Who is the first after the big tree?

[pudge]

Where is the emoticon for banging your head against a brick wall???

Unbelievable...

We need Dobber to put this to rest...
I\'m willing to bet the farm that he says Green.

I think the best way of explaining it simply was hockeypoolgeeks \"effective\" summary...

read it carefully and then give in to very straightforward logic... and apologize for driving me, shoeless and the rest nuts...

:P

[Tanzer]

I don\'t have my answer yet...
but weeeh! What a lot of nice differents opinions!
It\'s very interesting to read!:silly:

[Dutch]

Which would you rather have Dutch

1. 75 point defender and a 90 point goalie or

2. A 55 point defender and a 100 point goalie?


Considering how many games Green could play that would be a 75 point D man with upside

I much rather have the consistent 55 pt defender and 100 pt goalie, over a possible 75 pter (defenders with 75 pts are not consistently in the league, and I will have to see if green will repeat) and a 90 pt goalie.

you guys (the green defenders) talk about consistency, but how can you justify saying that green the obvious choice is then. He has had 1 year of 70+ pts, and you guys think he\'s gonna do this year in and out. Whereas, Datsyuk, Getzlaf, Luongo, Lundqvist, Nabokov have CONSISTENTLY put up high numbers.

Why take the risk on a defender who quite possibly won\'t crack 70 again this year, over a \"for sure\" thing in the 90+ pt fwds, and goalies.

Like hockeyislife said. You need the best 12 players. pointwise, therefore in order to obtain this, you would need to draft the BEST option available at all times. That is, you need to draft the player who is going to score you the most points at that point in the draft. Green at #4, is crazy

I think the green koolaid is tasty, but I think you guys have mixed it too strong....

[pudge]

Ok this is the only reasonable defence for not taking Green. You just don\'t like his chances at hitting 70+ points. That\'s your personal opinion so that\'s fair enough...

(Only 1 person has defended Green as consistent so don\'t say \"you guys\".)

So yes, if you don\'t feel Green is gonna have a monster year then you can take a pass on him... actually if that\'s your decision then you should really follow your logic and count how many 90pt players there are and trade your #4 pick down to the lowest of the 90pt players for an upgrade of a mid round pick... if you really believe your own theory...

(I\'ll give you an over under of 55pts if you take the under with a condition of 55 games played or more. You can bet anything up to $100)


Now the debate on here hasn\'t been whether Green will reach 75 pts... it\'s been whether he at 75 is a better pick than a forward or goalie at 90... and that is a cut and dry math problem... and the answer is yes.

[BrianSTC]

LOL!

I just read the title of this thread and without reading any of the posts I was going to post a comment that Dutch would never take (his favourite player) Green at number 4.....I jumped in here a lil too late I see....

Of course, me thinks Dutch would still take Weber before Green out of sheer stubborness!!!

[Dutch]

I never said green was a 55- pt player, but I think you are crazy if you think he\'s going to consistently put up 75 ish pts.

You rather have green and bryzgalov than weber and luongo or lundqvist?

I wish I was in a league with you

[doulos]

You\'re making an assumption that the only goalie available would be Bryzgalov - I would suggest that a much better goalie would still be there on the way back.

[pudge]

Dutch wrote:

I wish I was in a league with you

+1

[BrianSTC]

Just did some figuring...if you chose Green with the fourth pick and then EVERY pick until the 13th pick was a goalie (assuming the goalies went in order of points produced)...you would still be able to draft Miller (83 points).

But say you draft the best goalie (Nabokov at 103 points) and EVERY pick until the 13th was a defenseman then you would be able to get Souray at 53 points.

I know this is simplifying things alot but from last year\'s stats Green and Miller = Nabokov and Souray.

Just thought that was interesting.

[Shoeless]

Dutch wrote:

I wish I was in a league with you

Now how arrogant is that? Must be what it is, because it sure as hell does nothing to strengthen your argument. Oh just a minute - you do think it strengthens your argument because you are such a superior fantasy hockeyist. That may be true, but trying to make folks that disagree with you into forum roadkill is rather tasteless, don\'t you think?

Stick to the facts and cut the crap about people being crazy for thinking what they think. I disagree with you regarding this thread - I don\'t think you\'re crazy. I do think your analysis is faulty but that\'s not something I feel a need to change or that I need to prove. Because if I can\'t respect you for living where you live with this stuff, then I am the one who has a problem.

[fantasyhockeygeek]

Alright, I\'ve been lazy and didn\'t want to wade into this one (I generally try to avoid the whole goalie vs skater question because it\'s so complicated), but this is toooooo tempting. Healthy debate is a good thing, so here is some ammo!

In this league, the following number of players will be selected at each position:

C: 24
RW: 24
LW: 24
D: 48
G: 24

I\'m gonna use last year\'s stats to establish the averages, aiight? Using points only for skaters and 2 points for a win, 3 points for a shutout, the average player at each position is worth:

C: 79 (for simplicity let\'s call it 80)
RW: 71 (call it 70)
LW: 66 (call it 65)
D: 43 (call it 45)
G: 75

Now for the comparisons, let\'s simplify and give a prediction for the top 10 at each position within 5 points. They are listed as \"Rank. Bane - Point projection - effective value\". For goalies, I\'ve listed them as \"Rank. Projected Wins - Projected SO - Point Projection - effective value.\" Feel free to modify the numbers and recalculate if you want:

Top 10 C:

1. Malkin - 115 P - 35 EV
2. Crosby - 110 P - 30 EV
3. Thornton - 90 P - 10 EV
4. Datsyuk - 90 P - 10 EV
5. Backstrom - 90 P - 10 EV
6. Getzlaf - 90 P - 10 EV
7. Spezza - 90 P - 10 EV
8. Lecavalier P - 90 - 10 EV
9. Staal - 90 P - 10 EV
10. Savard - 85 P - 5 EV

Top 10 LW:

1. Ovechkin - 115 P - 45 EV
2. Kovalchuk - 90 P - 20 EV
3. Heatley - 90 P - 20 EV
4. Parise - 90 P - 20 EV
5. D. Sedin - 80 P - 10 EV
6. Nash - 80 P - 10 EV
7. Vanek - 80 P - 10 EV
8. Cammalleri P - 75 - 5 EV
9. Gagne - 75 P - 5 EV
10. Marleau - 75 P - 5 EV

Top 10 RW:

1. Iginla - 90 P - 25 EV
2. Kane - 85 P - 20 EV
3. St. Louis - 85 P - 20 EV
4. Semin - 80 P - 15 EV
5. Doan - 75 P - 10 EV
6. Alfredsson - 75 P - 10 EV
7. Hemsky - 75 P - 10 EV
8. Pominville - 75 P - 10 EV
9. Hossa - 75 P - 10 EV
10. Perry - 75 P - 80 EV

Top 10 D:

1. Green - 70 P - 25 EV
2. Markov - 65 P - 20 EV
3. Gonchar - 60 P - 15 EV
4. Weber - 60 P - 15 EV
5. Streit - 60 P - 15 EV
6. Lidstrom - 60 P - 15 EV
7. Niedermayer - 60 P - 15 EV
8. Boyle - 60 P - 15 EV
9. Rafalski - 55 P - 10 EV
10. Phaneuf - 55 P - 10 EV

Top 10 G:

1. Brodeur - 40W - 7SO - 101 P - 26 EV
2. Luongo - 37W - 8SO - 98 P - 23 EV
3. Kiprusoff - 40W - 5SO - 95 P - 20 EV
4. Nabokov - 40W - 5SO - 95 P - 20 EV
5. Fleury - 40W - 4SO - 92 P - 17 EV
6. Lundqvist - 37W - 5SO - 89 P - 14 EV
7. Ward - 37W - 5SO - 89 P - 14 EV
8. Backstrom - 35W - 5SO - 85 P - 10 EV
9. Turco - 35W - 5SO - 85 P - 10 EV
10. Thomas - 35W - 5SO - 85 P - 10 EV

Overall top 25 effective value:

1. Ovechkin - 45 EV
2. Malkin - 35 EV
3. Crosby - 30 EV
4. Green - 30 EV
5. Brodeur - 26 EV
6. Iginla - 25 EV
7. Luongo - 23 EV
8. Kane - 20 EV
9. St. Louis - 20 EV
10. Kovalchuk - 20 EV
11. Heatley - 20 EV
12. Parise - 20 EV
13. Kiprusoff - 20 EV
14. Nabokov - 20 EV
15. Markov - 20 EV
16. Fleury - 17 EV
17. Semin - 15 EV
18. Gonchar - 15 EV
19. Weber - 15 EV
20. Streit - 15 EV
21. Lidstrom - 15 EV
22. Niedermayer - 15 EV
23. Boyle - 15 EV
24. Thornton - 15 EV
25. Datsyuk - 15 EV

This seems to support the idea that Green could/should go at #4. But all it takes is an extra shutout by Brodeur to put him up there. A couple more wins by Luongo, same thing.

Obviously it\'s up to the GM drafting to look at how comfortable they are with the assumptions inherent in this analysis (especially when it comes to goalie performance, and the fact that RW will continue to be the weak sister).

Green ain\'t a no-brainer, but given that his pace was a fair clip higher than 70 points this year (assuming he stays healthy) I\'d probably go for him at #4. It\'s hardly cut-and-dry though...

[joos]

Great analysis hockeypool!

I guess I can see why Green is a valid choice @ 4th overall.

I think the question then is solely based on individual preference and assumptions.

Me personally, I think the chances of Brodeur or Luongo getting a few more wins or a extra SHO is more likely than Green posting another 70+ season. In relation to the risk and reward, I think getting a goalie is still the SAFER choice.

[Dutch]

Shoeless wrote:

Now how arrogant is that? Must be what it is, because it sure as hell does nothing to strengthen your argument. Oh just a minute - you do think it strengthens your argument because you are such a superior fantasy hockeyist. That may be true, but trying to make folks that disagree with you into forum roadkill is rather tasteless, don\'t you think?

Stick to the facts and cut the crap about people being crazy for thinking what they think. I disagree with you regarding this thread - I don\'t think you\'re crazy. I do think your analysis is faulty but that\'s not something I feel a need to change or that I need to prove. Because if I can\'t respect you for living where you live with this stuff, then I am the one who has a problem.

I never called anyone crazy, I said that I wish I was in a league with him. Because of the fact I think I would have the clear advantage with selecting the 2 players I think would be more valuable, over the 2 he thinks.

Nothing arrogant about it. Not everything written in these boards is serious stuff allright

Anyways, back to the topic

Maybe I should put it this way.

I think green has hit his maximum, and if not he is pretty damn close to his maximum. Getzlaf, Datsyuk have room to go over the 100 pts. Luongo, Lundqvist I think have room to get more wins/shutouts as well.

Therefore, why would someone go for the person who has reached his maximum/who doesn\'t have much room to move up vs. the players that have \"lots\" of room to grow...

I have YET to find someone who convinces me for green to go at 4.

Altho I appreciate hockeypoolgeek\'s response, I don\'t think the reasoning for Green at 4 is legit. Those values to me have no value.

This is a points league, and therefore you HAVE to look at points. So at number 4, you look at who is going to get you the most points. And even if green hits his 82 pts PPG totals, that is still a lot less than Luongo\'s 110 (or whatever his pt total works out to be) or Datsyuk\'s 100. When you are done drafting the important players, you still pick the highest points available, and if you end up with guys like cam barker for example on D, then I think you are doing better than when you end up with guys like langkow on forwards, or bryzgalov (because I used him before) at goalie.

I guess we will never disagree, but I certainly have not seen a convincing response to take Green at #4

[fantasyhockeygeek]

Dutch, I see where you\'re coming from and respect it immensely. I just think you\'re wrong! :laugh: I\'m open to the fact that you might not be, and I want to dig into it a bit further.

In a points only league that doesn\'t differentiate between positions, you\'re absolutely right - the highest points are the highest points and that\'s all there is to it.

But because there are different positions, and each team HAS to have a certain number of each position, I think I made a reasonably compelling argument for why that \"value\" system is valid (by comparing each position to a standard for that position).

If you draft for nothing but the highest points, you\'re essentially saying that a 65 point defender is worth the same as a 65 point forward, aren\'t you? If not, I need you to explain how you make a distinction.

+1 in advance for showing me the reason behind your statement that

And even if green hits his 82 pts PPG totals, that is still a lot less than Luongo\'s 110 (or whatever his pt total works out to be) or Datsyuk\'s 100.

Props for the discussion all around, and for resisting the urge to piss on each other too much...

[Dutch]

Hockeypoolgeek,

This may seem odd to most of you, but I don\'t think that defenders are equal to forwards in this league. However, I think that the gap between green and guys like datsyuk/luongo and whoever else we have discussed, is TOO big for me to draft green at 4. I do think a 60 pt d is worth more than a 70 pt fwd, because if the forward doesn\'t work out you can ride the WW.
But I personally don\'t see green hit 75 pts next year, and therefore it makes a lot more sense (like joos said) to take the \"for sure thing\" in the goalie or the forward.

+1 to you for all your crazy work you put in your post, but it didn\'t convince me sorry