PDA

View Full Version : ideal DI hockey player size



Pages : [1] 2

Osorojo
10-03-2012, 11:25 AM
From the USCHO "top ten" forwards to watch:
#10 - "small guy"
#9 - "just 5-foot-8 and weighs just 160 pounds"
#7 - "although smallish (5-foot-9, 170 pounds)"
#6 - "he is undersized"
#4 - "the little guy"
#3 - "just 5-foot-6 and 165 pounds"

Apparently 60% of the best forwards in DI hockey are remarkably small, since the article remarks they are small. Is this because:

1.) the author favors smaller players?
2.) talented average size and big players favor major juniors?
3.) the rules and/or style of play in DI hockey favor smaller players?
4) DI concession stands sell lo-cal nachos?

Flashy Man
10-03-2012, 11:33 AM
http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?101016-Title-Capitalization/

Nick Papagiorgio
10-03-2012, 11:54 AM
And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know?" And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.

burd
10-03-2012, 11:57 AM
From the USCHO "top ten" forwards to watch:
#10 - "small guy"
#9 - "just 5-foot-8 and weighs just 160 pounds"
#7 - "although smallish (5-foot-9, 170 pounds)"
#6 - "he is undersized"
#4 - "the little guy"
#3 - "just 5-foot-6 and 165 pounds"

Apparently 60% of the best forwards in DI hockey are remarkably small, since the article remarks they are small. Is this because:

1.) the author favors smaller players?
2.) talented average size and big players favor major juniors?
3.) the rules and/or style of play in DI hockey favor smaller players?
4) DI concession stands sell lo-cal nachos?

Finally, an explanation--it's size issues with you.

Osorojo
10-03-2012, 12:08 PM
Finally, an explanation--it's size issues with you.

Nope - but the remarkably small size of the "best" DI forwards obviously IS a reasonable issue for consideration - except if your goal is insult. I look forward to your further input.

mnstate0fhockey
10-03-2012, 12:18 PM
From the USCHO "top ten" forwards to watch:
#10 - "small guy"
#9 - "just 5-foot-8 and weighs just 160 pounds"
#7 - "although smallish (5-foot-9, 170 pounds)"
#6 - "he is undersized"
#4 - "the little guy"
#3 - "just 5-foot-6 and 165 pounds"

Apparently 60% of the best forwards in DI hockey are remarkably small, since the article remarks they are small. Is this because:

1.) the author favors smaller players?
2.) talented average size and big players favor major juniors?
3.) the rules and/or style of play in DI hockey favor smaller players?
4) DI concession stands sell lo-cal nachos?

Are you just now catching on to this?

alfablue
10-03-2012, 12:20 PM
dude, turn the comptuer off and go outside. you spend way too much time worrying about what other people write, in a very pointless way.

Well, unless you are going to attempt to engineer hockey player size. I'm sure that would make a good movie.

FlagDUDE08
10-03-2012, 12:34 PM
You're starting to make boot_walt_kyle look like a decent poster.

Osorojo
10-03-2012, 12:46 PM
dude, turn the comptuer off and go outside. you spend way too much time worrying about what other people write, in a very pointless way.

Well, unless you are going to attempt to engineer hockey player size. I'm sure that would make a good movie.

I'm more interested in causes than effects - at least at a distance. If small size is truly an advantage for DI hockey forwards - as suggested by the USCHO article, there must be a cause for this advantage. Small size certainly is not an advantage for professional hockey players or professional recruits. Aren't you just a bit curious about this distinction and its underlying cause, or are you simply in disagreement with the USCHO "best forwards" selection? If so, why not propose your own list of best forwards, one presumably not dominated by small players? Otherwise, your belittling of my curiosity does not recommend your opinions.

mnstate0fhockey
10-03-2012, 12:49 PM
I'm more interested in causes than effects - at least at a distance. If small size is truly an advantage for DI hockey forwards - as suggested by the USCHO article, there must be a cause for this advantage. Small size certainly is not an advantage for professional hockey players or professional recruits. Aren't you just a bit curious about this distinction and its underlying cause, or are you simply in disagreement with the USCHO "best forwards" selection? If so, why not propose your own list of best forwards, one presumably not dominated by small players? Otherwise, your belittling of my curiosity does not recommend your opinions.

Smaller players aren't prototypical NHL size, so they stick around longer, become more experienced, and result in less frequent turnover.

dogs2012
10-03-2012, 12:50 PM
It's a valid question. I'm sorry people have to be rude, but I think college hockey in today's age has a style of play that is more conducive to the smaller sized athletes. It could partially be because of head injury rules and could also have to do with the lack of fighting that takes place. Either way, it is interesting to see these smaller sized players do well. It's also why you see smaller players winning the Hobey, but not being able to make it in the NHL.

FlagDUDE08
10-03-2012, 12:53 PM
Dude, take it here: http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?101260-Ten-to-watch-Picking-college-hockey%E2%80%99s-top-forwards-for-2012-13

FiveHole12
10-03-2012, 01:03 PM
I'm more interested in causes than effects - at least at a distance. If small size is truly an advantage for DI hockey forwards - as suggested by the USCHO article, there must be a cause for this advantage. Small size certainly is not an advantage for professional hockey players or professional recruits. Aren't you just a bit curious about this distinction and its underlying cause, or are you simply in disagreement with the USCHO "best forwards" selection? If so, why not propose your own list of best forwards, one presumably not dominated by small players? Otherwise, your belittling of my curiosity does not recommend your opinions.
I'm curious as to how you read all that into the article.
My best guess... the average D-1 hockey forward is somewhere above the 5'7" - 5'9" players listed, so that makes them smaller.
The author lists Bjugstad as 'big' in the same article... possibly meaning he's bigger than the average D-1 forward?
Instead of turning this into rocket science, how about you respond to the author and ask what he meant. Or, go figure out the average size of a D-1 forward and answer your own questions.

alfablue
10-03-2012, 01:16 PM
I'm more interested in causes than effects - at least at a distance. If small size is truly an advantage for DI hockey forwards - as suggested by the USCHO article, there must be a cause for this advantage. Small size certainly is not an advantage for professional hockey players or professional recruits. Aren't you just a bit curious about this distinction and its underlying cause, or are you simply in disagreement with the USCHO "best forwards" selection? If so, why not propose your own list of best forwards, one presumably not dominated by small players? Otherwise, your belittling of my curiosity does not recommend your opinions.

I don't see how it matters. Size may be an issue, but in the time I've watched college hockey, talent and will have far more impact on all positions. And you pretend to have some kind of interest in college hockey, it seems safe that you would have seen some actual games using different players. Like where Tiny little goalies are as good as monsters, or little forwards are as tough as big defensemen, big guys can be fast, little guys can be slow. etc etc etc.

There's no ideal size in the time I've been watching hockey. The fact that you think there's enough of a debate that you need to start a pointless thread on it explains that you still don't know much about hockey.

And that it was my mistake that your "obsession without paying attention" is worthy of being read.

ExileOnDaytonStreet
10-03-2012, 01:37 PM
From the USCHO "top ten" forwards to watch:
#10 - "small guy"
#9 - "just 5-foot-8 and weighs just 160 pounds"
#7 - "although smallish (5-foot-9, 170 pounds)"
#6 - "he is undersized"
#4 - "the little guy"
#3 - "just 5-foot-6 and 165 pounds"

Apparently 60% of the best forwards in DI hockey are remarkably small, since the article remarks they are small. Is this because:

1.) the author favors smaller players?
2.) talented average size and big players favor major juniors?
3.) the rules and/or style of play in DI hockey favor smaller players?
4) DI concession stands sell lo-cal nachos?Or, as their girlfriends like to say: they're a good size.

FreshFish
10-03-2012, 02:41 PM
From the USCHO "top ten" forwards to watch:
#10 - "small guy"
#9 - "just 5-foot-8 and weighs just 160 pounds"
#7 - "although smallish (5-foot-9, 170 pounds)"
#6 - "he is undersized"
#4 - "the little guy"
#3 - "just 5-foot-6 and 165 pounds"

Apparently 60% of the best forwards in DI hockey are remarkably small, since the article remarks they are small. Is this because:

1.) the author favors smaller players?
2.) talented average size and big players favor major juniors?
3.) the rules and/or style of play in DI hockey favor smaller players?
4) DI concession stands sell lo-cal nachos?

You are taking one article for one season and then extrapolating from it? You are committing a cardinal sin, generalizing from a single example. how do you know that it isn't just an anomolous result?

"gee, I flipped this coin ten times and it came up heads 8 times, the coin must be weighted somehow." it's called specious reasoning. (well, there are a few other things that one might call it too....)

Happy
10-03-2012, 03:40 PM
The big guys play pro

KnightsOfTheRound
10-03-2012, 04:00 PM
Smaller players aren't prototypical NHL size, so they stick around longer, become more experienced, and result in less frequent turnover.

This is the closest thing to what I would guess the reason is.

Osorojo
10-03-2012, 04:05 PM
The only opinions mentioned in this thread's starter were those of USCHO, not me. The article makes specific mention of the size of nine of the ten players it describes, six of them described as "small" and only one as large ("jumbo"). USCHO obviously believes player size is a significant fact. If you disagree with any of these opinions you should address the USCHO moderator rather than kvetch about this thread or me.
I tried to pose a substantive question. If you have no answer or think it's a dumb question why in blazes do you respond?

FlagDUDE08
10-03-2012, 04:06 PM
I think Bear Red's still getting over the shock that good players don't go to Cornell. :D