nfreeman Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 check it out. Out of the final 8 teams, Boston and Detroit are #6 and #8 in average height and weight. Pittsburgh is right in the middle. If anyone has time to run the numbers and see where the Sabres would fit in on this list -- fire away. Either way, though, I think a reasonable conclusion is that small isn't always bad and bigger isn't always better. (So PAFan has that going for him in his attempts to woo spndchz, which is nice.) You need a balance and you need a bunch of different skills/qualities. And bigger doesn't necessarily mean tougher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I started working on this type of calculation earlier, but took a slightly different approach, which explains why I stopped after just two teams. My method was to take a weighted average of height/weight based on TOI. That way, a tall/heavy player like Chara would have more effect than a player like Peters; similar for a small player like Roy, who logs high TOI. I was specifically interested in checking Larry Quinn's comment that the Red Wings are the smallest team in the league. He are my results: Detroit Red Wings Forwards: 6' 0.2", 200.0 lbs Defense: 6' 0.2", 197.3 lbs Overall: 6' 0.2", 198.9 lbs Buffalo Sabres Forwards: 6' 0.5", 198.8 lbs Defense: 6' 1.0", 201.0 lbs Overall: 6' 0.7", 199.7 lbs Unfortunately, there is no measure for how physical a player is. For example, compare 5' 11", 195 lbs Patrick Kaleta to 6' 3", 214 lbs Hank Tallinder; who is a "bigger" player? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Based on the thread title, I would have been more interested if the OP was spndchz. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 check it out. Out of the final 8 teams, Boston and Detroit are #6 and #8 in average height and weight. Pittsburgh is right in the middle. If anyone has time to run the numbers and see where the Sabres would fit in on this list -- fire away. Either way, though, I think a reasonable conclusion is that small isn't always bad and bigger isn't always better. (So PAFan has that going for him in his attempts to woo spndchz, which is nice.) You need a balance and you need a bunch of different skills/qualities. And bigger doesn't necessarily mean tougher. What exactly is the point of this? If he's trying to make a statement about how size and age effect a team's success, he needs to look at the whole league, not just the final 8 teams. What if these the 8 largest or oldest teams in the league? That 6 and 8 for Boston/Detroit doesn't mean a thing in this context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted May 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I started working on this type of calculation earlier, but took a slightly different approach, which explains why I stopped after just two teams. My method was to take a weighted average of height/weight based on TOI. That way, a tall/heavy player like Chara would have more effect than a player like Peters; similar for a small player like Roy, who logs high TOI. I was specifically interested in checking Larry Quinn's comment that the Red Wings are the smallest team in the league. He are my results: Detroit Red Wings Forwards: 6' 0.2", 200.0 lbs Defense: 6' 0.2", 197.3 lbs Overall: 6' 0.2", 198.9 lbs Buffalo Sabres Forwards: 6' 0.5", 198.8 lbs Defense: 6' 1.0", 201.0 lbs Overall: 6' 0.7", 199.7 lbs Unfortunately, there is no measure for how physical a player is. For example, compare 5' 11", 195 lbs Patrick Kaleta to 6' 3", 214 lbs Hank Tallinder; who is a "bigger" player? Nice analysis Carp. That's worth suggesting to Mirtle. What exactly is the point of this? If he's trying to make a statement about how size and age effect a team's success, he needs to look at the whole league, not just the final 8 teams. What if these the 8 largest or oldest teams in the league? That 6 and 8 for Boston/Detroit doesn't mean a thing in this context. Well, based on Carp's post, it's unlikely that these are the 8 largest teams. And I think it will be interesting to see whether small beats big within this sample -- especially Detroit vs. Anaheim, which is your classic skill-vs-brawn matchup. But your point is a good one albeit curmudgeonly stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 And I think it will be interesting to see whether small beats big within this sample -- especially Detroit vs. Anaheim, which is your classic skill-vs-brawn matchup. Anaheim Ducks Forwards: 6' 1.5", 203.0 lbs Defense: 6' 2.7", 206.0 lbs Overall: 6' 2.0", 204.5 lbs And their big boys on defense (especially Pronger) actually play big! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Based on the thread title, I would have been more interested if the OP was spndchz. :rolleyes: :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Anaheim DucksForwards: 6' 1.5", 203.0 lbs Defense: 6' 2.7", 206.0 lbs Overall: 6' 2.0", 204.5 lbs For fun, here's what I get if I use playoff TOI as weights: Anaheim Ducks Forwards: 6' 1.3", 201.0 lbs Defense: 6' 2.3", 208.7 lbs Overall: 6' 1.7", 204.2 lbs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.