Does size matter less than before in the NHL?

[MadLuke]

Size doesn't matter in the regular season, but it seems to matter in the playoffs,

I feel that an idea that exist only because small team does not exist.

If we look the rangers and stars, on the Rangers not a single player below 5foot11, average height is 6 foot 2, Stars were 6 foot 1, what should be 1 or 2 players a team is just their average.

If size does not matter, why everyone so much taller than the median height of the Canadian male (5 foot 9) ?

If anyone would ice a normal team, a 5foot9 team in average, many 5 foot 7, 5 foot 8 with a couple of 6 foot on them, no one above 6 foot 1, I feel size matter would become obvious.

A bit like when it is hard to find a correlation with faceoff and team wins, would there ever be a bad faceoff teams, faceoff importance would become obvious but if everyone win 47 to 53% of them, it make it look like it does not matter, same for every team being quite tall and big.

 

[kabidjan18]

Size his highly underrated. Basically anyone you talk to on HF will tell you it doesn't matter. Sorted by height out of the 32 NHL teams, the remaining playoff teams are 2nd (NYR), 6th (EDM), 15th (DAL) and 25th (FLA). Sorted by weight they are 4th (NYR), 5th (EDM), 7th (DAL) and 18th (FLA). In other words, 3 of the 4 top teams are substantially larger than average.

The 5 shortest teams are the Minnesota Wild, Colorado Avalanche, Seattle Kraken, Montreal Canadiens and San Jose Sharks. Only one of those teams made the playoffs. Two of those teams finished worst in their respective divisions.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Size matters more than ever

 

[eviohh26]

Size from player to player not really. Team size overall yea I think it does. Those LA King teams were big and it showed in the playoffs.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

Size from player to player not really. Team size overall yea I think it does. Those LA King teams were big and it showed in the playoffs.

Sure, but LA's last win was a decade ago. Certainly, size was much more prized during those times. The era of fast and skilled defensemen seems to be a fairly recent thing that happened in the past 6-8 years.

Still, one person did mention that Vegas was the biggest team in the league last year.

 

[ponder719]

Size only ever mattered in the sense that it got you opportunities you wouldn't get if you didn't have it. If you're big, you tend to have longer limbs, you cover more of the ice, instinctively that feels important. It's not remotely as important as knowing how to get the puck, or what to do with it once you've got it, but it feels like it is.

What's changed isn't the importance of size, but the understanding that size, independent of the knowledge of how to use it to your advantage, is useless. I could be 6'9", 250 lbs of solid muscle, capable of knocking a guy out with my pinky, but if I don't know how to stay on my damn feet on skates, what good would I be? The league is starting to value what's really important: knowing how to use your skill set to its fullest advantage within the system you're being asked to play. That's why it feels like size isn't important anymore.

 

[StreetHawk]

It is good to have a mix for sure. It helps to have defenders that at 6+ feet and one smaller more mobile guy. I think look at the top scorers and you'll see them at ~5'10" to 6'1". McDavid seems to have the right compromise between height (looks like he is a legit 6'1"), reach (has long limbs), and agility. He's not just a speedy, shifty smaller guy, and can take a hit.

Teams will only carry so many sub 6 footers on the roster. Never felt Ana would have both Drysdale and Zell on their roster long term. And ended up that they didn't.

If you are smaller, you will get your chance, but again, you have to perform and excel in your skillset. Don't expect a NHL team to ice 7/8 skaters under 6 feet.

 

[JaegerDice]

Keith is 5’11.

Smaller mobile D have always been a thing, so long as their competitive as hell.

 

[gretzkyoilers]

Teams will only carry so many sub 6 footers on the roster. Never felt Ana would have both Drysdale and Zell on their roster long term. And ended up that they didn't.

If you are smaller, you will get your chance, but again, you have to perform and excel in your skillset. Don't expect a NHL team to ice 7/8 skaters under 6 feet.

Yes this is true and the Oilers made that switch last year. Conor Garland is one of the smallest players I have seen and much shorter than his listed height....

 

[tabness]

Obviously, hockey is soft as hell now, a complete overreation and overcorrection to the emphasis on size and all that it led to starting in the eighties and going crazy in the nineties due to Lindros

 

[eviohh26]

Sure, but LA's last win was a decade ago. Certainly, size was much more prized during those times. The era of fast and skilled defensemen seems to be a fairly recent thing that happened in the past 6-8 years.

Still, one person did mention that Vegas was the biggest team in the league last year.

Game is changing a bit yes. But getting hemmed in your own zone by a bigger team for 7 games usually wears down a team . I'd still take size over all.

 

[Minnesota Knudsens]

Smaller players need to be freakishly skilled and fast to make it to the NHL. There is probably a lot more leeway for bigger players that are not as skilled. This is not to say that the bigger player doesn’t need to have a baseline level of skill - they totally do.

And then the NHL has the refs “put the whistles away” in the playoffs, so bigger players can basically mug smaller players all game long.

 

[MadLuke]

When we look at the recents Selke winner:

Bergeron (6'1''), Barkov (6'3''), Couturier (6'3''), OReilly (6'1''), Kopitar (6'3''), Toews (6'2''), Kesler (6'2''),

They all have good lsize and reach, it could be general prejudice obviously, but since Datsyuk no smaller player ever won it (and Datsyuk is obviously taller and bigger than the average guy)

Best at the faceoff circle, in the top 10, only Pageau is under 6'1'', only 2 other in the Top 20 and Crosby became relatively big for an under 6 foot.

There some role for which size does not matter has much, but goaltender and a 22 minutes 2 way-centers Selke type, it seem to play a role.

Would Suzuki have Toews or Kopitar built instead of being an under 6 footer, the chance to turn into one of those 2 elite 2 ways center would have been better.

 

[Based Anime Fan]

Size only really factors into the equation when skill is equal.

 

[Nucker101]

After watching that game last night, I'd say yes. I counted like 1 or 2 decent hits thrown in the last 3 periods of that game.

I still think it matters defensively, but up front I think you can get away with an undersized group just as long as you players who aren't afraid of going to the net

 

[Hins77]

A lot of people are talking about height, but there is weight also. I mean, Suzuki is only 5 ft 11, but 212 pounds. This a pretty large lower body and I don’t remember to have Suzuki been hit and fell on the ice.
Height is important, and weight too. Playoff size is important, this is a physical game. A contender may have some smaller player, but it need to be a minority.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Small players can excel. Small teams can't.

 

[Leafs87]

Just look at the results the last few years. The bigger teams go further and typically win, speaking at large of course. Smaller players see a larger production decrease in the playoffs and larger players who play heavier do better in the playoffs vs regular season.

Historically bigger teams win more championships but since you’re only asking about lately I worded it this way. At large size and grit has always been essential to win and that has no changed IMO.

 

[Habssince89]

Small players can excel. Small teams can't.

Pretty much this. It all depends on the mix of players and how they play. I think an average sized team can win, but having a size advantage is always a good thing.

 

[NyQuil]

I can't figure out the point of players lying about their heights, unless they use their hockey profiles on dating apps.

I think it goes back to the draft and agents talking up their players.

 

[SteveCangialosi123]

Size his highly underrated. Basically anyone you talk to on HF will tell you it doesn't matter. Sorted by height out of the 32 NHL teams, the remaining playoff teams are 2nd (NYR), 6th (EDM), 15th (DAL) and 25th (FLA). Sorted by weight they are 4th (NYR), 5th (EDM), 7th (DAL) and 18th (FLA). In other words, 3 of the 4 top teams are substantially larger than average.

The 5 shortest teams are the Minnesota Wild, Colorado Avalanche, Seattle Kraken, Montreal Canadiens and San Jose Sharks. Only one of those teams made the playoffs. Two of those teams finished worst in their respective divisions.

Wow, what a substantial difference.

 

[NyQuil]

Wow, what a substantial difference.

View attachment 875457

You almost have to assign weight by icetime.

A guy who is 6’7 240 isn’t helping his team on the bench.

 

[SteveCangialosi123]

You almost have to assign weight by icetime.

A guy who is 6’7 240 isn’t helping his team on the bench.

Not to mention listed weight is often wildly incorrect (hockey reference is ~20 lbs off with Nico) and not all weight is the same. You can be a chiseled 195 or a doughy 200.

 

[BlueDream]

It could be I'm just looking at the wrong things but doesn't size matter much less than before?

Back when Karlsson first attracted attention, one of the biggest concerns about him was his size. Today, a lot of the top defensemen are of similar size. Makar, Fox, Hughes, and Morrissey just to name a few. I'm looking back at the top players in the 2000s or early 2010s, almost no defensemen besides Karlsson were that small. The top defensemen were Pronger, Niedermayer, Weber, Suter, Weber, Subban, Doughty, Chara, and Keith. Those on the smaller side were Karlsson and Lidstrom, but even then, Lidstrom was still 6'1" and 190 pounds. I use shorter than 6' and/or below 200 pounds for the cut-off.

I'm mainly focusing on defensemen because size was always seen as being almost mandatory to make an elite one. I don't recall when I last saw so many smaller players dominate the league. I don't think Cale Makar would have ever been drafted 4th back in 2005. His stature alone would have seen his stock plummet and teams would have considered him a PP specialist not worth wasting a top 5 pick over.

Any data to back this up or am I just biased because of the sample size and this is simply an anomaly that won't last?

Your problem is that the smaller guys you are listing are the exceptions, not the rule.

Sure, Hughes and Fox aren’t big. But most teams don’t have a guy like that. 99% of defensemen that are under 6’0 aren’t as good as those guys.

So if you have small players, and they don’t have elite skill, then what? They’re at more of a disadvantage than a player who is of similar skill, but is at least bigger.

 

[forever1922]

I think if you averaged defensemen and center size per team instead of just the whole team it would show an even more stark contrast. Wingers count for almost half the team and their size is not as critical.

It is because of multiple factors: reach when defending and opening passing lanes when on the offense. Body positioning and battles in the open ice, with the caveat that -obviously when you get to attack space with speed - that size as well as most other factors are irrelevant. That is more rare in the middle of the ice, however. It is also easier to angle opponents to the boards, harder to win positioning against, and when you do lose you still have the reach advantage.

Of course size matters. It is laughable to suggest otherwise. I would go so far as to argue that when reffing is tighter, the larger, more athletic guys have an even bigger advantage because they don't need to cheat. Now that is not every large player obviously, but when you ask if size is less important the answer becomes no, it is more so. But you do need to match the athleticism to go with it.