HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Ottawa Senators (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19)
-   -   Does Size Matter (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1042907)

aragorn 11-30-2011 10:15 AM

Does Size Matter
 
After doing a little research on TSN rosters I notice a few things:

- Vancouver & Toronto are the biggest teams or the teams with fewer players under 6’
- Montreal has the most players (12) under 6’ & surprisingly Philly is 2nd
- The NYI & LA Kings both have 3 players under 6’ & Ottawa has 4 now that Da Costa is in Bingo
- Boston has 4 guys who are 5’11” & one guy who is 5’9”, Brad Marchand which reminds me of the playoff game with Marchand rabbit punching one of the Sedins ( Daniel 6’1” & Henrick 6’2”)
- Dal, Det, Nash, St Louis & Flo all have 8 players under 6’
- Philly traditionally a big team has 9 players under 6’ but none under 5’10”
- there are 169 players in the NHL that are under 6’
- 85 players in the East are under 6’ & 84 players in the West, almost a 50/50 split
- there are 107 players that are 5’11”
- there are 33 players that are 5’10”
- there are only 29 players that are 5’9” or smaller
- there is only one goalie under 6’ in the NHL, Jhonus Enroth
- Jordan Tootoo is 5’9” which is remarkable considering the way he plays
- Patrick Kane, Brian Gionta, Derek Roy & Martin St Louis all under 6’ could be their team’s best players.

The purpose of this threat is to determine whether size matters in the NHL, I’m of the opinion it does since there are a hell of a lot more bigger players in the NHL & that they can take the physical punishment more. They have the size & strength to deal with hits, fighting for loose pucks, standing in front of the net & protecting teammates. When there are two players with similar skill sets I will always take the bigger player but that’s not to say that smaller players don’t have a role in the NHL. Crosby at 5’11” after all is considered the best player in the world.

Out of 30 teams, 750 to 800 players, there are only 169 players under 6’. For this reason it is going to be a very difficult hill to climb for smaller players but not impossible. Da Costa, Petersson, Pageau & the rest of these smaller players will have difficulty making it to the NHL. Obviously as the NHL is getting bigger, faster & more skilled the smaller players are slowly being replaced by bigger players who are just as skilled. Discuss.

Minister of Offence 11-30-2011 10:18 AM

It's a factor among other factors.

Skating ability and hockey IQs are arguably as important, if not more.

This 11-30-2011 10:19 AM

It is not the size of the army, but the fury of the onslaught.

trentmccleary 11-30-2011 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aragorn (Post 40190139)
After doing a little research on TSN rosters I notice a few things:

- Vancouver & Toronto are the biggest teams or the teams with fewer players under 6’
- Montreal has the most players (12) under 6’ & surprisingly Philly is 2nd.

:huh: Vancouver and Toronto are very small teams.

Ah, TSN... total roster... that's the problem right there.

http://www.forecaster.ca/demos/hocke...hchart.cgi?Ott

Use Forecaster -> Depth Chart -> Display: Height/Weight

That will show you whose big players actually play, which is much more useful than having a pair a 5 minute a night big guys on the 4th line or sparingly used D-men on the bottom pairing.

Asquaredx2 11-30-2011 10:32 AM

St. Louis and Marchand are two pretty good examples of "it's the size of the fight in the dog." Conversely there are big players who ***** out all the time.

All things being equal, you take the bigger guy, but that's purely a hypothetical scenario because you're never going to find two exactly equal (but dissimilarly sized) players.

Basically you have to look at each individual rather than just apply generalizations.

aragorn 11-30-2011 10:32 AM

And yet out of 705 players or so only 169 players are under 6'. I would think that smaller players would be better & faster skaters & as far as hockey IQ goes there should be a higher or more equal ratio.

I think the obvious fact is that size matters more, especially on the 3rd & 4th lines & on defence & now in goal too. Smaller players have to be very, very good to make it to the NHL & some still don't make it like Locke.

HappyGilmour 11-30-2011 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by This (Post 40190273)
It is not the size of the army, but the fury of the onslaught.

That's what she said.

trentmccleary 11-30-2011 10:38 AM

Here are the forwards from the top-3 lines and sizes on forecaster:

Greening (6'2, 212) - Spezza (6'3, 216) - Michalek (6'2, 225)
Foligno (6'0, 210) - Regin (6'2, 200) - Alfie (5'11, 196)
__________ - Z.Smith (6'2, 212) - C.Neil (6'1, 215)

J. Lupul (6'1, 206) - Connolly (6'1, 190) - Kessel (6'0, 202)
MacArthur (6'0, 191) - Grabovski (5'11, 183) - Kulemin (6'1, 225)
Lombardi (5'11, 195) - Bozak (6'1, 195) - Armstrong (6'2, 195)

D. Sedin (6'1, 187) - H. Sedin (6'2, 188) - Burrows (6'1, 188)
D. Booth (6'0, 212) - Kesler (6'2, 202) - Rymond (6'0, 185)
Higgins (6'0, 205) - Hodgson (6'0, 185) - Hansen (6'1, 195)

I highlighted everybody that was 210+ lbs.

* I couldn't pick our 9th forward with a healthy roster. Not really sure who it's going to end up being.

aragorn 11-30-2011 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trentmccleary (Post 40190515)
:huh: Vancouver and Toronto are very small teams.

Ah, TSN... total roster... that's the problem right there.

http://www.forecaster.ca/demos/hocke...hchart.cgi?Ott

Use Forecaster -> Depth Chart -> Display: Height/Weight

That will show you whose big players actually play, which is much more useful than having a pair a 5 minute a night big guys on the 4th line or sparingly used D-men on the bottom pairing.

You are arguing that I chose the wrong site? Really. How big a difference do you think that will make? My point is that a player under 6" has to be a pretty special player to make it to the NHL. With only 169 players under 6' I can guess that some of them play big minutes like karlsson as an example. But with over 600 players over 6' I can guess that some of them are their team's best players as well & since there are more of them I can conclude that there are more of them that actually play.

I certainly agree that it is the fight in the dog, there is no question that some players have more heart. But it's the numbers, the difference in ratio, the fact that there are over 600 players over 6' compared to 169 players under 6', it's quite a discrepancy, more than I thought it would be.

aragorn 11-30-2011 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trentmccleary (Post 40190965)
Here are the forwards from the top-3 lines and sizes on forecaster:

Greening (6'2, 212) - Spezza (6'3, 216) - Michalek (6'2, 225)
Foligno (6'0, 210) - Regin (6'2, 200) - Alfie (5'11, 196)
__________ - Z.Smith (6'2, 212) - C.Neil (6'1, 215)

J. Lupul (6'1, 206) - Connolly (6'1, 190) - Kessel (6'0, 202)
MacArthur (6'0, 191) - Grabovski (5'11, 183) - Kulemin (6'1, 225)
Lombardi (5'11, 195) - Bozak (6'1, 195) - Armstrong (6'2, 195)

D. Sedin (6'1, 187) - H. Sedin (6'2, 188) - Burrows (6'1, 188)
D. Booth (6'0, 212) - Kesler (6'2, 202) - Rymond (6'0, 185)
Higgins (6'0, 205) - Hodgson (6'0, 185) - Hansen (6'1, 195)

I highlighted everybody that was 210+ lbs.

* I couldn't pick our 9th forward with a healthy roster. Not really sure who it's going to end up being.

You forgot the defence & the goalies.

starling 11-30-2011 10:55 AM

TSN blows. See NHL.com stats.
Among Sens on current roster only Alfie is under 6 ft.
Toronto has 4 players under 6'.

aragorn 11-30-2011 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trentmccleary (Post 40190965)
Here are the forwards from the top-3 lines and sizes on forecaster:

Greening (6'2, 212) - Spezza (6'3, 216) - Michalek (6'2, 225)
Foligno (6'0, 210) - Regin (6'2, 200) - Alfie (5'11, 196)
__________ - Z.Smith (6'2, 212) - C.Neil (6'1, 215)

J. Lupul (6'1, 206) - Connolly (6'1, 190) - Kessel (6'0, 202)
MacArthur (6'0, 191) - Grabovski (5'11, 183) - Kulemin (6'1, 225)
Lombardi (5'11, 195) - Bozak (6'1, 195) - Armstrong (6'2, 195)

D. Sedin (6'1, 187) - H. Sedin (6'2, 188) - Burrows (6'1, 188)
D. Booth (6'0, 212) - Kesler (6'2, 202) - Rymond (6'0, 185)
Higgins (6'0, 205) - Hodgson (6'0, 185) - Hansen (6'1, 195)

I highlighted everybody that was 210+ lbs.

* I couldn't pick our 9th forward with a healthy roster. Not really sure who it's going to end up being.

You conviently forgot the defence & goalies, I took the whole roster that was listed. And why aren't you counting the 4th line just because they don't play as much? They are in the NHL too, that was the point, they made it to the NHL. Because they are bigger they have a better chance of making it to the NHL. Vancouver & Toronto on the TSN site have fewer players listed under 6' than any other team some might consider that makes them a big team. You also forgot Daugavins & Condra in your skewed list there to make your numbers look better. You can display what you want but you can't argue that out of 750 players only 169 players are under 6', the discrepancy is large. Don't most smaller players play on the top two lines, isn't that where the majority of small forwards play?

aragorn 11-30-2011 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starling (Post 40191589)
TSN blows. See NHL.com stats.
Among Sens on current roster only Alfie is under 6 ft.
Toronto has 4 players under 6'.

Karlsson & Da Costa when he was here.

pedrospecialk 11-30-2011 11:07 AM

My ex certainly thinks so.

Mercurial 11-30-2011 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aragorn (Post 40191965)
Karlsson & Da Costa when he was here.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id=8474578

6' 0" 180.
:sarcasm:

Minister of Offence 11-30-2011 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aragorn (Post 40190755)
And yet out of 705 players or so only 169 players are under 6'. I would think that smaller players would be better & faster skaters & as far as hockey IQ goes there should be a higher or more equal ratio.

I think the obvious fact is that size matters more, especially on the 3rd & 4th lines & on defence & now in goal too. Smaller players have to be very, very good to make it to the NHL & some still don't make it like Locke.

You have to be a certain height to ride the roller coaster but if you can't handle the fear it's not going to matter how tall you are.

jbeck5 11-30-2011 11:45 AM

Height is meaningless. It's size and strength.

Arm length matters more then height...(and no, arm length is not an exact ratio to height)

If player A is 6'1,190 and player b is 5'11,190...there isn't much of an advantage to anyone. They could have relatively the same arm length.

Height does nothing when fighting for position. Weight and strength does,however. If anything, being taller makes you easier to knock over because you have a higher center of gravity. Example, weircioch.

It's mostly weight and strength...but that being said, the taller you are, the better chance you have of being heavier.

You can be 6'2 and a twig...you'll get push off the puck...you can be 5'11 and thick, and you won't get pushed off the puck.

CanadianHockey 11-30-2011 11:45 AM

As others have said, it's only one factor. Ideally your entire roster is filled by guys who bring size, grit, natural talent, and a great hockey IQ, but more practically you'd have to find a balance. You don't need every guy to be huge, but you need to make sure your small guys can play gritty hockey and your big guys need to prevent the other team from taking over through physicality.

Cujomi 11-30-2011 11:47 AM

It doesn't matter as much as it used to.

Also healthy or not Daugavins - Smith - Condra does not get split up right now.

Zorf 11-30-2011 11:48 AM

With the way most teams play the game now, having size on each line, and especially on the blueline is an asset. It probably isn't the #1 factor, but it sure helps.

With most teams resorting to creating traffic if front of the net, and trying to get point shots or perimeter shots through, you need big, strong bodies to plant in front of the net and not get pushed around. It makes sense that a 6'2" 215lb guy is harder to push out of the front of the net than a 5'9" 185lb guy. The smaller guys usually excel at speed, puck handling and play making, which puts them at the perimeter positions, of which there are only limited spots on each roster...probably a max of 3 or 4.

For a small d-man to make it, he probably has to be something special because he'll have a hard time pushing opposing forwards out from in front of the net...ie: Karlsson.

I think it is more a sign of the times than anything else. Right after the lockout was when the smaller players really took the league by storm. Remember the midget roster the Sabres had? They killed it (admittedly in the regular season only) because their small, speedy guys ran wild around the big, slow d-men because hooking was taken out of the game. Now that the big d-men have figured out how to defend properly, smaller players don't have as much ice to work with, so size and strength become a bigger factors again.

The Sabres struggled in playoffs when the refs basically put the whistles away and let the intensity ramp up. The little munchkins were basically over powered, which is why the Sabres then went of a spree of drafting big players. Now they have a better mix.



And Corey Locke is a bad example because he's not fast at all. All the skill in the world, but he looks like he's wearing cement skates when he is in the NHL.

trentmccleary 11-30-2011 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aragorn (Post 40191895)
You conviently forgot the defence & goalies, I took the whole roster that was listed. And why aren't you counting the 4th line just because they don't play as much? They are in the NHL too, that was the point, they made it to the NHL. Because they are bigger they have a better chance of making it to the NHL. Vancouver & Toronto on the TSN site have fewer players listed under 6' than any other team some might consider that makes them a big team. You also forgot Daugavins & Condra in your skewed list there to make your numbers look better. You can display what you want but you can't argue that out of 750 players only 169 players are under 6', the discrepancy is large. Don't most smaller players play on the top two lines, isn't that where the majority of small forwards play?

Conveniently? ... You constantly talk of size and toughness. Goalies provide neither. Bottom pairing D-men and 4th liners provide marignal levels of both because they don't play enough or against the right match-ups to make enough of an impact.

Do you remember when Ottawa was getting pushed around a decade ago? ... The Senators has plenty of size and toughness on the 4th line and bottom pairing. They still got pushed around because if your size and toughness play on the 4th line and bottom pairing, you don't have any!

Daugavins and Condra are below everybody I listed on the depth chart... and they would still be giants on the Canucks.

Also, adding the defense corps just distances us further from those teams:

Kuba (6'4, 225) - Karlsson (6'0, 180)
Phillips (6'3, 221) - Gonchar (6'2, 212)

Dion Phaneuf
HT: 6-3 WT: 214
Jake Gardiner*
HT: 6-1 WT: 173
John-Michael Liles
HT: 5-10 WT: 185
Carl Gunnarsson
HT: 6-2 WT: 196

Dan Hamhuis
HT: 6-1 WT: 209
Alexander Edler
HT: 6-3 WT: 215
Kevin Bieksa
HT: 6-1 WT: 198
Sami Salo
HT: 6-3 WT: 212

aragorn 11-30-2011 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harf (Post 40193675)
With the way most teams play the game now, having size on each line, and especially on the blueline is an asset. It probably isn't the #1 factor, but it sure helps.

With most teams resorting to creating traffic if front of the net, and trying to get point shots or perimeter shots through, you need big, strong bodies to plant in front of the net and not get pushed around. It makes sense that a 6'2" 215lb guy is harder to push out of the front of the net than a 5'9" 185lb guy. The smaller guys usually excel at speed, puck handling and play making, which puts them at the perimeter positions, of which there are only limited spots on each roster...probably a max of 3 or 4.

For a small d-man to make it, he probably has to be something special because he'll have a hard time pushing opposing forwards out from in front of the net...ie: Karlsson.

I think it is more a sign of the times than anything else. Right after the lockout was when the smaller players really took the league by storm. Remember the midget roster the Sabres had? They killed it (admittedly in the regular season only) because their small, speedy guys ran wild around the big, slow d-men because hooking was taken out of the game. Now that the big d-men have figured out how to defend properly, smaller players don't have as much ice to work with, so size and strength become a bigger factors again.

The Sabres struggled in playoffs when the refs basically put the whistles away and let the intensity ramp up. The little munchkins were basically over powered, which is why the Sabres then went of a spree of drafting big players. Now they have a better mix.



And Corey Locke is a bad example because he's not fast at all. All the skill in the world, but he looks like he's wearing cement skates when he is in the NHL.

Good post!

aragorn 11-30-2011 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trentmccleary (Post 40193757)
Conveniently? ... You constantly talk of size and toughness. Goalies provide neither. Bottom pairing D-men and 4th liners provide marignal levels of both because they don't play enough or against the right match-ups to make enough of an impact.

Do you remember when Ottawa was getting pushed around a decade ago? ... The Senators has plenty of size and toughness on the 4th line and bottom pairing. They still got pushed around because if your size and toughness play on the 4th line and bottom pairing, you don't have any!

Daugavins and Condra are below everybody I listed on the depth chart... and they would still be giants on the Canucks.

Also, adding the defense corps just distances us further from those teams:

Kuba (6'4, 225) - Karlsson (6'0, 180)
Phillips (6'3, 221) - Gonchar (6'2, 212)

Dion Phaneuf
HT: 6-3 WT: 214
Jake Gardiner*
HT: 6-1 WT: 173
John-Michael Liles
HT: 5-10 WT: 185
Carl Gunnarsson
HT: 6-2 WT: 196

Dan Hamhuis
HT: 6-1 WT: 209
Alexander Edler
HT: 6-3 WT: 215
Kevin Bieksa
HT: 6-1 WT: 198
Sami Salo
HT: 6-3 WT: 212

Goalies don't provide size, what does that mean? They just showed a graphic a few games ago to show how big goalies have gotten over the last few yrs. Bottem level D-men provide little of size & toughness? Don't they provide most of it? Carkner, Komiserick & Steckle. While I agree they don't make much of an impact, but most enforcers are 4th line players & most bottom pairing D-men are big tough guys, aren't they?

Let me repeat since you have yet to answer it. There are approximately 169 players under 6' & over 600 players over 6' in the NHL. Obviously a good mix of all kinds of players make up a good team & every player is looked at on an individual basis but most teams have more players over 6'. My point is that because of that fact it's harder for smaller players to make it to the NHL, they have to stand out, that's all.

Your point that bigger players are in lesser roles that don't matter really depends on the team. Joe Thorton plays a meaningful role, as does Annahiem's 1st line & Ottawa's first line with Greening - Spezza - Michalek. There are many examples, Cowen is playing an important role in Ottawa as is Kuba & Phillips this yr. Are you just arguing that Vancouver & Toronto are not the biggest teams? I concede that but I also said has the least amount of players under 6', maybe you missed that. I think most teams provide a balance of some size & toughness with their skilled smaller players.

Lenny the Lynx 11-30-2011 12:42 PM

I expected a lot more penis jokes

trentmccleary 11-30-2011 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aragorn (Post 40190139)
The purpose of this threat is to determine whether size matters in the NHL, I’m of the opinion it does since there are a hell of a lot more bigger players in the NHL & that they can take the physical punishment more. They have the size & strength to deal with hits, fighting for loose pucks, standing in front of the net & protecting teammates.

Did you just make that conclusion right after your initial question?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aragorn (Post 40196003)
Goalies don't provide size, what does that mean? They just showed a graphic a few games ago to show how big goalies have gotten over the last few yrs.

Goalies shouldn't be taking hits, punishment, fighting for loose pucks or protecting their teammates. This line of thought seems to have nothing to do with your argument. Unless you are about to argue the importance and merits of goalie fights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aragorn (Post 40196003)
Bottem level D-men provide little of size & toughness? Don't they provide most of it? Carkner, Komiserick & Steckle. While I agree they don't make much of an impact, but most enforcers are 4th line players & most bottom pairing D-men are big tough guys, aren't they?

They don't much and that makes it extremely difficult to make a tough. Worse yet, many get their ice times cut in the postseason. Do you know how many games McGrattan played with the Sens after the Trade Deadline? ... Maybe 10, out of his 143 with the Sens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aragorn (Post 40196003)
Let me repeat since you have yet to answer it. There are approximately 169 players under 6' & over 600 players over 6' in the NHL. Obviously a good mix of all kinds of players make up a good team & every player is looked at on an individual basis but most teams have more players over 6'. My point is that because of that fact it's harder for smaller players to make it to the NHL, they have to stand out, that's all.

Your point that bigger players are in lesser roles that don't matter really depends on the team. Joe Thorton plays a meaningful role, as does Annahiem's 1st line & Ottawa's first line with Greening - Spezza - Michalek. There are many examples, Cowen is playing an important role in Ottawa as is Kuba & Phillips this yr. Are you just arguing that Vancouver & Toronto are not the biggest teams? I concede that but I also said has the least amount of players under 6', maybe you missed that. I think most teams provide a balance of some size & toughness with their skilled smaller players.

Small players have difficulty moving up every single level of hockey because they can be out-muscled and pushed around. Is there any other answer to that specific question?

Some teams are better balanced than others and that does not include limited use size & toughness in minor roles.

Height doesn't imply useful size in sports as well as weight does, because weight is a more likely predictor of strength.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:03 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.