Are Short Goalies Underrated?

[NVious]

Looking at the success of guys like Sarros and Wolf who are both around 5'10 at best (real height not fraudulent listing) and the amount of total dud goalies who are over 6'4 (while being atrocious), is height an overrated metric for goalies?

Click to read more...

 

[Czechboy]

Looking at the success of guys like Sarros and Wolf who are both around 5'10 at best (real height not fraudulent listing) and the amount of total dud goalies who are over 6'4 (while being atrocious), is height an overrated metric for goalies?

Saros is declining last 2 years. I agree he's amazing but he's not top of the league right now. Wolf is an amazing rookie who has yet to play a full season.

Do you have a 3rd, 4th and 5th example of a goalie under 6 feet doing well in the NHL in 2024/25? Because I can probably list several tall goalies that are doing very well.

Here are the top 5 by save percentage (happy to use a different stat)

They are all 6'4 or 6'5

 

[boredmale]

 

[Czechboy]

Bouch dancing on that blue line.. nice shot.. nicer save.

 

[BertCorbeau]

I wouldn’t sell them short, that’s for sure

 

[Community]

Put it this way.

If Saros or Wolf were 6'4", then they'd be even better. That doesn't mean that short goalies can't be elite, but it's a disadvantage when you naturally take up less of the net.

It's not the most important thing, but it definitely makes a difference.

 

[frightenedinmatenum2]

They should allow shorter goalies to use nets that are in proportion with their height. The size of the net should be in direct scale with the goalie. Imagine how much better the game would be if we could have a 4'11" goalie with a shinny net behind them.

 

[Romang67]

I wouldn’t sell them short, that’s for sure

It's a tall order.

 

[1989]

Historically the best goalies have been around 5'11" - 6'2" and by best I mean the generally acknowledged GOATs.
That being said, sample sizes are a thing.

 

[nhlfan9191]

Historically the best goalies have been around 5'11" - 6'2" and by best I mean the generally acknowledged GOATs.
That being said, sample sizes are a thing.

The game has changed a lot. There’s nobody really left under 6’2. You can count them all on one hand.

 

[NVious]

Put it this way.

If Saros or Wolf were 6'4", then they'd be even better. That doesn't mean that short goalies can't be elite, but it's a disadvantage when you naturally take up less of the net.

It's not the most important thing, but it definitely makes a difference.

Obviously if you scaled up everything the exact same, but that's not how it works. It also doesn't explain all the 6'4+ goalies who have been total sieves if size were such a massive difference.

To succeed as a shorter goalie is a massive psychological advantage because the cards are always stacked against you.

View attachment 972657

Saros is declining last 2 years. I agree he's amazing but he's not top of the league right now. Wolf is an amazing rookie who has yet to play a full season.

Do you have a 3rd, 4th and 5th example of a goalie under 6 feet doing well in the NHL in 2024/25? Because I can probably list several tall goalies that are doing very well.

View attachment 972661

Here are the top 5 by save percentage (happy to use a different stat)

They are all 6'4 or 6'5

My point was that shorter goalies don't even get looks, I'm not even sure if 5 5'10 and under goalies have played in the NHL the last 10 years, whereas anyone can probably name 5+ atrocious 6'4+ goalies off the top of their head.

Point being that height isn't as big of a factor as made out to be if shorter goalies can still have success and extremely tall goalies can be awful.

 

[10YearsHaveGone]

Its an interesting question, I don't know if it has an answer. Shorter goalies cover less of the net, but they are also generally quicker. And very tall (6" 5' or greater) goalies seem to have bigger holes in their stances and also tend to lack the extreme agility slightly shorter goalies have (Mikko Koskinen comes to mind). I think a sweet spot exists from 6"2' to 6"4' where a goalie is still big enough to cover most of the net and is also capable of reacting quickly to take away angles.

 

[hangman005]

I wouldn’t sell them short, that’s for sure

It's a tall order.

 

[StrangeVision]

Being short doesn't make you a bad goalie, being tall doesn't make you a good goalie. Being tall is absolutely an advantage, though.

 

[StreetHawk]

Being short doesn't make you a bad goalie, being tall doesn't make you a good goalie. Being tall is absolutely an advantage, though.

Being tall gives you more margin for error if your technique is off. When was the last time a shorter goalie had a deep PO run? Where teams break down video and target what they perceive as your weakness (likely going high on the goalie).

Maybe back to 2008/2009 with Osgood at 5'10? Quick was 6'1.

 

[Figgy44]

Being tall gives you more margin for error if your technique is off. When was the last time a shorter goalie had a deep PO run? Where teams break down video and target what they perceive as your weakness (likely going high on the goalie).

Maybe back to 2008/2009 with Osgood at 5'10? Quick was 6'1.

Wasn't Tim Thomas in the early 2010s?