Del Zotto > Goligoski.

Posted by Tim McArthur on 10/31/09 at 12:08 PM ET

Goligoski is played in a far larger number of situations.  Though both are somewhat protected from defensive situations, Goligoski plays in them far more then Del Zotto.  Goligoski is a much more complete player at thisp oint in their careers.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/31/09 at 12:19 PM ET

“Thus far he has not shown defensive weakness this year and has shown much better offensive ability than before.”

More like he has shown less defensive weakness this year. He makes dumb mistakes that all/most 23 year old second year NHL’ers are going to make. Letang is much much more solid defensively at this point, but Goligoski is looking so good. He already has Gonchar’s ability to get almost every shot on the net, and his ability to place his shots where he wants/they need to go.

Posted by Nathan from BC on 10/31/09 at 01:13 PM ET

So far it looks as if Goligoski could be a poor man’s Mike Green, which isn’t that bad from my perspective. Despite not being the best defenceman in his own zone there has been noticeable improvement; increased confidence and veteran help from McKee has limited the worst defects. The target of contributing offensively without being a defensive liability is within reach. He isn’t going to win the Norris, but he’s good and will get even better.

If Gonchar and Letang are extended during or after this season, we have enviable blueline in terms of offensive ability.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 10/31/09 at 01:23 PM ET

Jesus man, Goligoski is a pretty good young defenseman who has put on some pretty good stats on a good team but by no means is he the best defenseman in the NHL so far. 

You just don’t get it.  Ever.

Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 10/31/09 at 01:49 PM ET

ALERT ALERT ALERT !!!!!!!!! 

Village missing it’s Idiot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Gogo is Not Now or anytime this year the Best D Man Good God you Need Help !!!

Posted by Evilpens on 10/31/09 at 02:17 PM ET

As I wrote on another post here @ KK:

Goligoski reminds me of Rafalski when he came up with N.J.,only he’s a left shot.

He’s still very inexperienced but he has the potential to be a very solid 2-3 D-man with a very good power play skill set.

Posted by Lindas1st from New England on 10/31/09 at 03:15 PM ET

I am not calling Alex Goligoski the best defenceman in hockey.  I am pointing out he is the defenceman who has played the best so far this season.  There is a large difference between those statements that is lost on some of the idiot trolls who like to disrupt this blog.

If you disagree about Goligoski, which defenceman has played better so far this season?

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/31/09 at 03:37 PM ET

“Goligoski could be a poor man’s Mike Green”

Mike Green’s defense is awful, and so far in his career he’s been somewhat of a liability. Goligoski has been picking his spots to join the rush very well so far.

Posted by Nathan from BC on 10/31/09 at 03:44 PM ET

....which defenceman has played better so far this season?

I can’t call it.

Posted by Lindas1st from New England on 10/31/09 at 04:10 PM ET

Yet again you are way off base.  He is a good defenseman playing for a hot team, you could put quite a few other D-men in his place and they would probably put up similar numbers.  Stats aren’t everything, but you aren’t smart enough to look beyond them and see that.  I simply cannot believe you are allowed to have a blog.  Pathetic.

WORST.  BLOG.  EVER.

Posted by John W. from a bubble wrap cocoon on 10/31/09 at 04:12 PM ET

So what you’re basically saying is that Goligoski is the defenseman of the month for October in the NHL.

I can except that.

Posted by Lindas1st from New England on 10/31/09 at 06:12 PM ET

Lindas, come on man, you seem smart (with the exception of the occasional trollish behavior), it is accept, not except.

Which defenseman is playing better?  Let’s see…you could make an argument for any of the following:

Kaberle -  Most points by far on a team that sucks ass.
Doughty - 12 points on a team not near as strong as the Pens.
Carle - Same amount of points as Goligoski, almost the same plus/minus, in 3 less games.
Weber- A plus player on a terrible team, 9 points is second on Nashville and five goals which leads the team. 

The only thing that Goligoski has going for him more than others is plus/minus, which can be a team stat, especially when the team is playing as well as the Pens.  Obviously you can make that argument if you want and are retarded, but really, why would you when even Pens fans think you shouldn’t.

STATS DON’T MEAN EVERYTHING.

Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 11/01/09 at 08:03 PM ET

I am not calling Alex Goligoski the best defenceman in hockey.  I am pointing out he is the defenceman who has played the best so far this season.  There is a large difference between those statements that is lost on some of the idiot trolls who like to disrupt this blog.

Speaking of idiots.  Here’s the original quote you seemed to have the problem with.  I’ve gone ahead and put the key words you apparently failed to read in bold:

Jesus man, Goligoski is a pretty good young defenseman who has put on some pretty good stats on a good team but by no means is he the best defenseman in the NHL so far.

You just don’t get it.  Ever.

Posted by moore00 from the Ohio State University on 10/31/09 at 01:49 PM ET

Get the part where he said “so far” and then you took that statement to mean that he was accusing you of calling Goligoski the best defenseman in the NHL?

You attacked a statement that a person clearly did not make, yet you have the gall to call him the idiot.

Also, moore00’s list of defensemen is impressive.  I don’t think you’ve done your homework on this one, TPSH.  I’d take any of the four people he listed over Goligoski to this point of the season.  Not a shot at the kid because he really has been impressive, but he’s simply not been the best NHL defenseman SO FAR.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/01/09 at 08:55 PM ET

Moore I stand by my pick of Goligoski when I made it.  Kaberle scored 4 points after my pick and that may change things. 

The main argument you have for the other players is they play on worse teams than Goligoski - as if a worse team makes you a better player.  From what I have seen, Goligoski has been a bigger part of his team than the others you list.  For example, Philadelphia fans would probably not list Matt Carle as the best defenceman on their team so far this year.

Ironically, you write STATS DON’T MEAN EVERYTHING. when some of your picks as top defencemen seem to disagree with that correct claim.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/02/09 at 10:04 AM ET

I just picked a few guys who have had statistical years just as good as Goligoski.  And I don’t really think you could say Carle is the best defenseman this year, but going on your blind look at stats, it looks like it.

I’m basically saying Goligoski is a product of his environment and is a good, but not great defenseman. 

I’m also saying it is way too early to really pick anyone.  Weber would be the only one that sticks out right now. 

Though in all honesty, Lidstrom has had a great, if not quiet October.  He’s still the best in the league, points not withstanding.

Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 11/03/09 at 09:08 AM ET

I just picked a few guys who have had statistical years just as good as Goligoski.  And I don’t really think you could say Carle is the best defenseman this year, but going on your blind look at stats, it looks like it.

I interpret this to mean you blindly looked at statistics and made some choices which are OK and some which are poorer.  You incorrectly assumed that is my method so you try to tell me this is the same kind of list I would produce.  Matt Carle being on your list clearly makes my case.

Picking the defenceman who has played the best so far this season is a topic which should lead to some discussion.  Nobody is running away with the lead.  Each night’s games played change things as each single game is still a significant portion of the whole season.  It is reasonable to disagree between the players we select.  It6 is reasonable to make a new choice every few days.

When I made my pick, I think Goligoski had been the best so far.  Is he somewhat a product of his environment?  Yes.  Everybody is.  Is Shea Weber a bad pick?  No.  What bothers me with that pick (and how you chose other players) is that you seem to value being the only good player on a bad to mediocre team higher than being a good player on a good team.  Of course top players can exist on weaker teams, but they are more likely found on strong teams (that is a big part of what makes them strong).  I think you are not picking Goligoski merely because Pittsburgh is a good team and that is a completely backwards idea.  Last year that process would have led you to selecting people like Jay Bouwmeester, Shea Weber and Mark Streit as your Norris nominees and missed out on some more deserving players.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/03/09 at 11:12 AM ET

I had a long response, but it was lost in submission, so here’s a quick and dirty version of why you still are an idiot.

You deduced this from the players I picked:

The main argument you have for the other players is they play on worse teams than Goligoski - as if a worse team makes you a better player.

and then have continued on that path to deduce this little genius ditty:

What bothers me with that pick (and how you chose other players) is that you seem to value being the only good player on a bad to mediocre team higher than being a good player on a good team.

All this from a few players that were picked that have comparable stats to Goligoski.  Wow, impressive.  In addition, you somehow didn’t realize that two of the four players I picked were actually on pretty good teams.  Not surprising coming from you. 

And now you’re arguing the retarded fact that good players play on good teams.  Impressive for a down syndrome child like yourself. 

What I was arguing is that Goligoski is a good player, but not great player.  Even Pens fans don’t think he’s the best in the league, even in October.  He’s young and makes inexperienced mistakes.  Will he be great? Maybe, but not right now. 

Yet looking back, other than being in the top five or six players in points and his strong plus minus (which is why I started saying Goligoski is a product of his environment), you have failed to offer a strong reasoning why Goligoski is the best in the league “so far,” other than simply your general statement that he is.

Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 11/03/09 at 06:14 PM ET

Goligoski had a great October.  It is very reasonable to say he was the best defenceman in the league as of my post.

The reason I think you seem to value defencemen being on bad (or worse than pittsburgh) teams is that you cite it as a reason in your arguments for 3 of the 4 players you try to put forward as better than Goligoski so far.  The one player you don’t try to cite it with isc Matt Carle who is the most ridiculous pick you can make if you want to repeatedly wite that STATS DON’T MEAN EVERYTHING. 

As for why I think Goligoski had been the best when I made the post, the answer is in the post.  Second paragraph

At this early point in the season, Alex Goligoski of the Pittsburgh Penguins has been the best defenceman in the NHL.  Goligoski has 12 points, which places him third among defencemen in the NHL.  He has a +13 +/- rating which is good for first place in the league.  On a Pittsburgh team that suffered a blow to their defence when Sergei Gonchar suffered a broken wrist, Goligoski has done a wonderful job.  The Penguins struggled without Gonchar last year, but with Goligoski in his place have not missed a beat this year.

That observation comes from watching Goligoski as much as it comes from statistics.  Goligoski has not been making the mistakes you want to pin on him.  At least not so far this season - perhaps you are remembering him from last year (have you watched him much this season?).  He has been a very strong defenceman in Pittsburgh.  He has been the primary player in terms of bringing the puck up the ice for the Penguins.  He has done very well in his own zone.  All of this is clear from watching him play or by looking into his stats.  I think your other selections are just an attempt to throw multiple players at the wall to see if any stick to try to prove me wrong.  Had I argued Shea Weber was the top defenceman or Tomas Kaberle was the top defenceman you would have thrown Goligoski at me.  You are not interested in discussing hockey as much as you are in arguing with me.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/03/09 at 08:39 PM ET

No, there is no discussion with you.  Your word does not mean fact, even though you’d love it to be. 

I have discussed.  I don’t think Goligoski is by any means the top player in October.  I’ve seen many games, including last Friday’s live, he’s good.  He’s not dominate. 

That’s discussion bitch.

Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 11/04/09 at 01:02 AM ET

your post indicates that you think points and +/- are the sole indicator of how “good” a defenseman is.  are you serious?!

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 11/04/09 at 02:19 PM ET

Had I argued Shea Weber was the top defenceman or Tomas Kaberle was the top defenceman you would have thrown Goligoski at me.  You are not interested in discussing hockey as much as you are in arguing with me.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/03/09 at 08:39 PM ET

Since you’ve shown a prior habit of bringing up logical fallacies in arguments with your commenters, I’d like to point out that this is an example of a fallacy of assumption.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/04/09 at 02:22 PM ET

your post indicates that you think points and +/- are the sole indicator of how “good” a defenseman is

No it doesnt.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/04/09 at 02:51 PM ET