Toggle sidebar

Confirmed with Link: Flyers trade Cutter Gauthier to Anaheim for Jamie Drysdale and 2025 2nd round pick

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
FLYguy3911 said:
There is way too much made out of where he went in the draft as proof he wasn't a good prospect? How many times do we need to see smaller defensemen drop in the draft and excel post draft before we stop appealing to authority? Look at how many defensemen under 6 foot were taken in this most recent draft (Hint: you can count on one hand). It's really not hard to see how a league of size queens let him fall.
Click to expand...
Uh, how many D-men under 6'0 are starting in the NHL?

And it's not discrimination at that level, after a year or two in the AHL, teams can identify short D-men who are NHL capable. Someone will claim that player on waivers and play them if they're good.

Looking at NHL.com, lists 25 D-men under 6'0. 32 are 6'0.
However, this includes a lot of marginal players, best short D-men:
Spurgeon 5'9 #156
Casey 5'9 #46
Hutson 5'9 #62
Grzelcyk 5'10 #85
Girard 5'10 #47
Brannstrom 5'10 #15
Q Hughes 5'10 #15
Zellweger 5'10 #34
Barrie 5'11 #64
Orlov 5'11 [214] #55
Ghost 5'11 #78
Clifton 5'11 #133
Carrier 5'11 #115
Fox 5'11 #66
Walker 5'11 UDFA
Sandin 5'11 #129
Spence 5'11 #95
Drysdale 5'11 #6
Malinski 5'11 UDFA

Bold are "workhorse" D-men (20+ minutes a night).
One problem is outside of Orlov, most are not just short, but slight of build, so they can't use leverage as easily to compensate.
Spurgeon is a complete outlier, as is Fox.
 
deadhead said:
And it's not discrimination at that level, after a year or two in the AHL, teams can identify short D-men who are NHL capable. Someone will claim that player on waivers and play them if they're good.
Click to expand...

When all roads lead to arguing in favor NHL orgs always getting things right, that should probably be a sign something has gone wrong.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: VladDrag, Ironmanrulez, Beef Invictus and 1 other person
JojoTheWhale said:
When all roads lead to arguing in favor NHL orgs always getting things right, that should probably be a sign something has gone wrong.
Click to expand...
Revealed preference.

A short player who performs in the AHL will get a shot at the NHL at some point, maybe a year or two later than a taller player, but Guorde still ended up with a pretty good career. So the lack of short NHL players suggests it is a liability, all else held equal.

The relative scarcity of short D-men suggests size does matter, since the distribution in the general population peaks around 5'10.

This lists suggests NHL teams are pretty rational, one should only draft a D-man under 6'0 in the top 20 picks if he's otherwise exceptional. Drysdale was clearly over drafted.

However once past pick #40, I'd gamble on offensively talented short D-men until the cows come home, since I can shelter them on 3rd pairs and get value on the PP.
 
deadhead said:
Revealed preference.

A short player who performs in the AHL will get a shot at the NHL at some point, maybe a year or two later than a taller player, but Guorde still ended up with a pretty good career. So the lack of short NHL players suggests it is a liability, all else held equal.

The relative scarcity of short D-men suggests size does matter, since the distribution in the general population peaks around 5'10.

This lists suggests NHL teams are pretty rational, one should only draft a D-man under 6'0 in the top 20 picks if he's otherwise exceptional. Drysdale was clearly over drafted.

However once past pick #40, I'd gamble on offensively talented short D-men until the cows come home, since I can shelter them on 3rd pairs and get value on the PP.
Click to expand...

Revealed preference assumes rationality or logic or whatever other phrase you would like to use. I think you know I'm not willing to go that far with NHL orgs. :laugh:

Please consider that when things happen in a player's development matters quite a bit. You do it all the time when talking about how rushing players can hurt them, but never in the other direction.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: kudymen, VladDrag and Beef Invictus
The obsession over height for a game played at ground level will never not amaze me.

Also some guys do grow slightly post draft.

Also also NHL listed heights and weights are generally buffed.

And I just remembered there is a weirdo on the prospect board that will literally obsess over a prospect breaking the 6' barrier as if that is significant. :laugh:
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: Ironmanrulez, Chicken N Raffls and Beef Invictus
JojoTheWhale said:
Whoa. I know some people got carried away with Forsling and started arguing he was top 5, but he's easily a top 20 guy who played at the absolute top of his game for that run.

Off the top of my head, he'd probably be top 15 but we know how these lists go. You don't know until you make them. Given that you subscribe to the counting teams style of making these lists, asserting that he's not even top 32 is wild.
Click to expand...
When people talk about you have to have a 1D to win a Cup, they usually mean an elite D-man who plays 25+ minutes in all situations and double shifts at times. Hedman, Pronger, etc.

Forsling was a 5th rd pick, traded for Clendening, 4 years later traded again to FLA.
Injuries, up and down until he got to Florida at 25.
Looked like crap on Chicago - but this is interesting:
xGFrel:
Chi: -7.81, -8.88, -4.21
FLA: +2.57, -2.47, -3.23, 3.13
So some of that improvement was illusory, from playing on a much better team.

Either he had hidden superpowers, or he's in the right situation in Florida.
More likely it's a matter of chemistry and fit, a good player whose game was elevated by being in the right situation.
 
JojoTheWhale said:
Revealed preference assumes rationality or logic or whatever other phrase you would like to use. I think you know I'm not willing to go that far with NHL orgs. :laugh:

Please consider that when things happen in a player's development matters quite a bit. You do it all the time when talking about how rushing players can hurt them, but never in the other direction.
Click to expand...
You're trying too hard, arbitrage suggests even if half the GMs in the NHL are idiots, good players will surface as the other GMs take advantage of their stupid peers.

Size is an attribute that's correlated with success up to a certain level (6'4 or so?).
Probably due to a number of factors:
1) size/mass provides leverage as well as strength, to anchor and to move others
2) height correlates with reach, especially for D-men breaking up plays
3) height makes it easier to track the puck and other players, if you're 5'9 it's hard to see around a guy 6'2.

Like all player attributes, one of a number of variables that can impact player success.

Size probably has most value on defense for defensemen, where longer reach to break up plays, harder to get around and more mass to anchor in front of net and win board battles. Height without mass might be detrimental when it comes to leverage (Zamula).

Least value might be for play making forwards b/c longer stick make may it harder to control puck, longer legs makes it harder to get up to speed quickly and change direction.

Would be an interesting study to see if this holds true.
 
deadhead said:
Let's see what Shaw can do with Drysdale.
Anaheim makes the Flyers look competent the last decade.

Zegras (#9) regressed, Lundestrom, Max Jones and Larson (all 1st rd picks) never developed, Steel (1st rd) played better after he left. McTavish (#3) hasn't developed past 3rd line forward. Jacob Perreault is a flop.
Terry (5th rd) did emerge as a top forward at age 24.
Comtois (2nd rd) had a good season at 22, then went backwards.

They're awful at drafting and/or they're awful at development.
Click to expand...

We have
 
deadhead said:
No, we haven't. Miracles don't happen overnight.
By April we'll know whether Drysdale can improve or he is what he is.
Click to expand...

It won't take that long

And come April, you'll be talking about how we won't know until the 2025 season starts. I know you.

6f45d4a0-3a21-42f3-8c5f-98e235a834c6_text.gif
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: GapToothedWonder, kudymen, Ironmanrulez and 2 others
deadhead said:
You're trying too hard, arbitrage suggests even if half the GMs in the NHL are idiots, good players will surface as the other GMs take advantage of their stupid peers.

Size is an attribute that's correlated with success up to a certain level (6'4 or so?).
Probably due to a number of factors:
1) size/mass provides leverage as well as strength, to anchor and to move others
2) height correlates with reach, especially for D-men breaking up plays
3) height makes it easier to track the puck and other players, if you're 5'9 it's hard to see around a guy 6'2.

Like all player attributes, one of a number of variables that can impact player success.

Size probably has most value on defense for defensemen, where longer reach to break up plays, harder to get around and more mass to anchor in front of net and win board battles. Height without mass might be detrimental when it comes to leverage (Zamula).

Least value might be for play making forwards b/c longer stick make may it harder to control puck, longer legs makes it harder to get up to speed quickly and change direction.

Would be an interesting study to see if this holds true.
Click to expand...

Strong disagreement due to clustering.

For that to be true, we would have to assume that those teams have roster room, find the risk worth the reward of the claim, don’t prefer a different risk already in their org, etc. What gets broad scale numbers up is depth players. It's unlikely the Adam Foxes of the world can't find their way through a system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ironmanrulez
JojoTheWhale said:
Strong disagreement due to clustering.

For that to be true, we would have to assume that those teams have roster room, find the risk worth the reward of the claim, don’t prefer a different risk already in their org, etc. What gets broad scale numbers up is depth players. It's unlikely the Adam Foxes of the world can't find their way through a system.
Click to expand...
Depth players come in two groups:

1) replacement level or slightly below, Zamula, Ginning, Belpedio, Attard, etc. Guys you bring up due to injury, or play b/c you have no alternative, who are fungible. If shorter players get left out of this group, no big deal.

2) 4th line/marginal middle six/#5-#6 D-men. GMs are on the lookout for these players b/c if you can get them cheaply for a few years it improves your team without impacting cap room. So if short players are undervalued, we'd expect them to get claimed by smart GMs and then win jobs.

In this case, a team like Florida should have a number of undervalued short players Zito was able to find, since he's got a track record of recognizing undervalued assets.

Yet there are only 2 players on the Florida roster under 6'0
Samoskevich 5'11 #24-2021 draft.
Rodrigues 5'11, signed to a 4 year deal at 30 years old in 2023.
 
Drysdale could bloom eventually. Like 4-5 years form now on his third team. I just hope he stays healthy.
 
Drysdale and Risto are basically the same player, just different sizes. They have skill, but both are dumb as rocks. Tools, zero tool boxes. I think Drysdale got exposed sooner than Risto though. But yeah, both suck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom