The Crypto Guy
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2017
- 28,306
- 36,895
Prospect Info: 2023-2024 Rangers Prospects Thread (Prospect Stats in Post #1; Updated 05.22.2024)
- Thread starter nyr2k2
- Start date
- Status
I think the obvious takeaway here is that we should draft even more of them
... especially considering the game is trending toward more skill over physicality
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,009
- 40,722
Tage Thompson, Elmer Söderblom, John Scott, Joel Prpic, Kyle Freadrich, Mitch Fritz and Garrett Stroshein as well.
Harbour Dog
Registered User
Isn't Tage Thompson 6'6"? And Scott was undrafted.
Not sure about the rest.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,009
- 40,722
Tage Thompson is 6'7" according to some sources. I guess there's no real way of knowing since inches are far from a perfect measurement.
Anyway, I think this whole point Byron is trying to make, is lacking one important parameter.
How many players 6'7" or taller have been drafted since 1990? What's the percentage here? And how does that compare to the percentages of players shorter than 6'7"?
Harbour Dog
Registered User
Oh yeah, I agree completely. Just seen a couple names there that I didn't think fit the criteria. Pretty sure Bryan Boyle gets listed as 6'7" in some places too.
Most giant teenagers get put back on D, understandably. There may actually be a positive correlation between how good they are at the game, and how likely they are to be moved away from forward.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,009
- 40,722
I also think that 6'7" is a very arbitrary cut-off here to "prove a point" that doesn't exist.
Nathan Gerbe is the only player 5'4" or shorter to ever play in the NHL, for instance.
Harbour Dog
Registered User
Yeah, any point he was trying to make is basically meaningless. I wouldn't call those cut-offs arbitrary though; they exist as limits where there are pretty big drop offs in numbers of drafted NHL players. There are just several more factors involved other than "Gronk No Skate".
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,009
- 40,722
Correlation does not equal causation etc.
Just because prior to 1999 no NHL team had won with an American captain, doesn't mean Dallas wasn't going to win.
Same with the Rangers and Russian players in 1994.
The whole "You can't win with players that have these very specific characteristics" is very narrow-minded, regardless of what those characteristics are.
The cut-off at 6'7" is only interesting if we know the percentages.
There was an article, or a pretty expansive post on this site, that dealt with this very issue. It was looking at both very small guys and very big guys. IIRC (and I could be totally wrong) it said that there are both more small players--I think it was 5'8" and below?--that make it and also a bigger percentage of small players that make it than the guys who are over 6'5" or whatever cutoff it used.
I don't know, I can't remember where it was, but that was interesting to read.
I don't know, I can't remember where it was, but that was interesting to read.
Harbour Dog
Registered User
That is interesting. I think if I'd have guessed one way or another, I would have leaned toward bigger guys. Assuming a time frame that goes back to the early 90s anyway.
Certainly would give a lot more creedence to skill being the primary factor to consider when drafting guys.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,009
- 40,722
Yeah, that sounds like a much more substantial view on it. If you can find it, please share!
I think it was this article, which is of course by Byron Bader himself. 
- Apr 16, 2012
- 4,742
- 5,911
But then again there are WAY more men at or under 5’8“ than there are at 6’5” and over. So Amazing K’s point stands: the percentage of guys at or under 5’8” who make it as opposed 5’8” or under who don’t, compared to the percentage guys at 6’5 (6’7 in this case) who make it as opposed to don’t.
That's true, but the overall theme is still relevant to us considering we've made it a fairly common habit of taking these sorts of players
Yeah I wasn't trying to make any points about any of this, I just remembered that article.
I think Adam Edstrom will succeed regardless of what the percentages say.
I do believe that at a certain height it becomes hard to skate fluidly and be as coordinated as you need to in order to be a successful NHL player. It's like in the NBA where everyone is really tall, but then the guys that blow past 7' are often limited to certain skill sets because they lack athleticism and can't keep up (I know there are huge guys that are athletic, but in general). Or why though it would be cool to have a 7' right end in the red zone, no one is ever going to be fast enough or bulky enough at that height to play football. And on and on.
6'5" to 6'8" or so, it seems still reasonable to have the frame and abilities to play NHL hockey. Beyond that and it seems like you're really pushing the limits of the human body.
I think Adam Edstrom will succeed regardless of what the percentages say.
I do believe that at a certain height it becomes hard to skate fluidly and be as coordinated as you need to in order to be a successful NHL player. It's like in the NBA where everyone is really tall, but then the guys that blow past 7' are often limited to certain skill sets because they lack athleticism and can't keep up (I know there are huge guys that are athletic, but in general). Or why though it would be cool to have a 7' right end in the red zone, no one is ever going to be fast enough or bulky enough at that height to play football. And on and on.
6'5" to 6'8" or so, it seems still reasonable to have the frame and abilities to play NHL hockey. Beyond that and it seems like you're really pushing the limits of the human body.
eco's bones
Registered User
FWIW Hedman is 6'6.
Size can definitely be an advantage. Really small players many of whom can really fly tend to have issues too. Edstrom is not a slam dunk but I do look at him as a very good prospect. To me he's physical but not necessarily a mean player. He's been tossed out a couple times from games but it's mostly from being too big.....running over people more by accident. His upside is as a 4th liner and as a 4th liner---being able to grind, being able to take face-offs as a center, being able to penalty kill well, are going to be things he's going to need to do. Chipping in some offense is basically what you want from him. With his size he can't help but be a physical player. Brian Boyle use to get slammed here all the time for not being physical enough but Edstrom (like Boyle) in the corners or around the front of the net is a load for a defenseman to handle. You can't push him away or go through him. That makes him a problem to deal with especially on a smaller ice surface. He's the type of player that could really take to the North American game.
The other thing about Edstrom is he's been in a top European league for at least 4 years. He's been developing his game.
Size can definitely be an advantage. Really small players many of whom can really fly tend to have issues too. Edstrom is not a slam dunk but I do look at him as a very good prospect. To me he's physical but not necessarily a mean player. He's been tossed out a couple times from games but it's mostly from being too big.....running over people more by accident. His upside is as a 4th liner and as a 4th liner---being able to grind, being able to take face-offs as a center, being able to penalty kill well, are going to be things he's going to need to do. Chipping in some offense is basically what you want from him. With his size he can't help but be a physical player. Brian Boyle use to get slammed here all the time for not being physical enough but Edstrom (like Boyle) in the corners or around the front of the net is a load for a defenseman to handle. You can't push him away or go through him. That makes him a problem to deal with especially on a smaller ice surface. He's the type of player that could really take to the North American game.
The other thing about Edstrom is he's been in a top European league for at least 4 years. He's been developing his game.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,009
- 40,722
I think it was this article, which is of course by Byron Bader himself.
Ok,
So 6'7" players have the same success rate as:
6'2"
6'4"
And a higher success rate than:
5'9"
6'0"
6'3"
Yeah it's hard to draw too many concrete conclusions. I remember reading something else where the data showed the 15th pick produced more high-end players than the 10th pick (those weren't the exact numbers but that was the gist). Sometimes it's noise, especially when the samples aren't big.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,009
- 40,722
BC published their roster yesterday and Fortescue is wearing #5, while Perreault is wearing #34.
The Crypto Guy
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2017
- 28,306
- 36,895
Yucky. Was hoping he was going to keep 14 but someone already has that and it looks like they don't allow high numbers (he has the highest at 34).
FoxysExpensiveNYDigs
Boo Nieves Truther
Oh lordy we've reached the prospect jersey number quibble part of the offseason.
- Status
