CanucksCorner.com Forums

donlever wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2026 9:38 pm Big strong teams tend to win Cups.

It's one way. I don't have to tell you it depends which rules they choose to enforce.

In order to distract it from building a virus to kill all humans, I got an A.I. to build a couple of charts for me.

And because it asked nicely, I let it run some stats:

Descriptives of the Weight Premium

When evaluating the dataset as a single distribution, the overall numbers confirm a persistent, baseline physical premium:
• Mean Relative Margin: +1.79 lbs above the league average.
• Standard Deviation of the Margin: 5.52 lbs

The [A.I.'s] Takeaway: Statistically, a Stanley Cup champion's weight is largely independent of league-wide norms. While the average champion carries a ~1.8 lb advantage over the field, the extremely low \(R^{2}\) values indicate that winning size profiles are highly volatile and dependent on specific team identities rather than league macro-trends.

Of course, the analysis is only as good as the data, and I'm not confident that the teams accurately report player weights.

My takeaway (not the A.I.'s) is that size is one possible asset to bring into the playoffs, but it's not the only way to build a winner. It's probably a good buffer against the effects of the playoff grind (one boxing coach told me that the reason for weight classes was not so much the difference in how hard the boxers could hit as the amount of punishment they could absorb), but at the athletic level where everyone is at the limits, increases in size have to be paid off against decreases in acceleration and endurance.

The reason the Canucks need size is that they can't count on the League to enforce the rules. The less the rules are enforced, the more important size becomes. So, a big team is the conservative choice. The lightest team in the League this year is the Avalanche. We'll see how that shakes out.

Every one of those teams (except the 16 & 17 Pens who had Crosby, Malkin & Letang so can be argued as anomolous and who seem analogous to your Avs reference in 26/27) far outweighed last year's Canucks who were the leagues lightest team (tied) at 194 pounds.

We needed to get bigger and stronger.

Big, strong teams tend to wear down smaller teams over long hauls.

Then luck, (and your refereeing) kick in to see who actually lifts the chalice.

Again, we needed to get bigger and stronger.

Hence the draft.


**also interesting to note in your chart are the weights of the Hawk, King and Bruin teams that ruined our hopes at the peak of our teams historical play.

We were 10.5 pounds lighter than the Bruins in 2011.

So many variables are involved. The charts give a good idea of how size hasn't been a major factor - you could look at the Cup winner vs. other playoff teams, vs. their opponent in the final (maybe non-playoff teams are skewing the class average). I think a more important factor is conditioning - but how can that be measured? Better conditioning should lead to fewer injuries (in theory).

So you have size/weight advantages - conditioning - strength of opponent in earlier rounds - luck/refereeing - team speed - and of course, somewhere in the mix is skill. It's the combination of all that that gets a team to 16 wins and the hardest-to-win trophy in sports.

Just because size is a factor doesn't mean the roster has to be nothing but giants. Carolina had Nick Ehlers in their Cup run, and the guy was a standout despite being short and wiry vice beefy. Difference between being light and being wiry. Lekkerimaki, for example, is light but is getting wiry; he just needs to get more wiry strength vice trying to get beefy. Either way, he has to get bigger. The other part of being a successful 'non-heavy' player is being able to fight through the board play and at least not be a liability there and in front of the net.

The query was made with respect to the Canucks drafting larger players.

A summary was provided that 18 of the last 20 Cup winners were bigger teams than last years Canucks which also speaks to the tournament grind versus size/strength theorem whereby clubs bigger than the 25/26 Canucks have been successful.

(A side note was brought up that the 2011 Bruin team that kicked the shit out of us physically was double digit pounds per player heavier than us at the time...)

This would then answer the opening query.

Nobody said it was the only way to do it.

Nobody said other factors weren't involved (in fact quite the opposite was noted).

Nobody said all players had to be Gronks.

According to Friedman, the Canucks are interested in Zary. I think he just needs a change of scenery. Zary can be a Canuck in exchange for the Canucks 2027 1st round pick (unprotected of course)

Lol...if the Canucks grab Zarys can't skate, weak, overpaid small ass RG will have all his hopes and dreams crushed.

donlever wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2026 12:05 pm Lol...if the Canucks grab Zarys can't skate, weak, overpaid small ass RG will have all his hopes and dreams crushed.

Better be at least a 2nd coming with him and it better be for future considerations. Why would the Canucks trade for him unless a return like that is coming?

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2026 11:54 pm Of course, the analysis is only as good as the data, and I'm not confident that the teams accurately report player weights.

My takeaway (not the A.I.'s) is that size is one possible asset to bring into the playoffs, but it's not the only way to build a winner.

Interesting post, Cliffy.

What I think is interesting about the numbers is that the least talented Stanley Cup winners (the Kings, the Blues, and, hate to say is, but the 2011 Bruins), were "big" teams. So if you've got (relatively) modest skill, be big is one possible conclusion to draw. Which really is another way of saying size matters all other things being equal, and is an attribute when they are not.

UWSaint wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2026 1:26 pm

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2026 11:54 pm Of course, the analysis is only as good as the data, and I'm not confident that the teams accurately report player weights.

My takeaway (not the A.I.'s) is that size is one possible asset to bring into the playoffs, but it's not the only way to build a winner.

What I think is interesting about the numbers is that the least talented Stanley Cup winners (the Kings, the Blues, and, hate to say is, but the 2011 Bruins), were "big" teams. So if you've got (relatively) modest skill, be big is one possible conclusion to draw. Which really is another way of saying size matters all other things being equal, and is an attribute when they are not.

It goes back to what I said about paying for everything you get in a cap league. You can pay for size, you can for skill, you can pay even more for both in the same player. Which is more cost-effective depends on which rule-set the League chooses to enforce in a given playoffs.

Which is why I was not disagreeing with Lever that for the Canucks, at least, size is the safer option. The other thing that makes size the safer basis for team composition is that it is less likely to be eroded by a series of injuries, which is one explanation for why EP40 is no longer the player that they paid for (or why Juolevi never became worth his draft position).

I don't like that about the NHL, but unlike what you suspect about Malhotra, I can face the world we actually live in -- on this issue, anyway.