HF Habs: Analysis - The Inconsistency that come with Big Forwards

[Le Barron de HF]

Hello all,

So this summer I reviewed a variety of things (AHL success and its impact on producing players/producing NHLers during rebuilds & how long it takes for defensemen to develop), today's topic I'll be tackling is how inconsistent the production of big forwards can be when they are young into their NHL career. There has been research in the past that forwards with exceptional size need around 400 NHL games before breaking out (https://dobberhockey.com/2022/06/30...games-played-to-determine-breakout-potential/).

With how Slaf's season has been, I thought I'd do a deep dive using the following criteria:
Forwards taken in the top 15 of a draft that measure 6'2 or more (starting from 2003)

	POSITION	DRAFT RANK	D+1	D+2	D+3	D+4	D+5	DIFFERENCE SEASON 2 & 3	TRENDING
JOHANSEN	C	2010​	N/A	0.313433​	0.3​	0.768293​		0.47​	BIG PROGRESSION
BARKOV	C	2013​	0.444444​	0.507042​	0.893939​			0.39​	BIG PROGRESSION
COZENS	C	2019​	N/A	0.317073​	0.481013​	0.839506​		0.36​	BIG PROGRESSION
BYFIELD	C	2020​	N/A	0.25​	0.415094​	0.6875​		0.27​	BIG PROGRESSION
DRAISAITL	C	2014​	0.243243​	0.671053​	0.939024​			0.27​	BIG PROGRESSION
SCHEIFELE	C	2011​	N/A	N/A	0.539683​	0.597561​	0.859155​	0.26​	BIG PROGRESSION
J. STAAL	C	2006​	0.518519​	0.341463​	0.597561​			0.26​	BIG PROGRESSION
OVECHKIN	W	2004​	N/A	1.308642​	1.121951​	1.365854​		0.24​	BIG PROGRESSION
M. TKACHUK	W	2016​	0.631579​	0.720588​	0.9625​			0.24​	BIG PROGRESSION
E. KANE	W	2009​	0.393939​	0.589041​	0.77027​			0.18​	BIG PROGRESSION
WENNBERG	C	2013​	N/A	0.294118​	0.57971​	0.7375​		0.16​	BIG PROGRESSION
COUTURIER	C	2011​	0.350649​	0.326087​	0.47561​			0.15​	PROGRESSION
BOLDY	W	2019​	N/A	N/A	0.829787​	0.777778​	0.92​	0.14​	PROGRESSION
RANTANEN	W	2015​	N/A	0.506667​	1.037037​	1.175676​		0.14​	PROGRESSION
KOTKANIEMI	C	2018​	0.43038​	0.222222​	0.357143​			0.13​	PROGRESSION
WAHLSTROM	W	2018​	N/A	N/A	0.5​	0.328767​	0.457143​	0.13​	PROGRESSION
ZIBANEJAD	C	2011​	N/A	0.465116​	0.478261​	0.575​		0.10​	PROGRESSION
LADD	W	2004​	N/A	0.37931​	0.323077​	0.418605​		0.10​	PROGRESSION
HORTON	W	2003​	0.4​	N/A	0.661972​	0.756098​		0.09​	PROGRESSION
LAFRENIERE	W	2020​	0.375​	0.392405​	0.481481​			0.09​	PROGRESSION
MALKIN	C	2004​	N/A	N/A	1.089744​	1.292683​	1.378049​	0.09​	PROGRESSION
BENIERS	C	2021​	N/A	0.7125​	0.480519​	0.551724​		0.07​	STATUS QUO
CROUSE	W	2015​	0.166667​	N/A	0.308642​	0.378788​		0.07​	STATUS QUO
MATTHEWS	C	2016​	0.841463​	1.016129​	1.073529​			0.06​	STATUS QUO
TOEWS	C	2006​	N/A	0.84375​	0.841463​	0.894737​		0.05​	STATUS QUO
CARTER	C	2003​	N/A	N/A	0.518519​	0.596774​	0.646341​	0.05​	STATUS QUO
ZACHA	C	2015​	N/A	0.342857​	0.362319​	0.409836​		0.05​	STATUS QUO
SUTTER	C	2007​	N/A	N/A	0.555556​	0.353659​	0.390244​	0.04​	STATUS QUO
JVR	W	2007​	N/A	N/A	0.448718​	0.533333​	0.55814​	0.02​	STATUS QUO
B. TKACHUK	W	2018​	0.633803​	0.619718​	0.642857​			0.02​	STATUS QUO
EICHEL	C	2015​	0.691358​	0.934426​	0.955224​			0.02​	STATUS QUO
MONAHAN	C	2013​	0.453333​	0.765432​	0.777778​			0.01​	STATUS QUO
RITCHIE	W	2014​	N/A	N/A	0.121212​	0.363636​	0.355263​	-0.01​	STATUS QUO
SLAFKOVSKY	W	2022​	0.25641​	0.60976​	0.6​			-0.01​	STATUS QUO
VORACEK	W	2007​	N/A	0.475​	0.617284​	0.575​		-0.04​	STATUS QUO
PLD	C	2016​	N/A	0.585366​	0.743902​	0.7​		-0.04​	STATUS QUO
NICHUSHKIN	W	2013​	0.43038​	N/A	0.367089​			-0.06​	STATUS QUO
PERLINI	W	2014​	N/A	N/A	0.368421​	0.405405​	0.308824​	-0.10​	REGRESSION
RYAN	W	2005​	N/A	N/A	0.434783​	0.890625​	0.790123​	-0.10​	REGRESSION
PULJUJARVI	W	2016​	0.285714​	0.307692​	0.195652​			-0.11​	REGRESSION
SVECHNIKOV	W	2018​	0.45122​	0.897059​	0.763636​			-0.13​	REGRESSION
KOPITAR	C	2005​	N/A	0.847222​	0.939024​	0.804878​		-0.13​	REGRESSION
MICHALEK	W	2003​	N/A	N/A	0.432099​	0.846154​	0.696203​	-0.15​	REGRESSION
SEGUIN	C	2010​	0.297297​	0.82716​	0.666667​			-0.16​	BIG REGRESSION
PETTERSSON	C	2017​	N/A	0.929577​	0.970588​	0.807692​		-0.16​	BIG REGRESSION
DACH	C	2019​	0.359375​	0.555556​	0.371429​			-0.18​	BIG REGRESSION
MUELLER	C	2006​	N/A	0.666667​	0.5​	0.314815​		-0.19​	BIG REGRESSION
LAINE	W	2016​	0.876712​	0.853659​	0.609756​			-0.24​	BIG REGRESSION
NECAS	W	2017​	N/A	N/A	0.5625​	0.773585​	0.512821​	-0.26​	BIG REGRESSION
ZHERDEV	W	2003​	0.596491​	N/A	0.739726​	0.450704​		-0.29​	BIG REGRESSION
E. STAAL	C	2003​	0.382716​	N/A	1.219512​	0.853659​		-0.37​	BIG REGRESSION

Note: Slafkovsky & Beniers stats were as of Monday/Tuesday.
Note: Guys like Cozens (-0.24) and Byfield (-0.28) have had bad 4th seasons so goes to show that it's far from a linear process.

By doing a comparison of last year vs this year, here is what I noticed for Slaf:

Lower shooting %, less SOGs, lots of line combos.

Here are some additional notes of explanations in regression or lack of progression for some players that I think could be worth comparing with Slafkovsky.

Necas:

Lower ice time, lower shooting %, less stability for line combos, lower PP IPP, lower PPP.

Voracek (best comparison IMO)

Lower shooting % despite more SOGs, less PPP, Huselius injured, better advanced stats, different coach.

JVR:

Lower shooting % despite more SOGs, IPP lower, less sheltered, less experienced linemates.

Dubois:

Lower shooting %, lower on ice shooting %.

What's worth pointing out is that none of these players were in the NHL in their D+1 like Slaf was so they were older in their 3rd NHL season by 1 or 2 years.
Here is a breakdown of the 51 players part of this sample:

Big Regression	Regression	Status Quo	Progression	Big Progression
8​	6​	16​	10​	11​
16%​	12%​	31%​	20%​	22%​

So very unpredictable.

Here is the breakdown for the players that played in the NHL right away (18 of them):

Big Regression	Regression	Status Quo	Progression	Big Progression
3​	2​	5​	3​	5​
17%​	11%​	28%​	17%​	28%​

So again all over the place in the numbers.


Can we be angry about a perceived lack of effort in Slaf's game? Sure. But next time you complain because he's so inconsistent, remember that it's part of process when looking at players this young and with his size.

Click to read more...

 

[WeThreeKings]

Really cool analysis. Bigger guys take longer to develop, I think there's many different things that lead to that.

 

[junyab]

Excellent stuff. I preached this his entire rookie season. It's a thing.

 

[ReHabs]

Analysis question: It seems draft position is irrelevant to your underlying question about the progression and development of Big Guys, so you're not filtering only players who played D+1 (as high draft picks tend to do), what is the purpose of only using top15 draft position as a criteria?

Would there be too many hits if your filter was (1) 6'2"+ (2) forwards (3) who have been drafted and (4) played at least 350 games?

 

[Runner77]

So what was Chicago thinking when they dealt Dach away?

Something like yes, it’ll take 400 games for him to develop but given his injury profile (prone or not), it might take some 10 seasons to reach that plateau?

Dach into his 6th season, has 240 games played.

However, if he can stay injury free this season and next …

 

[knuck]

so you're saying Anderson is not developping? Nice!

 

[WeThreeKings]

So what was Chicago thinking when they dealt Dach away?

Something like yes, it’ll take 400 games for him to develop but given his injury profile (prone or not), it might take some 10 seasons to reach that plateau?

Dach into his 6th season, has 240 games played.

However, if he can stay injury free this season and next …

They were thinking.. we are trading everything we can possibly trade to make us as shitty as possible for Bedard and build everything net new.

 

[Le Barron de HF]

Analysis question: It seems draft position is irrelevant to your underlying question about the progression and development of Big Guys, so you're not filtering only players who played D+1 (as high draft picks tend to do), what is the purpose of only using top15 draft position as a criteria?

Would there be too many hits if your filter was (1) 6'2"+ (2) forwards (3) who have been drafted and (4) played at least 350 games?

English is my second language so not sure I understand 100% your question.

For the first part I went with top 15 since not all drafts are equal (for quality or even positions) to remove the power of hindsight. Those were the guys that had hype during draft years that went on to have successful NHL careers. I have a young kid so the 2nd option is a no go. You would have liked to see players with 350+ career games and have their 2nd and 3rd seasons be analyzed? If so age will be an important factor that should not be overlooked. A guy like Dylan Strome was excluded since he still hadn't become an NHL regular by D+3. At some point has to be apples to apples comparison.

 

[Runner77]

So what was Chicago thinking when they dealt Dach away?

Something like yes, it’ll take 400 games for him to develop but given his injury profile (prone or not), it might take some 10 seasons to reach that plateau?

Dach into his 6th season, has 240 games played.

However, if he can stay healthy/ injury-free …

 

[Runner77]

They were thinking.. we are trading everything we can possibly trade to make us as shitty as possible for Bedard and build everything net new.

For sure but I’d argue that Dach’s injury profile facilitated that decision.

 

[Le Barron de HF]

For sure but I’d argue that Dach’s injury profile facilitated that decision.

Let's not give too much credit the Hawks. They're the same organization who didn't even QO Strome.

 

[overlords]

Can confirm. I'm 6'2, 35 and am still learning to remember to clean the washing machine filter more than once every two years.

 

[Frankenheimer]

The only flaw I see with a model that projects a minimum of 400 games for a player to break out, is that this represents 50% of an average career. And if we include the decline period (say 200 games), that means about 3 seasons of optimal play. I would say then it's best to target superstar power forwards who can contribute immediately; or smaller forwards who can contribute more quickly and over a longer period of time.

 

[Runner77]

Let's not give too much credit the Hawks. They're the same organization who didn't even QO Strome.

Wasn’t trying to give them credit, only attempting to contextualize the 400 games played theory from the OP by applying it to a player who will take more time than most to get there.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

The model is extremely flawed as it fails to take in account that bigger players make the NHL sooner than smaller players and it ignores the fact that the smaller players would struggle far worse if they were in the NHL earlier. Bigger players start earlier on bottom lines whereas smaller players only join when they are ready to start producing offensively.

It is also based solely on points which are very dependant on linemates and usage at such a young age. I respect and appreciate the work that was put into this but as a peer reviewer, I would almost entirely dismiss these conclusions.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

They were thinking.. we are trading everything we can possibly trade to make us as shitty as possible for Bedard and build everything net new.

The wrist fiasco played into it as well.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

The model is extremely flawed as it fails to take in account that bigger players make the NHL sooner than smaller players and it ignores the fact that the smaller players would struggle far worse if they were in the NHL earlier. Bigger players start earlier on bottom lines whereas smaller players only join when they are ready to start producing offensively.

It is also based solely on points which are very dependant on linemates and usage at such a young age. I respect and appreciate the work that was put into this but as a peer reviewer, I would almost entirely dismiss these conclusions.

I didn't see him drawing any hard conclusions here.

 

[Le Barron de HF]

The model is extremely flawed as it fails to take in account that bigger players make the NHL sooner than smaller players and it ignores the fact that the smaller players would struggle far worse if they were in the NHL earlier. Bigger players start earlier on bottom lines whereas smaller players only join when they are ready to start producing offensively.

It is also based solely on points which are very dependant on linemates and usage at such a young age. I respect and appreciate the work that was put into this but as a peer reviewer, I would almost entirely dismiss these conclusions.

Thank you for the feedback but I'm not sure that your arguments about usage or making the NHL that much faster is factual especially in a cap era where ELCs have been crucial. For the names I provided on the list, I don't think many would have a low time on ice. Especially when you remove their rookie season which is what is done here.

 

[HabzSauce]

Maybe Dach will be like Sam Bennet late bloomer. Even better if he becomes a goon too

 

[HuGort]

Hello all,

So this summer I reviewed a variety of things (AHL success and its impact on producing players/producing NHLers during rebuilds & how long it takes for defensemen to develop), today's topic I'll be tackling is how inconsistent the production of big forwards can be when they are young into their NHL career. There has been research in the past that forwards with exceptional size need around 400 NHL games before breaking out (https://dobberhockey.com/2022/06/30...games-played-to-determine-breakout-potential/).

With how Slaf's season has been, I thought I'd do a deep dive using the following criteria:
Forwards taken in the top 15 of a draft that measure 6'2 or more (starting from 2003)

	POSITION	DRAFT RANK	D+1	D+2	D+3	D+4	D+5	DIFFERENCE SEASON 2 & 3	TRENDING
JOHANSEN	C	2010​	N/A	0.313433​	0.3​	0.768293​		0.47​	BIG PROGRESSION
BARKOV	C	2013​	0.444444​	0.507042​	0.893939​			0.39​	BIG PROGRESSION
COZENS	C	2019​	N/A	0.317073​	0.481013​	0.839506​		0.36​	BIG PROGRESSION
BYFIELD	C	2020​	N/A	0.25​	0.415094​	0.6875​		0.27​	BIG PROGRESSION
DRAISAITL	C	2014​	0.243243​	0.671053​	0.939024​			0.27​	BIG PROGRESSION
SCHEIFELE	C	2011​	N/A	N/A	0.539683​	0.597561​	0.859155​	0.26​	BIG PROGRESSION
J. STAAL	C	2006​	0.518519​	0.341463​	0.597561​			0.26​	BIG PROGRESSION
OVECHKIN	W	2004​	N/A	1.308642​	1.121951​	1.365854​		0.24​	BIG PROGRESSION
M. TKACHUK	W	2016​	0.631579​	0.720588​	0.9625​			0.24​	BIG PROGRESSION
E. KANE	W	2009​	0.393939​	0.589041​	0.77027​			0.18​	BIG PROGRESSION
WENNBERG	C	2013​	N/A	0.294118​	0.57971​	0.7375​		0.16​	BIG PROGRESSION
COUTURIER	C	2011​	0.350649​	0.326087​	0.47561​			0.15​	PROGRESSION
BOLDY	W	2019​	N/A	N/A	0.829787​	0.777778​	0.92​	0.14​	PROGRESSION
RANTANEN	W	2015​	N/A	0.506667​	1.037037​	1.175676​		0.14​	PROGRESSION
KOTKANIEMI	C	2018​	0.43038​	0.222222​	0.357143​			0.13​	PROGRESSION
WAHLSTROM	W	2018​	N/A	N/A	0.5​	0.328767​	0.457143​	0.13​	PROGRESSION
ZIBANEJAD	C	2011​	N/A	0.465116​	0.478261​	0.575​		0.10​	PROGRESSION
LADD	W	2004​	N/A	0.37931​	0.323077​	0.418605​		0.10​	PROGRESSION
HORTON	W	2003​	0.4​	N/A	0.661972​	0.756098​		0.09​	PROGRESSION
LAFRENIERE	W	2020​	0.375​	0.392405​	0.481481​			0.09​	PROGRESSION
MALKIN	C	2004​	N/A	N/A	1.089744​	1.292683​	1.378049​	0.09​	PROGRESSION
BENIERS	C	2021​	N/A	0.7125​	0.480519​	0.551724​		0.07​	STATUS QUO
CROUSE	W	2015​	0.166667​	N/A	0.308642​	0.378788​		0.07​	STATUS QUO
MATTHEWS	C	2016​	0.841463​	1.016129​	1.073529​			0.06​	STATUS QUO
TOEWS	C	2006​	N/A	0.84375​	0.841463​	0.894737​		0.05​	STATUS QUO
CARTER	C	2003​	N/A	N/A	0.518519​	0.596774​	0.646341​	0.05​	STATUS QUO
ZACHA	C	2015​	N/A	0.342857​	0.362319​	0.409836​		0.05​	STATUS QUO
SUTTER	C	2007​	N/A	N/A	0.555556​	0.353659​	0.390244​	0.04​	STATUS QUO
JVR	W	2007​	N/A	N/A	0.448718​	0.533333​	0.55814​	0.02​	STATUS QUO
B. TKACHUK	W	2018​	0.633803​	0.619718​	0.642857​			0.02​	STATUS QUO
EICHEL	C	2015​	0.691358​	0.934426​	0.955224​			0.02​	STATUS QUO
MONAHAN	C	2013​	0.453333​	0.765432​	0.777778​			0.01​	STATUS QUO
RITCHIE	W	2014​	N/A	N/A	0.121212​	0.363636​	0.355263​	-0.01​	STATUS QUO
SLAFKOVSKY	W	2022​	0.25641​	0.60976​	0.6​			-0.01​	STATUS QUO
VORACEK	W	2007​	N/A	0.475​	0.617284​	0.575​		-0.04​	STATUS QUO
PLD	C	2016​	N/A	0.585366​	0.743902​	0.7​		-0.04​	STATUS QUO
NICHUSHKIN	W	2013​	0.43038​	N/A	0.367089​			-0.06​	STATUS QUO
PERLINI	W	2014​	N/A	N/A	0.368421​	0.405405​	0.308824​	-0.10​	REGRESSION
RYAN	W	2005​	N/A	N/A	0.434783​	0.890625​	0.790123​	-0.10​	REGRESSION
PULJUJARVI	W	2016​	0.285714​	0.307692​	0.195652​			-0.11​	REGRESSION
SVECHNIKOV	W	2018​	0.45122​	0.897059​	0.763636​			-0.13​	REGRESSION
KOPITAR	C	2005​	N/A	0.847222​	0.939024​	0.804878​		-0.13​	REGRESSION
MICHALEK	W	2003​	N/A	N/A	0.432099​	0.846154​	0.696203​	-0.15​	REGRESSION
SEGUIN	C	2010​	0.297297​	0.82716​	0.666667​			-0.16​	BIG REGRESSION
PETTERSSON	C	2017​	N/A	0.929577​	0.970588​	0.807692​		-0.16​	BIG REGRESSION
DACH	C	2019​	0.359375​	0.555556​	0.371429​			-0.18​	BIG REGRESSION
MUELLER	C	2006​	N/A	0.666667​	0.5​	0.314815​		-0.19​	BIG REGRESSION
LAINE	W	2016​	0.876712​	0.853659​	0.609756​			-0.24​	BIG REGRESSION
NECAS	W	2017​	N/A	N/A	0.5625​	0.773585​	0.512821​	-0.26​	BIG REGRESSION
ZHERDEV	W	2003​	0.596491​	N/A	0.739726​	0.450704​		-0.29​	BIG REGRESSION
E. STAAL	C	2003​	0.382716​	N/A	1.219512​	0.853659​		-0.37​	BIG REGRESSION

Note: Slafkovsky & Beniers stats were as of Monday/Tuesday.
Note: Guys like Cozens (-0.24) and Byfield (-0.28) have had bad 4th seasons so goes to show that it's far from a linear process.

By doing a comparison of last year vs this year, here is what I noticed for Slaf:

Lower shooting %, less SOGs, lots of line combos.

Here are some additional notes of explanations in regression or lack of progression for some players that I think could be worth comparing with Slafkovsky.

Necas:

Lower ice time, lower shooting %, less stability for line combos, lower PP IPP, lower PPP.

Voracek (best comparison IMO)

Lower shooting % despite more SOGs, less PPP, Huselius injured, better advanced stats, different coach.

JVR:

Lower shooting % despite more SOGs, IPP lower, less sheltered, less experienced linemates.

Dubois:

Lower shooting %, lower on ice shooting %.

What's worth pointing out is that none of these players were in the NHL in their D+1 like Slaf was so they were older in their 3rd NHL season by 1 or 2 years.
Here is a breakdown of the 51 players part of this sample:

Big Regression	Regression	Status Quo	Progression	Big Progression
8​	6​	16​	10​	11​
16%​	12%​	31%​	20%​	22%​

So very unpredictable.

Here is the breakdown for the players that played in the NHL right away (18 of them):

Big Regression	Regression	Status Quo	Progression	Big Progression
3​	2​	5​	3​	5​
17%​	11%​	28%​	17%​	28%​

So again all over the place in the numbers.


Can we be angry about a perceived lack of effort in Slaf's game? Sure. But next time you complain because he's so inconsistent, remember that it's part of process when looking at players this young and with his size.

Big guys more valuable in playoffs. League going size in playoffs, especially on Blueline. ie. '21 Habs, Vegas, Florida, etc... It cuts down on the passing lanes and makes less time and space in front of net. Big forward off sets that some what. A big 50 point forward as valuable as an 80 point guy.

 

[Scriptor]

Big guys more valuable in playoffs. League going size in playoffs, especially on Blueline. ie. '21 Habs, Vegas, Florida, etc... It cuts down on the passing lanes and makes less time and space in front of net. Big forward off sets that some what. A big 50 point forward as valuable as an 80 point guy.

Slafkovsky playing big and learning house his body consistently to his and the team's advantage would make him -- at 50 points -- as valuable for the playoffs as an 80-point player.

Only, if Slafkovsky does that, he won't remain just a 50-point player since he's on pace to get 50 points at this rate this season without playing that way consistently!

I see Slafkovsky more as an eventual 20-25 goal, 60-65 point-getter who can play physical, make room for his line mates and play infant of the net on the PP.

That may not be superstar numbers and get close to Rantanen production, for example, but it definitely warrants 1st line TOI as a complementary player for near PPG line mates.

It could be part of a line where both Caufield and Suzuki get around 80 points, with Caufield scoring 40+ and Suzuki scoring 30, followed by Slafkovsky getting 25 goals.

95 goals for a line would be excellent, especially if it is a 2nd line behind another C, Demidov and Laine that combine for over 100 goals!

That other top-6 C wouldn't make this scenario all that far-fetched in three years or so.

 

[Bobby Holik agent]

Patrik Laine peak in his 2nd years we know.
It was all around the great Jordan Harris plan.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Big guys more valuable in playoffs. League going size in playoffs, especially on Blueline. ie. '21 Habs, Vegas, Florida, etc... It cuts down on the passing lanes and makes less time and space in front of net. Big forward off sets that some what. A big 50 point forward as valuable as an 80 point guy.

Ridiculous post.

Size does matter, but your post is filled with so many inaccuracies, especially the last sentence.

For one, I suspect you don't know the average height of dmen in the league. It's 6'2. So for the Habs in the 2021 playoffs, Habs dmen averaged 6'2.75 (6 inches spread across 8 players) and their total weight was close to average. They were barely over average in height. The two tallest were Edmundson with 3 inch over and Weber was 2 inch over. Chariot, Petry and Merril were an inch over average. Kulak is average height at 6'2. Gus and Romy were an inch short. Your example of Florida is even more egregious. They averaged 6'2.33 (2 measly inches over average over 6 players). They had only two dmen over average. Ekblad at 6'4 and Mikkola at 6'6. OEL is average. Forsling and Kulikov are 6'1 and Montour is 6'0. They weren't overweight either. As for Vegas, that was probably the only valid example as they were largely over average weight and were almost 6'3 on average, spreading 7 inches over average across 8 players, just one inch more than the Habs, but with a lot more weight.

Notwithstanding the heights and weight, you look at the best Ds in the playoffs over the last few seasons and most of them are close to average height. Forsling was the best on Florida, he's under average at 6'1. Makar in Colorado, 5'11, 3 inches under. Pietrangelo, 6'3, just an inch above average. Theodore is 6'2 average. The real difference maker is talent and compete, not size.

Edmonton actually had a bigger D than Florida in the last finals. They were 14 inches over average across 7 dmen, averaging 6'4 compared to Florida's 6'2.33. Actually, Edmonton had the biggest D of any finals team in the last 10 years and lossed against a much smaller D.

And the last sentence is just bonkers. Conn Smythe winner McDavid (6'1) is under average as a player, average as a forward and a tiny bit over average as a centerman. Conn Smythe winner Marchessault is tiny. Conn Smythe winner Makar is tiny for a dman. Ryan O'Reilly is 6'1.

 

[Ozmodiar]

Ridiculous post.

Size does matter, but your post is filled with so many inaccuracies, especially the last sentence.

For one, I suspect you don't know the average height of dmen in the league. It's 6'2. So for the Habs in the 2021 playoffs, Habs dmen averaged 6'2.75 (6 inches spread across 8 players) and their total weight was close to average. They were barely over average in height. The two tallest were Edmundson with 3 inch over and Weber was 2 inch over. Chariot, Petry and Merril were an inch over average. Kulak is average height at 6'2. Gus and Romy were an inch short. Your example of Florida is even more egregious. They averaged 6'2.33 (2 measly inches over average over 6 players). They had only two dmen over average. Ekblad at 6'4 and Mikkola at 6'6. OEL is average. Forsling and Kulikov are 6'1 and Montour is 6'0. They weren't overweight either. As for Vegas, that was probably the only valid example as they were largely over average weight and were almost 6'3 on average, spreading 7 inches over average across 8 players, just one inch more than the Habs, but with a lot more weight.

Notwithstanding the heights and weight, you look at the best Ds in the playoffs over the last few seasons and most of them are close to average height. Forsling was the best on Florida, he's under average at 6'1. Makar in Colorado, 5'11, 3 inches under. Pietrangelo, 6'3, just an inch above average. Theodore is 6'2 average. The real difference maker is talent and compete, not size.

Edmonton actually had a bigger D than Florida in the last finals. They were 14 inches over average across 7 dmen, averaging 6'4 compared to Florida's 6'2.33. Actually, Edmonton had the biggest D of any finals team in the last 10 years and lossed against a much smaller D.

And the last sentence is just bonkers. Conn Smythe winner McDavid (6'1) is under average as a player, average as a forward and a tiny bit over average as a centerman. Conn Smythe winner Marchessault is tiny. Conn Smythe winner Makar is tiny for a dman. Ryan O'Reilly is 6'1.

Marchessault, Makar, Kane, Kooch, Point.

Not sure why I keep hearing Florida was a big team. They weren’t.

 

[ReHabs]

For the first part I went with top 15 since not all drafts are equal (for quality or even positions) to remove the power of hindsight. Those were the guys that had hype during draft years that went on to have successful NHL careers.

This is an arbitrary cut-off and it weakens your analysis. Why not top10? Why not top60? Why draftees at all?

Think about what you're measuring: Time needed for Big Guys to be Impact Players in the NHL. You're not measuring draft-year "hype" vs. NHL outcome, are you? So why do you bother with that cut-off?

You would have liked to see players with 350+ career games and have their 2nd and 3rd seasons be analyzed? If so age will be an important factor that should not be overlooked. A guy like Dylan Strome was excluded since he still hadn't become an NHL regular by D+3. At some point has to be apples to apples comparison.

It depends on the tools you have available but perhaps looking for the age where [(1) 6'2" (2) Forwards (3) have first had two successive >0.8 PPG seasons] would help you uncover whether it takes Big Guys longer to appear.

What do you think?

Not sure why I keep hearing Florida was a big team. They weren’t.

They played big because they played with confidence and grit. Maurice had them playing with Big D Energy.