Follow me on twitter for news and notes about the Kings and the NHL
Upon watching some of the Anaheim/Chicago series, it is hard to escape the commentary team going on about Anaheim and how they play a "Heavy game."
Despite some smallish forwards on Tampa Bay, they too are credited with playing a heavy game. After all, once you get past Johnson and Kucherov, the lightning have some massive players. Brian Boyle, Victor Hedman, and Andrej Sustr are just a few of the towering personnel they have.
The same idea was talked about with the Los Angeles Kings over the past few years, and is still talked about to this day. The Kings play a heavy game. A lot of it comes down to coaching, but some of it comes down to just plain having huge freaking players that grind you into dirt. Going up on the forecheck against Matt Beleskey, Dwight King, or Brian Boyle is difficult due to the size and strength of these aforementioned players.
While size does make a difference, you have to know how to use it. Coaching to your strengths is of the utmost importance. If you never took a look at the true definition of Kings hockey, I urge you to take a look at an article from back on April 3rd that goes into detail on this.
What Playing "Kings Hockey" has Meant
But to get into more basic, bread and butter stuff, is bigger better? If you have a big team, a heavy team, is that a marker for some kind of success?
Thanks to James Mirtle of the Globe and Mail we can look at all of the height and weight measurements of teams from the start of that year. Since height can be a little deceiving in my opinion, let us take a look at weight ranks.
Let us go back to 2012-13, the lockout season and match up the top 16 teams and their weight ranks in the league.
2012-13
Team followed by weight rank
1. Chicago - 20
2. Pittsburgh - 17
3. Anaheim - 17
4. Montreal - 28
5. Boston - 26
6. St. Louis - 9
7. Los Angeles - 2
8. Vancouver - 15
9. Toronto - 11
10. Washington - 3
11. San Jose - 1
12. NY Rangers - 7
13. Detroit - 22
14. Ottawa - 5
15. Minnesota - 27
16. NY Islanders - 25
Bolded are the final 4.
As expected, it is a mixed bag. Let us look at other years.
2013-14
Team followed by weight rank
1. Boston - 17
2. Anaheim - 13
3. Colorado - 14
4. St. Louis - 2
5. San Jose - 8
6. Pittsburgh - 19
7. Chicago - 16
8. Tampa Bay - 4
9. Montreal - 22
10. Los Angeles - 1
11. Minnesota - 29
12. NY Rangers - 21
13. Philadelphia - 24
14. Columbus - 7
15. Detroit - 20
16. Dallas - 23
Alright, I think we may be getting the picture here. For argument's sake let's put up this year also.
2014-15
Team followed by weight rank
1. NY Rangers - 26
2. Montreal - 12
3. Anaheim - 1
4. St. Louis - 5
5. Tampa Bay - 21
6. Nashville - 23
7. Chicago - 29
8. Vancouver - 27
9. Washington - 3
10. NY Islanders - 11
11. Minnesota - 24
12. Detroit - 16
13. Ottawa - 7
14. Winnipeg - 4
15. Pittsburgh - 25
16. Calgary - 30
You really cannot say there is any sort of real consistency or direct correlation between size and success. Obviously, there are a few flaws with just looking at weight at results. There are plenty of other factors that matter. There are also small differences between some of these ranks. For example, the No. 1 ranked weight team this year, Anaheim at 210.1, was only five pounds heavier than the 10th ranked team in Colorado (205.8).
There are, however, very interesting things to think about when it comes to overall identity of a team, and how size can play a factor in that.
We hear a lot about "Identity" and it can be hard to put your finger on what it is sometimes. It also can be difficult to think about how teams build around that. Size and success are potentially things you can draw a line to for this.
Take Anaheim for example. Look at their overall success over the past few years and how they have achieved it. They have always been a big team, but they have not always played a heavy forecheck game. When Boudreau first came over, the team played a more run and gun style. Essentially they were not taking advantage of their naturally gifted size and the sheer difficulty it was for teams to handle them. This year, Bruce Boudreau made a point of emphasizing a game that is more stringent on forechecking. They saw an improvement in possession numbers, and have now reached the Conference Finals. Like a square peg in a square hole, it makes sense.
Take a team like the Rangers. Under Tortorella they played a game that was rather heavy on forechecking and defensive stalwartism. They did not find that much success with it. Now, under Alain Vigneault, the team is playing a more wide open style. As a smaller team, they do not willingly engage in the physical battles but instead try and beat you on the break and with speed. Players like Zuccarello, Kreider, and Brassard have been very strong under this system.
Then you get on the opposite side of things. Philadelphia is a smaller team, yet they try to play a grinding and agitating sort of game. Minnesota, while they have improved, also try and play a more grinding style, yet they have a number of smaller players.
While playing a "Heavy game" is often used as a hockey cliche amongst commentators, it is less about the size of the team but more about playing a game that makes sense to your roster. Having an "identity" with your roster and playing a game that suits it. It is hard to argue that the Kings have not played to their strengths over the past couple of years. They are a big team that plays a big game and has a coach that emphasizes it.
It seems easy to match all these pieces up, but it isn't. Rebuilding teams are constantly trying to find the right combination of coach, player, and management to get everything in synch. You have to draft the right players, develop the right style, and have a coach that keeps that style consistent. Teams in transition like Buffalo and Edmonton can often look lost in what they are doing and how they are playing. It starts at the top by identifying what kind of team you want to build and what you are willing to do to get it or "Change the culture."
While looking at pure weight can be deceiving, it helps draw a line sometimes in the thinking of a general manager. We have a big team, let's play a big game.
Without surprise, we have generally seen success come from teams that make sense. Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, now Anaheim, and Detroit are just a few examples. Teams that generally look comfortable and have a style that naturally fits their personnel are often successful. While it seems easy, a lot goes into it, and it takes years to get all the pieces in order. Will the Red Wings suffer from Babcock moving on? Will the Kings suffer from change in personnel? Which one of these factors is most important?
(Weight rankings courtesy of
James Mirtle's blogspot site)
Also be sure to like HockeyBuzz on facebook!
++++I AM CURRENTLY LOOKING FOR ADVERTISERS! If you, or anyone you know would be interested in placing an ad on the blog here at HockeyBuzz then send me a PM!+++++ 
Los Angeles Kings Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»