The "size" issue

watchdog · Post by **watchdog** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:47 am

i looked at the top 50 point getters in the nhl last year and here is what i came up with.
5'9 2 players
5'10 5 players
5'11 8 players
6'0 7 players
6'1 10 players
6'2 4 players
6'3 6 players
6'4 6 players
6'5 1 player
what i take is being 5'11 to 6'1 is in the perfect range.
avg weight is 198lbs of the fiffty.
it would be intresting to know the avg hight and weight of the whole league but that would be way to teadious!!!!! well people are always talking about size just thought i would put it up in a diffrent perspective.

Factsmatter1 · Post by **Factsmatter1** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:59 am

Watchdog,

Very interesting observations. Probably explains why the big change from bantams/advanced 15 list to high school/advanced 17 list. The kids who ended up with genes keeping them below 5'11" starts to really work against them after they leave Bantams. With rare exception and all else being equal the bigger guys who are are often at a disadvantage when they are younger (bantams) inherit a huge advantage as they get older (high school) assuming their skills are on par. Just look at a 6'1" 180 lb wing go at a 5'8" 145 lb kid... Assuming equal skills there is often no contest.

RLStars · Post by **RLStars** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:12 pm

How many and by what amount are the players listed in the top 50 exaggerating their size? I've read that Martin St. Louis is about 5'5", but is listed at 5'8". I've met another Mn NHLer that is listed as 5'10" and is closer to 5'8". Brian Gionta is listed at 5'7" and wears a size 5 skate. His wife has said they are both 5'3".

scoreboard33 · Post by **scoreboard33** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:16 pm

I think that weight and strength are more of the issue than size, as long as you don't get picked on, pushed around and taken out of your game by physical play, you have a chance at any size, if you are good enough

Nominnhkywatcher · Post by **Nominnhkywatcher** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:35 pm

factsmatter I think you have it backwards..scoreboard33 you have it right

Top 20 point getters USHL 2007/2008 season
5' 6" 1
5' 7" 1
5' 8" 4
5' 9" 3
5' 10" 2
5' 11" 5
6' 0' 2
6'1" 1
6' 2" 1

I think size is much more of an advantage at pee wee and bantams

http://www.pointstreak.com/prostats/sco ... sonid=2212

hockeyboys · Post by **hockeyboys** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:52 pm

NHL list Brian Rolston at 6'2" - I stood next to him and there is no way that is even close. I'm thinking maybe he was measured in metric and someone did the conversion calculation wrong.

Factsmatter1 · Post by **Factsmatter1** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:21 pm

Nomm....???

Nommy, have to respectfully disagree with you. Pay attention to what was said. "all else being equal" size is an advantage. Those other things being equal include hockey sense, speed and balance and competitiveness. However, I say again size matters all else being equal. Look at the top kids at 15 and then at 18... completley different list. Usually the smaller kids are better balanced and coordinated at the PeeWee/Bantam level. Then as the big guys go through puberty and then develop some muscle to support the frame and they get coordinated they roll over the smaller kids and are faster and tougher to knock off the puck. The small guys unless exceptionally talented often fall by the wayside. There are always outliers but any scout would take a 6'1" 200 lb kid over a 5'8" 145lb kid any day all else being close. I am not saying a small kid can't make it. Happens all the time. Look at the kid gherbe from BC last year. However he is the exception not the rule.

Nominnhkywatcher · Post by **Nominnhkywatcher** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:18 pm

Facts

And how about Duncan UND the year before didnt he win the hobby award at what 5' 5" ..

Size doesnt hurt, all I am saying is it is a bigger factor at peewees and bantams ...facts youve never seen the MAN- CHILD that just dominates ..I have 5 10 to 6 ft pee wee or bantam playing against kids 4" 10" to 5' 4 ".....

Look at the ushl leader board whats small ?
5' 8" guys seem to do pretty well eeh..

watchdog · Post by **watchdog** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:18 pm

myself i think at 15 some of the kids that arent developed physicaly fall to the way side thats why you see the big change in selects as they get older things even out more. some of those kids that are alot bigger and alot stronger but not as skilled still make it by in the 15's that makes more since for the change you see i think..

keepyourheadup · Post by **keepyourheadup** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:16 pm

Just another opinion so take it for what its worth. There will always be a small percentage of players at the highest levels of play that are small in stature. The reason for this is that in almost every case the small player has to be a scorer/dynamic offensive threat to get a chance. 5' 8" lunch pail grinders don't exist. The skill required for small players is far greater than the bigger more physical kids. On any roster at the division 1 level or higher there are a fair number of players whose job is not to put up big offensive numbers, pretty unlikely to find a little guy in this bunch. Hang in there small dudes, a few of you will always make it big.

keepmeoutofit · Post by **keepmeoutofit** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:04 pm

the vertically challanged all seem to think that the smaller player is always quicker and it just isnt so.
quick and big will beat quick and small assuming all else is equal.

keepyourheadup · Post by **keepyourheadup** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:14 pm

Thats my point, if the "vertically challenged" kid does make it what is the reason? He has to be quicker or more clever or more something because if he isn't size is going to win out. So are small guys qiucker? The great majority of the ones that make have to be.

Pucknutz69 · Post by **Pucknutz69** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:42 am

RLStars wrote:How many and by what amount are the players listed in the top 50 exaggerating their size? I've read that Martin St. Louis is about 5'5", but is listed at 5'8". I've met another Mn NHLer that is listed as 5'10" and is closer to 5'8". Brian Gionta is listed at 5'7" and wears a size 5 skate. His wife has said they are both 5'3".

NHL guys often wear skates a size or 2 smaller then normal. Paul Coffey was one of them. He liked the tighter fit.

tomASS · Post by **tomASS** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:45 am

Pucknutz69 wrote:
RLStars wrote:How many and by what amount are the players listed in the top 50 exaggerating their size? I've read that Martin St. Louis is about 5'5", but is listed at 5'8". I've met another Mn NHLer that is listed as 5'10" and is closer to 5'8". Brian Gionta is listed at 5'7" and wears a size 5 skate. His wife has said they are both 5'3".

NHL guys often wear skates a size or 2 smaller then normal. Paul Coffey was one of them. He liked the tighter fit.

So your say that size can matter if you know how to use it? It still comes down to bigger is not better, better is better

Pucknutz69 · Post by **Pucknutz69** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:54 am

Nominnhkywatcher wrote:Facts

And how about Duncan UND the year before didnt he win the hobby award at what 5' 5" ..

Size doesnt hurt, all I am saying is it is a bigger factor at peewees and bantams ...facts youve never seen the MAN- CHILD that just dominates ..I have 5 10 to 6 ft pee wee or bantam playing against kids 4" 10" to 5' 4 ".....

Look at the ushl leader board whats small ?
5' 8" guys seem to do pretty well eeh..

Nate Schmidt and Tommy Zimmerman dominated the squirts and peewees as big Man Children.

Jordan Schroeder dominated while with Lakeville as a squirt and peewee. He is a very special player and he showed it last night. He always played a year up while at Lakeville. Unlike some other phenoms that were held back a year. He is fun to watch.

Pucknutz69 · Post by **Pucknutz69** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:57 am

tomASS wrote:
Pucknutz69 wrote:
RLStars wrote:How many and by what amount are the players listed in the top 50 exaggerating their size? I've read that Martin St. Louis is about 5'5", but is listed at 5'8". I've met another Mn NHLer that is listed as 5'10" and is closer to 5'8". Brian Gionta is listed at 5'7" and wears a size 5 skate. His wife has said they are both 5'3".

NHL guys often wear skates a size or 2 smaller then normal. Paul Coffey was one of them. He liked the tighter fit.

So your say that size can matter if you know how to use it? It still comes down to bigger is not better, better is better

Pucknutz69 · Post by **Pucknutz69** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 10:28 am

Pucknutz69 · Post by **Pucknutz69** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 10:28 am

Pucknutz69 wrote:
tomASS wrote:
Pucknutz69 wrote:
NHL guys often wear skates a size or 2 smaller then normal. Paul Coffey was one of them. He liked the tighter fit.

So your say that size can matter if you know how to use it? It still comes down to bigger is not better, better is better

Good point but I still think the reilly's are over-rated lets see how many points they get this year vs good competition (as most of thier schedule is a joke) I bet they miss Danny Mattson a lot when he leaves, just like when Nick Matson left them at Chaska. Maybe they just need to skate with someone named Mattson or Matson all the time?

keepyourheadup · Post by **keepyourheadup** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 12:44 pm

Jordan didn't always play up, he never played a game of bantams while in lakeville and I had the unfortunate opportunity to coach against him when he was a second year peewee. He did however play three years of peewee I believe. Its long been rumored that one of the reasons he left for STA is that Schmitz would have nothing to do with him playing high school as an 8th grader. He is without question a special player. As for Zimmerman you're right he was frightening as a peewee.

Pucknutz69 · Post by **Pucknutz69** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:03 pm

keepyourheadup wrote:Jordan didn't always play up, he never played a game of bantams while in lakeville and I had the unfortunate opportunity to coach against him when he was a second year peewee. He did however play three years of peewee I believe. Its long been rumored that one of the reasons he left for STA is that Schmitz would have nothing to do with him playing high school as an 8th grader. He is without question a special player. As for Zimmerman you're right he was frightening as a peewee.

Knew that. that's why I stated squirts and peewees. Didn't know about the Schmitz thing thou, makes you wonder if things would have worked out the same for him had he stayed at Lakeville and played bantams??? I will say I haven't seen a kid dominate those levels like he did since.

gunnerstahl · Post by **gunnerstahl** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:22 pm

scoreboard33 wrote:I think that weight and strength are more of the issue than size, as long as you don't get picked on, pushed around and taken out of your game by physical play, you have a chance at any size, if you are good enough

there are many examples of this at many levels of hockey. one that most minnesotans would agree with is aaron ness. the kid is 163 pounds and went from high school hockey straight into the wcha. i saw him play both games this weekend against a talented scsu team and he had no troubles at all. the bottom line is that you can make it at any size but you need something special. you need to have something that the bigger players dont have.

keepmeoutofit · Post by **keepmeoutofit** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:30 am

the idea of big or little is relative. when gunnerstahl says that aaron ness is doing well, not many would disagree.
but when you say that at 163 to 170lbs and 5'10 or even 5'9 Ness qualifys as small.
i think a lot of people disagree.

hwkfan · Post by **hwkfan** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:21 pm

Interesting finds. Not sure if I am suprised that the avg go-to-guys are about 6-0 200lbs. I wouldn't consider that all that small. These 50 guys are some of the most skilled in the world. If someone could avg the top 4-5 defensemen on their teams breaking the puck out and then avg the enforcers and role players giving these guys space as well as the 3rd and 4th line checking centers you might find these guys can be smaller but still need a lot of size around them to put these numbers up.
Looking at the stats I noticed that the players with huge goal #'s year in and year out are the bigger of bunch. Malkin, iginla, nash, ovechkin, lecavlier all seem to be in the 6-3 and 6-4 range and are all 210 lbs +. Iginla is listed smaller but many would agree he plays bigger.
On the flip side, the smaller guys in the top 50 have less goals and more assists to go along with more PP loaded point totals. Not to say an assist isnt as important but these point totals have different ways of getting there. some of the smaller guys are on this list with 9 to 15 even strength goals. the smallest guys in the list also had some of the worst +/- in the NHL. again, not to take away any importance of assists, pp, etc. but if I were a GM I would go after the 6-2 to 6-4 guys seeing that they are better suited for the grind of a long season, more physical playoffs, more productive 5 on 5, and a lot of the time better in the d-zone and appear to have more consistent big # seasons.
Just a different way of looking at things. Only watched ness play one period on TV but I have nothing to rip on him which is unlike me. His passing and poise with the puck sure didnt look like an 18 year old and he was playing against some good players in their 20's...he would have been so bored playing roseaus schedule this year.

IamLegend · Post by **IamLegend** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:42 pm

It has much relativity to making love. If someone who is larger has the same skills as a smaller person, the larger one will be better. That's just how it works.

tomASS · Post by **tomASS** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:34 pm

IamLegend wrote:It has much relativity to making love. If someone who is larger has the same skills as a smaller person, the larger one will be better. That's just how it works.

hey, "in your own mind" (just providing your last name), and you would know this how

by the way we already have a Hawaii hockey connection. You can apply for the position when goldy leaves in December.