Flames: Youngest, Lightest and (Mostly) Smallest Team in the NHL

[Jacks]

Surprised how close teams are in height.

[Hockey_Ninja]

I'm surprised we're smaller than the Habs.

[calumniate]

Maybe we should add ricardo's grit scores. Make the charts all accurate and such :-*

[Hammertime]

Like others on the board, I too am excited about our smaller skilled prospects that seem to be developing well: Gaudreau, Baertchi, Granlund, and Byron.

Now that the playoffs have started, I'm reminded once again of the need to get bigger and nastier. A small/light skilled team may be able to position well to get a playoff spot, but there's no chance that a team this small will be able to crawl out of 4 gruelling playoff series.

Reality though is that by the time we are in contention again to do some damage in the playoffs, I strongly believe that there's only room for 1 or 2 on our roster regardless of how well we do in the regular season.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Hockey_Ninja

I'm surprised we're smaller than the Habs.

We're smaller only by weight.

We're bigger in height though not by much, but we're also far younger (Habs are one of the older teams), which would correlate with the lower weight.

[Hack&Lube]

We'd probably also be the shortest if not for Colborne.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

What people are noticing with this, is that team Average, when it comes to size means very little. Thing being, now most commenting on here are now trying to suggest that it means Burke is wrong in wanting us to get bigger, and are even looking at outliers to prove the point even further, ie. Byron. But they are then also forgetting that our average is pumped up by the fact we employ 2 goons on this team that play very little impact minutes.

What this show's, is average size means nothing. Doesn't change the fact that the Flames still lack physical presence in some key areas: Defense and up front on the top 2 lines.

It would be prudent to add some physicality in those areas, but it doesn't mean we don't have a place or room for smaller players. We just need to spread our size out a little more in the right places.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

What this show's, is average size means nothing. Doesn't change the fact that the Flames still lack physical presence in some key areas: Defense and up front on the top 2 lines.

A lot of silly, Burke hating responses.
Take Flames line of Cammalleri, Stajan and Hudler: ave height under 5'11" and ave weight under 190.
Now the Ducks line of Perry, Getzlaf and Smith-Pelly: ave height over 6'2" ave weight over 217

Does not take MacT's MBA to see Flames need to get bigger

[ForeverFlameFan]

Size isn't the answer, but the Flames still need to add some beef on their roster. Burke will be drafting heavily on the combo of skill/size.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

What people are noticing with this, is that team Average, when it comes to size means very little. Thing being, now most commenting on here are now trying to suggest that it means Burke is wrong in wanting us to get bigger, and are even looking at outliers to prove the point even further, ie. Byron. But they are then also forgetting that our average is pumped up by the fact we employ 2 goons on this team that play very little impact minutes.

What this show's, is average size means nothing. Doesn't change the fact that the Flames still lack physical presence in some key areas: Defense and up front on the top 2 lines.

It would be prudent to add some physicality in those areas, but it doesn't mean we don't have a place or room for smaller players. We just need to spread our size out a little more in the right places.

I wonder what the correlation to team points is if top six or defenseman height/weight only were listed...

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I wonder what the correlation to team points is if top six or defenseman height/weight only were listed...

Exactly. If any data generated was a function of TOI (better than trying to determine 'top 6' imo) it would be really interesting and I'd guess much more valuable.

[Oil Stain]

There is absolutely no correlation between size and winning that I have ever been able to find.

Do you take any center over Crosby? Nope. Because he's the best and size doesn't matter.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

There is absolutely no correlation between size and winning that I have ever been able to find.

Do you take any center over Crosby? Nope. Because he's the best and size doesn't matter.

no correlation that you've ever seen?

Oilers: no size, no winning

strong correlation

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

no correlation that you've ever seen?

Oilers: no size, no winning

strong correlation

Chicago is the third lightest in the league. 2 cups.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Chicago is the third lightest in the league. 2 cups.

well then, case closed

[Oil Stain]

Age looks to be much more important.

Of the ten oldest teams in the NHL only two missed the playoffs this season.

Phoenix and New Jersey. Both were on the cusp as well.


Of the 12 youngest teams (three tied for 10th), 9 missed the playoffs.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

well then, case closed

It's as good of a case as you made.


Also, Edmonton is no good

[T@T]

Hockey isn't a team tug of war game.

/thread

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Chicago is the third lightest in the league. 2 cups.

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Do you take any center over Crosby? Nope. Because he's the best and size doesn't matter.

Gotta take Toews and his 2 Cups over Crosby

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Gotta take Toews and his 2 Cups over Crosby

Not to mention his girl is a knockout 10