Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

The size myth: how does the Pacific Division measure up?


oldnews

Recommended Posts

There seems to be a great deal of perception that the Canucks can't compete in the Pacific because they can't match up with the overpowering size of their opponents in the Pacific division.

Reality: the big bad Pacific is over-rated, as is their ability to dominate as a result of size - it's nowhere near as determinant as many people think.

The evidence: who dominated the Pacific division this year?

Answer: the entire Central Division, with one exception.

Who was the exception?

ironically, it was the St Louis Blues, the 'big' team in the Central - they were 8-10-3 against the Pacific. They are the 2nd biggest team in the NHL. They were also sent home in the first round once again by a smaller team they finished ahead of in the regular season.

Which teams in the Central were dominant against the Pacific?

Answer: everyone else in the Central owned the Pacific division.

The Hawks were 14-1-6 against the Pacific. 16th biggest team in the NHL.

The AVs were 12-7-3. 14th biggest team in the NHL.

Dallas was 14-3-4. 23rd biggest team in the NHL.

Minnesota was 12-4-5. 29th biggest team in the NHL.

Nashville 11-7-3 18th biggest team in the NHL.

Winnipeg 12-6-3 5th biggest.

Los Angeles is the biggest team in the NHL - they were 9-10-2 vs the Central division.

The next biggest team in the Pacific - Phoenix - was 6-11-4 vs the Central.

The Pacific, once again, was not the best Division in hockey, nor the West.

Folks who are seeking to chase more goalposts, as if attempting to rebuild in the image of the top teams in the Pacific, might be experiencing some short-sighted vision.

The Central, despite Detroit leaving, is still the best division in hockey. The worst team in the division, Winnipeg, was over .500. They were also, aside from St Louis, the biggest team in that division.

But more to the point - the "smaller" teams in the Central are fully capable of handling themselves against big, bad Pacific opponents - and it's not merely an exception in the Chicago Blackhawks. It would appear that the playoff format may actually serve the Pacific in avoiding more matchups with the Central. Anaheim didn't exactly dispel the evidence - they more than had their hands full with the 8th seed Dallas Stars, not exactly the biggest team in the NHL.

Perhaps it's time for some folks to reset their assumptions/misinformed impressions about size - which also seems to be a common/dominant theme in draft discussions - the assumption that the Canucks must focus primarily upon drafting size in order to be successful. The Central trend appears to very clearly dispel that oversimplification.

Edit:

For you folks claiming that these results are tainted because of Edmonton and Calgary's presence in the Pacific or wondering how the California teams fared:

The records of the Central division, excluding the biggest and arguably the best team in the division (St Louis) vs the Pacific was a combined 75-28-24.

The Central, aside from the St Louis, was 11-4-3 vs the L.A KIngs.

The Central, aside from the St Louis Blues, were 10-3-6 vs San Jose.

The Central aside from St Louis was 8-5-5 vs Anaheim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

where do you find stats on collective team size?

There was a great graphic I saw recently that charted player size per team... I'll try to find it!

Edit: Eat your heart out, CDC.

DROjKpF.png

Worth noting - the Canucks are 7th in average weight, 25th in average height.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you do the size comparison again, but this time use just the top 3 forwards and top 2 defensemen on the teams? I'm curious.

I don't think it's just a coincidence that this group of Canucks peaked when they finally had a big center in their lineup. Malhotra was so highly-regarded here that he had guys like Kesler saying he was the teams' MVP. Malhotra could come into any d-zone situation and quietly win the draw and Torres/Hansen would get it out easily.

Man, I want to watch the 2011 Canucks again, because I miss those guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a great graphic I saw recently that charted player size per team... I'll try to find it!

Edit: Eat your heart out, CDC.

DROjKpF.png

Worth noting - the Canucks are 7th in average weight, 25th in average height.

The info I have is the canucks are 10th in Height but realistically tied for 2nd with a group of teams crammed in at 73.6 inches on average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you do the size comparison again, but this time use just the top 3 forwards and top 2 defensemen on the teams? I'm curious.

I don't think it's just a coincidence that this group of Canucks peaked when they finally had a big center in their lineup. Malhotra was so highly-regarded here that he had guys like Kesler saying he was the teams' MVP. Malhotra could come into any d-zone situation and quietly win the draw and Torres/Hansen would get it out easily.

Man, I want to watch the 2011 Canucks again, because I miss those guys.

I agree somewhat - that a depth center was needed, but don't agree that it was Malhotra's size that was key. Would have loved to see this team add a depth center who could win faceoffs and handle heavy d-zone starts, play some shutdown. Was a bit of a broken record on the matter - but what size they were wouldn't have mattered that much to me. Sobotka, Goc, Halpern, Gordon, Steckel, Konopka... any one of a number of guys that could have taken some of the hard minutes off the shoulders of the top 6 would have been a nice addition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its not size, its heart.

this team is lacking it big time.

this team has quit on each more times than i care to ever see again hence why i would love to see half thevets shown the door.

Start loading this team with personnel that want to win Stanley Cups and not World Championships to start with.

Have a Captain and and assistant who fight back and dont go ghost for months on the end would be nice too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be the 9th year out of 11 that a California team has made it to the western conference finals. So your regular season records mean squat .

Also, Chicago is a pretty big team overall:

Bickel 6'4 233lbs

Bollig 6'2 223lbs

Handzus 6'5 215lbs

Hossa 6'1 210lbs

Saad 6'1 202lbs

Sharp 6'1 199lbs

Smith 5'11 207lbs

Toews 6'2 208

And that's obviously just their forwards.

Ducks had trouble vs the stars because they started their rookie goaltender and Getzlaf sat a game as well. Furthermore, Dallas' forwards are big in their own right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's was astounding to me that Dallas, Minnesota, Nashville, and Winnipeg had such amazing records against the Pacific division, until I remembered that those records include Edmonton, Calgary, and Vancouver.

I'd like to see the Central Division's record against just LA, SJ, and Anaheim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need size, skill and speed. Bruins are a big team but still very fast and skilled. Sharks, and Ducks are big teams but again still fast and skilled.

Ducks are 73.2 inches tall on average. Canucks are 73.5

Ducks are 204 on average. We are 201.

Chicago is 73.4 and 203 pounds. That is one tenth of an inch shorter and 1.8 lbs heavier. In other words virtually identical.

Sharks are 73.3 but are 206 on average.

Here is the biggest myth of them all

Bruins are virtually the same size as we are. 73.6 inches to our 73.5

Boston weighs 202.7 lbs to our 201.2

So lets just throw that whole myth out right now. The difference is the talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...