Goligoski vs Brian Lee

[Hunter Gathers]

Lee IS a better prospect.

First of all, Lee is roughly 2 years younger than Goligoski (1yr, 8mo).

If you compare them at the same age it really isn't close.

You want to talk about stats.....an 18 year old Goligoski put up a lousy 2 points in 10 games in the USHL, while Lee had a great rookie year in college. Likewise, at 19, Goligoski put up 20 points for Minny. I can guarantee you that Lee will EASILY surpase that this year; its not even in question.

When Lee is Goligoski's (current) age, he, most likely, will have gone pro already.

Anyone who thinks Goligoski is better either doesn't watch college hockey or is downright dillusional.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Goligoski reminds me alot of Brian Rafalski. Right down to the wrister on the PP and way he moves the puck. Plus he an undersized defenseman that's a great all around skater. Goli has his flaws, like defensive reads and problems with bigger players, but I really think that they're correctable. I would feel alot better if he was at Harvard and Ted Donato was molding him but every player has their own question marks. He seems like the type of kid that'll work on his flaws so I think that once turning pro his two way game will blossem. Plus I really feel that Minny played some sloppy hockey last year and that would make any D-man look bad.

Fair comparison, but you HAVE to include the fact that he has very subpar hockey sense. I don't think that Goligoski is that bright of a player, especially in comparison to a guy like Rafalski who I think is one of the smartest players in today's NHL.

There is just a huge, huge, huge difference in their mindsets.

But they both play the offensive side of the puck relatively the same. That I will give you.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Lee by a pretty fair margin.

 

[Danny30]

I made the simple statement...based on numbers Goligoski is currently a better player (even if there's a good chance Lee could pass him up) and you jump down my throat. Goligoski had about 50% more points...supposedly it doesn't mean anything. As with me, maybe these guys just don't watch the game very, very closely either:

Goligoski - 2006 USCHO All American Honorable Mention...2005 USCHO All Rookie
Lee - Not an All American...he must be All Rookie? No sir

Goligoski - 2006 INCH All American 3rd team...2005 INCH All Rookie
Lee - Not All American...and All Rookie? sorry

Goligoski - 2006 All WCHA 2nd team
Lee - Not All WCHA

Show any hard evidence that Brian Lee is 'easily' a better player today...'and its not even close'...not 'but he's got such a great hockey sense'

I think INCH, USCHO, and the people that choose the All WCHA team don't watch college hockey, or they are delusional.

 

[stardog]

I made the simple statement...based on numbers Goligoski is currently a better player (even if there's a good chance Lee could pass him up) and you jump down my throat. Goligoski had about 50% more points...supposedly it doesn't mean anything. As with me, maybe these guys just don't watch the game very, very closely either:

Goligoski - 2006 USCHO All American Honorable Mention...2005 USCHO All Rookie
Lee - Not an All American...he must be All Rookie? No sir

Goligoski - 2006 INCH All American 3rd team...2005 INCH All Rookie
Lee - Not All American...and All Rookie? sorry

Goligoski - 2006 All WCHA 2nd team
Lee - Not All WCHA

Show any hard evidence that Brian Lee is 'easily' a better player today...'and its not even close'...not 'but he's got such a great hockey sense'

You CANT base it on numbers though! There are so many things that go into a persons games that simple OFFENSIVE numbers dont account for. Especially for a DEFENSMAN!
To look at the numbers and then base your ratings on them is quite ignorant.
So your going to tell me that Bryan McCabe and Lubomir Visnovsky are better defensemen than Wade Redden and Chris Pronger? Or that Paul Mara is better than Zdeno Chara? Are Ryan Whitney, Greg DeVries and Sheldon Souray better than Matty Ohlund? And that Brian Campbell sure is better than Brad Stuart! They have better numbers, so it MUST be true.
You are gonna get jumped all over for that one and I hope you learn something from such a fallable argument.
And Im a HUGE Goligoski fan, but Im also quite realistic.
I mean, if you call this "hard evidence" then Im not all that certain you will get alot out of anybody trying to point out the obvious flaws in this line of ''reasoning''.

 

[#66]

Fair comparison, but you HAVE to include the fact that he has very subpar hockey sense. I don't think that Goligoski is that bright of a player, especially in comparison to a guy like Rafalski who I think is one of the smartest players in today's NHL.

There is just a huge, huge, huge difference in their mindsets.

But they both play the offensive side of the puck relatively the same. That I will give you.

While I would agree that Goli has his holes, I keep going back to his first 20 or so games in the NCAA. IMO he played a little bit safer and Minny wasn't trying to run and gun. He looked pretty good defensively back then and thats something I'm hoping that he and the Gophers go back to. With the new players coming in like EJ and Fischer, a more defensive system might be a better way to play anyway. Plus I think that comparisons made with any player has some hope to it as far as upside. So I'm pretty much saying that Goligoski could become a Rafalski type player. He might not of hit that upside yet but IMO its a level he could reach with the style he plays. You're right though, Rafalski has some of the better three way sense (offense, defense, transition) in the league and is very under-rated.

 

[5mn Major]

Zine's post was good and brings some facts to the table (although you missed on or misrepresented Goligoski's resume).

The age differential helps to explain why Goligoski got national accolades for his freshman year...whereas Lee did not. I still don't see any people disagreeing with the fact that Lee has a good chance to catch Goligoski in terms of level of play.

Lee's offensive game might be a bit below Goligoski's, but Lee's defensive game and hockey intelligence FAR FAR surpass anything Goligoski has right now.

OK....so this is what you've got. There is a way to evaluate combined offensive and defensive impact on ice...that was introduced to help evaluate D's level of play. Its called plus/minus ratio.

So based on your above assessment would you say that Lee has twice the plus/minus of Goligoski? three times the plus/minus? Actually Lee came in at +15 and Goligoski at +21. Yet again, all the evidence goes against your point of view.

But all the evidence absolutely aligns with the experts at USCHO, INCH and this organization called the WCHA who are calling Goligoski currently a better player than Lee. Consider yourself off the hook.

 

[USA!]

Wow looks like the gopher homers are out in full force! Some of your homers need lay off the cool aid. Oh ya i would take Lee anyday.

 

[5mn Major]

Stardog, statistics are important...not everything...but they nearly always correlate to strong and weak individual performance. When the NHL, the CHL, the NCAA and pretty much every other leagues' teams make any sort of player evaluation...how do they make it? Statistics. Stats are used as the top criteria in recruiting, draft selection, compensation, trades, and any evaluations of a leagues most valuable players...at every level of hockey.

Don't get me wrong...there is a lot of value in opinion. I think 66s posts are great reading and wish I saw more posts like that...and although tangential to the question asked, IMO the most valuable post in the thread.

Even so in terms of evaluating performance (ie Gol vs. Lee), I can see the impact on a board like this of an aversion to statistics or other forms of fact. Depending on posters...it either just turns into a vicious pointless argument or a general passive agreement. In either case, without foundational facts its just opinion dressed as the truth.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I still can't believe 5mm is trying to say Goligoski is better due to #s.

This is absolutely absurd.

The original question is who do you choose?

If you choose Goligoski over Lee, there is a reason you are not an NHL scout or GM.

 

[Roy G Biv*]

Goligoski is a ridiculous name. I take Lee hands down.

Where have you been?

 

[Transported Upstater]

The original question is who do you choose?

If you choose Goligoski over Lee, there is a reason you are not an NHL scout or GM.

Simple as that.

 

[Danny30]

People in this thread's logic: Lee = higher draft pick = better player.

I find it hard to believe that anyone arguing for Lee has ever seen him and Goli play. I am by no means saying Lee is a bad player. Of course he isn't, he is an elite player. All that I am saying is Goli is better. I would take him any day of the week. I have watched every game of each of their college careers, so I am not one of these yahoos that comment, but have never seen either play other than the WJC's.

 

[Transported Upstater]

People in this thread's logic: Lee = higher draft pick = better player.

I find it hard to believe that anyone arguing for Lee has ever seen him and Goli play. I am by no means saying Lee is a bad player. Of course he isn't, he is an elite player. All that I am saying is Goli is better. I would take him any day of the week. I have watched every game of each of their college careers, so I am not one of these yahoos that comment, but have never seen either play other than the WJC's.

I've seen plenty of both.

Whether or not Lee is better than Goli right now isn't the main concern. If this is on the Prospects Board, ideally it is comparing the two players' potential impact in the NHL. And when you take that into account, it IS a blowout. Goli doesn't have close to the NHL potential Lee does. If you are picking Goli because you believe he is a better NCAA player at the present moment, I disagree, but that's not the big issue here. That point is at least arguable. But the bigger picture is not.

Whether you and/or others realize it or not, Lee was picked #8 for a reason, and picked #8 by a team with a pretty solid drafting resume in recent years. People aren't picking Lee in this thread BECAUSE he was picked #8. People are picking Lee because he belongs in the top half of the first round, and that his play and future DO warrant the attention we are giving him. He came into the toughest conference in the NCAA's without a full season in the USHL, and didn't exactly play at the highest level in Minnesota HS hockey, either. And he had a fantastic freshman season that should leave the Senators brass and their fans with a smile on their collective faces.

This part isn't directed at you, but I am really amazed on how much people are underrating Lee, and the problem is they are doing this almost purely because of the rapid development of Marc Staal and Luc Bourdon. Both of those guys are easily better than Lee right now and much more capable of making a run at an NHL roster. But when the Senators spent a high pick on Brian Lee, they were investing for the future (despite what Muckler said at the draft) and that it would be a while until Lee reaches the NHL. Lee won't make the NHL until at earliest the 2008-09 season. It is very possible that by the time we get into the next decade, Brian Lee is the best NHL defenseman from the 2005 draft.

 

[Redden Punches Faces*]

Where have you been?

extended hiatus. Expect some fantastic contributions back home soon enough.

Anyway, 5mn makes some good points, IN BIZARRO WORLD. (and you can take that to the bank.)

Tranny is making all the right points.

(Is it OK if I call you Tranny? I mean I don't really know you, and I suppose in the time its taken me to type all of this, I could have just typed out your name in full, and a couple of times for that matter.)

 

[Transported Upstater]

extended hiatus. Expect some fantastic contributions back home soon enough.

Anyway, 5mn makes some good points, IN BIZARRO WORLD. (and you can take that to the bank.)

Tranny is making all the right points.

(Is it OK if I call you Tranny? I mean I don't really know you, and I suppose in the time its taken me to type all of this, I could have just typed out your name in full, and a couple of times for that matter.)

Last I checked, that name was pretty accurate.

And thanks for the post compliment.

 

[Realm]

I am a HUGE Gophers fan and the obvious answer is still Lee.

 

[MN_Gopher]

Not that they are anything alike. But how many thought Roche was better than Paul Martin. Bigger and better defensive skills. Or at least projected better in the D zone. Mostly due to his size. And how did that turn out?

Lee has more hype. And more to live up to and project too. All Goligoski has done is be the best D man on, for most of the year, the best team in the nation. Projects to be one of the best d men in the NCAA next year.

And like i said earlier. Goligoski was asked to play a year i nthe USHL. The staff knowing he was a talent and a solid player. Much the same was David Fischer and the staff were talking about the USHL. Both Fischer and Goligoski project great but needed to bulk up a bit. Lee has a healthy size.

I'd take Lee. But its not Chara vs Zyuzin here.

 

[Zine]

Not that they are anything alike. But how many thought Roche was better than Paul Martin. Bigger and better defensive skills. Or at least projected better in the D zone. Mostly due to his size. And how did that turn out?

Of course Roche was better in the 1 year they played against each other in the NCAA - Martin was a freshman; Roche was a veteran and 3 years older. However, most everybody knew Martin was going to be better than Roche. There's a reason why Martin was taken in the 2nd round and Roche wasn't even drafted.

Lee has more hype. And more to live up to and project too. All Goligoski has done is be the best D man on, for most of the year, the best team in the nation. Projects to be one of the best d men in the NCAA next year.

And like i said earlier. Goligoski was asked to play a year i nthe USHL. The staff knowing he was a talent and a solid player. Much the same was David Fischer and the staff were talking about the USHL. Both Fischer and Goligoski project great but needed to bulk up a bit. Lee has a healthy size.

I'd take Lee. But its not Chara vs Zyuzin here.

It isn't a Chara vs Zyuzin scenario, but Lee IS a better prospect by a fairly wide margain.

Like I said earlier, you have to compare them at the same age. What Lee will do this coming year will blow away Goligoski's rookie season (both at 19 y.o.) Likewise, Lee in 2 years will be FAR BETTER than Goligoski is now.

 

[naihlflames]

Better prospect ? For what?

Overall game I take Lee. Fantasy and NHL point production Goligoski. He's putting up good numbers now, has offensive upside, and is a Penguin prospect. 5 years from now he could be playing the pp point with Whitney in Pitt and putting up oints with Crosby, Malkin, and company.

 

[MN_Gopher]

Of course Roche was better in the 1 year they played against each other in the NCAA - Martin was a freshman; Roche was a veteran and 3 years older. However, most everybody knew Martin was going to be better than Roche. There's a reason why Martin was taken in the 2nd round and Roche wasn't even drafted.




It isn't a Chara vs Zyuzin scenario, but Lee IS a better prospect by a fairly wide margain.

Like I said earlier, you have to compare them at the same age. What Lee will do this coming year will blow away Goligoski's rookie season (both at 19 y.o.) Likewise, Lee in 2 years will be FAR BETTER than Goligoski is now.

You cannot always go by same year either. Williams was producing in the NHL when Heatley was supposedly underachieving in the WCHA. Pretty much the same age. It is unfair to compare Lee as a fresh to Goli as a sophmore.

 

[Transported Upstater]

You cannot always go by same year either. Williams was producing in the NHL when Heatley was supposedly underachieving in the WCHA. Pretty much the same age. It is unfair to compare Lee as a fresh to Goli as a sophmore.

He was?

 

[MN_Gopher]

He was?

Heatley after his draft year. 57 points in the NCAA. Williams 25 points in 63 games in the NHL. I guess 25 points is not ripping it up. But it was looked at by some to better than what Heatley did for WI.

Heatley had hobey hopes and was going to single handedly carry WI to the NCAAs. Instead he floated and played with no heart. According to some.

 

[Zine]

You cannot always go by same year either. Williams was producing in the NHL when Heatley was supposedly underachieving in the WCHA. Pretty much the same age. It is unfair to compare Lee as a fresh to Goli as a sophmore.

Why is it unfair? If Goligoski was good enough to play college at 18 he would have. Goligoski had 2pts in 10 USHL games as an 18yo - definately not numbers indicative that he was NCAA ready; especially for an 'offensive' defenseman.

You compare players at the same age because it puts them on equal footing. It's more unfair to compare a 21yo Goligoski to a 19yo Lee.

BTW, its not fair to use a Heatley/Williams example because that's definately not the norm. For every Heatley/Williams example I could probably give 40 other examples that say otherwise.

Fact is - at every stage in their carrer, Lee has outdone Goligoski by a good margain (even offensively) and there's nothing to indicate that will change.

 

[Powdered Toast Man]

Why is it unfair? If Goligoski was good enough to play college at 18 he would have. Goligoski had 2pts in 10 USHL games as an 18yo - definately not numbers indicative that he was NCAA ready; especially for an 'offensive' defenseman.

You compare players at the same age because it puts them on equal footing. It's more unfair to compare a 21yo Goligoski to a 19yo Lee.

BTW, its not fair to use a Heatley/Williams example because that's definately not the norm. For every Heatley/Williams example you give I could probably give 40 other examples that say otherwise.

Fact is - at every stage in their carrer, Lee has outdone Goligoski by a good margain (even offensively) and there's nothing to indicate that will change.

...but the Gopher said so!