Who is the first after the big tree?

[doulos]

Look for Patrick Kane to be competition for Iginla at least in the points department. I see him pushing 90 this upcoming season.

But you\'re absolutely correct in your assessment of Iginla. Great call.

[Dutch]

Dutch, the problem with your stance is that you have a bias against Green. Having a bias for or against any player in fantasy hockey is detrimental to your judgement...



Green hit 73 points in 68 games and he is only 23 years old!

To say that he has hit his maximum just doesn\'t make too much sense. Just based on stats it looks like if Green had an injury free season with another year of experience under his belt, he should be able to hit at least 80 points.



To say you have a \"feeling\" about a player you have made it known that you don\'t like...that is fantasy hockey disaster IMHO.

I have admitted before I was wrong about green. But that doesn\'t make him a 80+ point defense. Hypothetically speaking, if green played full 82 games, and if he would have reached 85 pts, would you be telling me that his next step would be 100 pts for green? I think you are out to lunch..

The odds of Green getting 82 pts, is a lot lower than Luongo hitting 120 pts. Therefore you still need to go with the goalie.

But I am done trying to prove a point, because we ain\'t getting nowhere. You guys make your points for green, I make them for the goalies. We agree on disagreeing with each other I guess.

I absolutely think you are NUTS for taking green in the 1st round period. I would take him 2nd round, but definitely not 1st round. That\'s just my humble opinion though.

[doulos]

Dutch wrote:

I have admitted before I was wrong about green. But that doesn\'t make him a 80+ point defense. Hypothetically speaking, if green played full 82 games, and if he would have reached 85 pts, would you be telling me that his next step would be 100 pts for green? I think you are out to lunch..

Who said he is a 100 point defenseman?

You even said it yourself, if you prorate his points this year he is an 85 points defenseman. And so people are saying it\'s realistic for him to hit 80 points. What\'s so unrealistic about that?

The odds of Green getting 82 pts, is a lot lower than Luongo hitting 120 pts. Therefore you still need to go with the goalie.

Top goalies Performances Given a 2 for a win, 3 for a SO point system over the past 11 seasons


Brodeur 2006-2007 - 132 Points
Brodeur 1997-1998 - 117 Points
Kipprusoff 2005-2006 - 114 Points
Brodeur 2000-2001 - 111 Points
Nabokov 2007-2008 - 110 Points

Interesting Note:

Luongo 2008-2009 - 87 points in 54 Games.

Top Defense Performances by points in that same time period:

Lidstrom 2005-2006 - 80 Points (80 Games)
Leetch 2000-2001 - 79 Points (82 Games)
Green 2008-2009 - 73 Points (In 68 Games!)
Lidstrom 1999-2000 - 73 Points (81 Games)
Lidstrom 2000-2001 - 71 Points (82 Games)

So let\'s prorate the 2 likeliest candidates to hit the numbers you suggest - 120 points for a goalie and 82 points for Green.

I\'ll give Green 80 games and Luongo 74 (his average in his 4 previous healthy season)

Green would have ended up with 85 points
and
Luongo would have ended up with 119 Points

If both of them played at the same rate.

So only Green would have hit the number you had set out for him and by 3 extra points, while Luongo would not have hit the point marker even at the same pace he was setting.

Also keep in mind that Luongo has never even hit 110 points in a season given a 2 for a win, 3 for a SO scoring system.

So given that data it seems reasonable in to estimate that in fact Green hitting 82 points is indeed more likely then Luongo hitting 120 points.

[Maaaasquito]

Funny how after all of this we haven\'t progressed past my post from the very beginning...

I think many people have made compelling points and certainly opinions have played a large factor in their decisions.

The thing with Green is that there\'s gotta be a limit somewhere for D, when he hit 30 goals this year, he certainly shattered a lot of beliefs that people had prior to this season, the problem is now he might have started the ball rolling on \"crazy expectations\". Nik Lidstrom can\'t even have a back-to-back 70 point seasons on a fairly offensive Red Wings team, so do you really think it\'s fair to have higher expecations for Green than for Lidstrom who is arguably one of the best defenseman who have played the game in the modern era?

I understand that if Green puts up the numbers that he did last year, he has a big edge over the \"rest of the pack\", but what you have to consider is that his numbers were already inflated quite a bit. Just quickly glancing over the numbers, there\'s only been a handful of players who have hit 70 points as a D, Bourque, Coffey, Potvin, and really only one in the modern era, Lidstrom, so you have to really temper what to expect from Green. I probably would realistically drop the projection of him down to 60 more so than 75...

With the goalies, you kinda know what you are going to get. Wins will come with more starts, SO is give or take, but to me if you draft a Luongo, Nabby, Lundy, you\'re pretty much going to get 35 wins + 3-4 SO as a bottom, and 45, 8-9 SO as a high. There\'s a higher probability of goalies getting better numbers than Green getting the numbers that people are expecting. With that said there\'s also more alternatives to average goalies as opposed to D.

To me it seems like going goalie is a safer choice cause there\'s less factors that will negatively affect his play, but statistically speaking, IF Green CAN up that bar once again, he it could be the move that wins you the championship...

[BrianSTC]

Dutch wrote:

I have admitted before I was wrong about green. But that doesn\'t make him a 80+ point defense.

The ONLY reason Green is not an 80 point defenseman is because he missed 14 games this season. So you are right, Green is not an 80-point defenseman....yet.

Dutch wrote:

But I am done trying to prove a point, because we ain\'t getting nowhere. You guys make your points for green, I make them for the goalies. We agree on disagreeing with each other I guess.

I haven\'t stated a case to take Green in any round. I HAVE said that your dislike for Green make your opinion tainted....

Dutch wrote:

I absolutely think you are NUTS for taking green in the 1st round period. I would take him 2nd round, but definitely not 1st round. That\'s just my humble opinion though.

Green WOULD NOT be still available in the second round and even if he was, I highly doubt that YOU would take him even then...especially if Weber was still available...

[doulos]

Gotlaid wrote:

The thing with Green is that there\'s gotta be a limit somewhere for D, when he hit 30 goals this year, he certainly shattered a lot of beliefs that people had prior to this season, the problem is now he might have started the ball rolling on \"crazy expectations\". Nik Lidstrom can\'t even have a back-to-back 70 point seasons on a fairly offensive Red Wings team, so do you really think it\'s fair to have higher expecations for Green than for Lidstrom who is arguably one of the best defenseman who have played the game in the modern era?

You make some good points and I only wanted to address this particular comment. Lidstrom in 1999-2000, 2000-2001, put together back to back 70+ point seasons with the Red Wings. And during the time when offense was certainly at more of a premium. The league has opened up a lot more now.

I think your point about goalies being a safer pick is an interesting one. I\'m certainly a go big or go home kind of drafter.

[joos]

Gotlaid +1

You\'ve been saying exactly what I have been saying this whole time.

This issue should be stoned to death now. Its over. No one wins.

[saywhaaaaat]

Dutch wrote:

The odds of Green getting 82 pts, is a lot lower than Luongo hitting 120 pts.

Green has exactly 100 points in his last 100 games played (including regular season and playoffs).

He has 113 points in his last 112 regular season games.

He\'s a point-per-game player right now, period. Unless you\'re factoring in some injuries, I just don\'t understand how you can argue against 82 points for him...

[Dutch]

+1 Gotlaid, you said the same thing I have said, except you use better sentences to get your point across

Doulos, all I said was that IF green would have hit 82-85 pts this year, people would have had expectations he would break 90 next year. But like Gotlaid said, there has got to be a limit for defenders.

I am not making a case for Luongo in particular, I am making a case for ANY goalie. I just used Luongo because most people think he\'s the best goalie in the league. But at #4, I could pick any of brodeur, luongo, lundqvist, nabokov. So maybe Luongo may not hit 120, but any of the other ones may certainly hit their 120 mark easier than green and his 82.

saywhat:
Just because he has been a PPG player over his career right now, won\'t necessarily make him a point per game player year in and out. The odds of him getting 1000 pts in 1000 games played, are very very low IMO. Sure he\'s been on a roll, but it\'s crazy to expect him to get 82 pts year in and out. Like Gotlaid said, even guys like Lidstrom, who have been consistently at the top amongst defenders, don\'t bring 70+ seasons year in and out. With the exception of the 2 seasons previously mentioned maybe.

[pudge]

K, now the thread has derailed to whether or not Mike Green can get 73+ again this season if he plays a full 82.

IF he does then noone seems to be denying that he is the best pick anymore. Everyone seems to have moved to the Green can\'t repeat his season....

So to the Original OP it\'s just a matter of if you believe Green is capable of repeating... If you think he can then he is the best pick at #4, if you don\'t think he can then take your top choice in goal.

As for whether he can or not:
Numbers all point to him increasing his totals.
History and precedent says he most likely can\'t increase his totals.

There\'s no need to continue this argument of whether he will or won\'t anymore because we all have and are entitled to our opinions.

Great discussion and thread though.
cheers all.

[BrianSTC]

So Dutch,

How much Karma are you gonna give me if Green breaks 73 points?

[doulos]

Doulos, all I said was that IF green would have hit 82-85 pts this year, people would have had expectations he would break 90 next year. But like Gotlaid said, there has got to be a limit for defenders.

I know this has strayed a little from the initial question but I think if you\'re going to make statements you should be prepared to defend them is all I am saying.

The problem with what you are saying is that people are basing their expectations of Green on his pts/game average this season. People are not pulling their numbers out of nowhere like you seem to be implying by the 90 points thing.

No perhaps there are limitations on defensemen, but as fantasy hockey enthusiasts our job is to try and look at patterns and playing styles and make good estimations of how players will perform.

I am not making a case for Luongo in particular, I am making a case for ANY goalie. I just used Luongo because most people think he\'s the best goalie in the league. But at #4, I could pick any of brodeur, luongo, lundqvist, nabokov. So maybe Luongo may not hit 120, but any of the other ones may certainly hit their 120 mark easier than green and his 82.

I\'d invite you to take a look at the stats I put up earlier once again. Only one goalie (Broduer) hit 120 points in the past 11 seasons, as well as only one defenseman (Lidstrom) hit 80 points in the past 11 seasons. Considering the shift from defensive NHL to more open offensive NHL it\'s not unreasonable to assume that a drop in SO for goalies and an increase in points for defensemen could happen.

Feel free to take any goalie in the league but the trends simply don\'t support your opinion in this matter is my point. You can make a statement like the likelihood of Green hitting 80 points is LESS then the likelihood of a goalie hitting 120 points but I\'d love to see some tangible reason for what you are proposing other then just \"gut\" feeling or something. If that\'s all it is then we can part ways I suppose. I\'ll go with trends and numbers and you can take gut.

Just because he has been a PPG player over his career right now, won\'t necessarily make him a point per game player year in and out. The odds of him getting 1000 pts in 1000 games played, are very very low IMO. Sure he\'s been on a roll, but it\'s crazy to expect him to get 82 pts year in and out. Like Gotlaid said, even guys like Lidstrom, who have been consistently at the top amongst defenders, don\'t bring 70+ seasons year in and out. With the exception of the 2 seasons previously mentioned maybe.

You need to factor in a few other things as well when you think about this. Lidstrom hit his multiple 70+ point seasons and his 80 point season in the midst of a defensive NHL. When the league opened up in the mid 90s there were defensemen eclipsing 100 points for several seasons in a row.

There are lots of factors here to keep track of.

As to your points regarding expecting a player to keep up a point per game pace I agree ... somewhat. Lidstrom might not be expecting back to back 70 point seasons any more because of his age but Green is 23 years old and approaching the prime of his career alongside the best goalscorer in the league who is also approaching the prime of his career. There is every reason to think that 80 points is incredibly achievable. But even IF Green doesn\'t hit 80 points and only hits 70 - which is incredibly likely - the statistics would state that he at worst on par with only a select few other players for the #4 pick, and at best a runaway for that pick.

In conclusion while I can see an argument made for perhaps taking 1 or 2 other players at that spot in a draft, I\'m not sure why we are all so NUTS (your words) for choosing Green at #4.

It\'s been a good discussion and normally I don\'t want to be bothered too much with the back and forth as it doesn\'t go anywhere, but I have truly been interested in trying to understand where you are coming from in stating that we are crazy for our assessment of taking Green at #4.

[BrianSTC]

doulos wrote:

It\'s been a good discussion and normally I don\'t want to be bothered too much with the back and forth as it doesn\'t go anywhere, but I have truly been interested in trying to understand where you are coming from in stating that we are crazy for our assessment of taking Green at #4.

Here is the bottom line.

Dutch does not like Green. He made several bets regarding Green this past season and LOST EVERY SINGLE BET!!

This is just a continuation of that...and that is why I keep saying that Dutch\'s opinion in this matter is tainted by his feeling about Green.

GREEN COULD SCORE 130 POINTS NEXT SEASON AND DUTCH WOULD STILL INSIST THAT HE IS NOT WORTHY OF A FIRST ROUND PICK!!

[Maaaasquito]

The thing is that a few people have said that all the signs are pointing up... To me they\'re pretty much already there and he might still have a bit up to go but not as much as people speculate.

1) Green shot 12.8% last season, the year before he shot 7.7%, you have to assume a drop in that number. For comparisions sake, Ovechkin shot 10.6, Iggy 12.1, Malkin 12.1, Perry 11.3, Sedin 10.9, Zetterberg, 10.0... can you really assume that Green will maintain a sh% higher than some of the top point scoring forwards in the NHL? Let\'s say he drops down to 10% which is still pretty decent, pro-rated for a full 82 game season that still only equates to 29 goals, which is still below the 31 that he potted this season. Despite adding the extra 14 games...

2)Green potted 18 PPG last season, there probably isn\'t much more room for Green to improve upon in that area. Washington was also firing at 25.2% as well, so you can\'t really expect him to pick up more points on the PP if they are already ranked 2nd overall on the PP anyways.

3) Wash is already in the top 3 in terms of goals for/game, so once again not too much improvement can be there for Green.

4) Looking at these playoffs, he picked up 9 points in 14 games, if you pro-rate that over a full 82 games, it works out to be 53 points. Granted it\'s the playoffs and they\'re playing the same team over and over again... But that might cool down some of the Green flames rather than looking at his regular season stats. Also he shot only 4.2% during the playoffs. Whether it\'s because teams were changing their defensive scheme on him or whatever, you would have to think teams are onto him.

Once again not saying Green isn\'t a viable option at 4, lots of people have provided plenty of fact and numbers to back up their opinions, I just think he\'s hit the peak or at least very near the peak that there isn\'t much more room for him to go but down...

[doulos]

You make excellent points and could be right.

Though I wonder what people were saying after Coffey got 89 points in 81-82? Then he followed it up with seasons of 96, 126 and 121. Crazy! But it seems like he might have reached his peak.

Nope! Then he put up 138 in 79 games!

Green is not going to see that kind of increase but he is playing with one of the greatest players to play the game since that era.