Trade for Faulk & Panarin plus a healthy Crawford
Equals a playoff spot this year

Trade for Faulk & Panarin plus a healthy Crawford
Equals a playoff spot this year
- Colbyboy

To get Faulk and Panarin you got to give a lot. Does it make them better? I'm not Justin Faulk fan at all. Is he really something this team needs? I would prefer more defensive minded dman.

Well, you missed two - Morrissey (6'0" 194) and Kempny (6'0" 194). No really light guys outside of Ellis, though, yes, and only two were 5'11" or less.

Genuine question, what do you consider to be small? The average d-man was 6'0.3" and 203.2 lbs last season (of those who played at least 30 games). It's the second year in which d-men have been under 6'1" on average across the league and the weight of d-men has been on steady decline for years, though being sub 190 is still the minority, for sure. The most common span for size in the NHL the last 3 seasons has been 5'11"-6'2" and 195-205. Above and below this are less typical.

Let's break it down.

- 18 d-men are 6'0" or shorter. 8 are 5'11" or shorter and 10 are 6'0". 1 was 5'9".
- 6'1", 6'2" and 6'3" were the most common heights with 12, 12, and 11 players respectfully.
- 9 d-men are 6'4" or taller. 5 are 6'4" and 5 were 6'5" or taller. 1 was 6'9".

So, going by your statement that implied 6'0" is "small", then almost a third of top pairing d-men are small / short, so not a myth if that's your standard. Personally, I think 5'11" should be the start of "short", which is still not common at the top pairing level (only 12.9%).

But interestingly, there was only one more really tall (6'4"+) top pairing d-men than there were short (5'11" or less). Still, over half the top pairing d-man this last year were what most would consider average tall (6'1-6'3") - about 56.5% to be exact. So at least for last season, top pairing d-men are conclusively taller than league average (though to note, top 4 is closer to LA).

Let's now look at weight! I broke them down by 10 spans.

- 15 d-men were 194 or below Of those, 7 were below 190 (so 189 or less). 2 are less than 180.
- 22 d-men were between 195-205.
- 14 d-men were between 206-215.
- 11 d-men were 215 or more. Of those, 6 are above 225. 2 are 250+.

I'm not sure what everyone considered light but it ultimately breaks down about 60% of the league is 205 or lighter. If you split it based on league average, it'd break down a little differently - about 47% would be 203 or lighter. Still, about a 4th of the top pairing d-men are 194 or lighter, which has grown a good bit in the last 3-5 years.

And like with height, the lightest and heaviest groups are pretty similar in numbers - only a difference of 1 between the sub 194 and 215+ groups totals and there are 2 examples of extremes.

I'll note that there are a handful of guys who are tall but light (194 or lighter, 6'1" or taller = Klingberg, Brodie, Karlsson, Keith, DeKeyser, Schmidt) but only a few shorter but heavier guys (206+, 6'0" or shorter = Orlov, Subban, McAvoy).

Blackhawks defense as it stands, they Keith and Gus that could be small/light as described above. Then they have two average sized d-man and 2 heavier d-men. Now, if they bring up a kid or something, this could change, but all and all, pretty balanced in terms of size/height with only one extreme (Gus's weight). Now skill / defensive ability... that's a story for another night.

Keith 6'1" 192
Seabrook 6'3" 220
Murphy 6'4" 212
Rutta 6'3" 198
Manning 6'1" 205
Gustafsson 6'0" 176


And if you look at prospects that might make the team this season, there's also a variety / balance to them. I took from NHL and the player's NCAA pages first, though some differ. Icehogs page seems to defer to wiki but those are sometimes drastically different from what NHL or NCAA said (like Gibert 220 vs 198, the latter of which was his draft weight so I believe it's out of date).

Anyway, there are 3 that are lighter but not really short. The other two are tall / heavy.

Jokiharju 6'0" 187
Forsling 6'0" 186
Hillman 6'1" 188
Gilbert 6'2" 220
Dahlstrom 6'4" 223


tl;dr it depends on what you mean by small when you claim small d-men are a myth but the trend of d-men getting smaller is factually true - league-wise and in terms of top pairs. Doesn't mean the Hawks and other teams shouldn't shoot for balance in terms of size, though.

As always, please excuse typos and rambley mess of sentences - I am on a lot of caffeine and sugar rn. This will be my only huge ass post in a while, I think.
- L_B_R

Great post thanks
I am still digesting this research.
My fear is the Hawks are trending toward too many 6’190lb defense prospects. Your research shows the prospects are in line with the low end of the shrinking defensemen trend.

My question to you after your study: Are you concerned by the number of high picks used for relatively smaller preospects In the past two drafts?

Some Examples of guys Hawks brought in the NHL to varying degrees of success, but they played NHL minutes.

Keith - 2nd Round - Age 22
Seabrook - 1st Round - Age 20
Leddy - 1st Round - Age 19
Wisniewski - 5th Round - Age 21/22
Burish - 9th Round - Age 24
Kane - 1st Round - Age 19
Toews - 1st Round - Age 19
Byfluglien - 8th Round - Age 20-22 (He was up and down)
Brouwer - 7th Round - Age 23
Barker - 1st Round - Age 20
Bickell - 2nd Round - Age 24
Bolland - 2nd Round - Age 21
Hjalmarsson - 4th Round - Age 20-22
Kruger - 5th Round - Age 20-21
Shaw - 5th Round - Age 20
Saad - 2nd Round - Age 20
Teravinen - 1st Round - Age 20
Hartman - 1st Round - Age 22

The current prospect pool might not be as talented, but I think there could be some NHL players in the system who are in similar situations sitting around age 19-23 and could play minutes soon. The Hawks don't need to add a ton of superstar players, but if they could fill a couple more holes it will help.
- breadbag

Wow. Fantastic work here, BB. ........ What jumps out to me is the contributions of the lower rd draft picks.

You realize that of the final 4 teams only 3 of the dmen were shorter than 6’1”. Subban at 6ft 220 Orlov 5’11”212 and Ellis.
Small puck movers are a myth
- stevefrmglencoe

While that may be true, let's break it down by era or time frame and you would see a huge shift in the impact of "smaller" D men. Within the last 5 years, this is really apparent. Hey the game has changed and teams better change with it.

Watch out for my guy, Samuel Girard...talk about tiny but silky smooth!

Well, you missed two - Morrissey (6'0" 194) and Kempny (6'0" 194). No really light guys outside of Ellis, though, yes, and only two were 5'11" or less.

Genuine question, what do you consider to be small? The average d-man was 6'0.3" and 203.2 lbs last season (of those who played at least 30 games). It's the second year in which d-men have been under 6'1" on average across the league and the weight of d-men has been on steady decline for years, though being sub 190 is still the minority, for sure. The most common span for size in the NHL the last 3 seasons has been 5'11"-6'2" and 195-205. Above and below this are less typical.

Let's break it down.

- 18 d-men are 6'0" or shorter. 8 are 5'11" or shorter and 10 are 6'0". 1 was 5'9".
- 6'1", 6'2" and 6'3" were the most common heights with 12, 12, and 11 players respectfully.
- 9 d-men are 6'4" or taller. 5 are 6'4" and 5 were 6'5" or taller. 1 was 6'9".

So, going by your statement that implied 6'0" is "small", then almost a third of top pairing d-men are small / short, so not a myth if that's your standard. Personally, I think 5'11" should be the start of "short", which is still not common at the top pairing level (only 12.9%).

But interestingly, there was only one more really tall (6'4"+) top pairing d-men than there were short (5'11" or less). Still, over half the top pairing d-man this last year were what most would consider average tall (6'1-6'3") - about 56.5% to be exact. So at least for last season, top pairing d-men are conclusively taller than league average (though to note, top 4 is closer to LA).

Let's now look at weight! I broke them down by 10 spans.

- 15 d-men were 194 or below Of those, 7 were below 190 (so 189 or less). 2 are less than 180.
- 22 d-men were between 195-205.
- 14 d-men were between 206-215.
- 11 d-men were 215 or more. Of those, 6 are above 225. 2 are 250+.

I'm not sure what everyone considered light but it ultimately breaks down about 60% of the league is 205 or lighter. If you split it based on league average, it'd break down a little differently - about 47% would be 203 or lighter. Still, about a 4th of the top pairing d-men are 194 or lighter, which has grown a good bit in the last 3-5 years.

And like with height, the lightest and heaviest groups are pretty similar in numbers - only a difference of 1 between the sub 194 and 215+ groups totals and there are 2 examples of extremes.

I'll note that there are a handful of guys who are tall but light (194 or lighter, 6'1" or taller = Klingberg, Brodie, Karlsson, Keith, DeKeyser, Schmidt) but only a few shorter but heavier guys (206+, 6'0" or shorter = Orlov, Subban, McAvoy).

Blackhawks defense as it stands, they Keith and Gus that could be small/light as described above. Then they have two average sized d-man and 2 heavier d-men. Now, if they bring up a kid or something, this could change, but all and all, pretty balanced in terms of size/height with only one extreme (Gus's weight). Now skill / defensive ability... that's a story for another night.

Keith 6'1" 192
Seabrook 6'3" 220
Murphy 6'4" 212
Rutta 6'3" 198
Manning 6'1" 205
Gustafsson 6'0" 176


And if you look at prospects that might make the team this season, there's also a variety / balance to them. I took from NHL and the player's NCAA pages first, though some differ. Icehogs page seems to defer to wiki but those are sometimes drastically different from what NHL or NCAA said (like Gibert 220 vs 198, the latter of which was his draft weight so I believe it's out of date).

Anyway, there are 3 that are lighter but not really short. The other two are tall / heavy.

Jokiharju 6'0" 187
Forsling 6'0" 186
Hillman 6'1" 188
Gilbert 6'2" 220
Dahlstrom 6'4" 223


tl;dr it depends on what you mean by small when you claim small d-men are a myth but the trend of d-men getting smaller is factually true - league-wise and in terms of top pairs. Doesn't mean the Hawks and other teams shouldn't shoot for balance in terms of size, though.

As always, please excuse typos and rambley mess of sentences - I am on a lot of caffeine and sugar rn. This will be my only huge ass post in a while, I think.
- L_B_R

Wow LBR, if you weren't a woman you would be Da Man!!

Where did I recently read the trend of NHL Dmen getting smaller every yr the past 5ish yrs? Think it was The Athletic. I'm assuming you read the same thing although your post goes into much more detail than what I read but the common denominator is there is simply no doubt that the NHL as a whole has gone the way of the smaller skating/puck moving/attacking Dman.

But at the same time I agree with posters who say the Hawks are smallish in general. Now that doesn't always mean small in stature but some/too many Hawks play small.

But that's the way the Hawks draft, period. The numbers 1,2,3,4,5 priority for the Hawks organIzation when drafting is speed/skill/IQ with size or grit an after thought.

Well, you missed two - Morrissey (6'0" 194) and Kempny (6'0" 194). No really light guys outside of Ellis, though, yes, and only two were 5'11" or less.

Genuine question, what do you consider to be small? The average d-man was 6'0.3" and 203.2 lbs last season (of those who played at least 30 games). It's the second year in which d-men have been under 6'1" on average across the league and the weight of d-men has been on steady decline for years, though being sub 190 is still the minority, for sure. The most common span for size in the NHL the last 3 seasons has been 5'11"-6'2" and 195-205. Above and below this are less typical.

Let's break it down.

- 18 d-men are 6'0" or shorter. 8 are 5'11" or shorter and 10 are 6'0". 1 was 5'9".
- 6'1", 6'2" and 6'3" were the most common heights with 12, 12, and 11 players respectfully.
- 9 d-men are 6'4" or taller. 5 are 6'4" and 5 were 6'5" or taller. 1 was 6'9".

So, going by your statement that implied 6'0" is "small", then almost a third of top pairing d-men are small / short, so not a myth if that's your standard. Personally, I think 5'11" should be the start of "short", which is still not common at the top pairing level (only 12.9%).

But interestingly, there was only one more really tall (6'4"+) top pairing d-men than there were short (5'11" or less). Still, over half the top pairing d-man this last year were what most would consider average tall (6'1-6'3") - about 56.5% to be exact. So at least for last season, top pairing d-men are conclusively taller than league average (though to note, top 4 is closer to LA).

Let's now look at weight! I broke them down by 10 spans.

- 15 d-men were 194 or below Of those, 7 were below 190 (so 189 or less). 2 are less than 180.
- 22 d-men were between 195-205.
- 14 d-men were between 206-215.
- 11 d-men were 215 or more. Of those, 6 are above 225. 2 are 250+.

I'm not sure what everyone considered light but it ultimately breaks down about 60% of the league is 205 or lighter. If you split it based on league average, it'd break down a little differently - about 47% would be 203 or lighter. Still, about a 4th of the top pairing d-men are 194 or lighter, which has grown a good bit in the last 3-5 years.

And like with height, the lightest and heaviest groups are pretty similar in numbers - only a difference of 1 between the sub 194 and 215+ groups totals and there are 2 examples of extremes.

I'll note that there are a handful of guys who are tall but light (194 or lighter, 6'1" or taller = Klingberg, Brodie, Karlsson, Keith, DeKeyser, Schmidt) but only a few shorter but heavier guys (206+, 6'0" or shorter = Orlov, Subban, McAvoy).

Blackhawks defense as it stands, they Keith and Gus that could be small/light as described above. Then they have two average sized d-man and 2 heavier d-men. Now, if they bring up a kid or something, this could change, but all and all, pretty balanced in terms of size/height with only one extreme (Gus's weight). Now skill / defensive ability... that's a story for another night.

Keith 6'1" 192
Seabrook 6'3" 220
Murphy 6'4" 212
Rutta 6'3" 198
Manning 6'1" 205
Gustafsson 6'0" 176


And if you look at prospects that might make the team this season, there's also a variety / balance to them. I took from NHL and the player's NCAA pages first, though some differ. Icehogs page seems to defer to wiki but those are sometimes drastically different from what NHL or NCAA said (like Gibert 220 vs 198, the latter of which was his draft weight so I believe it's out of date).

Anyway, there are 3 that are lighter but not really short. The other two are tall / heavy.

Jokiharju 6'0" 187
Forsling 6'0" 186
Hillman 6'1" 188
Gilbert 6'2" 220
Dahlstrom 6'4" 223


tl;dr it depends on what you mean by small when you claim small d-men are a myth but the trend of d-men getting smaller is factually true - league-wise and in terms of top pairs. Doesn't mean the Hawks and other teams shouldn't shoot for balance in terms of size, though.

As always, please excuse typos and rambley mess of sentences - I am on a lot of caffeine and sugar rn. This will be my only huge ass post in a while, I think.
- L_B_R

Great stuff and research as usual! I guess I am too lazy as I just just go by optics and memory as far as who stood out.

Size (lack of) of D men all boils down to if the D can skate and have total confidence with his skating. You couple that with bare minimum average hands, above average hockey IQ, and heart of lion then you have a ready made small D Man. While fully understanding size and brute strength is needed to win battle with and without the puck, many of the off-season training techniques focuses on CORE strength. With proper CORE strength legs and upper body will follow.

AA, Forsling, and second round pick for a year of Patches, and AA's contract off the books. Yay, or nay?

Sports heights are fickle and inflated everywhere. We have guys out here playing Australian Football who are listed as 6'10", but standing next to them, they're barely a head taller than me at 6'0.
Even my height is self inflated. If I stand up to my full height I'm 6'1", but at my normal standing height im closer to 5'11 due to my slouch.
- AusHawk

How is North Melborne looking in the Footy league? Got to see them on a few business trips in the past...

Great post thanks
I am still digesting this research.
My fear is the Hawks are trending toward too many 6’190lb defense prospects. Your research shows the prospects are in line with the low end of the shrinking defensemen trend.

My question to you after your study: Are you concerned by the number of high picks used for relatively smaller preospects In the past two drafts?
- stevefrmglencoe

And that's a legitimate fear. I may poke fun at those who seem to obsess over size of players, but no one wants a team that is too small. It's just outside of the Bruins and Caps, the teams that have won the cup in the last decade have been inside the average range (and remove Chara and the Bruins drop), but the Hawks and Pens were both bottom 1-3 in size in the league the years they won. So, size matters overall, but it's not the only defining factor for me when evaluating a team.

As for the draftees, it should be remember that these kids are 17/18 and are typically going to grow / get stronger as they age. Look at Karlsson and Letang for their drafts - both roughly 170 at their combines (give or take 5 pounds), now 191-201. (And just as a note, the opposite can be true but is more rare - Doughty lost 15-20ish pounds from his draft to his first cup, says being lighter is what took him from good to Norris caliber). I'm not saying every kid is going to put on 20-25 pounds by the time they're 22/23, but it just shows that judging based on draft weight can be premature.

The Hawks d-man draftees are actually fairly middle of the pack for the NHL over the last 3 years - 15th for height and 17th for weight to be specific (post 2018 draft). There are teams that tend to pick only bigger guys, but for the most part, teams are clustered much closer together for how they pick in terms of size (there's not much difference from 7-24). I would not, that while I don't have the numbers, I'd guess though that they do use more high round (1-2) on smaller d-men than most.

So, ultimately, I'm not concerned yet - I just don't have enough info about these kids and how they're perform in the NHL to make a judgement on them. I do value skill above all else, so I've like many of the picks (Jokiharju, Mitchell, Boqvist, Krys, and Carlsson have all been guys I really liked and I've come around on Beaudin). I would like them to balance skill / size and such a little more on occasion, but more with their forwards tbh. Mostly, it's a wait and see situation for me.

Well, you missed two - Morrissey (6'0" 194) and Kempny (6'0" 194). No really light guys outside of Ellis, though, yes, and only two were 5'11" or less.

Genuine question, what do you consider to be small? The average d-man was 6'0.3" and 203.2 lbs last season (of those who played at least 30 games). It's the second year in which d-men have been under 6'1" on average across the league and the weight of d-men has been on steady decline for years, though being sub 190 is still the minority, for sure. The most common span for size in the NHL the last 3 seasons has been 5'11"-6'2" and 195-205. Above and below this are less typical.

Let's break it down for top pairing d-men.

- 18 d-men are 6'0" or shorter. 8 are 5'11" or shorter and 10 are 6'0". 1 was 5'9".
- 6'1", 6'2" and 6'3" were the most common heights with 12, 12, and 11 players respectfully.
- 9 d-men are 6'4" or taller. 5 are 6'4" and 5 were 6'5" or taller. 1 was 6'9".

So, going by your statement that implied 6'0" is "small", then almost a third of top pairing d-men are small / short, so not a myth if that's your standard. Personally, I think 5'11" should be the start of "short", which is still not common at the top pairing level (only 12.9%).

But interestingly, there was only one more really tall (6'4"+) top pairing d-men than there were short (5'11" or less). Still, over half the top pairing d-man this last year were what most would consider average tall (6'1-6'3") - about 56.5% to be exact. So at least for last season, top pairing d-men are conclusively taller than league average (though to note, top 4 is closer to LA).

Let's now look at weight! I broke them down by 10 spans.

- 15 d-men were 194 or below Of those, 7 were below 190 (so 189 or less). 2 are less than 180.
- 22 d-men were between 195-205.
- 14 d-men were between 206-215.
- 11 d-men were 215 or more. Of those, 6 are above 225. 2 are 250+.

I'm not sure what everyone considered light but it ultimately breaks down about 60% of the league is 205 or lighter. If you split it based on league average, it'd break down a little differently - about 47% would be 203 or lighter. Still, about a 4th of the top pairing d-men are 194 or lighter, which has grown a good bit in the last 3-5 years.

And like with height, the lightest and heaviest groups are pretty similar in numbers - only a difference of 1 between the sub 194 and 215+ groups totals and there are 2 examples of extremes.

I'll note that there are a handful of guys who are tall but light (194 or lighter, 6'1" or taller = Klingberg, Brodie, Karlsson, Keith, DeKeyser, Schmidt) but only a few shorter but heavier guys (206+, 6'0" or shorter = Orlov, Subban, McAvoy).

Blackhawks defense as it stands, they Keith and Gus that could be small/light as described above. Then they have two average sized d-man and 2 heavier d-men. Now, if they bring up a kid or something, this could change, but all and all, pretty balanced in terms of size/height with only one extreme (Gus's weight). Now skill / defensive ability... that's a story for another night.

Keith 6'1" 192
Seabrook 6'3" 220
Murphy 6'4" 212
Rutta 6'3" 198
Manning 6'1" 205
Gustafsson 6'0" 176


And if you look at prospects that might make the team this season, there's also a variety / balance to them. I took from NHL and the player's NCAA pages first, though some differ. Icehogs page seems to defer to wiki but those are sometimes drastically different from what NHL or NCAA said (like Gibert 220 vs 198, the latter of which was his draft weight so I believe it's out of date).

Anyway, there are 3 that are lighter but not really short. The other two are tall / heavy.

Jokiharju 6'0" 187
Forsling 6'0" 186
Hillman 6'1" 188
Gilbert 6'2" 220
Dahlstrom 6'4" 223


tl;dr it depends on what you mean by small when you claim small d-men are a myth but the trend of d-men getting smaller is factually true - league-wise and in terms of top pairs. Doesn't mean the Hawks and other teams shouldn't shoot for balance in terms of size, though.

As always, please excuse typos and rambley mess of sentences - I am on a lot of caffeine and sugar rn. This will be my only huge ass post in a while, I think.
- L_B_R

Excellent post LBR.

AA, Forsling, and second round pick for a year of Patches, and AA's contract off the books. Yay, or nay?
- SoftServe

NO! If that was the package use it to get a defense man or center that can win faceoffs and be shutdown center that can the pressure off of toews. I m also in the same boat of not a fan of Faulk.

Trade for Faulk & Panarin plus a healthy Crawford
Equals a playoff spot this year
- Colbyboy

AA, Forsling, and second round pick for a year of Patches, and AA's contract off the books. Yay, or nay?
- SoftServe

If it only took Vinnie to dump the rest of Hossas totally dead 5M cap hit, it shouldn't take Forsling to dump AA
This is basically making Patches worth a (high) 2nd round pick, usually rentals at the deadline go for a low first and/or a prospect. But prices are higher at the deadline

Wow LBR, if you weren't a woman you would be Da Man!!

Where did I recently read the trend of NHL Dmen getting smaller every yr the past 5ish yrs? Think it was The Athletic. I'm assuming you read the same thing although your post goes into much more detail than what I read but the common denominator is there is simply no doubt that the NHL as a whole has gone the way of the smaller skating/puck moving/attacking Dman.

But at the same time I agree with posters who say the Hawks are smallish in general. Now that doesn't always mean small in stature but some/too many Hawks play small.

But that's the way the Hawks draft, period. The numbers 1,2,3,4,5 priority for the Hawks organIzation when drafting is speed/skill/IQ with size or grit an after thought.
- Mr Ricochet

Oh, I hadn't read the Athletic article on it, but it's not an uncommon topic cause trends are always useful to analyze. If recent drafts are to be followed, there will potentially be a surge in the near future of smaller / lighter d-men impacting the NHL and becoming top pairing d-men as some of the bigger guys age out (Parayko is the only top pairing d-man in the league to be 225+ and under 30, though Nurse isn't too far off at 221). There are more younger guys in the 195-205 range than older, and 18 of top pairing d-men are 200 and smaller and also 28 and younger (7 of those are 25 or younger).

The Hawks are small in general - they were 26th in the league last season in weight though 13th in terms of height. On average though, a team like the Knights were shorter but only 3 lbs heavier overall. So really, it's like you say - it's how they play more than size that matters. Caps were one of the tallest and heaviest, but they also had the most former 1st round picks on a cup winning team in the at least the last 30 years (research doesn't go back farther and I'm too lazy to do it myself). So size / skill beats just skill but skill will beat just size (Hawks vs Bruins for example).

Size must matter....

What was the average size of the D men on the rosters of this years semi-finalist teams versus the rest of the league?

The OP on this issue specifically noted what the WINNING teams' defensive corps looked like.

Yes, how big these guys are is not everything, but ADB vs Hedman, for example is not a favorable matchup. Just like Alex Tuch vs. Jordan Oesterle not a good matchup either.

Seems to be more than coincidence that the four best teams last year had bigger dudes on the back end.

Trade for Faulk & Panarin plus a healthy Crawford
Equals a playoff spot this year
- Colbyboy

Hmmm....

Add a D guy who doesn't play defense - because we need more of that - add a winger that doesn't back check - because we need more of that.

Yeah - playoffs written all over that.

Hmmm....

Add a D guy who doesn't play defense - because we need more of that - add a winger that doesn't back check - because we need more of that - and get rid of the only guy in the pipeline who can at least overcome some of the D crap show in front of him.

Yeah - playoffs written all over that.
- Return of the Roar

Yes it does with a 4 and out to follow.

While your kids may know him, I do not believe you do and thus not giving Vinny fair shake. First of all, he has proven all the naysayers wrong at every level, be it youth, juniors, collegiate, and so far so good at the Big Show. And when he did not make the NTDP it spurred and motivated him to who he is today. Not one poster compared Vinny to the little guys you mentioned, Gaudreau, St. Louis, and Marchand as those are elite possibly HOF players. And one thing Vinny possess better than those guys is his "motor", something you cannot teach like size. So you couple his motor, dead-head speed, bettter than average hands, and in your words hockey IQ then you have a player that will find a niche in the league, especially in today's game and not in the dead puck clutch and grab era.
- D2D

D2D, you are missing my point.

I agree that Vinny holds intangibles. I commended his hard work and his ability to work hard, improve and get where he is today. I also said that he will have an NHL career, maybe one of some length. I am a fan of his and hope he succeeds. My comparison to those small guys is to point out that to be more than a "niche player" at his size, you need exceptional skills, ones that he does not necessarily possess. Yes, he has "heart" and "motor" which you can't teach.

The point I was making was not to knock him, put him down, or discredit where he has gotten, it was to honestly evaluate where he is and where his ceiling is and to counter the point of those thinking the Hawks traded away a top 6 talent that will come back to haunt them.

I would love to see him continue to be motivated by those that underestimate him, and make the Hawks regret losing him. Time will tell.

I also wish success to all the other Chicago area kids who are now in the NHL or in the AHL with a chance to move up. Kids like Schmaltz, Hartman, Louis, Dvorak, Fischer, Sparks, Carrick, Compher, Broadhurst, Mermis, and many others

Well, you missed two - Morrissey (6'0" 194) and Kempny (6'0" 194). No really light guys outside of Ellis, though, yes, and only two were 5'11" or less.

Genuine question, what do you consider to be small? The average d-man was 6'0.3" and 203.2 lbs last season (of those who played at least 30 games). It's the second year in which d-men have been under 6'1" on average across the league and the weight of d-men has been on steady decline for years, though being sub 190 is still the minority, for sure. The most common span for size in the NHL the last 3 seasons has been 5'11"-6'2" and 195-205. Above and below this are less typical.

Let's break it down for top pairing d-men.

- 18 d-men are 6'0" or shorter. 8 are 5'11" or shorter and 10 are 6'0". 1 was 5'9".
- 6'1", 6'2" and 6'3" were the most common heights with 12, 12, and 11 players respectfully.
- 9 d-men are 6'4" or taller. 5 are 6'4" and 5 were 6'5" or taller. 1 was 6'9".

So, going by your statement that implied 6'0" is "small", then almost a third of top pairing d-men are small / short, so not a myth if that's your standard. Personally, I think 5'11" should be the start of "short", which is still not common at the top pairing level (only 12.9%).

But interestingly, there was only one more really tall (6'4"+) top pairing d-men than there were short (5'11" or less). Still, over half the top pairing d-man this last year were what most would consider average tall (6'1-6'3") - about 56.5% to be exact. So at least for last season, top pairing d-men are conclusively taller than league average (though to note, top 4 is closer to LA).

Let's now look at weight! I broke them down by 10 spans.

- 15 d-men were 194 or below Of those, 7 were below 190 (so 189 or less). 2 are less than 180.
- 22 d-men were between 195-205.
- 14 d-men were between 206-215.
- 11 d-men were 215 or more. Of those, 6 are above 225. 2 are 250+.

I'm not sure what everyone considered light but it ultimately breaks down about 60% of the league is 205 or lighter. If you split it based on league average, it'd break down a little differently - about 47% would be 203 or lighter. Still, about a 4th of the top pairing d-men are 194 or lighter, which has grown a good bit in the last 3-5 years.

And like with height, the lightest and heaviest groups are pretty similar in numbers - only a difference of 1 between the sub 194 and 215+ groups totals and there are 2 examples of extremes.

I'll note that there are a handful of guys who are tall but light (194 or lighter, 6'1" or taller = Klingberg, Brodie, Karlsson, Keith, DeKeyser, Schmidt) but only a few shorter but heavier guys (206+, 6'0" or shorter = Orlov, Subban, McAvoy).

Blackhawks defense as it stands, they Keith and Gus that could be small/light as described above. Then they have two average sized d-man and 2 heavier d-men. Now, if they bring up a kid or something, this could change, but all and all, pretty balanced in terms of size/height with only one extreme (Gus's weight). Now skill / defensive ability... that's a story for another night.

Keith 6'1" 192
Seabrook 6'3" 220
Murphy 6'4" 212
Rutta 6'3" 198
Manning 6'1" 205
Gustafsson 6'0" 176


And if you look at prospects that might make the team this season, there's also a variety / balance to them. I took from NHL and the player's NCAA pages first, though some differ. Icehogs page seems to defer to wiki but those are sometimes drastically different from what NHL or NCAA said (like Gibert 220 vs 198, the latter of which was his draft weight so I believe it's out of date).

Anyway, there are 3 that are lighter but not really short. The other two are tall / heavy.

Jokiharju 6'0" 187
Forsling 6'0" 186
Hillman 6'1" 188
Gilbert 6'2" 220
Dahlstrom 6'4" 223


tl;dr it depends on what you mean by small when you claim small d-men are a myth but the trend of d-men getting smaller is factually true - league-wise and in terms of top pairs. Doesn't mean the Hawks and other teams shouldn't shoot for balance in terms of size, though.

As always, please excuse typos and rambley mess of sentences - I am on a lot of caffeine and sugar rn. This will be my only huge ass post in a while, I think.
- L_B_R

A nice post, nonethelessless....

It would be nice if we could define tall and with girth as big (as in physical defenseman) but more and more you see these large men are FINESSE types...
so it it is tough to lump them away from the new age push guys who CAN do the job with stick footwork and balance over girth and big checks....
it simply isn't easy to continue with the old paradign.

Size must matter....

What was the average size of the D men on the rosters of this years semi-finalist teams versus the rest of the league?

The OP on this issue specifically noted what the WINNING teams' defensive corps looked like.

Yes, how big these guys are is not everything, but ADB vs Hedman, for example is not a favorable matchup. Just like Alex Tuch vs. Jordan Oesterle not a good matchup either.

Seems to be more than coincidence that the four best teams last year had bigger dudes on the back end.
- Return of the Roar

That's just cherry picking.....No one vs. Hedman is a good matchup. He is one of the top D-men in the league for a reason, a great mixture of size and skill.

It's a copy-cat league, and one that reacts year to year based on who makes the SCF. Hawks / Pens win and everyone wants to stress skills and puck possession. Kings / Bruins win and teams going with bigger more physical lineups. Vegas pushes the narrative that superstars are not needed, just be relentless. It just shows that there are many different ways to win in the league, not one single "right" way.

Oh, I hadn't read the Athletic article on it, but it's not an uncommon topic cause trends are always useful to analyze. If recent drafts are to be followed, there will potentially be a surge in the near future of smaller / lighter d-men impacting the NHL and becoming top pairing d-men as some of the bigger guys age out (Parayko is the only top pairing d-man in the league to be 225+ and under 30, though Nurse isn't too far off at 221). There are more younger guys in the 195-205 range than older, and 18 of top pairing d-men are 200 and smaller and also 28 and younger (7 of those are 25 or younger).

The Hawks are small in general - they were 26th in the league last season in weight though 13th in terms of height. On average though, a team like the Knights were shorter but only 3 lbs heavier overall. So really, it's like you say - it's how they play more than size that matters. Caps were one of the tallest and heaviest, but they also had the most former 1st round picks on a cup winning team in the at least the last 30 years (research doesn't go back farther and I'm too lazy to do it myself). So size / skill beats just skill but skill will beat just size (Hawks vs Bruins for example).
- L_B_R

I'm not doggin your post. Conceptually I agree. But height and weight numbers are notoriously inaccurate in the NHL.

The Preds have signed Hamhuis to a 2 year deal. The Central keeps getting better while Stan keeps sleeping.

The Preds have signed Hamhuis to a 2 year deal. The Central keeps getting better while Stan keeps sleeping.


- DarthKane

Dare I suggest that the Blackhawks are not currently a desired destination team for good players??

I'm not doggin your post. Conceptually I agree. But height and weight numbers are notoriously inaccurate in the NHL.
- 6628

Of course they are, but then 1) they're inaccurate across the board so the variable can be considered somewhat consistent and 2) the inaccuracy is always to inflate height / weight, so the impact would be that the averages would be smaller.