HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Odds of NHL success by height - UPDATED WITH SECOND ROUNDERS TOO

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-09-2011, 07:28 PM
  #51
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
This is what I think is being underrated. If we really want to we can find a smallish 40-50 point one dimensional forward virtually any offseason. They're not that valuable a commodity. Similarly, neither are 20-30 point "3rd liners".

Obviously if the shorter player really "booms" to become a MSL, Cammalleri or similar that is one thing. But if the bigger "3rd line grinder" type can "boom" into a 50-60 point player while providing other things (namely defense, physical play, the ability to win corner battles, etc.) you have a much more valuable commodity on your hands (Dubinsky, Backes, etc.).

It would be nice if people did some homework before jumping to a conclusion they wish to find. In facy, I chose a 40-point line to give big guys more of a brwak so that nobody could say "you are only looking at 60+ point scorers, but a 50 point bug guy is a top 6 forward."

Almost all the big guys who wound up scoring 40+ points were very close to that. Zubrus is typical in that he averaged 0.503 points per game. Antropov and Louis Ericsson are pretty much as good as big guys get among those not chosen very early.

If you look at 60+ scorers, the gap is that much more pronounced. Outside of the top few draftees, the odds of pulling a 6'3 forward who can score 60+ are almost nonexistent in anything but the greatest drafts.

Meanwhile, most of the small guys do score 60+ points. Briere and Cammalleri are typical small guys.

If you isolate just the players who made it as top-6 forwards (excluding very high picks that the rangers almost never get), you will find that the average big guy had an average of maybe 45-50 points, whereas the average small guy had 60-65 points. I will do the math later.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2011, 08:18 PM
  #52
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
As far as Grimaldi in this year's draft he's not just small--he's really small. Bobby Lalonde small. Smaller than Gionta or St. Louis. He could just as easily be a jockey. And to be honest lumping him with even 5' 10'' players is like lumping a 5'10" player with a 6'3"' player. There's something not right about that scenario. If someone wants to bet that Grimaldi will turn out to be the next Theo Fleury they're welcome to it but it's still a very big gamble. Skill is great but most smaller players really don't overcome the size differential moving up to the top playing levels.

I don't really care about Grimaldi in particular. I would have been ok taking the most skilled/smallest player in the draft, but that would not have been my number one choice.

What i wrote i really wanted was to flip our pick for the two Toronto picks, then flip both of those for second rounders. This way we would have had 4 second rounders. If we could squeeze another 5th rounder from all these trades, better still.

Statistically the odds of pulling a 55-70 point scorer by drafting 4 small guys with elite skill are much higher than the odds of Miller alone becoming that scorer.


Last edited by Beacon: 07-09-2011 at 08:24 PM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2011, 08:54 PM
  #53
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 13,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
I don't really care about Grimaldi in particular. I would have been ok taking the most skilled/smallest player in the draft, but that would not have been my number one choice.

What i wrote i really wanted was to flip our pick for the two Toronto picks, then flip both of those for second rounders. This way we would have had 4 second rounders. If we could squeeze another 5th rounder from all these trades, better still.

Statistically the odds of pulling a 55-70 point scorer by drafting 4 small guys with elite skill are much higher than the odds of Miller alone becoming that scorer.
Miller has a reasonable expectation of being on a par with Dubinsky which if it happens is a good deal for us especially in what looks to be at best a mediocre draft year. The likelihood of our getting an elite forward in the draft are not that good and not IMO necessarily improved by having 4 2nd rounders instead of one 1st in this year's draft. The Rangers best avenue of getting legit 1st liners is free agency. They just have to make sure when they lay out big dollars they get the kind of player that deserves the money. As far as the draft goes--the Rangers because of their usual draft position have to make sure they can at least add solid complementary players to the mix which they have been doing quite well the last few years whether due to Renney/Maloney or Clark/Gorton. It's in the identity of the team that some of these draftees--Callahan, Dubinsky, Staal have made a major impact--as a hard charging, hard working squad--maybe not first liners but players a team can some day win with.

eco's bones is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2011, 08:54 PM
  #54
Garden_Variety
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Guys with size speed and skill do not equal third/fourth line.

And guys who are undersized do not equal top line talent.

Your still sour about the Miller pick over Grimaldi.

Miller and Kreider will be top six NHL players. Plain and simple.

Miller's odds of being a top six player and star FAR outweigh Grimaldi's.

McColgan will probably never make it, though you believe he was the best pick in the draft.

Your analysis is a nice try and you definitely manipulated things to try to support your cause.

But its not reality.

What you are not acknowledging is that guys like Kreider and Miller not only have the skill of the smaller guys you love, but they also have the size, strength, grit to make it and contribute in a much larger role in the NHL.

Guys like McColgan drop to the 5th round because unless they're scoring at a high-rate, they're utterly useless at the NHL level.

And since its completely unrealistic to expect anyone to score or constantly be a threat every shift for 82+ games per year, the McColgans do not make it on a regular basis. That's the way it is.

Kreiders and Millers make it because they contribute in more then one way.

Its easy to fall in love with flashy highlight reel skill, but that's not how actual hockey is played. Rare occasions someone will wow us. Its just not practical application to the real world.

Kreider and Miller have real world physical tools that apply to Pro hockey.

McColgan does not. He has to rely 100% on his skill and pray that he scores a goal per game, or his presence is useless to an NHL club. And its rare for a player to get by on smarts.

Because a player is versatile doesnt make them 3rd and 4th line material. That's not how it works. Those guys play. One dimensional small guys do not unless they're scoring goals.

The St. Louis and Pat Kanes of the world are exceptions to the rule. Not the rule.

Beside anything else, you say that majority in the 5-11 - 6-2 range make it more then anyone. Clearly the 5-10 and under don't for a reason. Grimaldi is 5-6. McColgan is 5-8.

And typically guys that are in the Chara range can't skate.

There's a great line from "Youngblood": "thank God there's still a sport for middle sized white boy".

Middle size in the Pro game's case is around 6 foot. 5-11 - 6-3.
Based on your logic then guys like Avery and Callahan who are both only 5'10" are absolutely worthless to the Rangers unless they score at a high level. Keep in mind Callahan is the guy that everyone expects to wear the 'C'.

Both of these guys must be really smart then to have made if this far. If you have skill, heart and determination the odds are in your favor to make it regardless of size. Otherwise NHL rosters would be littered with Hugh Jessimans and Lee Falardeus.

Garden_Variety is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2011, 09:16 PM
  #55
Kel Varnsen
Below:Glass's Skill
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,298
vCash: 500
PAP is small and scored at a better than .5 ppg rate this year, I don't think he should be considered a legit top six forward though...

You can't just look at points to evaluate a player.

Kel Varnsen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2011, 10:40 PM
  #56
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
PAP is small and scored at a better than .5 ppg rate this year, I don't think he should be considered a legit top six forward though...

You can't just look at points to evaluate a player.
1. PAP did not score 0.5+ ppg over 400+ games. The reason I had this 400 game requirement is to.eliminate guys like PAP. Chances are that if someone is scoring for 5-6 seasons, he is not just someone who put up points on a bad team as a replacement on the power play.

2. If you look at more points than 0.5 ppg, it is even more in favor of small guys. There are almost no 70+ scorers who are 6'3 and were drafted later than the first few picks, but there are small guts who became All Stars who were drafted as late as 4th and even 5th rounds.

3. While scoring 40 points per season does not make you a second liner, NOT scoring that much definitely means you are not a second liner. Let's say a big bruising forward scores 30 points, he is still not a top 6 guy. Mark Bell averaged 33 points over 445 games, but that does not make him a second liner.

40 points is really the minimum to even be considered a top-6 forward.


Last edited by Beacon: 07-09-2011 at 10:54 PM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2011, 02:38 AM
  #57
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,759
vCash: 500
How does this factor in:

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldStanley View Post
According to NHL.com height breakdown for all forwards from last year based on height.

1 player 5-5
5 players 5-7
5 players 5-8
13 5-9
45 5-10
68 5-11
442 players 6 foot or taller

137 players under 6 foot, 442 players 6 foot or taller league wide who played in the NHL last year.
Given that the goal of the draft is to land NHLers....

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2011, 02:45 AM
  #58
Hellion
Stone Age Hockey
 
Hellion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Stavanger, Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 5,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Guys with size speed and skill do not equal third/fourth line.

And guys who are undersized do not equal top line talent.

Your still sour about the Miller pick over Grimaldi.

Miller and Kreider will be top six NHL players. Plain and simple.

Miller's odds of being a top six player and star FAR outweigh Grimaldi's.

McColgan will probably never make it, though you believe he was the best pick in the draft.

Your analysis is a nice try and you definitely manipulated things to try to support your cause.

But its not reality.

What you are not acknowledging is that guys like Kreider and Miller not only have the skill of the smaller guys you love, but they also have the size, strength, grit to make it and contribute in a much larger role in the NHL.

Guys like McColgan drop to the 5th round because unless they're scoring at a high-rate, they're utterly useless at the NHL level.

And since its completely unrealistic to expect anyone to score or constantly be a threat every shift for 82+ games per year, the McColgans do not make it on a regular basis. That's the way it is.

Kreiders and Millers make it because they contribute in more then one way.

Its easy to fall in love with flashy highlight reel skill, but that's not how actual hockey is played. Rare occasions someone will wow us. Its just not practical application to the real world.

Kreider and Miller have real world physical tools that apply to Pro hockey.

McColgan does not. He has to rely 100% on his skill and pray that he scores a goal per game, or his presence is useless to an NHL club. And its rare for a player to get by on smarts.

Because a player is versatile doesnt make them 3rd and 4th line material. That's not how it works. Those guys play. One dimensional small guys do not unless they're scoring goals.

The St. Louis and Pat Kanes of the world are exceptions to the rule. Not the rule.

Beside anything else, you say that majority in the 5-11 - 6-2 range make it more then anyone. Clearly the 5-10 and under don't for a reason. Grimaldi is 5-6. McColgan is 5-8.

And typically guys that are in the Chara range can't skate.

There's a great line from "Youngblood": "thank God there's still a sport for middle sized white boy".

Middle size in the Pro game's case is around 6 foot. 5-11 - 6-3.
Wow! Sour? Dude, I hope you were drunk when you wrote this, because this sounds like a little boy writing a letter to the ex girlfriend who just dumped him.
Get well soon kid!

Hellion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2011, 03:31 AM
  #59
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
How does this factor in:



Given that the goal of the draft is to land NHLers....

It's simple. Obviously being bigger is better all else being equal. A small player has to be very talented to be even considered. A 5'9 guy of equal skill to a 6'3 second rounder is simply not going to be drafted.

That 6'3 second rounder has a decent chance of at least a short NHL career and many will go on to carve out a nice career as a grinder, while a similarly skilled small guy will get a college scholarship and then never lace up skates ever again after graduation.

But the question is not whether a small player with limited skill is better than a grinder. Instead, we are talking about comparing a late first rounder or a second rounder who is big with limited skill or who is small but as skilled as the top 3 players in the draft.

Obviously the preference is to choose someone like Stamkos: big and highly talented, but that kind of prospect just is not there at #20. So which is better, a player with Stamkos skill but small size or a player with limited skill but who is as big as Stamkos?

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2011, 11:34 AM
  #60
OldStanley
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
How does this factor in:
Given that the goal of the draft is to land NHLers....
Not to say anything about draft position more of just a look at production and height,

If we just go by production, last year... every year where there are 30 teams in the league there are also 180 top 6 forwards in the league in terms of production. Of course this is not really true in the sense that people would view all those players in that way, or that they even played in a top 6 role, but based purely on production.

The 180th forward last year in ranking had 34 points.

Out of those players listed before, using this methodology of that definition of a top 6 forward. Of the 137 players under 6 foot, 442 players 6 foot or taller league wide who played in the NHL last year.

Top 6 forwards by height in terms of production(those who scored 34 or more points)
1 players 5-7
2 players 5-8
4 5-9
10 5-10
22 5-11

39 players 5-11 or shorter who figure into the top 180 forwards in production

141 players 6 foot or taller players who figure into the 180 top forwards in production

Keep in mind this is one year, I'd assume if I did it for many years the numbers could come out differently, injuries and whatnot. However for for the 2010-11 regular season, the majority, by close to 80%, of the top 6 forwards in terms of just production, league wide, were 6 foot or taller.


RangerEsq, this is not a dig at your thread in the least and I hope you do not take it that way, (I enjoyed your draft thread pertaining to the Rangers being "good" lately at drafting) This just made more sense to me to try to look at height in the NHL as a whole and I don't think without looking up several years this really shows anything concrete. It's very possible, among other possibilities, that the smaller guys were not drafted until recently and that is why they are not being reflected in the overall NHL. The rules have changed, the way teams draft has changed, there may be and probably are more factors than I can think of. I only did this to look at percentages of what I'd consider a top 6 forward to be and what heights are within one season.

OldStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:45 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.