I foster kittens and volunteer at a shelter to acclimate them to being with humans. My wife and I worked with this really cute all white kitten years ago that hated people and was very mischievous. We loved him. He hated us.

Pomegrant is kind of like that kitten. Often angry and intolerant but true to his nature. I respect that and his perspective. My comment was sincere... and I don’t exactly picture him as a kitten.

Just saying.

- Queenie_5_hole

Im not gonna lie, this made me chuckle.

Yeah but they’re super tall
- shvingter88

again, doesn't hurt as much as it helps. you're harping on something that doesn't not make sense. While it's obvious that size doesn't equate to how good a player is, it's also true that size does more positive than negative in a physical sport. A player can be both fast AND not diminutive, so it's not like size and speed are exclusive from each other.

if there are 2 players of equal skill attributes, one is 5'7 160 and the other 6'2 210.. why would you take the smaller one?

again, doesn't hurt as much as it helps. you're harping on something that doesn't not make sense. While it's obvious that size doesn't equate to how good a player is, it's also true that size does more positive than negative in a physical sport. A player can be both fast AND not diminutive, so it's not like size and speed are exclusive from each other.

if there are 2 players of equal skill attributes, one is 5'7 160 and the other 6'2 210.. why would you take the smaller one?
- MartysBetter88

because it literally doesn't matter.

If output is not effected by size then you should not care about the height of the person. Also, since this old thought of player height mattering still exists you can find areas in which shorter players are being overlooked and devalued then capitalize on this.

because it literally doesn't matter.

If output is not effected by size then you should not care about the height of the person. Also, since this old thought of player height mattering still exists you can find areas in which shorter players are being overlooked and devalued then capitalize on this.
- Pomegrant

We need to get Hal Gill out of retirement, his size is needed.

We need to get Hal Gill out of retirement, his size is needed.
- shvingter88

you're not even funny tho. you've made the same joke like 5x already

because it literally doesn't matter.

If output is not effected by size then you should not care about the height of the person. Also, since this old thought of player height mattering still exists you can find areas in which shorter players are being overlooked and devalued then capitalize on this.
- Pomegrant

I think the point is if both have equal output, you'd want to go with the size because its tougher to play against. Wont get pushed around, better along the boards, in front of net.. that kind of stuff.

I think the point is if both have equal output, you'd want to go with the size because its tougher to play against. Wont get pushed around, better along the boards, in front of net.. that kind of stuff.
- Leniwm1

No, none of those things are actually true. The point is that if you cannot analytically prove that size is a contributing factor to success then you should stop using it as a metric of quality.

because it literally doesn't matter.

If output is not effected by size then you should not care about the height of the person. Also, since this old thought of player height mattering still exists you can find areas in which shorter players are being overlooked and devalued then capitalize on this.
- Pomegrant

It really shouldn't need to be explained the size variable in hockey and the effect it has on the ice. You're right that shorter skilled players are overlooked. I'm aware there are such things as sub 5'8/175lb players that are great, and rare.

Again, if I have the choice between 2 equally skilled players of different sizes, I'm taking the bigger one. Bigger players can have great output AND finish a check that actually effects the person they're hitting. Bigger players can generally receive a check from a small guy and not be thrown across the ice, instead of the other way around (hello Tedenby). Bigger players are literally stronger on the boards than a smaller player, provided both players have the same work ethic.

idk why this is a big deal or a confusing topic

No, none of those things are actually true. The point is that if you cannot analytically prove that size is a contributing factor to success then you should stop using it as a metric of quality.
- Pomegrant

or just watch the game and see what players are getting checked across the ice more than others.. I'm not sure there are statistics to prove correlation between size and output, because the individual's skill and work ethic are the most important variables, not size. I'm saying if you have 2 players with the same work ethic and skill, you'd want the larger one because hockey is a physical sport where players run into each other.. physics says the lighter guy falls down easier than the larger guy. shouldn't need statistics to prove that.

It really shouldn't need to be explained the size variable in hockey and the effect it has on the ice. You're right that shorter skilled players are overlooked. I'm aware there are such things as sub 5'8/175lb players that are great, and rare.

Again, if I have the choice between 2 equally skilled players of different sizes, I'm taking the bigger one. Bigger players can have great output AND finish a check that actually effects the person they're hitting. Bigger players can generally receive a check from a small guy and not be thrown across the ice, instead of the other way around (hello Tedenby). Bigger players are literally stronger on the boards than a smaller player, provided both players have the same work ethic.

idk why this is a big deal or a confusing topic
- MartysBetter88

Kane or Ovechkin, I really don't care which one you pick. Both are great.

Prove that checking correlates to wins and then I'll believe you that a player's height matters. Also some of the smaller players in the league are still physical players like Marchand, Shaw, and Gallagher so still prove that height matters in term of physicality.

I also don't know why this is such a big deal or a confusing topic. So many people have been pointlessly talking about height and size as if it has anything to do with reality. So many people have stated generically that we need to get tougher on the blueline so we can clear out the front of the net, and last I've seen is that all of the tough guy defensemen in the league all support terrible possession metrics and don't actually defend well. It's almost like this is perception based and not grounded in reality.

Kane or Ovechkin, I really don't care which one you pick. Both are great.

Prove that checking correlates to wins and then I'll believe you that a player's height matters. Also some of the smaller players in the league are still physical players like Marchand, Shaw, and Gallagher so still prove that height matters in term of physicality.

I also don't know why this is such a big deal or a confusing topic. So many people have been pointlessly talking about height and size as if it has anything to do with reality. So many people have stated generically that we need to get tougher on the blueline so we can clear out the front of the net, and last I've seen is that all of the tough guy defensemen in the league all support terrible possession metrics and don't actually defend well. It's almost like this is perception based and not grounded in reality.
- Pomegrant

Right, but Kane and OV also have different skill sets. There's no way to objectively compare really.. just physics. If you have a team of 5'8 170lb Crosby's vs a team of 6'3 215 lb Crosby's.. I can't imagine the smaller team wearing down the bigger team in a best of 7 series, providing they have equal speed and conditioning.

as for the dmen thing.. there are plenty of decent-sized dmen that aren't "tough guys". Most tough guys in general don't have much output anyway. This isn't really proving that size differences between 2 equally talented players doesn't make a difference on the ice.

No, none of those things are actually true. The point is that if you cannot analytically prove that size is a contributing factor to success then you should stop using it as a metric of quality.
- Pomegrant

It is true though, visibly, no stats needed. That is actually the argument of Hughes and Kakko.

Jagr is top 5 all time and a large part is because he was so hard to get the puck from him, because his size and mass. Pronger pushing people out of the way like they are flies.

To think size doesnt have an advantage is crazy. On the flip, they prob wont be as quick and nimble and that is a trade off a GM would have to make.

BUT no one asked my opinion but I'll give it anyway, if i was building a team it would be only Nordic and North American 6'3 200lb + beasts.

Right, but Kane and OV also have different skill sets. There's no way to objectively compare really.. just physics. If you have a team of 5'8 170lb Crosby's vs a team of 6'3 215 lb Crosby's.. I can't imagine the smaller team wearing down the bigger team in a best of 7 series, providing they have equal speed and conditioning.

as for the dmen thing.. there are plenty of decent-sized dmen that aren't "tough guys". Most tough guys in general don't have much output anyway. This isn't really proving that size differences between 2 equally talented players doesn't make a difference on the ice.
- MartysBetter88

you don't know anything about physics and should stop using that word.

Also, use some kind of methodology to prove that the taller team would win other than just saying "taller better" over and over again. I can't imagine you having a way to do so, so once again what you're saying is baseless.

The main goal in all of this is to figure out ways in which to measure quality in a quantitative way rather than qualitative. The idea of "eye test" is outdated and how bad teams let good talent go. For example, look at Tampa Bay who almost every year found a way to turn an undersized forward into a very good player. All because other teams were using bad processes to analyze talent. Gourde, Johnson and Point are all very good players that were either undrafted or not high draft picks.

you don't know anything about physics and should stop using that word.

Also, use some kind of methodology to prove that the taller team would win other than just saying "taller better" over and over again. I can't imagine you having a way to do so, so once again what you're saying is baseless.

The main goal in all of this is to figure out ways in which to measure quality in a quantitative way rather than qualitative. The idea of "eye test" is outdated and how bad teams let good talent go. For example, look at Tampa Bay who almost every year found a way to turn an undersized forward into a very good player. All because other teams were using bad processes to analyze talent. Gourde, Johnson and Point are all very good players that were either undrafted or not high draft picks.
- Pomegrant

take a nap, wussy cat. you seem tired and cranky.

take a nap, wussy cat. you seem tired and cranky.
- MartysBetter88

I haven't even called you an idiot yet. I'm sorry that what I'm saying is too complicated for you to understand.

I haven't even called you an idiot yet. I'm sorry that what I'm saying is too complicated for you to understand.
- Pomegrant

well you assumed I didn't know anything about physics, based on nothing but your opinion. and you seem cranky.

.. pretty sure the bigger player is less likely to get knocked down than the smaller player, unless he just has terrible balance. what is problematic about this?

well you assumed I didn't know anything about physics, based on nothing but your opinion. and you seem cranky.

.. pretty sure the bigger player is less likely to get knocked down than the smaller player, unless he just has terrible balance. what is problematic about this?
- MartysBetter88

force, momentum, weight. but whatever. enjoy your knowledge of fizzix

I’d rather trade McLeod
- shvingter88

Sure. Whether it is Zacha or Mcleod, I do not mind. And If Gardiner is an option at 3 years or less, get it done.

Tuch is OK. and Gardiner is.. ok. eh.
- MartysBetter88

Tuch notched 20 goals and 52 points, just 8 pims and lots of physicality, in a very limited role. At 6'4", 225lbs, I see this guy averaging 25 goals, 35 assists as a #2RW, and under contract for 7 seasons at 4.75M is an absolute steal. His age and contract make him a stellar fit.

force, momentum, weight. but whatever. enjoy your knowledge of fizzix
- Pomegrant

force, momentum, weight. my point exactly...

force, momentum, weight. my point exactly...
- MartysBetter88

jesus christ you are so dense.

jesus christ you are so dense.
- Pomegrant

because it seems you're arguing for the sake of arguing. the heavier object will knock over the lighter object.
... have you ever been bowling? It's like that!

you're not even funny tho. you've made the same joke like 5x already
- MartysBetter88

What’s funny is how much you bring up size. I’m just making fun of the situation.

It was great we got the number one pick and took a player projected to go number one overall for two years, but man if he would grow three inches and put on 30 pounds.

What’s funny is how much you bring up size. I’m just making fun of the situation.

It was great we got the number one pick and took a player projected to go number one overall for two years, but man if he would grow three inches and put on 30 pounds.
- shvingter88

I really don't bring it up that much. It seems like a bigger deal for you and pom because you either make it bigger than it is or interpret me mentioning size being a positive as me saying something more dramatic.

If he'd grow 3 inches and put on 30 pounds he'd surely have more chances of being less effective than more effective!! sounds silly to suggest the opposite, or deny this as potentially having more positives than negatives in a contact sport.

I really don't bring it up that much. It seems like a bigger deal for you and pom because you either make it bigger than it is or interpret me mentioning size being a positive as me saying something more dramatic.

If he'd grow 3 inches and put on 30 pounds he'd surely have more chances of being less effective than more effective!! sounds silly to suggest the opposite, or deny this as potentially having more positives than negatives in a contact sport.
- MartysBetter88

YOU BRING IT UP MORE THAN YOU KNOW