytics evaluation, but I think that finding the right goaltenders can cover up a myriad of flaws in the skaters.  It will be interesting what kind of team he builds and the blend he thinks will lead to a winning franchise and culture.

I would love to see a multivariate statistical analysis of various factors to try and come up with some optimal ways of selecting players.  Height, weight, mental toughness, physicality, skating, stickhandling, shooting, and hockey sense should all be more carefully evaluated and balanced by the hockey professionals and fans alike.

[Weave]

4 hours ago, SwampD said:

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'?

 

 

This is a valid point.  And IMO the answer is no.

More firecrackers…. Would Nathan Gerbe have had a more successful career if he were Brad Marchand sized.

Size is a factor.

[DarthEbriate]

If everything is equal: smarts, tenacity, speed, heart/courage, edge work, speed of release, stick checking, playing with leverage, Acceleration, etc., then the you always take the bigger person. Because the advantages of reach are real. But, size is detrimental to agility, quickness, leverage, getting a stick on a puck really quickly when it’s between your skates... all very important in hockey. 
And we don’t have enough 6’7” 335# players in the league to show the detriments of being so big that even the big guys skate circles around you. 
Just remember... our late ‘90s squad was small and fast and tenacious compared to the big bad physical Flyers. And we bounced them from the playoffs every time. 

[Taro T]

48 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

The discussion above, with various posters writing past each other, is like a talk between political opponents on a bad political chat show.  We have failed to acknowledge what the data show and examine why it happens.  If we look at the graphs given in the article, we see that, if anything, size is slightly negatively correlated to scoring.  This is very peculiar to me because, all other things being equal, I would imagine that height and weight (as a proxy for strength) should correlate to higher scoring.

So what do the data tell us?  IMHO, GMs, scouts, coaches, and fans over-estimate the advantages which size gives.  For instance, how often do we hear about a highly-touted prospect who is "a big, physical kid" but he has minimal hockey sense, is a plodding skater, has an average shot, and does not stickhandle particularly well compared to his peers?  Meanwhile, the smaller player who skates like the wind, reads plays like a hockey version of Emmy Noether, has a cannon of a shot, is a brilliant stickhandler, and is mentally and physically tough plummets down the draft charts.  It seems that, far too often, the former is taken earlier as a "project," is given more chances to succeed, is always given the benefit of the doubt, and fails far more often than the latter.  Based on the charts, the latter should be the preferred player more often than he is now.  I am sure that GMs, scouts, and coaches are thinking, "you can't teach 6'6", but you can teach better skating, better stickhandling, better shooting, and better situational awareness" -- and they over-estimate how many things can be improved upon and how much those skills can be improved upon.

Obviously, there will be trade-offs.  I would love it if the Sabres had a team of guys who are big, strong, tough, fast, skilled, smart, and can finish something other than a bag of popcorn.  So until they can get a better blend, where do you start?  Kevin Adams clearly believes that for the Sabres to shake of the yoke of a losing culture, his short-term plan is to choose "a little more will over a little more skill" overall, with "a little more skill over a little more size" on offence and "strength with some skill" on defence.  I see he clearly believes in not over-spending on goaltending in the short term, which I understand is the overall analytics evaluation, but I think that finding the right goaltenders can cover up a myriad of flaws in the skaters.  It will be interesting what kind of team he builds and the blend he thinks will lead to a winning franchise and culture.

I would love to see a multivariate statistical analysis of various factors to try and come up with some optimal ways of selecting players.  Height, weight, mental toughness, physicality, skating, stickhandling, shooting, and hockey sense should all be more carefully evaluated and balanced by the hockey professionals and fans alike.

Nice write up.

The other thing that seems to be getting ignored is that growing up, the bigger kids predominantly get selected to the AAA/ Top Tier teams & that only the really highly skilled smaller players make those teams.  So, pretty much all the smaller kids that make it to the point of getting consideration to be drafted are really highly skilled & have competed against guys much larger for a long time.

A larger portion (note, not saying even a majority, just a larger portion than that of the pool of smaller players) of the bigger prospects have been able to use their size against smaller younger guys &/or weaker big younger kids to get an edge while growing up.  Unless they have a lot of skill to go w/ that size, they won't be able to succeed at the NHL level except in a niche role because only the best 750 hockey players on the planet are in the NHL.  (Or 750 of the best 1,000 to account for guys like Jagr deciding to play overseas while still capable of being an NHLer.)

It's not as simple as smaller skilled guys will necessarily be able to take it to the next level though they can excel against really big kids their own age because while many can gain enough strength to stay relevant at the next level not all of them can.

And it's not as simple as big kids can necessarily take it to the next level because when they have to deal with EVERYBODY being strong & quick that size advantage can either be neutralized or no longer exists.

Personally, am deriving great pleasure from this thread.  It's a fun read.

[LGR4GM]

59 minutes ago, Weave said:

This is a valid point.  And IMO the answer is no.

More firecrackers…. Would Nathan Gerbe have had a more successful career if he were Brad Marchand sized.

Size is a factor.

Size becomes a factor at extremes. Basically everyone 5'10"-6'4" is all a mixed bag. 

Edited November 19, 2021 by LGR4GM

[LGR4GM]

2 hours ago, Curt said:

The things you are saying about the advantages of being bigger/stronger are true.  There are undoubtedly advantages to being larger.

Why do you think then that larger players do not produce at a higher rate than smaller players?

Thats an open question for anyone actually, and a much more relevant question regarding the article cited by the OP.

I read an article years ago about Victor Hedman and how he got so good. He worked tirelessly on his feet to be quicker because he's large. 

[Weave]

45 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Size becomes a factor at extremes. Basically everyone 5'10"-6'4" is all a mixed bag. 

Not quite.  Size advantages and disadvantages are most obvious at the extremes.  They still apply (both ways) along the rest of the spectrum.  All other things being equal, an extra 2” and 20lbs is an advantage.  Emphasis on all other things being equal.

[Curt]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

I read an article years ago about Victor Hedman and how he got so good. He worked tirelessly on his feet to be quicker because he's large. 

No doubt.  Large size can have some disadvantages as well, just as small size can have some advantages.

[SwampD]

Another thing that skews this argument and almost makes it irrelevant is why do I care what the data across the entire nhl on individual players is year over year?

I really don’t care. It’s a team sport.

Do I really care that Johnny Goodrow scores a ton of goals but can’t get out of the first round.

I don’t care about size and it’s effects on bad teams. What does the data say about the top third of teams, and more specifically the top 4 teams? We made it there twice in the past twenty years and got outphysicalled (sorry, that’s a horrible made-up word) both times.

The top teams are almost always on the heavier end of the spectrum. 

Edited November 20, 2021 by SwampD

[Marvin]

57 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I don’t care about size and it’s effects on bad teams. What does the data say about the top third of teams, and more specifically the top 4 teams? We made it there twice in the past twenty years and got outphysicalled (sorry, that’s a horrible made-up word) both times.

The top teams are almost always on the heavier end of the spectrum. 

Are they really heavier, or do they just play that way?

I also disagree that the Sabres were physically beaten by Carolina.  I have watched all 7 games recently and that series was pretty even -- even with the Sabres playing 2-3 AHL players on defence.  Indeed, the Sabres often out-hit the Hurricanes.  Injuries made the difference.  If you want to argue that the Sabres were out-hit because the injuries proved that they were a bunch of "figure-skating pussies" and "pond-hockey pansies", you can, but you would be wrong.

[SwampD]

10 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

Are they really heavier, or do they just play that way?

I also disagree that the Sabres were physically beaten by Carolina.  I have watched all 7 games recently and that series was pretty even -- even with the Sabres playing 2-3 AHL players on defence.  Indeed, the Sabres often out-hit the Hurricanes.  Injuries made the difference.  If you want to argue that the Sabres were out-hit because the injuries proved that they were a bunch of "figure-skating pussies" and "pond-hockey pansies", you can, but you would be wrong.

They are actually heavier. 

And I don’t care about hits. Hits are a dumb stat (although, I would be thrilled if we came out on top every game. 😂)

That series was pretty even. We were definitely outclassed in the following Ottawa ECF, though.

[PerreaultForever]

6 hours ago, Curt said:

The things you are saying about the advantages of being bigger/stronger are true.  There are undoubtedly advantages to being larger.

Why do you think then that larger players do not produce at a higher rate than smaller players?

Thats an open question for anyone actually, and a much more relevant question regarding the article cited by the OP.

Well, firstly, keep in mind I'm not talking about producing, I'm talking about winning, and a winning team needs to be a balanced team.

Second, "bigger" isn't really the thing, rather stronger. Already had to argue past the semantic points and want to stress it's never just about size or height. It's strength. 

Now as for producing, there are big strong producers. Ovechkin is a beast. Crosby isn't big, but pound for pound he is strong and quite powerful. Getzlaf in his prime was maybe the perfect combination of size, strength, grit and skill. Marchand is a little guy, but I'd bet pound for pound he's about the toughest in the league and he positions himself and leverages his body perfectly driving right past and through bigger defenders. There's no real point in listing more names but there are lots. 

As for the smaller guys being producers, yes, they are, in the fair weather, but they disappear in the playoffs if they aren't in the tough strong group. Mitch Marner for example. In the tough games, Draisaitl usually is bigger impact than McDavid . That is a size and strength issue. 

Why are smaller guys often more skillful? Probably because they have to be or they never make it to the NHL. 

[Curt]

3 hours ago, SwampD said:

The top teams are almost always on the heavier end of the spectrum. 

Can you back this up with any data?