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

[Gollumpus]

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.

Assume I've prefaced my comments with the Benny Disraeli line about statistics...

1.) These stats were achieved by adding in the goalies' height/weight/age, yes? This can skew the figures for the skaters as having a 217 lb Luongo makes a bigger splash than a 196 lb Markstrom.

2.) It is also something that seems to be missed by some (not by Losing With Pride or Robongo) that where that size is concentrated is of importance. For example, the Hawks, Avalanche and Blues each has a much bigger top-6 than the Canucks.

Having talented players is good. Having talented players who are also big appears to be better.

regards,

D.

[BenDrinkin]

OP is right, it's about team toughness, not team size. Having said that, you want to have some size. We didn't lose the cup final because of team size.

Team toughness on top of speed and skill. Easy enough, right?!

[Gollumpus]

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.

What, someone having a different opinion than you is scary or something?

Having guys with size to go with their talent is not a bad thing. And why do (some) folks automatically make the call that just because a player is big that he is also "slow, weak and unmotivated"?

As to your last comment, perhaps you should take that bit of advice to heart.

To Ghosts point, I wouldn't mind if Schroeder played more like Marchand, but perhaps with a bit less of being a dick as does Marchand. Schroeder isn't quite as big as Marchand but certainly has the skills to play that type of game both on offense and defense.

regards,

G.

[DrChill]

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

Why Ehlers over Nylander? What of Ritchie is better than Virtanen? I saw Ritchie has had multiple concussions, is this true?

[MJDDawg]

Assume I've prefaced my comments with the Benny Disraeli line about statistics...

1.) These stats were achieved by adding in the goalies' height/weight/age, yes? This can skew the figures for the skaters as having a 217 lb Luongo makes a bigger splash than a 196 lb Markstrom.

2.) It is also something that seems to be missed by some (not by Losing With Pride or Robongo) that where that size is concentrated is of importance. For example, the Hawks, Avalanche and Blues each has a much bigger top-6 than the Canucks.

Having talented players is good. Having talented players who are also big appears to be better.

regards,

D.

This is about it.

Brad Treliving, after being introduced today as the Flames newest GM, talked about having to become a "heavier" team and playing a "heavier" game.

I don't interpret this as necessarily meaning wanting to get bigger though. You can have 5'11" guys who play heavier and conversely you can have 6'4" guys who don't.

I prefer the use of the term heavy rather than size in describing the type of team we should be looking to get to. Doesn't mean we can't have smaller and highly skilled players surrounded by players who play a heavier game though.

[Gollumpus]

OP is right, it's about team toughness, not team size. Having said that, you want to have some size. We didn't lose the cup final because of team size.

Didn't lose because of a lack of team toughness either.

1.) Injuries and missed games on the Canucks' side was a far greater dis-advantage than it was for the Bruins. Malhotra out before the playoffs, Hamhuis out during the first game, and pretty much any of the top-6 forwards or top-4 d-men were banged up enough so that it impacted on their ability to perform.

2.) The Canucks were looking to play as they did during the regular season, by getting fat on the power play. Somewhere in team coaching/management they didn't get the memo that the refs tend to put their whistles deep in their pockets during the playoffs. Initial penalties seem to be missed more often than not, but retaliation calls look to be more common.

This being said, I'm sure that slugging that little s.o.b. would be great.. and you could spend at least the next couple of minutes sitting in the penalty box feeling all self-righteous... and then he does what he does, again... and you slug him again and you get to feel good about it in the penalty box... and then...

3.) Indeed it wasn't about size, although Chara being as big as he is certainly didn't hurt. Marchand weighs as much as either Sedin or Burrows, they're just taller by a few inches. Being in a more compact package gives him something of an advantage when the action is at close quarters.

regards,

G.

[How the west was won]

Ladies and gentlemen.

Here it is, the magic ingredients.

Wait for it.....

Diligence, determination, skill, work ethic, size, strength, IQ, and team mentality

If I were to have to sacrifice any of those traits it would be size. Its the other traits that take time to cultivate. Players who show those traits have been disciplined in their learning of the game and have created in themselves a true understanding of what it takes to win.

If for instance you were to take away team mentality, you'll have a cancer in the room. Diligence and determination then beast mode disappears.

Size alone is over-rated. Size with everything else is a force.

[oldnews]

Assume I've prefaced my comments with the Benny Disraeli line about statistics...

1.) These stats were achieved by adding in the goalies' height/weight/age, yes? This can skew the figures for the skaters as having a 217 lb Luongo makes a bigger splash than a 196 lb Markstrom.

2.) It is also something that seems to be missed by some (not by Losing With Pride or Robongo) that where that size is concentrated is of importance. For example, the Hawks, Avalanche and Blues each has a much bigger top-6 than the Canucks.

That's certainly a valid point - Luongo's extra weight adds perhaps 2/3 of a lb to the team total lol.

But this thread isn't really merely about the weight of the Canucks - who didn't have Matthias, whose 223 adds more relative to Santorelli than Luo vs Markstrom....

In any event, re pt #2, the Hawks also have some pretty small guys at the center of their bottom six.... Kruger and Shaw weigh in around a mere 180lb, and somehow manage to handle bottom six roles extremely well.... There's more than one way to spin a stat.

[Cold Hard Truth]

The OP hasn't been watching the la kings San Jose series.

Absolute savage hitting , we need big fast skilled monsters.

[DrChill]

The OP hasn't been watching the la kings San Jose series.

Absolute savage hitting , we need big fast skilled monsters.

STL owned Chicago in hitting. Chicago just beat them at scoring... Wait I think that is what wins.......

[Gollumpus]

That's certainly a valid point - Luongo's extra weight adds perhaps 2/3 of a lb to the team total lol.

But this thread isn't really merely about the weight of the Canucks - who didn't have Matthias, whose 223 adds more relative to Santorelli than Luo vs Markstrom....

In any event, re pt #2, the Hawks also have some pretty small guys at the center of their bottom six.... Kruger and Shaw weigh in around a mere 180lb, and somehow manage to handle bottom six roles extremely well.... There's more than one way to spin a stat.

1.) And 2/3 of a pound (maybe more, maybe less) could jump the team results up or down several positions.

2.) I believe Mirtle's list also illustrates the limited (relevant) information that may be gained from these kinds of stats. If we're talking about an average of a few inches and a pound or two difference between one team and another then you aren't getting the entire story. What are the mean differences within each team? This tells us more than the average, no? I think that chart that xWCMx posted is a bit more revealing than the Mirtle numbers (post #7).

3.) I do concur with your point on Matthias vs Santorelli, however, I was making the point specific to goalies being added to the mix and how their addition might affect the skaters' results.

It doesn't matter whether we're talking the Canucks or someone else. For example that Hawks have two goalies at 208 lbs which could skew their stats upwards, while Buffalo had Miller and Enroth for most of the season, each listed at around 165(ish) lbs. I think that the 40 lbs difference would have a more significant impact on the team results.

Certainly Matthias being on the team next season will up the height/weight stats (assuming he is still here what with possible trades and upcoming prospects being what it is).

4.) Re: your comment to my comment on point #2

I think it comes down to talent level at this stage, and I believe size is not a factor here. The Hawks have had a couple of talented, smaller guys playing for them at 3C and 4C for the last number of years. The Canucks haven't really had a good 3C since the Malhotra injury (he is pretty big, isn't he?), and they haven't really had a good 4C until Richardson arrived this year (he's pretty big as well). Had the Canucks had these talented, bigger guys (healthy) as their 3C and 4C for the last couple of years maybe things would be different.

I don't see your points have strengthened your position that talent regardless of size (ie. draft Ehlers) > (a bit less) talent with size. I think Ehlers does have talent. I'm not on side that he has enough talent overcome his lack of size.

regards,

G.

[Gollumpus]

STL owned Chicago in hitting. Chicago just beat them at scoring... Wait I think that is what wins.......

It then becomes a question of whether or not the Hawks can continue to absorb that kind of punishment in order to get to the finals.

regards,

G.

[tribaljohn]

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.

It would be nice to look at skill strength stamina during playoff situations for the young player while comparing it 2nd and 3rd year players, as the prospects as you have stated have growing plus weight to add to their frames.

Most young players coming into the AHL/NHL simply are not ready for the marathon the an NHL presents to them.

While 2nd and 3rd year NHLers have grown added strength plus added muscle to their frame are more likely able to survive until the playoffs start.

It often surprises me when lesser known players step up during the playoffs, pin pointing who those players well be is something that is of great interest to me.

The Canucks need those type of players, how many of them are considered to be big players, compared to average weight and height.

How many of our own prospects would you say are currently in our system.

Our current roster we have at least one though he suffered injuries which has impacted his ability to play at the level the Canucks required.

I only care about how our guys do in the playoffs if they are bigger or smaller players matters not to me, just once I want them to win a cup.

Tell me who you would add and subtract tell me why you would makes those moves, how does it affect the team on the short term, long term be interesting to see what you have to say.

[Kevo882]

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.

Nobody said it was the "size" of the Pacific. We just straight up suck in California which is now half of our division. The Cali teams have just done a better job of retooling on the go, getting younger and we just aren't comfortable playing in California for some reason. We've never done well there.

[oldnews]

2.) I believe Mirtle's list also illustrates the limited (relevant) information that may be gained from these kinds of stats. If we're talking about an average of a few inches and a pound or two difference between one team and another then you aren't getting the entire story. What are the mean differences within each team? This tells us more than the average, no? I think that chart that xWCMx posted is a bit more revealing than the Mirtle numbers (post #7).

I don't see your points have strengthened your position that talent regardless of size (ie. draft Ehlers) > (a bit less) talent with size. I think Ehlers does have talent. I'm not on side that he has enough talent overcome his lack of size.

regards,

G.

2) It's all overdone and relatively negligible in the end - and regardless, the 'big, physical' teams in the Pacific are simply not as dominant as perceived.

You will not find a single post I have ever made regarding drafting Ehlers - are misrepresenting my 'position' or confusing me with someone else.

[oldnews]

Nobody said it was the "size" of the Pacific. We just straight up suck in California which is now half of our division. The Cali teams have just done a better job of retooling on the go, getting younger and we just aren't comfortable playing in California for some reason. We've never done well there.

Ok Kevo - you've been here less than a month, which means literally nothing except I suggest you aren't quite prepared to claim to know what "nobody" has said on these boards.

Size, whether you realize it or not, is quite a live and reductive issue around here.

If by "never done well there" you mean the last 20 or so months, you may have a point, but if never were to include two years ago (2011/12), the Canucks were 3-0 vs San Jose, 2-1 vs LA, 2-2 vs Anaheim. The year before, precisely the same record. In other words, they were 14-6 vs the California teams the two seasons prior to last season.

[khay]

fast skilled > big powerful

but whos to say you cant have a mixture of both?

I agree. But fast skilled > big powerful when not injured. As we saw against the Bruins, by the time game 7 rolled around, half the team had some kind of injury. Chicago beat Boston because they were fast skilled and not injured.

[Canuck or Die]

This just goes to show how retarded some people on CDC are. We aren't losing because we lack size. We are losing because we aren't that talented compared to the competition.

[PhillipBlunt]

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.

Great post oldnews.

[Brockbuster]

The size and weight thing is important but as we learned with great pain in the final... it's how the refs are told to call it!! If they call everything we're Stanley cup champs. I don't think any sane person would argue that. Figure out that wild card and you're the winner!