Is there too much emphasis on a player's size?

Status
Not open for further replies.

andora

Registered User
Apr 23, 2002
24,304
7,365
Victoria
ABQAvsFan said:
Prove it. I am calling you out. Prove this. Prove that smaller players don't have the ability to "with stand"(sic) the physical play.

the only way i can see him being right (or atleast logical) with this statement is if he was talking about physical durability, where a 5'9 guy is more likely to get hurt in the corner than a 6'5 guy. if by withstand he meant physical durability, i could see his point, but if he means everything... i cannot believe that one bit
 

andora

Registered User
Apr 23, 2002
24,304
7,365
Victoria
Vincent_TheGreat said:

Prove it. I am calling you out. Prove this. Prove that smaller players don't have the ability to "with stand"(sic) the physical play. - Soft players and small players dissapear when the going gets tough, Ribeiro and Bouchard are prime examples of players that can stand the physical play. It happens all the time, some smaller players can't take hits down low.

.


that is very very weak. for every mike ribeiro, there's going to be a brian gionta or sergei brylin. for every joe thornton there is going to be a eric daze and a glen murray
 

eyeofthetiger

Registered User
Mar 5, 2003
107
0
Visit site
1. It's not his size that he will have to overcome, it's the discriminatory treatment by NHL GMs that he will have to overcome.

2. St. Louis' and Fleurys are rare in the HOCKEY world, not the SPORTS world. You can be 5'7" in a lot of sports. Heck, even in the NBA. Nobody sat Spud Webb or Muggsy Bougues or even Earl Boykins just because they were short. If Isiaih Thomas was 5'10" then I am 7'1", and Isiaih won a couple championships. There are many short baseball players, and a 5'7" guy can be a RB or DB in football. In soccer, size doesn't matter at all, it's putting that ball in the net.

Honestly, I want someone to give me an example of an NHL player who "couldn't make it because of his size." Not someone who didn't get a fair shot because of his size, not someone who just didn't produce when he got his shot...I want an example of someone who got a shot, produced, but had to leave because he was "too small."

Here's a hint...he doesn't exist. Size does not matter in the NHL, outside the minds of the GMs and fans who buy into this archaic nonsense.[/QUOTE]


That is a really great post....players are being scouted for their physical attributes first (or their projected physical attributes) and their talent as a hockey player isn't factoring in the equation....you do not need a 6'9" hockey player....the sport shouldn't be about size....it's not football.....it's about skating, shooting and scoring....it's a finese game that's being turned into .... who knows whatbecause of gm's and scouts who won't look past size .....

Basically it won't be long before you don't need to play minor hockey. or learn the basics of skating, stickhandling, shooting...you'll just have to wait till you grow big enough to pass the "stand in front of the yardstick" test and if you measure up "here's your skates boy you're going to the NHL."
 

MikeC44

Registered User
Sep 18, 2003
454
0
Moncton, NB
Visit site
Individually, there is probably too much emphasis put on size.
However, as a team, you can never have too many 'big' guys, but you CAN have too many small guys.
 

Coffey77

Registered User
Mar 12, 2002
3,340
0
Visit site
John Flyers Fan said:
I don't really think it's overemphasized, and this is coming from someone that played college hockey at 5'6.

If you're undersized, you MUST be a great skater to compete in this current NHL. On top of being a great skater, you need to have a very high skill level and some serious grit.

I agree here. Most of the little guys that made it to the NHL are excellent skaters like St.Louis and Steve Sullvian. There are exceptions of course like Larionov but most of them can fly out there. So, if you are a little guy you had better be a good skater.

And as a poster said before, you can never have enough big players on a team but you can have too many small guys.

I remember the 2002 draft and Coach Stan Butler was commenting on Jiri Hudler. He said you wouldn't mind having one or two of those guys on a team but not a team full of guys like that.
 

KL*

Guest
Vincent_TheGreat said:
I see. So now talent is dependent on size? - NO, but there are less smaller players with elite skill because players are generally larger now.

That makes absolutely no sense. I can't even comment on that. Please reformulate that argument coherently.

Vincent_TheGreat said:
Prove it. I am calling you out. Prove this. Prove that smaller players don't have the ability to "with stand"(sic) the physical play. - Soft players and small players dissapear when the going gets tough, Ribeiro and Bouchard are prime examples of players that can stand the physical play. It happens all the time, some smaller players can't take hits down low.

I heard you the first time. Again, prove it. Don't tell me what you think, prove to me that what you think is correct.

Vincent_TheGreat said:
Do you have a position on this matter? Or are you posting just to post? First you say that size is a "major qualification," and that size is a prerequisite for skill, then you end by saying that skill and talent are the most important thing.

What's your point? Do you have a point? Are you going to take a position?
- Yes I have a position, there is not too much emphasis on size. I don't post for the sake of posting, never have. Size is a nice qualification but not necessary. Size is not a preequiste, your mixing up the meaning of different words as you have obviously mis-interpreted my post completely. Skill and talent are the most important and they happen to be in bigger size packages these days.

Prove it. Prove that bigger players have more talent. Prove that smaller players don't have as much talent. Prove that size discrimination isn't what holds small players back, that it's lack of skill.

You have some work to do...
 

KL*

Guest
andora said:
the only way i can see him being right (or atleast logical) with this statement is if he was talking about physical durability, where a 5'9 guy is more likely to get hurt in the corner than a 6'5 guy. if by withstand he meant physical durability, i could see his point, but if he means everything... i cannot believe that one bit

Even THAT is a stretch.

Theo Fleury vs. Brett Lindros.
Heck, if you want to discount concussions as "durability," or if you want to make the argument that Lindros retired because he wasn't good enough or that he wasn't a "go in the corners" guy, then look at Theo Fleury vs. Cam Neely.

A 5'9" guy isn't any more likely than a 6'9" guy to get hurt in the corners. "Grinding" isn't a question of momentum, it's strength.

Theo Fleury wasn't any easier or harder to knock down than Uwe Krupp. Tyson Nash has great balance on his skates, you don't see him falling, while guys like Martin Skoula fall over all the time.

Size being a detriment is a myth, except in the eyes of most GMs and close-minded fans.
 

KL*

Guest
andora said:
isn't that a tad risky, and also kind of the same thing you negatively described in that draft thread on the avs board?

1. No, it's not risky. What's "risky" is to base your team's future on what some scout has a gut feeling about.
2. No, it's not what I described negatively in that draft thread. What I described negatively in that draft thread was ranking prospects based on popular opinion and "scouting reports" that are written by 17 year old HF writers and THN writers who know less than I do about prospects and talent evaluation. I said that seeing a play is unneccessary, which it is, and that you can learn more from the numbers than seeing a player play live.

Using a player's numbers and comparing them to what others in similar situations have done in the past is trending, it's accurate an efficient, and it works.

andora said:
i know we're talking stats and numbers in this thread, but isn't it really the same thing as you describe above? projecting young guys to do what they do, but in a relative manner, down the road in the nhl. isn't it all the same thing, isn't projecting a 150 pt player in the qmjhl to be a 80 pt player in the nhl (using stats primarily) the same as projecting a gritty captain leader in the whl to a 2nd/3rd line captain/assistant captain in the nhl (using what you've seen them do by watching a lot).. aren't those two things the same in principle..

Not really. Because in the first case, there's a logical reason why you came to that conclusion. And I am not even saying that X points in Q = Y points in NHL. Not at all. Just that if X players score Y points while playing for teams in Z league with A win/loss records at B years of age, then the probability is that if the players above scored C number of points in the NHL, chances are that a player with equal numbers will make the NHL and perform at a reasonably similar rate.

andora said:
honestly i'm curious, those two books you mentioned, dollar signs and moneyball, i want to read, but the only decent book store where i am doesn't have them, and would have to order them (i'm leaving for an extended period in less than a week so there's no point ordering)..but i want to read them badly to get a better perspective on, well everything

Read Moneyball for sure. Dollar Signs, you get the point after the first chapter. After that, there are lots of fascinating anecdotes, but that's essentially it.
 

andora

Registered User
Apr 23, 2002
24,304
7,365
Victoria
ABQAvsFan said:
Even THAT is a stretch.
.

oh for sure, but that was the only thing i could see out if that was arguable

ABQAvsFan said:
2. No, it's not what I described negatively in that draft thread. What I described negatively in that draft thread was ranking prospects based on popular opinion and "scouting reports" that are written by 17 year old HF writers and THN writers who know less than I do about prospects and talent evaluation. I said that seeing a play is unneccessary, which it is, and that you can learn more from the numbers than seeing a player play live.

Using a player's numbers and comparing them to what others in similar situations have done in the past is trending, it's accurate an efficient, and it works.
.

ok then i disagree with that. i think seeing a player play tells you more about the player, and the intangibles of game situations. stats don't show how he does in the last minute of every period in the defensive zone protecting the lead in the playoffs etc.. etc.. etc.. you dont' see a guy's leadership on the bench, his character on the ice, his tenacity and work ethic in the stats etc. etc. etc....

the note about 17 year old hf writes, yeah i agree, BUT there is talent out there that isn't employed by the nhl or one of the 30 nhl franchises, and yes it is possible that some of that genuine rogue talent resides on hfboards, and in the colorado board in particular.
 

Takkie

I Goc ya nose!
Jun 29, 2003
1,105
0
Florida
Visit site
when you look at the stats you also dont see stuff like is he good at keeping the puck in the zone, does he have a solid outlet pass, is he good at tying players up so they cant get to the rebound is he a pro at getting his shot through shot blockers, is he strong along the boards etc... there are so many things that make a good hockey player that cannot be quantified. which is why watching a player IMO is still a better way of evaluating prospects then just looking at stats.
 
Last edited:

andora

Registered User
Apr 23, 2002
24,304
7,365
Victoria
unless you're scouting a guy like gilbert brule. for him anyway, you can see all he does in the boxscore :eek: :help:
 

Lowetide

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
13,281
11
I always wonder how much of a factor the bias is anyway. There was an article in the Edmonton Sun just before the 1999 draft where Kevin Prendergast talked about where he might go:

His knock, like many others, is his size. At five-foot-91/2 and 172 pounds it will leave some questioning his advancement to the pros.
"That's the knock and something every team has to sit down and look at. Can he overcome it?" said Edmonton Oilers director of player personnel Kevin Prendergast, who watched Comrie closely and predicts he will go anywhere from 25th to 45th overall. "But one thing you have to remember is there are going to be 30 teams in the NHL in two years and skill players are hard to find."​


http://slam.canoe.ca/HockeyNHLDraft99/jun21_annicchiarico.html

KP predicted that he'd go 25-45. The Oilers got him, but at 91, with their 5th pick that day. They even took a SMALLER player before him, Tony Salmelainen, plus the bigger Rita and the giant Semenov.

My point is that if ALL of the teams have that same bias, then it may not be as big a factor as we think it is. Comrie went way after he should have because of size bias, but he'd be a first rounder in a re-draft. And when we say things like "this team should have taken Jiri Hudler" that's fine, but how many small forwards can one team develop?

Seems like the 30 NHL teams emphasis size at the expense of the smaller men, but they all know they're doing it. Why spend the Semenov pick on Comrie when you're pretty sure he'll be available at 41? Evan at 81 they took a G.

They all know the bias, and imo if a team really wanted these guys they could just start taking them in the second round and get 3 a year. They don't do it because they know everyone else is nicking the guy too.

A matter of knowing your opponent I guess.
 

Egil

Registered User
Mar 6, 2002
8,838
1
Visit site
I don't know what some of you are smoking, but compared to both the NBA and the NFL, the NHL draft relies FAR less on physical atributes. You think your going to draft a 260 lb offensive lineman? Or a 6'9" C? But what if that 6'9" C is actually 7'1"? Then he is a first round pick. And their are TONS of no talent stiffs in the NBA solely because of their height (Shawn Bradley anyone).

Size is an important attribute. It isn't the be all and end all, but simply watch Keith Primeau play against the Leafs, and then compare it to the Sens. He is a dominating force against the Leafs, he is invisible against the Sens. And it is ALLLLLLL because of the various sizes involved (Toronto's D isn't big enough to negate Keith Primeau, but Ottawa's is).
 

KL*

Guest
andora said:
ok then i disagree with that. i think seeing a player play tells you more about the player, and the intangibles of game situations. stats don't show how he does in the last minute of every period in the defensive zone protecting the lead in the playoffs etc.. etc.. etc.. you dont' see a guy's leadership on the bench, his character on the ice, his tenacity and work ethic in the stats etc. etc. etc....

The last minute of the period thing - The ice time numbers are available, as are the shift charts. Just being on the ice tells you all you need to know about that.

As far as tenacity, work ethic, leadership, etc. You can't tell that from reading a scouting report. How does the "scout" know who the leaders are? Is he in the locker room? Is he on the bench?

As for work ethic, you can learn all you need to know from stats. If a player is producing consistently, then it doesn't matter what his work ethic is. If he isn't, then that's a strong indicator of his work ethic not being great.

In the end, the whole "character/work ethic/etc" thing is largely overrated and largely BS. It's entirely subjective.


andora said:
the note about 17 year old hf writes, yeah i agree, BUT there is talent out there that isn't employed by the nhl or one of the 30 nhl franchises, and yes it is possible that some of that genuine rogue talent resides on hfboards, and in the colorado board in particular.

Maybe so. But I guarantee that I can do a better job picking players than someone who "sees" players. Don't get me wrong, I see players too. But I don't let that influence my analysis. That would be compromising the accuracy of my system and shooting myself in the foot. It's foolish.
 

KL*

Guest
Takkie said:
when you look at the stats you also dont see stuff like is he good at keeping the puck in the zone, does he have a solid outlet pass, is he good at tying players up so they cant get to the rebound is he a pro at getting his shot through shot blockers, is he strong along the boards etc....

You take a team full of those guys.

I will take a team full of 40 goal scorers.

My team will win 99 times out of 100.
 

andora

Registered User
Apr 23, 2002
24,304
7,365
Victoria
maybe i'm not as educated and that's why i'm disagreeing, but i just think that if a team has the resources to send scouts to see as much hockey as they can, how can it hurt, it is beneficial
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
La-La-Laprise said:
5'09 Grit.

I value grit. Grit can make smaller players play larger than what they are.

grit is so overrated
its important yeah but it needs to be combined with other assets
i dont care how gritty you are if you are 5'7" 160 youre gonna get knocked off the puck...look at a guys like Blake Sloan and Steve Ott with Dallas. Those two are as gritty as they come but are pretty darn ineffective
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
ABQAvsFan said:
I see. So you will take Shean Donovan over Theo Fleury?

theo fleury wasnt exactly slow
its not really fair to compare a small guy with good speed and good grit to a taller guy with tremendous speed and not a lot of grit (and a complete lack of any hand skills)
 

habsfansam

Registered User
Jul 22, 2003
660
0
Somewhere dark...?
Oilers Chick said:
There seems to be more and more emphasis being placed on how tall a player is or how much he will weigh when he finally "fills out".

Is size over-emphasized too much? Why or why not?

Is it over-emphasized to the point that it does or can supercede talent/skill?

Your thoughts

haven't read anything else posted here, but "yes, size is way over-rated" and I believe that teams are drafting for that now more than for pure skill.

Speaking from the point of view of a Montreal Canadiens fan, we spent the large part of the 90s looking for a power forward and failing to draft players who were more highly skilled. We landed such "future stars" as Matt Higgins, Turner Stevenson, David Wilke, Terry Ryan, Brad Brown, Eric chouinard and Jason Ward... Ryan, Ward, Chouinard, and Higgins were all supposed to "develop" into big bruising power-forwards. The only one to make a niche for himself so far is Ward, and it was only his work-ethic and decent skills that saved him... He's still on the bubble because his skating is weak for the NHL level. In these cases... size ruled over talent and skills.

The only justification I have ever understood for this is that you use the 1st round pick to swing for homerun type players... (picking for skill later when the players are smaller or more obscure...) the ones who can develop into monsters that will take you to the promise land by brute force... that "carry the team on your back" mentality coupled with intimidation of the opponent. Even in instances where that has worked... it can backfire. Sure, Big Bert has a mean streak and can take Vancouver on his back, but he's also probably going to jail for it. The other argument against huge size is that guys like Chara and Bertuzzi get penalties all the time for being big... not for a true infraction, but for checking someone who is a full 1ft shorter a little too high (normal height for them).

I would also split this discussion somewhat... with forwards, i think many teams still shoot for skills first, while defensemen can be taken based on size and disposition alone. The basic assumption being that you can teach defense, so you get the biggest, meanest guy out there and teach him. The other reason for big d-men is that forwards are growing to be faster and bigger and d-men can't take the beating if they are smaller. they simply become injury-prone from the abuse the league dishes out.

The real test of this will be the drafting of Crosby... he's not that big, but he's definitely more skilled. if someone larger has a great year, that gap will close surprisingly fast simply because you've got to worry about a smallish guy getting trounced, even if he's as tough as nails.
 

shveik

Registered User
Jul 6, 2002
2,852
0
Visit site
ABQAvsFan said:
You take a team full of those guys.

I will take a team full of 40 goal scorers.

My team will win 99 times out of 100.

There is a total of THREE 40 goal scorers in the NHL. I think your team will get tired quickly, playing 3 against 5 without line changes. :D

Regardless of size issue, what you said is very naive. In a way it is like saying that you can field a football team of 11 quarterbacks and survive.
 

KL*

Guest
andora said:
maybe i'm not as educated and that's why i'm disagreeing, but i just think that if a team has the resources to send scouts to see as much hockey as they can, how can it hurt, it is beneficial

Completely disagree.

In Moneyball, there are a couple examples. One of them is a pitcher with unreal stats who wasn't mentioned on any lists, no scouts watched him, nothing. Another pitcher on that staff with lesser numbers was being watched. Depodesta told his guys to watch this kid and report back to him.

When they reported back, they all said that the kid was not MLB material, that his delivery was weird. He was nicknamed "The Freak." Long story short, the kid with the lesser stats was drafted early, "The Freak" was picked late. The kid with the lesser stats didn't make it, "The Freak" was in the A's rotation two years later.

Seeing a player is useless. It will either make you think less of a player whose stats say he's better than your opinion, or it will make you think more of a player whose stats say he's worse than your opinion.

It removes obvjectivity.
 

KL*

Guest
shveik said:
There is a total of THREE 40 goal scorers in the NHL. I think your team will get tired quickly, playing 3 against 5 without line changes. :D

Regardless of size issue, what you said is very naive. In a way it is like saying that you can field a football team of 11 quarterbacks and survive.

Not at all.

Think about it... The Red Wings in the late 90's, why did they win Cups? Was it their size? Or did they assemble a TON of skill and mixed skill with grit and rolled 4 lines?

The reason they won the Cup is because they kept a constant barrage of scorers coming at you. Wave after wave, you couldn't take a shift off because they didn't have a "4th line." Their "4th line" could just as easily win the game as their "1st line."

The Edmonton Oilers, why did they win their Cups? Did they have size and grit? Did they play sound, solid defense? Did Dave Semenko win them Cups? Or was it a deluge of scorers headed at you shift after shift, a wide open style that scored more goals than you could?

Look, I don't blame you guys for thinking that "size," "leadership" and all that other nonsense is important for building a team. But you're wrong.

There was a time where people thought that if a defenseman joined the rush that it was going to cost you games and you couldn't win like that. Then came Bobby Orr.

There was a time where people thought you HAD to have an enforcer. Now, there are a handful of enforcers in the NHL, and they are all journeymen. And the teams that have them don't win Cups.

There was a time where people thought size mattered. That time is still going on right now, but they will learn how wrong they are.
 

andora

Registered User
Apr 23, 2002
24,304
7,365
Victoria
ABQAvsFan said:
Completely disagree.

In Moneyball, there are a couple examples. One of them is a pitcher with unreal stats who wasn't mentioned on any lists, no scouts watched him, nothing. Another pitcher on that staff with lesser numbers was being watched. Depodesta told his guys to watch this kid and report back to him.

When they reported back, they all said that the kid was not MLB material, that his delivery was weird. He was nicknamed "The Freak." Long story short, the kid with the lesser stats was drafted early, "The Freak" was picked late. The kid with the lesser stats didn't make it, "The Freak" was in the A's rotation two years later.

Seeing a player is useless. It will either make you think less of a player whose stats say he's better than your opinion, or it will make you think more of a player whose stats say he's worse than your opinion.

It removes obvjectivity.

ok, so say you have all those stats in front of you for a right winger, like stats for ice time, shifts, etc.. all the things you say you can get in a stat sheet. how is that completely objective? if say, mike smith is looking at the same statsheet as darryl sutter. wouldn't opinion come into it, where if the guy's superstat sheet shows more of an offensive side, smith would like him, and sutter could toss it aside claiming the guy isn't gritty enough, or isn't in enough gamebreaking situations.. etc...

unless gms are robots, how can there be objectivity? i just can't wrap my head around the notion that seeing players is useless. maybe in baseball i could agree, because you can read a book on one player's season
 

KL*

Guest
andora said:
ok, so say you have all those stats in front of you for a right winger, like stats for ice time, shifts, etc.. all the things you say you can get in a stat sheet. how is that completely objective? if say, mike smith is looking at the same statsheet as darryl sutter. wouldn't opinion come into it, where if the guy's superstat sheet shows more of an offensive side, smith would like him, and sutter could toss it aside claiming the guy isn't gritty enough, or isn't in enough gamebreaking situations.. etc...

It is objective. The stats are objective, what you do with them is your prerogative. Smith and Sutter making different selections based on the stats, well, of course they will. And three teams can use Depodesta's system and end up having different players at the top of their lists.

The thing is, if the three teams know how to use the system properly, the same players will be in the same places on their lists.

You're taking the whole thing one step too far. The goal is to get the best analysis possible, which is done through stats. That way, you know who the best players are. What each person does after that is up to them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->