2019 NHL Entry Draft Thread

[The Great Weal]

I like Broberg

 

[Goldenhands]

You know a player is good sometimes just by the way they handle the puck.. Holtz, when that puck is on his stick, it's an extension of himself. Hes gonna be a big league player.

and his wrister is deadly, thats heavy, accurate and the release is lucky luke fast... he beat Canada'S goaltender 3 times cleanly last night, 2 posts and 1 went in, each time the goaltender barely had time to react... Im looking to see what his slapper and one timer looks like but if its as good as his writer, its just unfair...

 

[SOLR]

Sure, but we're waiting for you to apply this to Hughes in a way that's not a broad generalization. Why ? Because we have enough case reports to call BS on what you're trying to argue as a rule.

You even brought up the best case report imagineable: a Russian player who was drafted as an overager, who was even smaller both in height and weight than Hughes.

Now, here's a question: your premise applies to which population sample within 5'10" players and do you have legitimate data, outside of transistors and broad rules, to show us that within that specific population Hughes is part of i.e. high skill potential top 2 OA pick (heck, go broader: 5'10" impact players ), there's significance with a comparable 5'11" population ?

Do you ? Because that's what you're arguing, what apparently isn't a nonsensical argument. You're implying stastical significance based on literally no data.

Every year scouts analyze 1200+ players. I'm sure they have well established height distribution data. I don't happen to have this data because I'm not a scout. The data we have, that I have posted, shows that the average/median NHL player height has been in constant progression for 90+ years until the last few years where it has become stable.

I didn't say Hughes can't succeed.
I didn't say 5'10'' is too small.
I didn't say Hughes was not a top prospect.
I wasn't making a rule.
Small player can succeed.
I was simply arguing that size matters. Still today.

Every reply in this thread, if you read, have falsely assumed that I was attacking Hughes size.

What I said, repeatedly:

Hughes would be another class of prospect if he was 5'11'' 190lbs right now. <-----

Do you happen to disagree with that statement? Do you want to disagree that size matters for another 5 threads?
Do you happen to understand that the correct way to think of height when looking at a specific player is not vs. a population (every player is unique), it's with itself at various size level. That's what scouts will do to project that player. Just like Maxpac was drafted as a 6'1'' player, but grew into a 6'3'' body. Maxpac at 6'3'' is a whole lot more enticing than at 6'1''. Because the fact that size matter is a truism given the 90+ year trend in every sport.

Do you understand that the following 2 statements can be true at the same time. It's not an exclusive OR.

You CAN say "size matters" AND in the population a few small players will be exceptional.
And then you can say, as a scout, I would choose Y others players over X player who I believe will have a somewhat reduced career because of his size.

I don't disagree that there is a difference between 5'10 and 5'11, my point is that it's not as big as you nor most people for that matter make it out to be. Yes, I am indeed an MSc Finance student and I have studied behavioral finance amongst other things. A very fascinating discipline that studies biases, notably. To me people overvalue the importance of size and underestimate smaller players. That is different from saying I don't value size, but that I perhaps think it should not be valued as much in general. I'll admit I'm not as knowledgeable when it comes to physics, but I am still waiting to read your arguments about how being 5'10 or 5'11 will determine a player's fate that dramatically.

2x more success, 2x more impact from 5'10'' to 5'11'' in the population, Generally team have a higher % converting smaller players into impact players because they tend to filter them at the draft level. That certainly doesn't mean that drafting more of them would significantly change the absolute number of success/impact players. We can only guess what a taller-bigger Hughes could become (Crosby-McDavid?)

 

[QuebecPride]

2x more success, 2x more impact from 5'10'' to 5'11'' in the population, Generally team have a higher % converting smaller players into impact players because they tend to filter them at the draft level. That certainly doesn't mean that drafting more of them would significantly change the absolute number of success/impact players. We can only guess what a taller-bigger Hughes could become (Crosby-McDavid?)

A few comments on that graph:

1) What's the period of the analysis? Does it include the 80s-90s and the clutch-grab era? How is that period comparable with the current period?

2) Is that hockey only?

3) Did you regress size on career production? GP? Did you check if there were better predictors such as points in juniors, etc?

4) What's the success rate of players 5'10 vs 5'11? Meaning, that graph is quite telling, but if your odds of getting drafted at 5'11 are twice those of getting drafted at 5'10, what's surprising about this graph?

5) I'd wager the odds of getting drafted are quite higher for a player that is 6'0+ than a 5'10. Again, it is a difference that will matter in their career, but as much as a smaller gets affected in his draft value? I have my doubts.

 

[SOLR]

A few comments on that graph:

1) What's the period of the analysis? Does it include the 80s-90s and the clutch-grab era? How is that period comparable with the current period?

1980-2015.
Period breakdown is something I have already provided stats for.
Heights have been growing continuously until 2008.
Then it stopped (remained stable), but weights started to go down.
I'm fairly confident that once the bigger guys will all be lighter and faster, the height increases will resume IF we don't have a recruitment pool problem that I think is likely. Hockey has a few structural problems that currently saps the size of the recruitment pool by quite a bit (Price $, more alternatives, Concussion Issues).

2) Is that hockey only?

Yes.

3) Did you regress size on career production? GP? Did you check if there were better predictors such as points in juniors, etc?

I didn't produce this.
At least 150 games = make it or not test.
At least 0.6+ pts/game = impact players.

4) What's the success rate of players 5'10 vs 5'11? Meaning, that graph is quite telling, but if your odds of getting drafted at 5'11 are twice those of getting drafted at 5'10, what's surprising about this graph?

"Generally team have a higher % converting smaller players into impact players because they tend to filter them at the draft level." Most scouts will tell you: if they draft a small players, he better be good, because they are going against the long standing growing taller trend. So less risks are taken in small players. Hence situations like Martin St-Louis happens. There would be a problem with scouting in general if there was 3-4 St-Louis a year. This is not the case, there is maybe 3-4 of them per cycle of 10 years and the good ones make it anyway. So scouting department are mostly right about ignoring small players (there's a ton of 5'8''-5'9''-5'10'' players every year)

5) I'd wager the odds of getting drafted are quite higher for a player that is 6'0+ than a 5'10. Again, it is a difference that will matter in their career, but as much as a smaller gets affected in his draft value? I have my doubts.

Well of course, but it affects their draft value tremendously when they are under 5'11''. Now, guys like Hughes, Kane, are not impacted in their status as top talents. But, you still have to evaluate them, account for their overall height and how do you think their game will translate in a league of giants compared to their junior levels (this is a risky and hard exercise). For all the "size doesn't matter' comments there are guys like Yakupov being drafted that can never translate into the upper league because suddenly they lose the delta that enables their high-performance in junior leagues. Yakupov had scouts-GM fired. You know, NHL teams remember that.

Brayden Point was drafted potentially 2 whole round later than his value.
Bolts take Brayden Point in Round 3
"Look around the various scouting reports and ranking aggregates and you'll find the consensus with Point is that he is a high skill, high work ethic centerman who skates well (but not great) and would have been an easy 1st round pick if he were just a few inches taller."
In others words, no one was willing to risk betting on his transition until the 3rd round.

 

[Andrei79]

Every year scouts analyze 1200+ players. I'm sure they have well established height distribution data. I don't happen to have this data because I'm not a scout. The data we have, that I have posted, shows that the average/median NHL player height has been in constant progression for 90+ years until the last few years where it has become stable.

I didn't say Hughes can't succeed.
I didn't say 5'10'' is too small.
I didn't say Hughes was not a top prospect.
I wasn't making a rule.
Small player can succeed.
I was simply arguing that size matters. Still today.

Every reply in this thread, if you read, have falsely assumed that I was attacking Hughes size.

What I said, repeatedly:

Hughes would be another class of prospect if he was 5'11'' 190lbs right now. <-----

Do you happen to disagree with that statement? Do you want to disagree that size matters for another 5 threads?
Do you happen to understand that the correct way to think of height when looking at a specific player is not vs. a population (every player is unique), it's with itself at various size level. That's what scouts will do to project that player. Just like Maxpac was drafted as a 6'1'' player, but grew into a 6'3'' body. Maxpac at 6'3'' is a whole lot more enticing than at 6'1''. Because the fact that size matter is a truism given the 90+ year trend in every sport.

Do you understand that the following 2 statements can be true at the same time. It's not an exclusive OR.

You CAN say "size matters" AND in the population a few small players will be exceptional.
And then you can say, as a scout, I would choose Y others players over X player who I believe will have a somewhat reduced career because of his size.

2x more success, 2x more impact from 5'10'' to 5'11'' in the population, Generally team have a higher % converting smaller players into impact players because they tend to filter them at the draft level. That certainly doesn't mean that drafting more of them would significantly change the absolute number of success/impact players. We can only guess what a taller-bigger Hughes could become (Crosby-McDavid?)

But, this is exactly what you've been arguing against: that from that population of exceptional small players, none can truly be exceptional. There's no need for me to reconcile those two statements in my case, this is what I've been doing throughout this, honestly very interesting, discussion. You're taking the stance that even a record breaking player like Hughes will be limited by being 2.54 cms too short (and consequently, doesn't have the upside to be a top 5 center) and trying to support your stance through stastitical significance. The problem here is you've yet to to actual show us any of this evidence.

Take this graph for example: where does it come from ? What are the axis ? How about a link detailing exactly what it is. If I base myself off of it Pacioretty's growth should have similarly stunted him compared to Hughes staying put at 177cms compared to 179cm (That said, Pacioretty is not 6'3").

More interestingly is giving to context to height growth stats in hockey. Canada's seen over a 7cm height growth since the advent of the NHL and while there's been a plateau recently, has still grown since the 50s and 70s. European countries have seen remarkable growht and, amongst the tallest nation, Sweden makes up for the highest percentage of these players added to the NHL since the 90s. Do you understand how this could bias the numbers ? As the population grows taller, so does the player base. And to further that: as hockey's become more of a sport for higher socioeconomic families (and the higher, the better), then subsequently that same population basin has even more of a height bias on average.

And then, while as a general rule you might show deleterious effects from a lack of size, why should we discount the hypothesis there aren't also advantages to it for a certain group of those players (without going into the agility debate, how about superior work methods and focused aspects on certain parts of their games some developped to compensate, which grew more significant as they gained significant weight in their 20s - just using this as an example here) ?

There's a population within smaller players that aren't limited by their size. Brière, Karlsson, Kane and MSL are three of those case reports where they legitimately played at a Conn Smythe level of play. Now, the question here is what part of Hughes' skill or intangibles (compete for example) do you think won't overcome his size enough to be, at some point, a top 5 center.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Change of directions: this only relevant if the mass to strength/resistance ratio are different. Things like genetics makes this highly variable. Lebron came to the NBA with a 7 foot body that could be as agile as anyone of any size.
McDavid is very agile, why mix the physical contacts with this? McDavid is also not light by any measure (195lbs).
What gets people confused is that most athletes get too much weight on them while training always the same muscles groups and not their sub-groups, they modify their speed, while reducing their agility. For most its the right decision.

I'm mixing physical contact because what else would you be talking about when trying to make the point that, because of Jack Hughes' size that he'll be limited, and once (I argue a contentious if) the enormous ubermensch players catch up with them, they'll be eliminated. What possible advantage could they have except for in direct physical confrontation that would make it impossible for smaller players to exist in the league (a claim which you did make)? McDavid is just a poor example. He wouldn't be any less effective if he were 2 inches shorter and 10 lbs lighter. What wouldn't he be able to do that he does now - be specific - if he were Jack Hughes' size?

My father was a RB, it's a mix of speed, agility, low-center of gravity (hard to tackle), horizontal size and resistance to contacts (flexibility) . Most teams have different RBs with a different mix of these attributes for different plays (unless they have an elite guy who have all of these so high that it doesn't matter). My father was all agility, so he was the guy returning the kicks and on first downs. They had someone faster and harder to tackle for short gains(3yds-5yds) situation. And then the TE is used for 1 yard situations, because they are very hard to tackle. As you can see on this link: Running backs getting shorter and heavier specialization towards smaller exist, because there are clear tactical advantage to that specialization to meet the goal of said player. All NFL players who are not RB are growing in size, while RBs are optimizing for all 5 attributes. There is no equivalence to that phenomenon at hockey, scorers could be 7 foot, but basketball/volleyball tend to aggressively recruit tall people, so your sample size of tall players who try to play hockey is extremely small. You do have Zdeno Chara, Zadorov, Hall Gill etc. youth coach are optimizing the advantage of the height their get by developing goaltenders and Ds, that isn't a sign that you couldn't develop tall forwards that have all advantages just that there is a limited supply of size. We should not conclude that a hockey version of Lebron can't exist because of that (Ovechkin-Malkin-Jagr-Lemieux-Lecavalier-Laine - Lindros are good indications). If there was more taller-bigger players like this group, they would all play ahead of small players. (Obviously) They would always play ahead of a Martin St-Louis....Think about our Canadian Junior team in 2005...

So, like I said, being smaller tends to allow one to be more agile. I'm glad you agree with me. If you need another example, there's also Rugby, which is a far more ''general'' sport than football: backs tend to be smaller and lighter than forwards, because they need to be more agile. Sure, every once in a while you get a guy like Jonah Lomu who is agile enough to be a back, with the size of a forward. That doesn't make him as agile as Carlin Isles, though. He's just a big guy that's also quite agile for his size. I mean, look at some of the names you've listed here: Laine's particularly agile? Jagr? Compared to St. Louis, or Gaudreau? Come on.

And for another thing, the bolded doesn't help your argument that there will be such a surplus of these big forwards who give up no advantage in agility that there will be no place for the smaller players. You'll note that every single player you've named is a one in a million type of player. And even then I don't see how some counter examples of big agile guys rebuts a trend: like, ever, in any scenario.

Smaller players can accelerate and decelerate faster as they have higher power to weight ratios (on average), and require less of an impulse to change their momentum. They have quicker feet because their legs have a smaller moment of inertia, and smaller foot movements can result in larger impulses.

I've recently come across a lot of data that shows these trends I've described.
Examples:
How has height changed over time in the NBA? | tothemean
NHL Player Size From 1917-18 to 2014-15: A Brief Look

Here you can see that height has been growing steady as a requirement in all leagues (NHL stopped growing heights as fast for now because of the emphasis for speed)
In hockey, when the game got faster, what changed is that the taller guys (see that the overall sizes didn't go down) started to build their bodies for more speed by cutting their weight gain (see the weight go down). Its evident to me that when the taller guys will be done with that process, their speed will go up, leaving less space for the smaller bodies to have a speed-agility advantage and slow incremental height gains will then resume as everybody will be on a more level playing field for speed (goalies trends are the smoking gun) so height will become a differentiating advantage again. The reason that height is important at hockey, is simple math, the play surface is limited, therefore occupying more space on the ice, leads to a better D coverage. It probably helps with puck possession metrics as well. Height correlates with horizontal space coverage here, because of course vertical space coverage is less important at hockey than at Basketball.

This is not evidence that hockey exerts an upward pressure on player height, as much as it is that people have gotten bigger since the early 20th century. What hasn't changed in that time frame? IQ tests have been renormalized several times in that same time frame. Childhood mortality has dropped like a rock in the same time frame. Nutrition has improved. But once those gains were tapped out, what happened to NHL heights? Players haven't gotten bigger in the NHL, according to your own chart, since 1994: almost a quarter century. Through the deadpuck era where you could use this advantage in horizontal coverage to clutch and grab smaller players, and through the current era where utilizing your horizontal coverage advantage will likely result in a penalty. It pays to be tall in Baskteball and thus height is something which is optimized for: it's an objective for basketball players. Whereas for hockey it's more like a constraint. You have to be big enough to survive.

Goalies, much like basketball players, have a logical reason to be as tall as possible, but even still: are they THAT much taller than their counterparts? It's not that convincing. We already had a wave of monster goaltenders and with the except of Ben Bishop, they all suck. I expect the average goaltender size to saturate and concentrate somewhere around 6'3.

There are overall risk that hockey is not growing their supply pool anymore (at least in Canada we are losing our supply pool), and that will have an effect on sizes, as talent will then become the only limiting factor.

What people don't get when they look at McCarron say, is that McCarron would never have even have a contract if he was 5'10'', his only attribute is size (glass half full), it's not the freaking glass half empty scenario. Small, slow, untalented is not something that has much of a chance. While tall, slow, untalented exist and can be useful. Small players absolutely need speed and/or talent as a minimum requirement, that's the proof that size matters.

I never said size didn't matter, I just said that being small confers an advantage in agility. And it does.

 

[sandviper]

Well of course, but it affects their draft value tremendously when they are under 5'11''. Now, guys like Hughes, Kane, are not impacted in their status as top talents. But, you still have to evaluate them, account for their overall height and how do you think their game will translate in a league of giants compared to their junior levels (this is a risky and hard exercise). For all the "size doesn't matter' comments there are guys like Yakupov being drafted that can never translate into the upper league because suddenly they lose the delta that enables their high-performance in junior leagues. Yakupov had scouts-GM fired. You know, NHL teams remember that.

I mean, overall, I don't really disagree where for comparably skilled players, size will be weighed in the equation when drafting. That said, my opionion is Hughes is in such a different tier at this time, it'd have to be a compelling argument to consider Dach, Kakko or Cozens before him.

All size discussions aside and what position Lafreniere (2020 prospect) plays... just assume the draft started today and the Habs are picking #1. Who is your guy among the 2019 eligible prospects?

 

[QuebecPride]

A few comments on that graph:


3) Did you regress size on career production? GP? Did you check if there were better predictors such as points in juniors, etc?

I didn't produce this.
At least 150 games = make it or not test.
At least 0.6+ pts/game = impact players.


Brayden Point was drafted potentially 2 whole round later than his value.
Bolts take Brayden Point in Round 3
"Look around the various scouting reports and ranking aggregates and you'll find the consensus with Point is that he is a high skill, high work ethic centerman who skates well (but not great) and would have been an easy 1st round pick if he were just a few inches taller."
In others words, no one was willing to risk betting on his transition until the 3rd round.

How can you claim scientific significance if you didn't regress career points on size? After all, that is at the very basis of your argument, that you get better odds of getting better players by drafting taller. Showing solely a graph to prove your point wouldn't pass as a Cégep groupwork. You have much to do to convince me of your "findings".

As for Point, it supports my argument. Teams undervalue small players.

 

[crosbyshow]

The difference between the draft 2019 and 2020: Hughes and Lafrenière:

Hugues is a lock in 2019.

Lafrenière is not yet. Wait and see Byfield a...and even Holtz will give him a run ....2020 class is a hell of a draft.

Also Lafrenière is a late and he has 9 months older than Byfield. Byfield will play in the OHL this season...it's gonna be interesting.

Lafrenière has a great great sense of anticipation and a hell of a vision. He does not need to moving a lot and he is always a treat near the net.

 

[SOLR]

All right, I've presented data (nobody else did).

Many of you guys are moving the goal posts continuously.

As for Point, it supports my argument. Teams undervalue small players.

That was not the subject of conversation. I never made any argument about this, because it's a well known phenomenon.

How can you claim scientific significance if you didn't regress career points on size? After all, that is at the very basis of your argument, that you get better odds of getting better players by drafting taller. Showing solely a graph to prove your point wouldn't pass as a Cégep groupwork.

How intellectually dishonest can you be? I wasn't going to work 50 hrs on a study for a hockey forum. You have your mind twisted if you expect that to be a fair expectation. Beside, I could present a mountain of data to you, you are ideologically possessed, it wouldn't make a single difference.

My argument again, is not "that you get better odds of getting better players by drafting taller" (lol), I was making a simple statement "that size still matters".

I'm mixing physical contact because what else would you be talking about when trying to make the point that, because of Jack Hughes' size that he'll be limited, and once (I argue a contentious if) the enormous ubermensch players catch up with them, they'll be eliminated. What possible advantage could they have except for in direct physical confrontation that would make it impossible for smaller players to exist in the league (a claim which you did make)? McDavid is just a poor example. He wouldn't be any less effective if he were 2 inches shorter and 10 lbs lighter. What wouldn't he be able to do that he does now - be specific - if he were Jack Hughes' size?

Smaller McDavid would have less reach (this affects every race situation) and he would be slower. Others players would also react differently around him. McDavid is a great example (think about the things Gretzky couldn't do). That's what scouts think about when they are trying to project players who are 16-17 years old and who can still grow. Not sure what is sensational about this.

So, like I said, being smaller tends to allow one to be more agile. I'm glad you agree with me. If you need another example, there's also Rugby, which is a far more ''general'' sport than football: backs tend to be smaller and lighter than forwards, because they need to be more agile. Sure, every once in a while you get a guy like Jonah Lomu who is agile enough to be a back, with the size of a forward. That doesn't make him as agile as Carlin Isles, though. He's just a big guy that's also quite agile for his size. I mean, look at some of the names you've listed here: Laine's particularly agile? Jagr? Compared to St. Louis, or Gaudreau? Come on.

Your confusing the trends in the population with what is possible. I don't know much about Rugby, but keep in mind that the number of males who can be athletes is limited. Prime Jagr had no competition in agility, let's not forget that the 44 years old we last saw, was well 44. Laine is such a big man, so of course if it will take time for his body to fully built out. But I've rarely seen such a large guy with this agility at that age. Being small does not allow them to be agile, this is not a thing. What about the 10,000 5'8'', 5'10'' players who are not agile and not in the NHL. Agility is rare in the player population. It's rare in the general population. It's linked to IQ. High IQs are rare.

This is not evidence that hockey exerts an upward pressure on player height

That would be true if we knew hockey has a stable or not market share of the overall population talent pool. If the pool is in decline, you would expect a height reduction, as the genetically-favored are doing something else with their bodies.
I don't disagree with the spirit of this of your argument btw. I just think there is more into this than mere "the population have stopped growing". 1) The game is faster, thus training has to change. 2) This is a long curve to change for big players. 3) Close the gap, and the pressure will restart as long as the population pool will sustain it.

All size discussions aside and what position Lafreniere (2020 prospect) plays... just assume the draft started today and the Habs are picking #1. Who is your guy among the 2019 eligible prospects?

Right now, it's very early. Depending on their season, I have this impression Byram will be the best asset next June. Byram-Hughes-Kakko-Dach. I don't make a call until February usually (I had Jesperi 3rd in February this year for example, way ahead of the train).

But, this is exactly what you've been arguing against: that from that population of exceptional small players, none can truly be exceptional

What? No. I didn't say that.

Do you understand how this could bias the numbers ?

That's rich. People who provide the argument are pretending like the players in the 1940s could compete with the players in the 2010s. Asking this question, shows that you know much less about this than you think you do.

Of course the population grew.
The player population grew faster (do you understand that?)

There's a population within smaller players that aren't limited by their size. Brière, Karlsson, Kane and

MSL are three of those case reports where they legitimately played at a Conn Smythe level of play.

How can you know if they are not limited by their size?Prove it.
That's right, you can't.

Again, I never said small players can't be successful. But the thought experiment for you is the following: if the mind of Briere had the body of Lecavalier, would he have done better (ignoring the injury side of things)? The answer is yes, he would have done much better. He would have NOT been playing on the sheltered freaking line for his whole life. I don't need to think about it (there's hundred of thousands of studies on the subject, it's just laziness for you to ask me to go and provide them for you, go yourself). Genetics advantages creates more performance.

Take this graph for example: where does it come from ? What are the axis ? How about a link detailing exactly what it is.

I've replied to QuebecPride about this.

 

[QuebecPride]

How intellectually dishonest can you be? I wasn't going to work 50 hrs on a study for a hockey forum. You have your mind twisted if you expect that to be a fair expectation. Beside, I could present a mountain of data to you, you are ideologically possessed, it wouldn't make a single difference.

My argument again, is not "that you get better odds of getting better players by drafting taller" (lol), I was making a simple statement "that size still matters".

I am a lot more open minded than you might think. I just have a dubious mind (I have to blame my tuition for that ), but I can be convinced with sufficient supporting data.

Here's a proof of my good faith. I find your last statement to be of worth. Size matters. I think where we disagree is on its relative importance.

It wouldn't take you that long to do a regression by the way. If your data is in excel you could even do it there by installing the data analysis free pack. You have already done the heaving lifting of getting the data.

 

[Andrei79]

What? No. I didn't say that.

Then stop f***ing around and tell us what Hughes would have had to do up to now to show he could become a top 5 center at his size.

That's rich. People who provide the argument are pretending like the players in the 1940s could compete with the players in the 2010s. Asking this question, shows that you know much less about this than you think you do.

This has nothing to do with what I said. At all. I even preemptively gave you food for thought as to how the player population growing faster could have its own biases. None of it was adressed. If you're projecting outcomes on a specific situation like Hughes, and doing it based on weak data, the very least is to address possible biases if you're making that argument. Your own graph actually supports the notion of multiple biases through each height level: why's peak impact at 6' ? But even then, I can't even infer anything from it because I'm waiting for the freaking link and study. I don't even know where the heights of those players were taken from. If the heights come from NHL sources, let's just throw that graph in the garbage as you have a systemic bias without even starting to work with your data.

Edit: ok, found the post, will look at it later.

How can you know if they are not limited by their size?Prove it.
That's right, you can't.

Again, I never said small players can't be successful. But the thought experiment for you is the following: if the mind of Briere had the body of Lecavalier, would he have done better (ignoring the injury side of things)? The answer is yes, he would have done much better. He would have NOT been playing on the sheltered freaking line for his whole life. I don't need to think about it (there's hundred of thousands of studies on the subject, it's just laziness for you to ask me to go and provide them for you, go yourself). Genetics advantages creates more performance.

That's assuming Briere would have developed the same skills had he lived as a 6'3", which again is a fundamental error to start with. Right there's already a more interesting thought experiment, one that goes beyond a superficial suposition and actually takes into account numerous factors outside of brute genetics in how a player develops.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

He will look good as the #2 behind Kirby Dach.

Would you take Dach over Kakko? I understand Centers are more valuable but who do you think will be the better player? From what i saw of Kakko, I'd kill to have him.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Would you take Dach over Kakko? I understand Centers are more valuable but who do you think will be the better player? From what i saw of Kakko, I'd kill to have him.

Yeah I would. Centers are just too valuable. You get a chance to run a Dach-Kotkaniemi-Poehling C line for the next decade. you take it.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

Yeah I would. Centers are just too valuable. You get a chance to run a Dach-Kotkaniemi-Poehling C line for the next decade. you take it.

I'll have to see more footage of Dach. I don't think I could pass up on Kakko regardless of position. Taking Kotka over Zadina was easy for me. Not a huge fan of Zadina. I'd actually heretically consider taking Kakko over Hughes. CONSIDER is the key word. Though I really am a believer in Hughes. Kakko just looks like an utter beast though. And to keep it on topic, the chemistry he already has with Kotka! (which I don't think matters that much but still!)

 

[SOLR]

Then stop ****ing around and tell us what Hughes would have had to do up to now to show he could become a top 5 center at his size.

I'm starting to understand that there is a latent objective behind all your posts. An objective I don't share (if you don't understand that yet). This objective: to legitimize your confirmation bias for Hughes.

Sorry, I don't care if Hughes becomes a "top 5 center at his size", or whatever that means?!?

If I had Hughes number 1 in my list, a likely outcome at the end of the season, it would not mean that he has to become a top 5 center in the NHL. Sorry but this draft, again like last year, is not that strong at least at the top (too early for depth understanding). Not every year has a McDavid- Eichel duo, two guys with legitimate top 5 center potential. I don't think there is one this year. I think Hughes-Dach are top 10, top 15 center in the league potential respectively. Two great players. Not a bad draft at all, when Kakko might be a top 10 winger and Byram (top 10 D). That's a great top 4, better than this year (Jesperi is maybe a top 30 C, and picked at 3.)

notion of multiple biases through each height level: why's peak impact at 6' ?

It's not a bias! lol It's the general population curve. I'm all for discussing biases, but it's often the easiest cop-out for not discussing the facts and having a real opinion about them. So what is your theory? Geez, what is this social justice warrior-like mode of thinking, where everything can be explained by what is not happening (or measured) in reality.

That's assuming Briere would have developed the same skills had he lived as a 6'3", which again is a fundamental error to start with. Right there's already a more interesting thought experiment, one that goes beyond a superficial suposition and actually takes into account numerous factors outside of brute genetics in how a player develops.

Look if you want to re-invent the field of outcome-studies as influenced by genetics, be my guess. It's a perfectly valid thought experiment. You can dodge it all day if you if you want. "Brute genetics" are 60-70% of the equation.

 

[SOLR]

I am a lot more open minded than you might think. I just have a dubious mind (I have to blame my tuition for that ), but I can be convinced with sufficient supporting data.

Here's a proof of my good faith. I find your last statement to be of worth. Size matters. I think where we disagree is on its relative importance.

It wouldn't take you that long to do a regression by the way. If your data is in excel you could even do it there by installing the data analysis free pack. You have already done the heaving lifting of getting the data.

I didn't produce this graph. I said so when I answered your question.
"I think where we disagree is on its relative importance." No we don't disagree on this.
I can say "size matters", I wasn't qualifying its importance.

 

[QuebecPride]

I didn't produce this graph. I said so when I answered your question.
"I think where we disagree is on its relative importance." No we don't disagree on this.
I can say "size matters", I wasn't qualifying its importance.

Oh that's on me, I thought you meant "I didn't produce this" as in, no I didn't analyze that particular relationship you're referring to, not as in "this graph was not made by me".

As for the importance of size. You seem to think a 5'11 Hughes would be an earth-shattering player while current 5'10 Hughes would struggle much more than his potential taller self. That's what I refer to when I say we're in disagreement over size importance.

 

[The Great Weal]

I'll have to see more footage of Dach. I don't think I could pass up on Kakko regardless of position. Taking Kotka over Zadina was easy for me. Not a huge fan of Zadina. I'd actually heretically consider taking Kakko over Hughes. CONSIDER is the key word. Though I really am a believer in Hughes. Kakko just looks like an utter beast though. And to keep it on topic, the chemistry he already has with Kotka! (which I don't think matters that much but still!)

Call me crazy, but I truly think Kakko can be a center in the future.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

Call me crazy, but I truly think Kakko can be a center in the future.

Someone on another board saw Radulov in him and I thought that wasn't a bad comparison at all. How strong he was on the puck and how he handled it. Maybe not quite as good of mitts as Rads but comparable. Seeing as Rads played not unlike a C I think it's a pretty apt comparison.

Didn't he play C in a game recently? C or not I don't think I could pass on him from the little I've seen. If we can stink two years and get a Kakko and a Lafreniere/Holtz I could quite possibly live with the prospect of Kotka and Poehling up the middle. A part of me thinks Hillis could surprise and be a #2 C too.

When all's said and done, I don't think I could REALLY take Kakko over Hughes but we could really use a power forward in the context of what we have right now up front. I know that's not the right way to think about potential draft targets, I was just really blown away by what I saw from Kakko. He just looks like a guy you win Cups with.

I daydream about getting another 1st for Patches and whoever that team is just becomes riddled with injuries and we get 2 top 5 picks.

 

[Andrei79]

I'm starting to understand that there is a latent objective behind all your posts. An objective I don't share (if you don't understand that yet). This objective: to legitimize your confirmation bias for Hughes.

Sorry, I don't care if Hughes becomes a "top 5 center at his size", or whatever that means?!?

If I had Hughes number 1 in my list, a likely outcome at the end of the season, it would not mean that he has to become a top 5 center in the NHL. Sorry but this draft, again like last year, is not that strong at least at the top (too early for depth understanding). Not every year has a McDavid- Eichel duo, two guys with legitimate top 5 center potential. I don't think there is one this year. I think Hughes-Dach are top 10, top 15 center in the league potential respectively. Two great players. Not a bad draft at all, when Kakko might be a top 10 winger and Byram (top 10 D). That's a great top 4, better than this year (Jesperi is maybe a top 30 C, and picked at 3.)



It's not a bias! lol It's the general population curve. I'm all for discussing biases, but it's often the easiest cop-out for not discussing the facts and having a real opinion about them. So what is your theory? Geez, what is this social justice warrior-like mode of thinking, where everything can be explained by what is not happening (or measured) in reality.



Look if you want to re-invent the field of outcome-studies as influenced by genetics, be my guess. It's a perfectly valid thought experiment. You can dodge it all day if you if you want. "Brute genetics" are 60-70% of the equation.

I guess I again missed where the graph came from.

I looked at your links on the last page and didn't find it. Can you link the graph once more if you've already done so ?

That said, I'm going to have to bring up biases in your data once more. For example, you think I have confirmation bias for Hughes, when in reality this whole freaking debate has been about understanding why you don't think he could become a top 5 center in NHL, at his size, i.e. at 5'10". That's the only thing you've brought up that could stop him while basically closing your eyes on any other smaller player that had the sort of success you keep denying is possible.

But on to the graph: consider that 10% of players in the NHL come from a country where the average height is 6'. Then, consider the socioeconomic status of elite minor league players and how that can in itself influence the average expected adult height of the player pool to start with. (as an aside, there are actually very few genetic studies on athletes, and none that I know on hockey players, a sport where you could legitimately make the assumption technical skills might have more important than pure athleticism compared to other sports. And in those studies, the impact of confounding environmental factors are brought up).

Then, consider where the numbers are taken from (is it from official NHL sources?) where someone like Hasek, who came in in his late twenties, had his height vary from 5'11" to 6'2" and where Brendan Gallagher is a full inch taller than he should be. You list Crosby -> well, he's not 5'11". Neither is Erik Karlsson. If that's where the data comes from, there's a major systemic bias to start with.

So, do you understand how the effect of size suddenly gets mitigated and the percentage of impact players comes closer to the actual percentage of different height levels in elite minor league players, when confounding factors are taken into account ?

That's why I'm not arguing size isn't an advantage on a heterogeneous population. I'm arguing it hasn't enough impact in the specific case of Hughes, due to his skill level, from eventually becoming a top 5 player.

That's what we've been arguing here. And you've basically gone into denial model when counter examples have been brought up. That's why I'm asking you: what would Hughes have had to do up to now, to show he had the potential to be a top 5 NHL center, considering his current height ?

 

[SOLR]

Oh that's on me, I thought you meant "I didn't produce this" as in, no I didn't analyze that particular relationship you're referring to, not as in "this graph was not made by me".

As for the importance of size. You seem to think a 5'11 Hughes would be an earth-shattering player while current 5'10 Hughes would struggle much more than his potential taller self. That's what I refer to when I say we're in disagreement over size importance.

If I remember correctly, I said 5'11'' 180-190lbs vs. 5'10'' 160lbs. The main thing I was changing is the weight. That's his real size weakness, 160lbs is Paul Kariya, we all know what happened. I'm never scared (risk analysis) about the Desharnais, Briere, Crosby of this world who are small but thick.

 

[SOLR]

That's why I'm not arguing size isn't an advantage on a heterogeneous population. I'm arguing it hasn't enough impact in the specific case of Hughes, due to his skill level, from eventually becoming a top 5 player.

That's what we've been arguing here. And you've basically gone into denial model when counter examples have been brought up. That's why I'm asking you: what would Hughes have had to do up to now, to show he had the potential to be a top 5 NHL center, considering his current height ?

I didn't go into denial mode man, I accept these examples. They are good counter examples. But examples are not very mathematical arguments (they fail to represent trends).

What would Hughes have to do for me to evaluate him as top 5 center in the world prospect? Think about Pavel Bure's WJC performance, or Crosby (Crosby was passing the eye test at 16?) That's the moment he has to show it, to be it ...but first let's see if he beats Lafreniere and Canada in the current tournament (if he was a top 5 center prospect he would easily step on the gas and destroy Canada tomorrow, this is a U18 tournament, he should be way superior to this level at this point).

 

[QuebecPride]

If I remember correctly, I said 5'11'' 180-190lbs vs. 5'10'' 160lbs. The main thing I was changing is the weight. That's his real size weakness, 160lbs is Paul Kariya, we all know what happened. I'm never scared (risk analysis) about the Desharnais, Briere, Crosby of this world who are small but thick.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're more worried about his strength than his height itself. If you're rather concerned by his weight, why did you go ballistic then when I said an extra inch is not a make-or-break thing for Hughes?

To be fair, I do not know how much Hughes currently weight. So I didn't realize your "much better" version of Hughes was mostly an heavier Hughes. I laid off that kind of mensuration scrutiny the past couple of years due to my postgraduate studies