Does size matter less than before in the NHL?

[JFedol]

Some of the small elite players in this era so far are products of the soft physicality and the rewarding of perimeter play now. It's only in the playoffs where you see themselves get heavily exposed, but it's generally a big reason why size matters less than ever before now IMO.

That's why you atleast gotta respect pre-cap/dead puck era players like Bure, Lafontaine and Fleury more IMO. Hell if Bure was healthy for all of the late 90s to early 2000s. He'd hands down be the GOAT small player besides maybe Richard or Crosby.

 

[NVious]

Hutson broke the mold, nobody wants to be some tall mannamore dufus like PLD, all the kids want to be short kings and dominate like Lane.

Kids used to stretch to try and get taller, now they have their friends squish them to try and stay short.

Short is the future, all hail King Lane

 

[Gregor Samsa]

Big dicks rule the world

 

[MoneyManny]

Big dicks rule the world

 

[Booker T]

I'd love to see prime Pronger in todays NHL lol

 

[Cup Or Bust]

It definitely matters less. The amount of smaller players excelling in the NHL today would have never happened pre 2000's. It's a new league now and it's a better balance of size and skill. In the 90's size became too prominent. I think to be a successful team you still need a size factor because hockey is a physical sport but you can definitely excel more as a smaller player now then you could 20 or 30 years ago.

 

[Tie Domi Esquire]

Of course size matters in a contact sport.

This is another one of those weird things where people project their own insecurities onto a topic. In the PWHL they're not afraid to admit that size and physicality is a huge part of the game, but somehow the tiny geek fans and writers of the NHL have a hard on to try and deny this reality in the men's game.

 

[DaveG]

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?

the answer I'd say there is: it's cyclical. Going back before the 2000s sure, the Hatchers were frigin massive, Pronger, Stevens, MacInnis, Blake. All big guys. But then you had Coffey, Leetch, Chelios, Zubov, and even Ray Bourque that were undersized (all either < 6' or < 200lb or both)

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Of course size matters in a contact sport.

This is another one of those weird things where people project their own insecurities onto a topic. In the PWHL they're not afraid to admit that size and physicality is a huge part of the game, but somehow the tiny geek fans and writers of the NHL have a hard on to try and deny this reality in the men's game.

GOD DAMN PENCIL NECK POINDEXTERS

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Vegas had one if not the biggest team in the league and won the Stanley Cup last year.

St Louis when they won too, at least on D

 

[Volica]

I mean, Erik Karlsson was 165 lbs in his draft year, that was more the knock on him.

 

[johan f]

Clearly the game relies on skill and speed more than brute force. I have a friend who attended a christmas party with San José Sharks. He was surprised how most players are quite slim/lean.

 

[MadLuke]

Goaltender that played in the playoff this year are all above 6 foot:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

In some way size matter more than ever there...

Of the 46 Ds that played 8 games or more in the 2025 playoff:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

2-3 are under 6 foot, none under 5 foot 11, median Canadian male height is around 5foot10.

All the Selke winner since Datsyuk have been on the tall/good size side.

The only player in the top 10 in points under 6 foot this season was Crosby but he is maybe in the top 5% in the league forward leg-core strength.

Some like Caufield-Hudson can have success despite it, but the lack of size limitations and issues it create for them on the ice are really obvious, you cannot do everything that Toews-Kopitar-Barkov did without it.

 

[Jared Grayden]

I think size matters a lot more for defensemen and goalies than forwards. It was also more beneficial to be larger in the dead puck era because so much obstruction was allowed.

 

[blundluntman]

 

[DJJones]

4th lines aren't just filled with bruisers anymore so there are more room for smaller skilled guys.

Big guys of equal skill are always going to be more valuable though.

 

[dangomon]

I don't think size matters at all, and sometimes smaller can actually be the perfect size.

 

[StreetHawk]

Smaller players need to be impactful. Teams are not going to carry sub 6 foot 3rd pairing Dmen for example. So if you are a smaller Dman like a zelleweger or Hutson coming up you need to put up point like Hughes does for Vancouver.

Same goes for a forward. Have to excel at either offense or Pk/checking. Can’t just be another guy. Cause then teams will opt for a comparable bigger player.

I would agree. If you are a Sub 6 foot Dman, you need to have an impact and not be just serviceable. Otherwise, you end up like Troy Stecher, who can play 3rd pairing minutes on the RHD side, but due to his size and lack of offensive punch, his career since hitting UFA as a 26 year old, he's gotten a lower AAV on each contract. He's now like 32.

So, if you have top level offensive skills, you can make it as a smaller Dman. But, also, if you are a smaller Dman and you get drafted by a club with a smaller one already on the NHL roster, makes it more difficult to get into the lineup as clubs rarely carry 2 Dman that are undersized.

Not fair, but teams also balance out between PP, PK, ES play. There's about 117 or so minutes to spread out on D. As most PP1 only employ 1 Dman, thus with 3-4 PP a game you lose those extra 3-4 minutes.

 

[Hasbro]

It’s always mattered less than what size queens thought it does.

 

[ExarKun80]

Size always matters in all aspects of life and not just hockey

 

[TomBlizzy12]

He was surprised how most players are quite slim/lean.

From an outside perspective, players seem more focused on training explosiveness and agility rather than strength and positioning

 

[ozzie]

Ask Bedard. Because it does matter and there are 'small' exceptions that can overcome it and reach their true potential. Especially playing Center.. I think you can get away with lack of size more on the wings. Defensemen who play a great positional game or are great with their sticks can excel, but once again probably the exception. For every undersized success, there are many more average or below average players.

 

[Machinehead]

Two points:

1) I think, in all sports, it really depends on position and play-style. People talk about it not matter in soccer, and like, yeah, you can be a 5'5" midfielder. The center backs are 6'3" and the goalies are 6'6". The premium height positions in soccer tend to produce even bigger players than you see in the NHL. Even in basketball your guards are your regular big people, and the frontcourt is something out of a Grimm brothers tale. It depends on the position and how the player is trying to play.

If it seems like NHL players are getting smaller, I think we're just seeing more players who are advantaged by being smaller. If you're a defensive defenseman, for example, I think it's still better to be as heavy as possible and have as much reach as possible.

A guy like Cale Makar, who is fast and elusive, is probably better off remaining spry. A guy like Adam Fox, who's slow and relies on positioning, gets away with his size, but would be better if he was 240.

2) We always focus on height. Height is completely f***ing useless in hockey. It's near the bottom in terms of sports where height, in and of itself, is valuable.

I'm going to repeat that: height in and of itself.

Of course it's a proxy for weight and reach, although not a direct proxy. Weight and reach, and tangentially related factors like strength and stride are what you're looking for in hockey.

Height does absolutely nothing. You speed most of the game dragging the puck along the floor. It is illegal to play the puck in the air in most cases.