You can't teach size!

We all know the internet killed the barroom debate. “No, Endgame totally passed Avatar on the highest-grossing film list!” can be debunked with one quick look at Wikipedia. (It didn’t). Sports fans keep that camaraderie alive. No search engine in the world can answer the Lebron vs. MJ debate - and that’s a beautiful thing.

Welcome to “No Right Answer”, a monthly newsletter that aims to give you fuel for your next hockey debate. When we argue about sports, we do so with the acknowledgement that there’s often no right answer. Our understanding of the game exists in the grey, and this newsletter adds a few more shades to that palette.

My first written venture in hockey is off to a great start.

You’re about to get to know some of favourite hills to die on in hockey. We’ll start with a big one: most of the time, trying to “stack” off-ice player statistics with on-ice player statistics gets my back up. I’ve never liked the assumption that a player who most closely fits your definition of an ideal player in nationality, height, and weight will automatically be better because of it.

Do you remember the discourse when MTL’s Cole Caufield was left off of Team USA for the 2025 Four Nations Faceoff tournament? That year, he finished the season with 37 goals. That was 13th in the league and 5th among American-born players.

To quote my former Winnipeg Sports Talk Sunday Live co-host, Jacob Stoller (formerly of Sportsnet dot CA), “Lyss has time for every argument.” And I do. I have time for arguments about why Bill Guerin should or should not have left Caufield at home last February, and then again this coming February, with him not having been named to the initial American Olympic roster either.

But if you’re going to argue something - which is encouraged - inform your baseline. What irritates me is when people say Caufield can’t play meaningful minutes because he’s too small. That players won’t respect him because he’s too short. That he won’t be a threat because he isn’t big enough. “Cole Caufield has played four seasons in the NHL and scored 20+ goals in all of them,” I say. “Yeah but,” is the response.

Those arguments insinuate that Caufield wasn’t 5’8” the entire time he was scoring 20+ goals a season in his early 20s. My biggest gripe is simply that you cannot take away from a player’s accomplishments because of something that cannot be removed from them. If you think Caufield is only scoring goals because of a particular linemate or quality of competition matchup, I have more interest in that conversation. Frankly, I care about Caufield’s height and weight as much as I care about his zodiac sign or social security number. If he was 175 lbs. or 275 lbs. when scoring those goals, I don’t care - he scored them.

Players with the profile of a freight train have the inverse problem. While players like Caufield are often discredited for things they have done because of their ‘unfavourable’ size, players like WPG’s Logan Stanley (who’s 6’7”, if you’re new here) are often given credit for things they haven’t done because of their ‘favourable’ size.

I understand the theoretical idea that, if given the choice between two players where all other things are equal, you may be more inclined to choose the larger defender because of x, y, z physicality reasons. However, “all other things being equal” is a pipe dream in the NHL; players are like snowflakes - you will never find two exactly alike.

I see the value of hypothetical arguments because they can help us to understand principles and logic without having the same biases that come from real arguments. But… we can’t ignore what makes up those real arguments.

I have more time for arguments with predictive implications. And no, this isn’t about xGF vs. GF. We’ll save that for a rainy day.

The intention isn’t to be “old man yells at cloud” about this.

Usually, when we see players getting caved on the regular but never conceding their roster spot, it’s a big guy. Usually, when we see players with elite results getting scratched, they’re little guys. It’s one of this world’s great injustices. Or something.

Look, I can acknowledge that in my perfect world, my hockey team has a lot more guys who look like Aliaksei Protas than Alex DeBrincat. The dialogue I’m interested in centres around where we go from here. So here’s the question of the day:

What are some legitimate counterpoints to the aforementioned narrative that either (1) wouldn’t be factored into an on-ice statistic or (2) are so important that we are willing to overlook what those numbers say?

The easy one is veteran presence. Hockey is a team-oriented sport, and experienced players command respect. Like it or not, it’s the nature of the beast; players are assessed on results and reputation, and young players often don’t have the benefit of the latter being established.

If you know me, you know I try not to dive into all of this off-ice stuff if I can help it. We’ll never know the full extent to which interpersonal relationships play into usage, as it’s unique for every player and every team, so I acknowledge it and move on.

What else?

Think about how isolated moments can get lost in the shuffle of aggregate numbers, even when they have a monumental impact. (Consider - Cole Perfetti’s game-tying goal with 1.6 seconds left in Game 7 vs. STL was the 64th of 102 shot attempts for WPG in that game. That doesn’t have much magnitude to it).

Is there an argument to be made about a “fear factor” with larger players? In one specific high-leverage moment in a game, you might need someone to cross-check Zach Hyman in the numbers to neutralize his netfront scoring threat. Are you willing to overlook the large sample of a guy splashing around in the kiddie pool because he can create the biggest cannonball of anyone at the waterpark? Maybe.

Should I stop trying to come up with silly metaphors? Also maybe.

Or what about the concept of a gravity score? There’s no denying that part of what makes DAL’s red-hot powerplay so fun is that penalty killers can’t afford to give Miro Heiskanen too much space along the point. Not only is he electric himself, but the space Heiskanen’s presence creates for his forwards can enable the most stunning sequences. Can we argue that big bodies command a bit more respect, meaning the attention they draw frees up more white ice for their teammates?

This argument also extends to line matching, with the big boys perhaps being assigned to other big boys, thus freeing up some opportunity for others. Let’s tackle that from the frame of reference that devalues smaller players.

I don’t think the NHL is as serious as the NFL, but sometimes, coaches come into their jobs with very set ideas about how their teams should play. PHI’s roster construction didn’t matter; Rick Tocchet was always going to bring Rick Tocchet hockey with him.

Now, for some staff, that vision might include specific player archetypes. We know there’s no arguing with some coaches about the handedness of who plays the bumper on the powerplay. So what about shutdown lines and pairings? Perhaps the 220 lbs. RHD’s playbook is more desirable for the coach’s systems. Yes, the player in question is getting caved, but perhaps the results would be even worse if you put a smaller player into the specific role that’s been carved out for the heavyweight in question.

Ultimately, the biggest point of contention that hammers on both of these player profiles is the playoffs. If you have reason to believe that playoff hockey changes in a way that adversely impacts smaller players, I empathize with your hesitation. Lengthy matchups neutralize the most dynamic threats! The rush game gets minimized in game 83! We’ve heard it all - the more important dialogue is not around if an inherent advantage exists for larger players, but rather if the advantage is significant enough on a case-by-case basis to choose player X over player Y.

If you’re ever expecting an articulate conclusion to these newsletters, you’ve come to the wrong place. This is called “No Right Answer” for a reason - you aren’t leaving here with a solution to anything, except for maybe if the question is “what should my buddies and I argue about during the intermission of this weekend’s game?”

Thanks for joining us for this month’s newsletter. If you enjoyed it, tell a friend. See you next time.