Discussion in 'National Hockey League Talk' started by grcenter47, Jun 23, 2019.
+The roster of TML
I was thinking more in terms of weight.
Take MSL for example. He's listed as 180 pounds. It's not actually that small.
People pointing to the Blues are oversimplifying it a bit. Most of the Blues size comes from their defense -namely Bouwmeester, Petro, and Parayko- pretty much every regular outside of Dunn back there is tall and takes up a lot of space in the d-zone. But almost all of their d-men can skate and move the puck well, they aren’t just hulking lugs. For all the talk of how physical the Blues were throughout the playoffs and the Final, the forwards doing most of the hitting were Sundqvist, Blais, and Barbashev. None of those guys are overly large players they just had a role and played it well. In the moments when they really needed something to happen it was their skill guys -ROR, Tarasenko, Pietrangelo, Schwartz, etc. - who made the plays. Even Maroon’s goal in game 7 against Dallas was all started because Robert Thomas (a decidedly not big forward) was zipping around the o-zone off a draw and got a puck behind Bishop for Maroon to tap in.
Size is a component to a team, but it’s not the end all be all. It’s probably a component that’s been devalued a bit. But at the end of the day you need your best players to be your best players, whether they’re short, tall, whatever. Because if that doesn’t happen it doesn’t matter if you have the shortest team or the tallest team, you’re probably not going to get very far without them.
Size only helps if the player has the skills to match. In some ways, being 6'6" can be an impediment if you can't pair it with relative quickness to match.
No more than being small. Actually less.
The Capitals were the biggest team in the league when they won the cup. They have been among the biggest teams in the league in the Ovechkin era and since making the playoffs the first time they have the best record in the league. Lets face it. It appears the missing piece the Caps had been waiting for was a fully developed Tom Wilson to get them over the top.
You don't have to have size but it doesn't hurt
Your argument only works because your definition of size is so ridiculously narrow. Blais is 6'2", Sundqvist is 6'3", both are above the NHL average. If those players cannot be said to have "size" then frankly only a tiny portion of the NHL population can be said to have size. That's like saying the only good undersized players in the NHL are those 5'9" or less, because those are the only truly "small" ones. Both Thomas and Barbashev are also 6 foot, which is average for their position in the NHL. To call them "decidedly not big" is ridiculous because, against half the people at their position in the NHL, they would be big.
Then you sequester the plays that you say matter, as opposed to the plays that didn't matter. But that counterfactual doesn't work. All the plays mattered. If any of the plays had gone differently from the way they did, the divergence between what did take place and what could have taken place is not quantifiable. It discounts huge defensive plays, it even discounts the offensive efforts put forward throughout the playoffs by players like Zach Sanford, Tyler Bozak, or David Perron. You accuse people of oversimplifying, and that's not out of the question, but your picture is far too finely tailored.
sorry can't help it
But back on topic I wonder if Aito Iguchi will make the league or not.
I suppose I did a bad job of trying to convey what I meant here. I don’t necessarily disagree with what you’re saying but I think my point was misconstrued. And it’s a nightmare trying to type on this site on a phone so I’ll just leave it at that.
Size always matters.
No matter what your coach, or girlfriend tells you
You’ll put it that way, you may be right, but no one will understand really.
All more important then size. Sure size gives you better reach which is good and probably a higher ceiling speed/strength wise, but probably gives you a lower floor too. If you look at MSL, he was a super strong player even tho he was small... Gaudreau is probably one of the weaker player in the league, but all the other attributes are elite. In conclusion, no size is not a game breaker for a prospect/player
Size is a lot like skating speed. Its a bonus to have but not not the most important part of a players game.
Small people can be amazing players.
Just like slow players can be amazing players.
It’s become a game breaker for large teams in the playoff setting. Tampa was coasting until Washington’s game plan change and other large teams took note. Plan on seeing one of the five largest teams winning again this year.
The playoffs are a totally different animal and teams like Tampa have been solved.
It matters yes, but you can still be dominant without size. Just take a look at the thread below. HF's top 31 wingers. In the top 10 you have 6 "undersized" wingers.
Kucherov, Kane, Panarin, Giroux, Marchand and Gaudreau. All under 6'0.
Boston went to the final, game 7, with a average sized team. Penguins won 2 straight too before the 2 big bodied teams won.
And Tampa would have cruised past Washington until that game plan change. Used their size and you could tell Tampa didn’t stand a chance. Lots more of the same thing happened in these playoffs against small teams.
Small lines seem to be getting exposed lately in the playoffs. Smaller, skilled players seem to have success with some good sized linemates, but overall team size seems to be key.
Many listed had a rougher go in the playoffs when compared to the regular season.
People with bigger bones typically decline quicker. I'm not basing this on scientific facts but it is a personal hypothesis.
Taller guys can be just as athletic. Usain Bolt is 6'5". The extra inches give him a distinct advantage over shorter athletes of otherwise equal ability.
Top basketball players are tremendous athletes. Not just tall. Michael Phelps is 6'4". Great athletic ability. And if he was shorter, he'd be a little less effective.
I don't buy the "too tall is bad" jargon. Basketball people parroted that in the 60's.
Not sure the OP was directed at teams, but more on individual players. Plenty of small players have had success in both regular season and playoffs. There are more important attributes then size.
For teams, you can find arguments for both. But I would say speed and skill is a lot more important. Again, Boston is an average team in size and went game 7 of the final. Do you really base all of you're analysis on 1 game, because that's what it came down too last year.
- I base it on the total turnaround in the Washington - Tampa series. Tampa didn’t have a prayer after the switch. Great articles on the internet about the game plan change in game 5 and it seems that teams paid attention for this year’s playoffs.
- Tampa’s face plant in the first rd after dominating the regular season. Use size against them and then they have problems.
- Many very skilled but smaller lines doing little in the playoffs this year. A few of these lines were pushed around like rag dolls, after being dominant in the regular season.
You mentioned speed and skill and you can’t get any more speed and small skill than Tampa. I highly doubt that mix will work again in the playoffs.
Just my opinion but I’m hearing the same from many.
Chicago in 2012/13, when they crushed the entire league to the Cup. Patty Kane is all skill and no size and he's the last guy you want to face in the playoffs.
Size absolutely does matter... it's a detriment!
Separate names with a comma.