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

[ForsbergTheGreat]

There's a difference between being a big team and a team that plays big. Size should be considered more of an expression rather than literally taken that this guy is 8"10 400lbs. As old news has pointed out many teams that aren’t statically big have done well against teams that are. Canucks roster is full of “big” players that play a small game. What makes teams like LA, SJ and the other “big” teams so successful is that you never get an easy win against them. Even when you beat them they make you truly earn that win. It takes a lot of heart to go out there take a big hit one shift to make a play, have it result in nothing, then go out there and do it again in hopes that this time that is does. A grueling 7 games of this takes a lot of heart, only to be faced with it all over again the next series.

In terms of size Brad Marchant and even Raffi Torres are not big players, but they play a “big” game. You as a defender are aware when they are on the ice and they make you double glance to make sure they are not coming. Gallagher also plays a “big” game and he’s 5”9. He’s not afraid to have his body take some abuse to drive that puck to the net, then dig for the rebound and do the same thing the next shift. I don’t like knocking the Sedin’s but they are a pure skill player, when Crosby and Malkin only rely on skill, the same thing happens in playoffs, they get shut down and become invisible. It’s why players like Booth becomes an important piece for us come playoff time. Garbage goals wins Stanley cups not flash.

You need players who have skill but also have “big” hearts to want to win. Toews, Bergeron, Zetterberg, Yzerman, Forsberg. These are the players that win. Because they don’t quit until they’ve giving everything up, when you beat them, you’ve completely exhausted them physically.

[Absent Canuck]

Nilsson - 5'11, 183lbs taken one spot before Bernier. 37 career goals and no longer in NHL. At least Bernier is a solid bottom 6 player.

Jeff Tambellini (5'10 190lbs), Patrick Eaves (6'0 190lbs) and Danny Richmond (6'0, 191 lbs) all taken around the same time as Stewart - none of those players accounted for much.

Almost all big forwards drafted in the top 11 that are not Russian have turned out pretty well in the last 12 drafts. Jeff Carter, Nathan Horton, Dany Heatley, Scott Hartnell, Jason Spezza, Rick Nash, Nathan Horton, Milan Michalek, Blake Wheeler, Andrew Ladd, Bobby Ryan, Eric Staal, Jordan Staal, J Towes, Okposo, JVR, Voracek, Wilson, Kane, Johansen, Niederreiter.

The only real bust is Kyle Beach. Pouliot, Skille, Sheppard, and Connolly all have NHL careers and BARELY made the cut as they are on the smaller side of this list and were never really dominant physically.

In the above list some may argue with names like Raffi Torres but relative to other players picked Raffi was a solid selection.

None of these 'small guys' you mention have anywhere near the speed and skill of Ehlers and Nylander. The guys you serve up are not top 10 draft picks. They are mid first round and then bottom first round busts.

On the other hand, the big guys you serve up are all top 10 picks? On top of this, the further spin is that Russians dont count? Wow. What a fair comparison!

All you have done is cherry picked players and ignored the players that dont fit your narrative.

Ehlers and Nylander are elite level players. Show me a 'big guy' in this draft at #6 that have the same speed and skill and we will take him. Its simply not available in this draft.

[aGENT]

All you have done is cherry picked players and ignored the players that dont fit your narrative.

Tell me how hilarious it is that I read that as "...have Don Cherry picked..."

[BCRenegade]

I think you are missing the point. It's not physical size that matters, it's playing that way. A big team that plays big is what we need, not a bunch of Taylor Pyatt's.

We need guys that battle hard for pucks and finish EVERY check. Wear the opposition down. Not get hit and turn the puck over. If teams saw that we finish every check, that puts pressure on their defence to think quick, which leads to turn overs.

Even Burrows used to play grittier, hit everything on his FORECHECK and turn over pucks for the twins. Burr is not huge by any means but he played huge. These are the guys we need playing with skilled players. Twins Burr, Nas B-Mo Bert, Demitra Sundin Kes. All these great lines had a physical force that would forecheck, cause turn-overs, and start the play.

Anyway it's how big a player plays as opposed to how big they are on skates.

[Phil_314]

At the end of the day, whether it's by dancing around, or barreling through, an opponent, the way to win is by scoring and without guys who can overcome tougher checks (whether with speed/ physicality/ skill) to score it'd be tough to win regardless. Small guys who play big can often get it done in the gauntlet that is the playoffs, whereas why do you think teams don't just dress goons to block their net? It's because they don't have the skill to ultimately win the game. Of course, small guys need the big guys to open up space for them with big hits, so it goes both ways. Big guys need to be able to move and finish, and small guys should be able to dish and take hits. #BasicButTrue

Stars under 6', 200 lbs who've led their teams to win the Cup (I doubt this list is exhaustive, more just off the top of my head): Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Crosby, Kane, St. Louis, Mike Richards, Brian Gionta; Dan Boyle, Tim Thomas...

Under-6's who've led a team that's gone deep (or scored 1 pt/ G) in the playoffs: Parise, Alfie, Claude Giroux, Pavelski (Briere, Cammalleri)...

Plus, nowadays I look at the likes of Datsyuk and Nyquist again, in how they can dance around the burly giant that is Chara, and that shows me time and again that "you can't hit what you can't touch", and these guys don't get touched because they've got the skills and speed to evade their burly checkers.

[Absent Canuck]

Tell me how hilarious it is that I read that as "...have Don Cherry picked..."

I think it would be accurate.

[6string]

i just want 'in your face' kinda hockey like we see from the elites, a blend of speed, size and skill and a bad ass attitude about wanting the puck and if i give it away we're coming for ya!...and if you dare face wash anyone there will be a scrum you'll have to answer to, this was clearly missing against boston in the scf.

[Angry Goose]

IMO the Canucks just need a couple more bigger impact players Like Kassian to build around, which is why I would be stoked to see the Canucks able to snag Virtanen either with an acquired draft pick or using their #6 on him (assuming the top 5 stay roughly the same). Canucks have some good speed + skill guys like Horvat/Shinkaruk/Jensen coming up, but I think a tough to play against guy like Virtanen would compliment the group well.

[DrChill]

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.

THANK YOU

[Canuck Surfer]

Size alone is an over simplification of the discussion. Ask your wife. It's how you use it?

The real reality is its up to the coach to deploy lines and defensive pairs into units which have roles. Hockey is a physical sport. The roles should be crafted so the players are first capable of competing in the physical demands of the role. The art is mixing combinations of speed, strength, hockey skills, so the deployments potentially have physical advantages.

Make no mistake, skill cannot be replaced. Your old friend Hodgson is perhaps a perfect discussion point, extremely talented. He is simply less effective in the pro's than in junior. Because he faces bigger and faster, quicker and stronger foes whom he can no longer out muscle or burst away from, . Because bigger bodies clog passing lanes and tie up the team mates in the corners and get to pucks before they can. Especially now that he no longer has the wicked speedster Pomminville or the 217lb Vanek as line mates; each whom were capable of using size or speed to burst or muscle their way into positions CoHo could pass to. And win pucks for, also adding skills to control the puck and draw away physical match ups offering his less impressive frame room to operate. Skills still need the correct compliment of physical abilities.

Yes of course if your big and fast, as well as skilled, see Malkin or Ovechkin its all that much harder to deal with.

Chicago, whom you are quoting is just as capable of winning the battle of physicality. Yes on many fronts they do it with speed. And explosive quickness matched with all world talents in guys like Kane and Hossa. Kane has explosive speed, he can dance elusively side to side, has balance and skills to control the puck. Big guys get walked around. And Hossa at 220 lbs, Toews at 210 are capable of battling with big forwards on the defensive side of the puck. You may have missed them having a big defensive forward to nullify each of Backes or Berglund at the other end of the ice.

Critically, if a team can ice a guy as big and fast as Hossa, its imperative to have a Kesler who is capable in strength and speed. Boston relies on speed, sheer level of battle competitiveness in Krecji and Beregeron. But can also use 217 lb Thornton, Iginla, Eriksson, Marchand or Lucic. Its different than asking 190 lb Santorelli to outduel Joe Thornton on the boards. Boston have combinations of speed and strength, or sheer size. Chara, of course, can pin any guy on the boards. And they employ a game that uses that size to lock the puck in the corner, slow the game down for opponents. Not allowing speed and skill guys like Nyquist or Tatar and Zetterburg to dart into the middle to exploit them. Unless of course you turn the puck over, in which case Marchand and Bergeron types fly up the ice and burn you. Boston can match any team in speed, size or skills.

Any wife, or hockey team, would take more size if it was available.

[Henrik Kesler]

Great thread. It goes to show just how tight of a box the average NHLer is in. Yes, there are outliers like Chara, Big Buff, and Weber, but those guys are the exception, not the rule.

[TGokou]

I think as someone else already pointed out that just because the Central division did well against the Pacific means nothing because Canucks/Oilers/Flames are also in the pacific. Alternatively, the graph showing the size/height/age is actually very telling with lots of good tidbits of info in there. For example, for size you don't need to be the biggest team in the league you just have to be above avg. From the graph it's quite evident the 'top teams' are almost all in the above avg. category. This is in stark contrast to the height, which doesn't show much correlation to how good you are as a team. Of course teams that have higher height avg. will tend to be bigger but it actually makes sense that a team that is shorter but stockier will do better (lower center of gravity and thus can defend the puck without getting knocked off. In addition, this would also mean a player has a higher muscle mass which can contribute to speed if in legs etc.). Lastly, notice that none of the youngest teams in the league are doing well hence the importance of veterans on your team. I think this is where Edmonton fails. It's not that they don't have enough talent they just don't have enough veteran leadership.

From this graph it's quite evident that size (weight specifically) is very important but does not have to be the biggest team to succeed. Second, smaller players that play bigger than their size can contribute greatly to the team. I would even go so far as to say that these types of players are the most valuable because smaller players (I'm talking about weight ie. 180-210) generally have more skill than bigger players and if they play on the edge then there is that intimidation factor as well.

[Gollumpus]

I would like to know that basis of these statistics relative to playing time.

An excellent point.

regards,

G.

[oldnews]

I think as someone else already pointed out that just because the Central division did well against the Pacific means nothing because Canucks/Oilers/Flames are also in the pa-cific.

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

I've already noted that LA had a losing record against the Central. The Central, aside from St Louis, was 11-4-3 vs the L.A KIngs.

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

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

You can try to maintain that it means nothing all you want. Edmonton and Calgary alone don't account for that.

[Ghostsof1915]

Would you Ehlers fanboy's just admit you're twisting the facts to support you wanting to draft him?

What we need is size, skill, speed, determination, and good work ethic, and physicality.

Balanced players are what we need. If Schroeder played physical, and scored, and could dart around other players, I wouldn't care about his size. The reality is in the NHL a lot of players, and a lot of BIG players are just as fast. So when they hit you, the laws of physics can't be denied. (Force = Mass x Acceleration) So a player hitting you at 200 lbs hits you harder than a guy at 170 lbs.

Does us no good to have a player who can skate like the wind, but you breathe on him wrong he falls down.

We needs players that have the best ALL AROUND attributes. Players that show up when the games mean the most. Players that understand that sense of urgency of scoring in the final minute. Players that score that tying goal to send it to overtime. Players who do clean checks to stop an opposing forward from scoring on goal. Players that hit you, skate away with the puck and score.

Skill alone isn't enough.

Speed alone isn't enough.

Size alone isn't enough.

The best all around package is what we need. Guys that play their butts off until the final buzzer sounds. Players who the other team says: I hate his guts, and I hate playing against him, but damn what a great player he is.

The only myth about size is when it's not in combination of other attributes. And anyone that wants a bigger player from what I've seen does not mention, slow and unskilled with that size.

[erkayloomeh]

So despite how good the sedins could be its probably best they learn to play on separate lines. They are to one dimensional and weak to be on the same line in a playoff run.

[DrChill]

At 6 unless a big 5 drops Nylander is the guy to take. If we pick 8-15 Virtanan, Tuck and others are interesting.

[oldnews]

Would you Ehlers fanboy's just admit you're twisting the facts to support you wanting to draft him?

What and who are you talking about?

Why don't you simply quote the posts you intend to take issue with?

Ehlers may have received a minor side mention somewhere in this thread - I personally haven't noticed.

The reasons I started this thread have nothing whatsoever to do with Ehlers - have never suggested that the Canucks draft him - and dwelling on Ehlers 'fanboys' or ignoring the fact that the Pacific division can't handle the Central division does not change that fact.

I don't really have an axe to grind in the size vs skill draft debate - I'd prefer who I perceive to be the more complete player and would personally lean towards Kapanen over the guys like Ritchie, Nylander, Ehlers, Virtanen... A combination of speed, skill, grit, hockey sense, a two way 200 ft game, backchecks hard, engages in puck battles, playmaking vision and an elite shot, lots of experience playing against men (as a 16 and 17 year old), a solid pedigree (a father who scored 121 goals in 5 seasons and then transformed himself into a shutdown forward and penalty killer) He brings the kind of balance, drive, and all around game I'd love to see added - and 6' 181 seems big enough where players like Bennett, Reinhart, and Dal Colle are concerned...

[Absent Canuck]

Would you Ehlers fanboy's just admit you're twisting the facts to support you wanting to draft him?

What we need is size, skill, speed, determination, and good work ethic, and physicality.

Balanced players are what we need. If Schroeder played physical, and scored, and could dart around other players, I wouldn't care about his size. The reality is in the NHL a lot of players, and a lot of BIG players are just as fast. So when they hit you, the laws of physics can't be denied. (Force = Mass x Acceleration) So a player hitting you at 200 lbs hits you harder than a guy at 170 lbs.

Does us no good to have a player who can skate like the wind, but you breathe on him wrong he falls down.

You are a rocket scientist.

Where did you come up with a GEM of wisdom like this? As opposed to what? Slow, weak, untalented unmotivated players? How did you surmise we need for the best in every way players?

They should hire you as GM because they certainly arent looking for these types right now. But now that you have spilled the beans, they can carry on , knowing what to look for now.

Quit trying to convince people you know what you are talking about. You dont.

[Absent Canuck]

At 6 unless a big 5 drops Nylander is the guy to take. If we pick 8-15 Virtanan, Tuck and others are interesting.

My choice is Ehlers, Nylander at our spot. But if we end up with Ritchie it will be alright.