Discussion in 'National Hockey League Talk' started by grcenter47, Jun 23, 2019.
It's all stick checks, speed and agility from here boys.
Becoming less and less of a contact sport.
I didn't read anything after this post because it is spot on. Size does and doesn't matter. If all else is equal between two players you are always going to pick the bigger player.
That being said we know that generally small players have speed and quickness as their main tool due while generally bigger players have size, strength and reach as their main tools. Shooting, puckhandling and passing is a tool that players of all sizes can master.
Either way being big would still be an advantage in a "non contact" league because you can use your superior reach to protect the puck from people.
They were all 200+ lbs too. Not exactly small for the time.
It matters less than it used to now that the game is more about speed/skill but you will still see the bigger guys drafted first every year. A coach wants size and skill not just size and not just skill. It's a full contact sport and the more mass you have behind your skill the better.
Some of the best size and skill packages I can remember were Sundin, Lindros, Lemuix. Crazy to see guys built like linebackers with that much skill.
I have a feeling measurements used back then were with out skates. seems like nowadays measurements are with skates.
Height and size are two different (but correlated) things. Players need to have some strength and mass to them but height (aside from the correlation with weight) in itself really only directly affects reach.
Weight is more important than height IMO, especially because players adding muscle should primarily be training their lower bodies.
Until the playoffs start.
The two absolute biggest teams in the league have won the last two Stanley Cups.
Washington was dead in the water two years ago against Tampa and then changed their game plan (well documented ) to hit anything that moves in game 5. All of a sudden you could tell that Tampa was too small and didn’t stand a chance. St. Louis did the same thing this year with size, physicality and no real star players.
The small trend is over as quick as it came.
We are seeing the game rapidly transition from big hulking meatheads like Lucic dominating to small agile quick honey badgers like Yamamoto taking over.
You always pick Johnny Gaudreau before Jordan Staal but at equal talent yes it matters. It's one of so many factors though that in a vacuum I'm never gonna say that player A is better than player B just based on sizes.
I think teams with big forwards that can skate are going to eat all these tiny skilled d men alive in the near future.
I also find this thread funny considering St Louis just won the cup with one of if not the biggest most physical team in the league.
Are we, though?
Did you watch the finals?
Tyler Johnson was the top scorer in 2015 playoffs and he is what, 5.8? Kane was the second to him in total points and her is about same size.
In a year when refs swallow the whistle and grab-and-hold takes place, teams with big and comparatively slow players who swarm the blue line win the cup (e.g. 2014 Kings or 2019 Blues). In a year when refs punish for obstruction with penalties in playoffs, skilled players win over size (e.g. dominant Pens playoffs run in 2016, or Hawks in 13 and 15).
Skill is more important than size, but all else being equal you choose the bigger guy
As with most things, context is key.
Is size important? Sure. But its not the only factor. Speed, skill, finesse, attitude/personality all play a role.
Size matters because reach and 1 on 1 battles are still a big deal. Size is not, however, separate from overall performance. IOW you should only care about how good the player is because size is already factors into that. If you look at size separately you are probably double counting it, and therefor overestimating it’s impact.
"All things equal, you choose a guy with size"
I liked an earlier comment that size is a tool. If all things are equal other than size, then the player with the additional size has the additional tool/advantage. Obviously he would theoretically be better than the guy with less tools.
I do like the comment about the make up of the team. There isn't an issue with size unless the make up of your team allows size to be easily exploited like an Achilles heel. A coach can also utilize certain strategies to get the most out of their roster, but also utilize certain strategies that will be easily exploited by other teams. Ignoring size, this feels to me like the same way where it seemed like the trend for the cup winners for the last decade or so was fast and skilled vs grinding. It felt like at times it was a tortoise and the hare comparison.
Hockey IQ, puck handling, speed, and such all come first regardless. Afterwards, if both players have all of the same number of those tools, you pick the bigger player. (All intangibles being equal too of course)
Size still matters. A bigger player can stand in the way of smaller players, and this will force a smaller player to expend more energy to move against them. Even without hits, there'd still be a lot of pushing required.
Hockey is also like any other team sport, where different players have different roles on the ice. Some players are better on the fast break, and other players are better battling it out in front of the net.
It's more about what you do with it.
There is a certain size below which a player is basically useless at the NHL level.
In the playoffs size does matter, but size has to be accompanied by speed and skill to be useful.
and what would you consider that to be? 5'8"?
Separate names with a comma.