Size Matters

[interminded 1]

Goaltenders who drive hybrid, Japanese cars have better save percentages as well.

Goaltenders who drink their coffee with lots of cream tend to be quicker from post to post.

Goaltenders whose mother are named Susan, Lilly or Jennifer are more likely to leave the crease and mishandle te puck.

Goaltenders who have an outspoken opinion about the Falklands War are more injury-prone thatn goaltenders who were once misdiagnosed as being diabetic.

Goaltenders who let ITunes organise their music in C:\documents and settings\*goaltenders name*\Itunes\music library, rather than do it themselves have been known to be overlooked in the Vezina ballot.

Edited January 29, 2010 by interminded

[Finnish Wing 110]

If a big fat goalie would just lay down (Jabba The Hutt -style)in front of the goal, no one could score.

[stevkrause 1,247]

If a big fat goalie would just lay down (Jabba The Hutt -style)in front of the goal, no one could score.

unless he was 7 foot tall and obese, that wouldn't work either, because top shelf would be open all day...

to put it simply - an obese goalie would never work... you need to be extremely athletic to be a good goalie

Edited January 29, 2010 by stevkrause

[55fan 5,133]

no way, because they would still be able to jam PLENTY of pucks by his feet... as I said earlier in the thread, athleticism is EXTREMELY important, however:

Also, what is one of the FIRST things you are taught about shooting the puck when starting hockey? - Aim for the goalies skate blade, because you'll get him sliding from side to side and probably sneak it past him - I've scored WAY more goals on the ice, than I have top shelf... and what wins playoff games?

dirty, hard nosed goals...

I meant no offense by my comment. Just the word "size" in a goalie thread reminded me of it.

You are right that one has to be athletic. I cringe when I see them do some of the versions of the splits that they do. That's gotta hurt.

Height, all other things being equal, would give an advantage, but I think that there are so many other factors that I wouldn't consider it when drafting/trading unless the two goalies that I was comparing were similar in most every other point.

[Guest zackmorris]

I think size is important. I think skill and athleticism are #1 and a goalie who is 5'10" with more pure skill than a 6'2" guy is going to be better.

However, if two goalies have a level of skill close enough to one another, and one is 5'9" and the other is 6'1" the 6'1" goalie will almost always be the better choice. It sounds simplistic and obvious but I think that's all there is to the point of this topic. Interminded's reply is just ignorant, the topic does serve as a good discussion starter and isn't in any way irrelevant. People also don't understand the concept of a player being an exception to the rule in a way, as listing off a small handful of successful sub-6 foot goaltenders doesn't make him wrong.

Just look at the other night, one of the most backbreaking goals came because Osgood didn't come out and challenge a little more. The puck was deflected and went no more than 2 inches over his shoulder. A goalie with a few inches in height difference (from a goalie is is closer to 5'9" than 5'10") would've stopped it. Height adds much more than peple initially think. Your arms are longer so you can grab loose pucks from slightly longer distances, you can catch pucks from different areas and keep in rebounds (since people are so obsessed with that), your legs will almost always be longer and your butterfly will be more efficient, your pad stacking will cover far more room, desperation saves become tougher to stop. I could go on and on and this may seem obvious to some but I'd bet some people don't even think of it. It's just a matter of having more mass covering a big rectangle that will make it tougher to score on. Put one of those plastic goalies, those shooter tutors inside a net with about a fist sized hole to shoot into in every corner, and then put one in with a basketball sized hole and just shoot on each one for an hour or two. You'll see exactly why a bigger goalie is a huge advantage.

Most pro sports are games of inches and with hockey, moreso than any other sport, it's all happening so quickly that we don't even come close to noticing the inches even when they're replayed relentlessly right in front of our eyes. Typically we're not afforded the necessary time to reflect on much that we've seen, and thus we only remember either the really great plays, or really terrible plays. The small few that stick out in our mind. It's partially why not many people really understand sports. It's responsible for why we chew out certain players, overpraise others and forget some almost entirely. And often, almost always, we don't think about what would've or could've been. We live in a society so stupidly obsessed with the bottom line that anyone who even utters the words could've or should've are accosted and flamed as excuse makers and delusional fools. Sometimes it takes a little reflection and examination of what realistically would've happened if something had not gone the way it did to gain a little perspective, something most people lack.

Look at Pekka Rinne-I truly think if this guy was 5'10" he'd be quite a few more notches worse on the stat sheet right now. He's never truly impressed me, he's just gargantuan and knows how to position himself well. Some goalies greatly benefit, while it seems that it's more rare for a smaller goalie to benefit from being smaller. Mike Vernon did well but again, exception to the rule.

It's also pointless to list Dom Hasek, as he's been listed anywhere from 5'10" to 6'1", depending on where you look. I've met him and I can say he was around a shade over 6' but still, he was a beanpole. His style was almost completely reflex/reaction based (a dying breed) and he was one of a kind, and I don't use that phrase lightly.

Edited January 30, 2010 by zackmorris