The hockey world's obsession with size is stupid

[Mortimer Snerd]

Haven't read the whole thread but every one I have read is missing the point. Maybe that is because the OP used points to express it.

It is about effectiveness, not just scoring. Take 2 equally effective players. The big one will still be favoured. His size is a part of what makes him effective. Some people see it as an addition to his effectiveness. It is not. His size is already accounted for in his overall effectiveness.

If you are looking at 2 scoring wingers, then scoring is the primary measure of effectiveness. If their scoring is equal then the big guy is not more effective.

 

[ManofSteel55]

He kept breaking his hands on guys heads.

HE was far from fragile.

HE would take out 2 guys with a single bodycheck.
HE would knock League Heavy Weights out with a single punch.

The last ****ing thing he was fragile.

In all fairness, you are describing someone who could dish it out. After his first couple of years in the league, Wendel Clark was a glass cannon.

 

[beowulf]

He did play a full season.

And he was a wrecking ball. Now when you swing a wrecking ball around it is going to take some damage itself.
Go troll somewhere else.
YOU a flyers fan? Take Lindros and go for a nice long walk if you want someone fragile.

Clark was fragile as hell. Some of it was because of the style of play but at the end of the day he was injured way more than average. He played one full season during his sophomore year, 80 games.

 

[Shareefruck]

I feel like most people in this thread are not addressing the actual point being made by the OP, and are just going for the cheap/lazy joke.

He is not saying that all else being equal, size is irrelevant.

He is saying that if the overall outcome is equal, any size advantage is already fully accounted for in an equally useful advantage in some other area.

Why does size appear to be so much MORE valued than other attributes, that it's treated like some magical bonus advantage that hasn't come into play yet but will prove extra useful later, even in cases where the measurable outcome is currently the same?

I haven't seen that fully addressed yet.

The obvious answer necessary to address that would be that their current degree of effectiveness is misleading because later on (when making the transition to the NHL or from the regular season to the playoffs), size suddenly becomes more of a factor than anything else. But there isn't much evidence to actually back that up in the first place, and it's becoming less and less true every year.