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

[Le Barron de HF]

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?

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?


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

I went with top 15 because before expansions, that was half of the 1st round. Top 15 vs top 10 allowed me a bigger sample.

An additional reason to go with those players on top of draft pedigree is their role. What's the point of including a role player like McCarron when their point totals are so low and more subject to variance?

I think the Dobber research I cited tackles the info you're looking for a bit more as far as a breakout. I'm focusing on the development of players in their age 18-23 seasons which wouldn't really be tackled with your listed criteria.

 

[Ozmodiar]

I think teams draft players with bigger frames because they see it as extra potential. “Just wait until he fills out.” Sometimes they aren’t certain how they’ll excel but feel the big guys can impact the game with physical tools.

Big players, sometimes, have to figure out how to put their frame to good use. Which skills will complement that. I think that’s where Slaf’s at.

OTOH, small players usually have a good idea of what will make them successful. They don’t even get a look unless they’re near elite in a certain area. Caufield (shot) Hughes (transition), marner (puck handling). There’s more of a singular focus. If they can’t do it, they’re out.

If there is more variability, maybe this aspect of finding their game is partially responsible.

 

[417]

Good work @Le Barron de HF

I wonder if you did the same kind of research for smaller forwards, what you'd find?

Thank you for your contribution!

 

[JianYang]

I'm going to go further back to 1997 when Boston drafted jumbo Joe Thornton 1st overall, and little Sergei samsonov 7th overall.

Thornton came in as a can't miss star, and had alot more hype than than samsonov.

Both stepped into the nhl immediately, and it was samsonov who had by far the better year. Thornton finished with 7 points while samsonov had 47 points and won rookie of the year.

Even in the 2nd season, samsonov outproduced Thornton.

In year 3, Thornton took a step and hit 60 points. That's decent but that's still not the Thornton that was to come nor did it match his hype.

In year 4, he hit 70 points. Again, a step but not quite matching his hype.

Finally, in year 6, he breaks the 100 point mark and now we are seeing what everyone expected.

However, year 7 was a significant step back to the 70 point range.

But he rebounded in year 8 hitting the 100 point plateau again, and essentially never looked back from this point.

So this is a case that the little guy fared much better early on than the bigger guy who was considered the Golden goose. At the end of their careers however, it is laughable to suggest samsonov had anywhere near the impact that Thornton had.

However, it took alot of time for even a slam dunk like Thornton to hit his stride. Slakfkovsky is no Thornton in terms of talent, but it just goes to show that big guys can take alot of time even if you are one of the more hyped big guys of a particular era.

 

[Apfel Struble]

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.

I completely agree. Also average (or even median for that matter) is not a good measure of how big a team or the league is. For example, if we were to measure the size of the Habs forwards, Condotta would count as much as Caufield. We should weight per TOI for such a metric, especially since fringe players tend to be selected based on their size and weight

This is especially true for dmen as you pointed. The top 50 dmen per TOI are smaller than the height average

 

[Ozmodiar]

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

Yes, it’s more about grit than size. But even so, it was balanced. Gritty Tkachuk / not gritty Verhaeghe , gritty Bennett/ Reinhart, Barkov / Rodrigues, …

 

[Le Barron de HF]

Good work @Le Barron de HF

I wonder if you did the same kind of research for smaller forwards, what you'd find?

Thank you for your contribution!

Can be a project for later. Next thing I'd like to tackle is impact on production for young players who had the type of injury Dach had

 

[Le Barron de HF]

Good morning all,

So as requested please see the data for the average size forwards (5'11-6'1) and smaller forwards (5'10).

NAME	POSITION	DRAFT YEAR	D+1	D+2	D+3	D+4	D+5	DIFFERENCE SEASON 2 & 3	TRENDING
JOHNSON	W	2021​	N/A	0.506329​	0.380952​	1.133333​		0.75​	BIG PROGRESSION
HUGHES	C	2019​	0.344262​	0.553571​	1.142857​			0.59​	BIG PROGRESSION
STUTZLE	C	2020​	0.54717​	0.734177​	1.153846​			0.42​	BIG PROGRESSION
KESSEL	W	2006​	0.414286​	0.45122​	0.857143​			0.41​	BIG PROGRESSION
MEIER	W	2015​	N/A	0.176471​	0.444444​	0.846154​		0.40​	BIG PROGRESSION
HOLLOWAY	W	2020​	N/A	N/A	0.176471​	0.236842​	0.633333​	0.40​	BIG PROGRESSION
LARKIN	C	2014​	N/A	0.5625​	0.4​	0.768293​		0.37​	BIG PROGRESSION
LANDESKOG	W	2011​	0.634146​	0.472222​	0.802469​			0.33​	BIG PROGRESSION
MARNER	W	2015​	N/A	0.792208​	0.841463​	1.146341​		0.30​	BIG PROGRESSION
RAYMOND	W	2020​	N/A	0.695122​	0.608108​	0.878049​		0.27​	BIG PROGRESSION
SILLINGER	C	2021​	0.392405​	0.171875​	0.415584​			0.24​	BIG PROGRESSION
HALL	W	2010​	0.646154​	0.868852​	1.111111​			0.24​	BIG PROGRESSION
BROWN	W	2003​	0.16129​	N/A	0.35443​	0.567901​		0.21​	BIG PROGRESSION
BRASSARD	C	2006​	N/A	N/A	0.806452​	0.455696​	0.635135​	0.18​	BIG PROGRESSION
BACKSTROM	C	2006​	N/A	0.841463​	1.073171​	1.231707​		0.16​	BIG PROGRESSION
HORVAT	C	2013​	N/A	0.367647​	0.487805​	0.641975​		0.15​	PROGRESSION
TURRIS	C	2007​	N/A	0.31746​	N/A	0.384615​	0.527273​	0.14​	PROGRESSION
TAVARES	C	2009​	0.658537​	0.848101​	0.987805​			0.14​	PROGRESSION
MACKINNON	C	2013​	0.768293​	0.59375​	0.722222​			0.13​	PROGRESSION
MILLER	W	2011​	N/A	N/A	0.2​	0.396552​	0.52439​	0.13​	PROGRESSION
COUTURE	C	2007​	N/A	N/A	0.36​	0.708861​	0.8125​	0.10​	PROGRESSION
WILSON	C	2008​	N/A	0.428571​	0.414634​	0.514706​		0.10​	PROGRESSION
RNH	C	2011​	0.83871​	0.6​	0.7​			0.10​	PROGRESSION
GALCHENYUK	W	2012​	0.5625​	0.476923​	0.575​			0.10​	PROGRESSION
MCDAVID	C	2015​	1.066667​	1.219512​	1.317073​			0.10​	PROGRESSION
PERFETTI	W	2020​	N/A	N/A	0.588235​	0.535211​	0.612903​	0.08​	STATUS QUO
VIRTANEN	W	2014​	N/A	0.236364​	N/A	0.285714​	0.357143​	0.07​	STATUS QUO
KAKKO	W	2019​	0.348485​	0.354167​	0.418605​			0.06​	STATUS QUO
OLESZ	W	2004​	N/A	0.355932​	0.4​	0.464286​		0.06​	STATUS QUO
GAGNER	C	2007​	0.620253​	0.539474​	0.602941​			0.06​	STATUS QUO
TOEWS	C	2006​	N/A	0.84375​	0.841463​	0.894737​		0.05​	STATUS QUO
FROLIK	W	2006​	N/A	N/A	0.56962​	0.52439​	0.557692​	0.03​	STATUS QUO
YAKUPOV	W	2012​	0.645833​	0.380952​	0.407407​			0.03​	STATUS QUO
REINHART	C	2014​	N/A	0.531646​	0.594937​	0.609756​		0.01​	STATUS QUO
SUZUKI	C	2017​	N/A	N/A	0.577465​	0.732143​	0.743902​	0.01​	STATUS QUO
CAUFIELD	W	2019​	N/A	N/A	0.641791​	0.782609​	0.792683​	0.01​	STATUS QUO
KUNIN	C	2016​	N/A	N/A	0.346939​	0.492063​	0.5​	0.01​	STATUS QUO
LUNDELL	C	2020​	N/A	0.676923​	0.452055​	0.448718​		0.00​	STATUS QUO
BENNETT	C	2014​	N/A	0.467532​	0.320988​	0.317073​		0.00​	STATUS QUO
LINDHOLM	C	2013​	0.362069​	0.481481​	0.47561​			-0.01​	STATUS QUO
ZEGRAS	W	2019​	N/A	N/A	0.541667​	0.813333​	0.802469​	-0.01​	STATUS QUO
JOST	C	2016​	N/A	0.338462​	0.371429​	0.343284​		-0.03​	STATUS QUO
STAMKOS	W	2008​	0.582278​	1.158537​	1.109756​			-0.05​	STATUS QUO
EHLERS	W	2014​	N/A	0.527778​	0.780488​	0.731707​		-0.05​	STATUS QUO
SCHENN	C	2009​	N/A	N/A	0.333333​	0.553191​	0.5​	-0.05​	STATUS QUO
HISCHIER	C	2017​	0.634146​	0.681159​	0.62069​			-0.06​	STATUS QUO
MITTELSTADT	C	2017​	N/A	0.324675​	N/A	0.536585​	0.475​	-0.06​	STATUS QUO
FORSBERG	W	2012​	N/A	N/A	0.768293​	0.780488​	0.707317​	-0.07​	STATUS QUO
DEBRUSK	W	2015​	N/A	N/A	0.614286​	0.617647​	0.538462​	-0.08​	STATUS QUO
BAILEY	W	2008​	0.367647​	0.479452​	0.4​			-0.08​	STATUS QUO
ZADINA	W	2018​	N/A	N/A	0.387755​	0.324324​	0.233333​	-0.09​	REGRESSION
SKINNER	W	2010​	0.768293​	0.6875​	0.571429​			-0.12​	REGRESSION
BOEDKER	W	2008​	0.358974​	N/A	0.411765​	0.292683​		-0.12​	REGRESSION
OKPOSO	W	2006​	N/A	N/A	0.6​	0.65​	0.526316​	-0.12​	REGRESSION
DROUIN	W	2013​	N/A	0.457143​	N/A	0.726027​	0.597403​	-0.13​	REGRESSION
FIALA	W	2014​	N/A	N/A	0.296296​	0.6​	0.46988​	-0.13​	REGRESSION
BURMISTROV	C	2010​	0.27027​	0.368421​	0.227273​			-0.14​	REGRESSION
FARABEE	W	2018​	N/A	0.403846​	0.690909​	0.539683​		-0.15​	REGRESSION
MACTAVISH	C	2021​	N/A	0.5375​	0.65625​	0.5​		-0.16​	BIG REGRESSION
CROSBY	C	2005​	1.259259​	1.518987​	1.358491​			-0.16​	BIG REGRESSION
SHEPPARD	C	2006​	N/A	0.25​	0.292683​	0.09375​		-0.20​	BIG REGRESSION
R. STROME	C	2011​	N/A	N/A	0.486486​	0.617284​	0.394366​	-0.22​	BIG REGRESSION
LITTLE	C	2006​	N/A	0.333333​	0.671053​	0.43038​		-0.24​	BIG REGRESSION
NYLANDER	W	2014​	N/A	N/A	0.753086​	0.743902​	0.5​	-0.24​	BIG REGRESSION
SETOGUCHI	W	2005​	N/A	N/A	0.386364​	0.802469​	0.507042​	-0.30​	BIG REGRESSION
DUCHENE	C	2009​	0.679012​	0.8375​	0.482759​			-0.35​	BIG REGRESSION
QUINN	W	2020​	N/A	N/A	0.493333​	0.703704​	0.208333​	-0.50​	BIG REGRESSION

The break down comes out like this:

Big Regression	Regression	Status Quo	Progression	Big Progression	# of players
9​	8​	25​	10​	15​	67​
13%​	12%​	37%​	15%​	22%​

If you want to exclude the 5 players (Quinn, Johnson, MacTavish, Perfetti and Holloway) currently playing their 3rd season and reduce volatility in results :

Big Regression	Regression	Status Quo	Progression	Big Progression	# of players
7​	8​	24​	10​	14​	62​
11%​	13%​	39%​	16%​	23%​

---

For smaller forwards here is the data, disclaimer: to a bit of my surprise there aren't that many players that get drafted in the 1st round that have that size. I even had to adjust my search criteria and make it bigger in case of size discrimination which is a thing (I went with top 20 of a draft year instead of top 15). Despite that, I'm not comfortable with the results due to how small the sample is (7 players):

NAME	POSITION	DRAFT YEAR	D+1	D+2	D+3	D+4	D+5	DIFFERENCE SEASON 2 & 3	TRENDING
DOMI	W	2013​	N/A	N/A	0.641975​	0.644068​	0.54878​	-0.10​	REGRESSION
GRANLUND	C	2010​	N/A	N/A	0.296296​	0.650794​	0.573529​	-0.08​	STATUS QUO
CAUFIELD	W	2019​	N/A	N/A	0.641791​	0.782609​	0.792683​	0.01​	STATUS QUO
KELLER	W	2016​	N/A	0.792683​	0.573171​	0.628571​		0.06​	STATUS QUO
SCHWARTZ	W	2010​	N/A	N/A	0.288889​	0.7​	0.84​	0.14​	PROGRESSION
P. KANE	W	2007​	0.878049​	0.875​	1.073171​			0.20​	BIG PROGRESSION
JARVIS	W	2020​	N/A	0.588235​	0.47561​	0.82716​		0.35​	BIG PROGRESSION

Big Regression	Regression	Status Quo	Progression	Big Progression	# of players
	1​	3​	1​	2​	7​
	14%​	43%​	14%​	29%​

----
So comparion of the 3 groups:

14% of the smaller players experience a regression in their 3rd season.
24% of the average sized forwards experience a regression in their 3rd season.
29% of the bigger players experience a regression in their 3rd season.

43% of the smaller experience have their production pretty much stay the same.
39% of the average sized forward have their production pretty much stay the same.
31% of the bigger players have their production pretty much stay the same.

43% of the the smaller players experience a progression in their 3rd season.
39% of the average sized forwards experience a progression in their 3rd season.
40% of the bigger players experience a progression in their 3rd season.

So the bigger players seem to be more prone to regression than the other groups in their 3rd seasons. Less of them have their production stay the same than the other groups. And they are about the same for progression in the cases of those who do.

When looking strictly at age 18-21 seasons:
28% of the bigger players experience a regression (-1%).
18% of the average sized players experience a regression (-6%).

28% of the bigger players stay status quo (-3%).
32% of the average sized players stay status quo (-7%).

44% of the bigger players experience a progression (+4%).
50% of the average sized players experience a progression (+11%).

When looking at the players in Slaf's position: Things are a bit more linear and predictable. However, the average sized players have a much more straight forward trajectory with half of them improving their numbers in their 3rd seasons.

So what do all of these numbers tell us? It's not too concerning for a player of ANY size to have their production stay status quo for 3rd season. Many go on to great things and finding consistency for a player is normal at such a young age. A good stretch of games is followed by some goose eggs later on. However, it's also normal for a bigger forward to actually take a step back and still go on to great things so no reason to panic still. Right now Slaf despite his disappointing season is still considered in the 'status quo' category. We have a project on our side and patience is key. Like I said in the OP, we can complain about his effort for sure but let's not forget that this is also a player who missed half of his rookie season and made quite the jump for Ligaa to NHL.

7 players in my research came from the European leagues to the NHL:
Barkov, Puljujarvi, Stutzle, Laine, Kotkaniemi, E. Lindholm and Kakko.

2 Big Progression, 1 Progression 2 Status quo, 1 regression and 1 big regression. So no stories are the same. It just takes one big heater like last year for Slaf to guys like Barkov and Stutzle in the big progression categories. Last year he had 15 points in 41 GP. This year he has 15 in 27 GP. Still room to take that step.