Quote:
Originally Posted by GranteedEV
Size might be an advantage if the genetics and build allow for comparable quickness to a smaller, lighter person.
But assumung that all else is fundamentally equal is a flawed premise. A Canadian male between twenty and fourty who is just below 6'2" is already in the 95th percentile for height.
What is the likelyhood that one of the five percent tallest people is equally as otherwise talented?
Yes, exceptions have always existed. Vasilevsky. Malkin. Lemieux. Jagr. But on average? You're probably a lot more likely to find a Tim Thomas or a Sidney Crosby or a Patrick Kane level talent on the wrong side of these extreme outlier heights... unless you're artificially selecting for height and filling your rosters with Koskinens, Ritchies, etc.
Which is absolutely the case. Some teams have even admitted to exclusively not drafting average sized goalies. There's a difference between an advantage, and a blind spot.
|
You are cherry picking. There are as many, if not more, more tall and talented players in the NHL. For every Fleury, there’s a Lindros, and more. For every Crosby in a given year, there’s Ovie, Thornton, Perry, Getzlaf, Marceau. I do not think smaller players are innately more skilled.
But more to the point - for goalies size is an advantage for obvious reasons, and there’s no evidence smaller goalies are better at anything in particular.