Yeah that's not fair because Clifford has played consistently while Nolan rides pine often so that's not a good metric. Clifford doesn't do anything, and if Clifford Is paid to be your run in the mill below useless one dimensional player, then maybe he's a good reason why the Kings need a culture change. He provides nothing important.
Why do you suppose that is?
"it's not fair because Clifford scores more because he's a better player so he's in the lineup more" is not much of a comeback. "scoring isn't a good metric for scoring" is also pretty bad.
Let's use rates though since their games are wonky (
as 4th line players are). If we go by rates last year, Clifford scores 0.46 g/60, 0.48 Nolan
Clifford p/60, .92 Nolan .96. However, if we go to the previous year and back, it's Clifford no contest by almost half a point/60 each year.
Last year Cliffords SAT% was 56.64, Nolan's 52.43, worst of regular players except for Dwight King. That's rel +2.3 vs. rel -2.8.
Clifford is skating to a net win in possession, production, and physicality. Nolan, like I said, has maybe more raw skill, but is a liability.
Do you have anything else to back up your opinion yet? There's not a significant difference between the players, but you're talking as if Clifford should be blasted to Siberia and Nolan should be a roster fixture in his place. And I like Nolan! The issue is many people seem to need a bottom-six punching bag for really unsupportable reasons and are gravitating towards Clifford because he tends to stay in the lineup but there are statistical and visual reasons why.
