Why size is no longer a telling factor in the NHL

[thefoss1957]

Dammage...Daze, or "Daisy Mae", to 'Hawk fans, played as the smallest 6'5" guy imaginable...he wasn't a physical presence, and his game was limited by coaches not using him to his strengths, a pure scorer. He got thrashed from line to line, and never had a Playmaking Center that he really clicked with

[OBCT]

It's true that a hockey player's size isn't the most important factor in determining their overall value in terms of impact. In isolation, it seems quite obvious to me that skill is more important than size.

However, I think a more specific question is being asked, once that most of us realize but continue to swirl around vaguely.

If skill is more important than size, exactly how much more important is it? What about speed or strength, or the numerous other traits a player must possess?

I'm not a scout, so I don't know if this is a realistic exercise, but my immediate instinct would be to quantify all my ratings, then weight them according to my understanding of the game.

After watching a player, I will grade him on each skill or trait I deem important. I will then apply my own formula to determine an "Overall Impact Score" for that player. Later, I can apply further analysis to predict or project a prospect's potential score in their prime, or even a veteran's likely rate of decline post-apex (beyond age 32 or 35... you get the idea).


Here's an admittedly grossly over-simplified example:

John Doe (Age 19, LH, C) (6'3", 207 lbs)

Size --- 81/100 = 81/100
Strength --- 94/100 = 94/100
Situational Awareness --- 43/100 * 1.5 = 64.5/150
Speed --- 62/100 * 2.5 = 155/250
Skill --- 77/100 * 3 = 231/300

Apply subjective relative weights:

Size [multiplier = 1.0] ... 81/100 = 81/100
Strength [multiplier = 1.0] ... 94/100 = 94/100
Situational Awareness [multiplier = 1.5] ... 43/100 * 1.5 = 64.5/150
Speed [multiplier = 2.5] ... 62/100 * 2.5 = 155/250
Skill [multiplier = 3.0] ... 77/100 * 3 = 231/300

Total for results:

544.5/1000 = 54.5% or a D grade


I think a fascinating discussion could be had as to how scouts analyze players - do they typically break everything down into numbers for consistent comparative analysis?; which skills/traits do they consider?; and how do they weight one asset relative to another?

[flamesfever]

My guess is, when choosing players, you weigh everything and end up "going with you gut". I think there is probably is a size bias in the process, and this can work to one's advantage in choosing players, particularly in the later rounds e.g. Johnny, Doug Gilmore, Datsyuk etc.

Of course it would be great to find a Jamie Benn.

[ricardodw]

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.

Why were they undisciplined? Because their regular hits had little or no impact.

Hartley had the Flames avoiding as much contact as possible to change the game to a skating game. Even with Hartley totally outcoaching Boudreau size still won out . The only way to stop the Duck cycle with the non-contact Flames was for Ramo to make a great save or ice the puck.

The Ducks top 6 scoring forwards . Getzlaff, Perry, Marroon, Belesky, Kesler and Silfverbeg. Silfverberg was the smallest at 6-2 197.

The Flames top line with 2 small guys and a big no-hitter had 23 pts in 11 playoff games (33 man-games) does not sound too bad but taking out the Vancouver 7-4 game 6 and where they got 11 of those points leaves them with 12 pts as line, 6 goals in 10 games.

They scored nicer goals than the Perry/Marroon 3 footers but style points don't make them worth more.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Why were they undisciplined? Because their regular hits had little or no impact.

Hartley had the Flames avoiding as much contact as possible to change the game to a skating game. Even with Hartley totally outcoaching Boudreau size still won out . The only way to stop the Duck cycle with the non-contact Flames was for Ramo to make a great save or ice the puck.

The Ducks top 6 scoring forwards . Getzlaff, Perry, Marroon, Belesky, Kesler and Silfverbeg. Silfverberg was the smallest at 6-2 197.

The Flames top line with 2 small guys and a big no-hitter had 23 pts in 11 playoff games (33 man-games) does not sound too bad but taking out the Vancouver 7-4 game 6 and where they got 11 of those points leaves them with 12 pts as line, 6 goals in 10 games.

They scored nicer goals than the Perry/Marroon 3 footers but style points don't make them worth more.

The Ducks can be beat with our style of play, we just aren't there yet. We aren't the benchmark. The Ducks happen to be bigger AND more skilled throughout their whole lineup. I don't recall the Wings being that big when they were dominating the league. The Hawks are big enough but not huge. I guess my opinion is I would rather be those two than the Ducks or Kings. What we have built so far is more in the mould of a high skill transition team. It would be tougher to do a 180 at this point when we are looking like Chicago lite.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Why were they undisciplined?

In Game 1, they were undisciplined because they were unprepared from top to bottom.

I don't think they were undisciplined in games 2 or 3

In Game 3, they were undisciplined because Colborne was just dumb.

In Game 4, they were """undisciplined""" because they had a lead and the refs decided to referee to even the score.

Hartley had the Flames avoiding as much contact as possible to change the game to a skating game. Even with Hartley totally outcoaching Boudreau size still won out . The only way to stop the Duck cycle with the non-contact Flames was for Ramo to make a great save or ice the puck.

And yet it would have been a totally different matchup if Gio/Brodie, our actual 1st pairing with average size, were guarding it, instead of our defensively challenged 2nd pairing where average one guy lacks the mobility or awareness and the other guy is below average size.

Even then, by the last three games of the series, even strength scoring was pretty much a wash. I'm not making excuses - the team wasn't good enough - we got destroyed in possession. But that doesn't mean any small team would have gotten outpossessed... the Lightning and Red Wings are two very good, "small" possession teams.

The Flames top line with 2 small guys and a big no-hitter had 23 pts in 11 playoff games (33 man-games) does not sound too bad but taking out the Vancouver 7-4 game 6 and where they got 11 of those points leaves them with 12 pts as line, 6 goals in 10 games.

That first series' problems had more to do with Monahan being unable to win faceoffs, and Tanev/Edler having very, very good sticks.

The second series was again a matchup problem, but not Hudler and Johnny. 20 year old Monahan just wasn't as good one-on-one as 11 year veteran Kesler and got exposed, but not for a lack of hitting or size. Johnny was our best player in the series and there's a reason Hudler drew the Penalty that led to the Backlund OT winner.

Ultimately, that series wasn't lost because of our smaller forwards. Our one small Dman might have been an issue, but it was moreso the fact that he was being misused, as was our biggest Dman.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Why are people talking about the Hawks like they're some undersized-but-skilled-and-speedy team?

I'm looking at their roster, and it looks like Kane is the only big-minutes player on that team who is under 6 feet.

On the contrary, they have lots of guys like Hossa, Toews, Seabrook, Keith, Hjalmarsson, players who I would say thrive when the game gets rough.

Calgary's top-6, on the other hand, have as many players under 6 foot as over 6 foot, as many defencemen under 200lbs as over 200lbs. THAT is a small team.

The Hawks are not small, they're just not as big as the Kings.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

Why are people talking about the Hawks like they're some undersized-but-skilled-and-speedy team?

I'm looking at their roster, and it looks like Kane is the only big-minutes player on that team who is under 6 feet.

On the contrary, they have lots of guys like Hossa, Toews, Seabrook, Keith, Hjalmarsson, players who I would say thrive when the game gets rough.

Calgary's top-6, on the other hand, have as many players under 6 foot as over 6 foot, as many defencemen under 200lbs as over 200lbs. THAT is a small team.

The Hawks are not small, they're just not as big as the Kings.

You're cherry picking stats.
Chicago and Calgary have the same number of forwards under 6'... four

Chicago has 2 defensemen that are over 200lbs, Calgary has 6. Calgary's D is bigger

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Size/strength quite obviously matters. It can go a long way in determining who wins board and net front battles. Clearly a big player has to "use his size" as the catchphrase suggests or the advantage does nothing for him. A bigger, stronger player should be able to more easily fight off checking. A bigger, stronger player should be more easily able to check, shut down, lean on, contain, overpower, etc a smaller player.

The importance of it has diminished somewhat in the post-clutch and grab era. But when you see guys like Getzlaf and Perry physically dominate against your average sized defensemen the idea that it is at least somewhat important is undeniable. True power forwards are some of the rarer commodities in hockey. Looks like Bouma and Ferland will both play that style with differing levels of skill so we're not totally devoid in that area. More size up front would be nice. But where we really lack it is on the blue line. The decision to keep Sarich instead of Regehr was a mistake by Feaster IMO and we've lacked a good, physical stay at home defenseman since then. We need a young monster back there. Someone who is big, strong, physical but also skates well and is agile. They tend to go quite high. I remember watching a behind the scenes draft video of Philadephia the other year when they took Sam Morin and they had probably like 5 defensemen ahead of Monahan who they thought was similar to their Couturier.

Finding one in the draft might not bear fruit until a few years from now. Treliving may have to trade some picks or prospects or young players to get a big, physical defenseman. I'm pretty sure it's a priority of his as he was a stay at home defenseman in pro was he not? And it seemed like from all the innuendo last draft that Treliving might've liked Ekblad #1 and Conroy liked Bennett the best. Perhaps we'll get lucky and draft one that doesn't take forever to mature. Otherwise Kanzig is our best hope in our existing prospect pool.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

You're cherry picking stats.
Chicago and Calgary have the same number of forwards under 6'... four

Chicago has 2 defensemen that are over 200lbs, Calgary has 6. Calgary's D is bigger

Duncan Keith espn 6-1 200 nhl.com 6-1 192
Seabrook espn 6-3 221 nhl.com 6-3 220
Hajlmarsson espn 6-3 207 nhl 6-3 197
Rozsival espn 6-1 212 nhl 6-1 210
Oduya espn 6-0 190 nhl.com 6-0 188


These are the 5 d-men on Chicago that have 17 minutes plus /game

4 out of the top 5 d-men are over 200 lbs according to espn.

Calgary

Brodie espn 6-1 182 nhl 6-1 182
Russell espn 5-10 173 nhl 5-10 173
Wideman espn 6-0 200 nhl 6-0 200
------
Gio espn 6-1 200 nhl 6-1 200
---
Engelland espn 6-2 215 Nhl 6-2 215
Schlemko espn 6-1 190 nhl 6-1 190
Diaz espn 5-11 197 nhl 5-11 197

There s no possible way that you can cherry pick the stats to show the Flames with more than 3 d-men at 200.... as players usually shed weight over the season the Flames end up with having 1 d-man over 200 lbs.

[AcGold]

It's how the team works together that matters. A very small team probably could excel under the right conditions as could a very big team, it's how the coach utilizes the individual strengths of each player. The opposite of this was demonstrated by Brent Sutter that tried shoving each player into the same mould and never worked. Kris Russell is a great example, a small guy that plays a big game and could compete with the best in the league because the coach knows how to use him.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by AcGold

It's how the team works together that matters. A very small team probably could excel under the right conditions as could a very big team, it's how the coach utilizes the individual strengths of each player. The opposite of this was demonstrated by Brent Sutter that tried shoving each player into the same mould and never worked. Kris Russell is a great example, a small guy that plays a big game and could compete with the best in the league because the coach knows how to use him.

I think there's a lot of truth in that. I hated the way the Flames played under Brent and Brian's defense first method.

If there was anyone on the Flames who stepped up his game, and was responsible for the Flames success after Giordano went down, it was Kris Russell...he absolutely shone under Hartley. His excellent play didn't go unnoticed by other teams, as evidenced by their interest at the trade deadline.

I really hope Hartley wins the Jack Adams. He got the most out of each player, in spite of their various deficiencies, as perceived by others. And he moulded the team into an effective unit whose success exceeded the most optimistic of prognosticators.

[dying4acup]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think there's a lot of truth in that. I hated the way the Flames played under Brent and Brian's defense first method.

If there was anyone on the Flames who stepped up his game, and was responsible for the Flames success after Giordano went down, it was Kris Russell...he absolutely shone under Hartley. His excellent play didn't go unnoticed by other teams, as evidenced by their interest at the trade deadline.

I really hope Hartley wins the Jack Adams. He got the most out of each player, in spite of their various deficiencies, as perceived by others. And he moulded the team into an effective unit whose success exceeded the most optimistic of prognosticators.

Agree.

Hartley's MO has been PERFECT for this team.

Activate D. Forwards, cover. Forwards learn defensive responsibility. Everybody racks up points.

Every player has value, even if they they don't put up points.

He is a dream to play for, and a dream coach for a GM. Not a single player on the roster has negative value. Players are developing and vets are leading. The players who aren't performing (ie Raymond) are failing because of their own deficiencies (ie hard work).

We all know that this roster has holes. But Hartley has created an overachiever. I'll take that any day of the week.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by dying4acup

Agree.

Hartley's MO has been PERFECT for this team.

Activate D. Forwards, cover. Forwards learn defensive responsibility. Everybody racks up points.

Every player has value, even if they they don't put up points.

He is a dream to play for, and a dream coach for a GM. Not a single player on the roster has negative value. Players are developing and vets are leading. The players who aren't performing (ie Raymond) are failing because of their own deficiencies (ie hard work).

Is Raymond failing due to hard work though, or just because he's a small, streaky player?

[dying4acup]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Is Raymond failing due to hard work though, or just because he's a small, streaky player?

I could handle another small streaky player. We have a few. Contribute in other areas, like Granlund, Jooris, Colborne and Bennett(2015 playoff version was streaky).

Be a factor every night, points or not. That might actually be a Hartley quote.

It would be understandable if he was 22, but not as a vet.

[bysutter]

I grew up an athlete and I always figured it was better to be small and fast than big and slow. It's true that there are athletes out there that are both big and fast but they are few and far between. Let's face it...EVERYONE want the Kings top 6, problem is they are few and far between and if they do exist they are hard to keep around.

[dying4acup]

Which team doesn't wish they had Monahan right now?

Maybe Nashville and Colorado don't have regrets, but they would still want him.

Everybody dreams about a player like him. Without him, you can have all the Gaudreau's you want. You need Monahan's to play between them.

What I'm trying to say is that Gaudreau might possibly be our leading point man for the next 10 years. But whether or not that is the case, Monahan is most likely our most valuable forward, if not most valuable player.

Size does matter.

I will however say that, in opposition to those that say that size is the biggest factor, it is not.

I love Joe Colborne. I love Brian McGrattan. I like Brandon Bollig. Those players are not more valuable than John Gaudreau. It's nice to have size, but the size needs to be able to skate, and be able to play.

I'm not saying that those guys can't, but my point is that size is just one aspect.

Even in basketball, there are plenty of 7-footers who get drafted and accomplish nothing. Size is important, but if you have no hands, no strength, no speed, no coordination, no smarts, then you are useless.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think there's a lot of truth in that. I hated the way the Flames played under Brent and Brian's defense first method.

If there was anyone on the Flames who stepped up his game, and was responsible for the Flames success after Giordano went down, it was Kris Russell...he absolutely shone under Hartley. His excellent play didn't go unnoticed by other teams, as evidenced by their interest at the trade deadline.

I really hope Hartley wins the Jack Adams. He got the most out of each player, in spite of their various deficiencies, as perceived by others. And he moulded the team into an effective unit whose success exceeded the most optimistic of prognosticators.

I like Russell but I think he was over matched against Perry and Getzlaf. An indication of this was his team worse -9. A big partner would have helped him in my opinion.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I like Russell but I think he was over matched against Perry and Getzlaf. An indication of this was his team worse -9. A big partner would have helped him in my opinion.

Yes, I agree he needs a big partner, especially to help push those big guys away from getting in front of the goalie, and in battling for the puck along the boards. He compensates though in so many other ways, like blocking shots, his smart stick work, outlet passes, etc.

[dying4acup]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Yes, I agree he needs a big partner, especially to help push those big guys away from getting in front of the goalie, and in battling for the puck along the boards. He compensates though in so many other ways, like blocking shots, his smart stick work, outlet passes, etc.

I love RUSSELL, but I think that he needs to be used against lower lines, more on pp, and PK.

That wasn't an option at this point, with Gio out! He played his heart out, and admirably!

I love the chemistry he had with Wideman, and would aim to keep them together, as well as Gio and BRODIE.

My aim would be to add a top 4 puck mover to pair with Engelland, at a low cost and short term. Ideally young. (Every teams dream, right!)

That way you could roll 3 pairs!