Why size is no longer a telling factor in the NHL

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

None of them. You take the guy who has a better track record (and, in your scouting department's expertise, a better likelihood) of implementing whatever skill set he has in a manner that will lead to outscoring the other guys.

Prioritizing a skill set, looking for "the next Lucic" or whatever has caused some of the more boneheaded managerial moves in the course of this league's history. If you get focused on tools you're missing the forest for the trees.

It happens all the time where there is two forwards very close in ranking and one is better at one thing and another is better at something else. It often does come down to a management build ideology or prioritization of certain things which causes one org to lIke a player more than another and another org to like the other guy. reality isn't as simple as you try to make it sound. Clubs do prioritize different things and this does change who they perceive will be the most successful in their skill set. So which do you prioritize in that situation the two way guy with a little less offence, the Russian scoring dynamo with no two way game etc etc

[Textcritic]

So, in your first sentence you say this:

Originally Posted by Poe969

IMO size is still the most important factor.

...and then in the next sentence you say:

Originally Posted by Poe969

You need to have skill and speed but if 2 small skilled teams play, my money is on the bigger skilled team of the 2.

This is a small gripe, but of course I am sure that everyone would agree that given the choice between a small, skilled team and a big, skilled team, then of course the choice is obvious. But I don't believe that is what is at stake in the OP's question.

I will also agree with a few others that it is a mistake to build a team with an intractable emphasis on one or two of size, speed and skill. The best teams are constructed by drafting the best players available, and then developing them within a system intentionally structured to ensure that they can succeed together. In my opinion, this is what the Flames are in the process of doing.

This team will not always play the way they played this past season. As the players get more mature, stronger, smarter, and as bigger, faster, more skilled pieces are added, I would expect the Flames to gradually become more of a strong possession team. But I think the point here is key: The Flames do not need to be the Anaheim Ducks or the St. Louis Blues to be successful. They have pieces in place and an organisational mandate in which they could build a strong, skilled, and fast possession team that is not necessarily composed of primarily big players.

In his end of season presser, Treliving stressed the importance of speed throughout the lineup, and I would argue that this is likely the priority when it comes to acquiring players. That is, in a situation in which there is a choice between two players of comparable skill, speed should be prioritised ahead of size. Of course, this does not at all mean that the Flames will eschew collecting big players; they will continue to filter into the organisation naturally.

[CSharp]

Team with Big size with some skill and lots of speed always trumps a small team with speed and skill. Bruins, Kings, Black Hawks, and Ducks have shown this too many times over the last 10 years. Heck even as bad as the Sharks are this year, they'll likely be in the top 8 in the Western Conference heading into post season in 2016. The size will wear down a small team faster than the other way around. You build a small skilled team for entertainment, but you build a big team to win championships. If you're talking about small players like Kane, St Louis, and Theo Fleury - these are exceptional players; but there's only one of them that exists on any given championship team that won with big players around them.

[dino7c]

I tell my wife size isn't a factor...doesn't mean its true

[Meers]

A couple of analytics pieces confirm what your eyes tell you watching quality prospects from junior as they try to make it to the NHL.

Size has some correlation to future NHL success.

http://canucksarmy.com/2015/1/22/the...ze-does-matter
http://canucksarmy.com/2015/1/27/siz...ter-defencemen

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I tell my wife size isn't a factor...doesn't mean its true

Interestingly, I I find that size makes a huge difference going from a 40" tube to a 60-incher! Then, you can see how big those players are when they hit the boards!

[flamesfever]

A high proportion of the more exciting players to watch, in my lifetime, have been relatively smaller in stature e.g. Dave Keon (5' 9" - 163 lbs), Valeri Karlamov (5' 8" - 165 lbs), Theoren Fleury (5' 6" - 180 lbs), Wayne Gretzky ( 6' 0" - 185 lbs), Martin St. Louis (5' 8" - 180 lbs), Patrick Kane (5' 10" - 178 lbs), Johnny Gaudreau (5' 9" - 160 lbs).

I think, if the league wants more excitement in hockey, they should continue to adopt rules that allow the most talented players to succeed, in spite of size.

I think the latest SC wins by LA is placing too much emphasis on size. It would be interesting to see a statistical study that shows the relative team size vs Stanley cup wins, over a long period of time.

[Singularity]

There are upsides to both, and size differences can be seen as a part of coaching strategy in hockey, if you look at basketball, before everyone believed in big tall players, then coaches like Mike D'Antoni went to a smaller line up which has crazy fast offensive pace and bigger players have troubles keeping up, i believe this is the same in hockey. However a team needs a balance of big and small players.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Singularity

There are upsides to both, and size differences can be seen as a part of coaching strategy in hockey, if you look at basketball, before everyone believed in big tall players, then coaches like Mike D'Antoni went to a smaller line up which has crazy fast offensive pace and bigger players have troubles keeping up, i believe this is the same in hockey. However a team needs a balance of big and small players.

I think the ice surface is not big enough to give the small players the same advantage in hockey. That plus the big guys like Getzlaf and Kopitar are pretty fast

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Psytic

It happens all the time where there is two forwards very close in ranking and one is better at one thing and another is better at something else. It often does come down to a management build ideology or prioritization of certain things which causes one org to lIke a player more than another and another org to like the other guy. reality isn't as simple as you try to make it sound. Clubs do prioritize different things and this does change who they perceive will be the most successful in their skill set. So which do you prioritize in that situation the two way guy with a little less offence, the Russian scoring dynamo with no two way game etc etc

Yes, they do, and it's an error 100% of the time that this is the driving factor in decision making. You act like what hockey teams do is necessarily what they should be doing. Counter-examples: see Oilers, Edmonton and Maple Leafs, Toronto. And hell, Canucks, Vancouver, given the recent awful contracts handed out to Sbisa and Dorsett.

Again, it does not matter if you have size, if you are unable to leverage that size into on-ice success. It does not matter if you are fast, if you are unable to leverage that speed into on-ice success. Tools only matter to the extent you can do something with them, which is to say they don't really matter at all.

If the Russian scoring dynamo guy (way to be subtle in your xenophobia) is more likely to lead to his team outscoring the other guys when he's on the ice, you should always take him over a two-way player who won't provide the same level of play. Or you should. In the end, there are two paths to victory: scoring goals and preventing goals. Neither matters more than the other (in spite of the bias in the NHL towards safe defensive play, which ultimately creates inefficiencies).

[darthma]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I tell my wife size isn't a factor...doesn't mean its true

Skill and speed are factors too. Don't forget those...

[dammage79]

Individually I don't think size matters but as you're building a team Size definitely is a factor. You cannot dress 13 Gaudreau's.

Looking at other teams with diminutive players CHI builds size around Kane, Flames have done so somewhat with Gaudreau as well.

[HUSKER4FLAMES]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I tell my wife size isn't a factor...doesn't mean its true

Mine too. She also doesn't like that I'm fast either.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by HUSKER4FLAMES

Mine too. She also doesn't like that I'm fast either.

Hopefully you are at least skilled...

[OzSome]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

Did you watch the Anaheim series?

Size will always be a factor! I love Gaudreau, but he needs protection on the ice. He wont go to the tough areas cause he knows how that will end.

Its like Kris Russell trying to clear the front of the net as a big power forward stands there. I love Russell, he cant do it though.

Size is important! Skating though is too. Big guy who can skate is the player you want! Big guy who cant skate is a pilon on the ice.

Watch Colborne play in the playoffs. Imagine if that is Gaudreau. He used his size to protect the puck, Johnny cant do that. Johnny is amazing, at 6 foot 5" tall Gaudreau would be a hof player. Might be regardless. Yet if he was that big we might be talking about the best hockey player ever.

Size matters! Matters a lot. When it is matched with skill.

I tend to disagree. Flames did not lose the series because of Anaheim is bigger. Flames lost because they were undisciplined in the last two games. Getting a penalty with no time left in the 2nd period burned them. Also, Anaheim have so much depth in their lineup. They have 4 lines who can scores compare to Flames with 3 lines or even 2 1/2 lines. You also have to remember their best players Getzlaf, Perry have been good for a few years already. Even if you shut out the first line, they have the 2nd line who can also score.

It's not like the smaller Flames just folded against a much bigger Ducks. Flames gave them at least 3 tough games. If it wasn't for those two bad penalties that resulted a couple of important goals for the Ducks, we wouldn't know what could have happen.

Flyers, Sharks and Kings were bigger teams too but looked what happened to them... all 3 missed the playoffs.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by OzSome

I tend to disagree. Flames did not lose the series because of Anaheim is bigger. Flames lost because they were undisciplined in the last two games. Getting a penalty with no time left in the 2nd period burned them. Also, Anaheim have so much depth in their lineup. They have 4 lines who can scores compare to Flames with 3 lines or even 2 1/2 lines. You also have to remember their best players Getzlaf, Perry have been good for a few years already. Even if you shut out the first line, they have the 2nd line who can also score.

It's not like the smaller Flames just folded against a much bigger Ducks. Flames gave them at least 3 tough games. If it wasn't for those two bad penalties that resulted a couple of important goals for the Ducks, we wouldn't know what could have happen.

Flyers, Sharks and Kings were bigger teams too but looked what happened to them... all 3 missed the playoffs.

Yeah look what happen to the Kings, 2 cups in three years.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yes, they do, and it's an error 100% of the time that this is the driving factor in decision making. You act like what hockey teams do is necessarily what they should be doing. Counter-examples: see Oilers, Edmonton and Maple Leafs, Toronto. And hell, Canucks, Vancouver, given the recent awful contracts handed out to Sbisa and Dorsett.

Again, it does not matter if you have size, if you are unable to leverage that size into on-ice success. It does not matter if you are fast, if you are unable to leverage that speed into on-ice success. Tools only matter to the extent you can do something with them, which is to say they don't really matter at all.

If the Russian scoring dynamo guy (way to be subtle in your xenophobia) is more likely to lead to his team outscoring the other guys when he's on the ice, you should always take him over a two-way player who won't provide the same level of play. Or you should. In the end, there are two paths to victory: scoring goals and preventing goals. Neither matters more than the other (in spite of the bias in the NHL towards safe defensive play, which ultimately creates inefficiencies).

/facepalm thats the problem. No one knows who will hit their potential its all speculative. We know some have a better chance than others but then you get guys in 5th round that put it all together too If we knew exactly who was the best to hit thier potential in every round than all draft orders for every team would be the same. Of course you want to take the player who will best hit his ceiling but who actually 100% knows this? This is why teams come up with different draft lists. If you have two players both are considererd equally skilled but excel in different aspects of the game, who do you prioritize? You seem to have this idea that we can just know who will have the best chance to hit their ceiling but we dont or their wouldnt be any need to pick. Players would just go in order through all rounds.......

Also im not really sure what you are going on about I never stated which player was better or if one was better, more like two sides to a coin used as examples. Xenophobic, hardly.

[burnin_vernon]

It's all about versatility.

[thefoss1957]

Getting caught up in fixating on ONE particular quality can be fatal...Idiot Bob Pulford, who ran my franchise into the ground, wasted a decade trying to get that mythical "power forward", often to the point of signing coveted guys long past their sell-by date...it wasn't until we got a management/coaching team that was willing to work with the kind of guys that were available, and finding a system that fit that talent, instead of forcing incompatible players into pre-conceived roles/systems, that my guys were able to turn things around.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

Getting caught up in fixating on ONE particular quality can be fatal...Idiot Bob Pulford, who ran my franchise into the ground, wasted a decade trying to get that mythical "power forward", often to the point of signing coveted guys long past their sell-by date...it wasn't until we got a management/coaching team that was willing to work with the kind of guys that were available, and finding a system that fit that talent, instead of forcing incompatible players into pre-conceived roles/systems, that my guys were able to turn things around.

Was he the one who drafted Eric Daze in the 4th round? That was a hit but Concussion got the best of him in the long run.