Confirmed with Link: LA Kings @LAKings Welcome to Los Angeles, Phillip Danault!

[kingsfan]

I wish we could thumb down posts.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Define "playing well".

He brings next to no offense and has 1 point in 6 games. His heralded defense is not that great. He was pretty much eaten alive by Gurianov in OT one on one. There's really no player with whom he's had any chemistry with. He's Nick Shore with a $5.5 million AAV contract for 6 years.

He's not the only player who is struggling, but I don't see any reason to pat him on the back.

He's got the best play-driving and other advanced stats on the team outside the Kopitar line despite taking the toughest competition--until the last Blues game Kempe-Iafallo-Danault was absolutely dominant to the tune of nearly 4/5 of the shot attempts. That's exactly as advertised.

Can't pat him on the back for the last couple of efforts, but looking to lightning rod him to try to say "i told you so" is severely premature and misplaced.

 

[Telos]

I don't know what anyone else is watching but Danault has been playing well so far this season. He has been noticeable on the defensive side of things, pressuring the puck carrier, turnovers, bringing the puck back into the offensive zone in traffic, and making smart little plays and passes. If I were grading players individually he would be a B+ at least. Yeah, the fanbase is tired of the black hole that is Kings hockey, and how literally all production comes here to die. But you can't rest all that at his feet because his production matches the team. The whole team would be where he is if not for game 1 in Vegas... I doubt Connor McDavid could win anything on this roster...

 

[lumbergh]

He's got the best play-driving and other advanced stats on the team outside the Kopitar line despite taking the toughest competition--until the last Blues game Kempe-Iafallo-Danault was absolutely dominant to the tune of nearly 4/5 of the shot attempts. That's exactly as advertised.

Can't pat him on the back for the last couple of efforts, but looking to lightning rod him to try to say "i told you so" is severely premature and misplaced.

I thought you were done making excuses for anyone?

 

[Trash Panda]

Define "playing well".

He brings next to no offense and has 1 point in 6 games. His heralded defense is not that great. He was pretty much eaten alive by Gurianov in OT one on one. There's really no player with whom he's had any chemistry with. He's Nick Shore with a $5.5 million AAV contract for 6 years.

He's not the only player who is struggling, but I don't see any reason to pat him on the back.

Taking being wrong to an entirely new level here, bud.

It’s completely okay to have misplaced desire for more offense from a guy who wasn’t signed to be an offensive savior, but it’s disingenuous at best to anoint him nick shore 2.0 when his line is the best play driving line on the team.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I thought you were done making excuses for anyone?

I'm not making excuses for anyone. I'm calling it like I see it and you're objectively and by the eye test horribly wrong and trying to place the failures of an entire franchise at the feet of a guy who has played less than 10 games here when he's one of a very small handful doing exactly what he should be.

I'm 100x more worried about the holdovers than I am a new addition. You're just trying to go in hard on Danault because you're on record not liking the contract and already wanting to say "i told you so."

In reality the people that were ignorant about Danault before his arrival are continually showing their ignorance but now they're just more proud of it.

 

[lumbergh]

I'm not making excuses for anyone. I'm calling it like I see it and you're objectively and by the eye test horribly wrong and trying to place the failures of an entire franchise at the feet of a guy who has played less than 10 games here when he's one of a very small handful doing exactly what he should be.

I'm 100x more worried about the holdovers than I am a new addition. You're just trying to go in hard on Danault because you're on record not liking the contract and already wanting to say "i told you so."

In reality the people that were ignorant about Danault before his arrival are continually showing their ignorance but now they're just more proud of it.

I'll call it like I see it too. Say what you will about Corsi, or shot attempts, or whatever, but the only stats that have anything to do with actual success on the ice is GF% and PDO. Right now there are only a few select players on the Kings that are treading water or better on those categories, and they're almost all on one line (Doughty, Brown, Arvidsson, Kopitar, and Tkachev, although Tkachev hasn't played as much).

There's not a single other King that I would say is playing well. It's not just Danault, but it's Trevor Moore, it's Adrian Kempe, it's Gabe Vilardi. I'm a huge fan of Vilardi, and I will absolutely call out Gabe for almost single-handedly sinking this ship right now. Thats just for forwards.

But this is a Danault thread, so I'm just gonna say that he's not a difference maker on either end of the ice right now. Certainly not on the power play, maybe on the penalty kill and face-off dot. He's just there, taking up space. The Kings have a long line of players that do that.

 

[Schrute farms]

Are under $6M FAs ever a difference maker by themselves? Sometimes when i read this thread I wonder what some people think under $6M on the FA market gets you in today's NHL. We're not talking about a $10M+ guy.

The problem with the team (besides the coach, development team and maybe the GM) is the overall roster itself.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I'll call it like I see it too. Say what you will about Corsi, or shot attempts, or whatever, but the only stats that have anything to do with actual success on the ice is GF% and PDO. Right now there are only a few select players on the Kings that are treading water or better on those categories, and they're almost all on one line (Doughty, Brown, Arvidsson, Kopitar, and Tkachev, although Tkachev hasn't played as much).

There's not a single other King that I would say is playing well. It's not just Danault, but it's Trevor Moore, it's Adrian Kempe, it's Gabe Vilardi. I'm a huge fan of Vilardi, and I will absolutely call out Gabe for almost single-handedly sinking this ship right now. Thats just for forwards.

But this is a Danault thread, so I'm just gonna say that he's not a difference maker on either end of the ice right now. Certainly not on the power play, maybe on the penalty kill and face-off dot. He's just there, taking up space. The Kings have a long line of players that do that.

So what you're saying is you're evaluating defense with GF% regardless of context (deployment) and essentially 'luck' (PDO is just on ice shooting percentage and save percentage--numbers tend to normalize towards 1.000). Ignoring that Danault is #5 amongst forwards on GF%, as well, I guess?

Just say you're going to ignore the advanced stats altogether if you're going to halfass an assessment.

We could use more from Danault, particularly offensively, but him and Iafallo are just behind Kopitar for all-around 'effectiveness' by just about any meaningful metric and by anyone who is watching that knows what they're looking for. Sorry to play that last card, but I don't know how else to put that delicately. We're getting exactly what we expected from him and to say he's not playing well does not jive with expectations and reality.

Like we get it--you don't like the Danault contract and you're itching for any chance to slag it. But this isn't it.

 

[kingsfan]

Basically if Danault had 3 points right now instead of one, there'd be nothing to complain about. He could solve that in literally one game. This is why there's little to no reason to get bent out of shape over players/team so early in the year. He's on a new team with new linemates, etc. give him time. Would people judge him the same if we had traded for him mid-season? No, they'd say give him time to adjust. It's no different for someone joining the team in the off-season for the most part.

 

[Schmooley]

Danault is exactly as advertised. The real argument is whether or not he is what the Kings needed at this point in time. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong.

 

[lumbergh]

So what you're saying is you're evaluating defense with GF% regardless of context (deployment) and essentially 'luck' (PDO is just on ice shooting percentage and save percentage--numbers tend to normalize towards 1.000). Ignoring that Danault is #5 amongst forwards on GF%, as well, I guess?

Just say you're going to ignore the advanced stats altogether if you're going to halfass an assessment.

We could use more from Danault, particularly offensively, but him and Iafallo are just behind Kopitar for all-around 'effectiveness' by just about any meaningful metric and by anyone who is watching that knows what they're looking for. Sorry to play that last card, but I don't know how else to put that delicately. We're getting exactly what we expected from him and to say he's not playing well does not jive with expectations and reality.

Like we get it--you don't like the Danault contract and you're itching for any chance to slag it. But this isn't it.

Danault currently stands at 3 GF, 5 GA for a 37.5% GF%, 7th amongst Kings forwards. If you just look at 5 vs 5, then he's 5th, but this is a player getting major minutes in all situations. 2 GF 2 GA in 79 minutes 5 vs 5. That tells you that few goals get scored when he's on the ice on both sides. You know who else had stats like this? That's right, Nick Shore.

I'm gonna say this again. PDO is not "luck". Good teams with winning records almost always have good PDOs. Bad teams with losing records almost always have bad PDOs. Good players who regularly make positive contributions to their team generally have good PDOs. Players who aren't helping the team on both sides of the rink generally have PDOs below 1. Look it up yourself. There's very strong correlation between team PDO and point percentage. Sort any team's roster by PDO and you'll see who thee best players are on that team.

Danault is middle of the pack amongst forwards in PDO, and few goals get scored when he's on the ice. If any of this makes you happy, then you must like boring hockey and games that end with the score 2-1.

Again, I'm not saying that Danault is the problem. He's just not doing much to help or hurt the team. He's not doing much at all. He's just kinda...there. It's early, but we're already 7% through the season. I'll be happy if he puts up two points the next game, but the Kings need more out of a 2C.

 

[KINGS17]

I'm not making excuses for anyone. I'm calling it like I see it and you're objectively and by the eye test horribly wrong and trying to place the failures of an entire franchise at the feet of a guy who has played less than 10 games here when he's one of a very small handful doing exactly what he should be.

I'm 100x more worried about the holdovers than I am a new addition. You're just trying to go in hard on Danault because you're on record not liking the contract and already wanting to say "i told you so."

In reality the people that were ignorant about Danault before his arrival are continually showing their ignorance but now they're just more proud of it.

Danault could very well be a placeholder captain for one to three seasons in the future.

 

[Choralone]

Danault currently stands at 3 GF, 5 GA for a 37.5% GF%, 7th amongst Kings forwards. If you just look at 5 vs 5, then he's 5th, but this is a player getting major minutes in all situations. 2 GF 2 GA in 79 minutes 5 vs 5. That tells you that few goals get scored when he's on the ice on both sides. You know who else had stats like this? That's right, Nick Shore.

I'm gonna say this again. PDO is not "luck". Good teams with winning records almost always have good PDOs. Bad teams with losing records almost always have bad PDOs. Good players who regularly make positive contributions to their team generally have good PDOs. Players who aren't helping the team on both sides of the rink generally have PDOs below 1. Look it up yourself. There's very strong correlation between team PDO and point percentage. Sort any team's roster by PDO and you'll see who thee best players are on that team.

Danault is middle of the pack amongst forwards in PDO, and few goals get scored when he's on the ice. If any of this makes you happy, then you must like boring hockey and games that end with the score 2-1.

Again, I'm not saying that Danault is the problem. He's just not doing much to help or hurt the team. He's not doing much at all. He's just kinda...there. It's early, but we're already 7% through the season. I'll be happy if he puts up two points the next game, but the Kings need more out of a 2C.

You can measure the number and quality of shots of a line that plays against Danault versus that line's number and quality of shots verses other lines and opponents. That's one way you quantify the performance of a defensive specialist. I don't know why you insist on measuring the performance of a known defensive specialist solely by his offensive metrics.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Danault currently stands at 3 GF, 5 GA for a 37.5% GF%, 7th amongst Kings forwards. If you just look at 5 vs 5, then he's 5th, but this is a player getting major minutes in all situations. 2 GF 2 GA in 79 minutes 5 vs 5. That tells you that few goals get scored when he's on the ice on both sides. You know who else had stats like this? That's right, Nick Shore.

I'm gonna say this again. PDO is not "luck". Good teams with winning records almost always have good PDOs. Bad teams with losing records almost always have bad PDOs. Good players who regularly make positive contributions to their team generally have good PDOs. Players who aren't helping the team on both sides of the rink generally have PDOs below 1. Look it up yourself. There's very strong correlation between team PDO and point percentage. Sort any team's roster by PDO and you'll see who thee best players are on that team.

Danault is middle of the pack amongst forwards in PDO, and few goals get scored when he's on the ice. If any of this makes you happy, then you must like boring hockey and games that end with the score 2-1.

Again, I'm not saying that Danault is the problem. He's just not doing much to help or hurt the team. He's not doing much at all. He's just kinda...there. It's early, but we're already 7% through the season. I'll be happy if he puts up two points the next game, but the Kings need more out of a 2C.

You're just digging a deeper hole and comparing 4th line minutes and deployment to 2nd line all situations minutes and deployment and punishing a guy for PKing/protecting tough situations AND on a bad team to boot...exactly what I criticized you for, just deeper. Might as well compare Voynov to Matt Greene while you're at it.

PDO is widely panned as mostly luck/noise as most often teams will regress to 1.000; yes, the worst teams will trend towards the bottom and the best towards a top in any given year--similar to players--but you can always tell who is shooting the lights out vs. their career averages and who is getting bailed out by their goalies versus teams with no shooting or goaltending talent. Where you're going wrong is attributing 'playing well' to PDO, especially friggin not even double digit games in. You can often very easily find regression candidates using PDO as ONE indicator...but you're using it as the be all end all elixir and criticizing a guy for his on ice shooting/goaltending percentages after barely 100 minutes.

And again, to the boldfaced...if that's your biggest problem with Danault you're just being willfully ignorant of what he brings.

I guess in the end since it's a Danault thread that's what we are here for, but there are much bigger problems than a 6-games-in newcomer...big enough that it wasn't worth the bump to try to mock him, but here we are saying "our 2nd line center is performing exactly how we thought but with slightly bad luck, what a waste."

Really not much else I can say at this point until he plays more, but when there's plenty to complain about with this team, targeting one of a handful of guys playing well is just like...we don't need to look to find additional reasons to be mad, there's plenty right in front of us.

 

[lumbergh]

You're just digging a deeper hole and comparing 4th line minutes and deployment to 2nd line all situations minutes and deployment and punishing a guy for PKing/protecting tough situations AND on a bad team to boot...exactly what I criticized you for, just deeper. Might as well compare Voynov to Matt Greene while you're at it.

PDO is widely panned as mostly luck/noise as most often teams will regress to 1.000; yes, the worst teams will trend towards the bottom and the best towards a top in any given year--similar to players--but you can always tell who is shooting the lights out vs. their career averages and who is getting bailed out by their goalies versus teams with no shooting or goaltending talent. Where you're going wrong is attributing 'playing well' to PDO, especially friggin not even double digit games in. You can often very easily find regression candidates using PDO as ONE indicator...but you're using it as the be all end all elixir and criticizing a guy for his on ice shooting/goaltending percentages after barely 100 minutes.

And again, to the boldfaced...if that's your biggest problem with Danault you're just being willfully ignorant of what he brings.

I guess in the end since it's a Danault thread that's what we are here for, but there are much bigger problems than a 6-games-in newcomer...big enough that it wasn't worth the bump to try to mock him, but here we are saying "our 2nd line center is performing exactly how we thought but with slightly bad luck, what a waste."

Really not much else I can say at this point until he plays more, but when there's plenty to complain about with this team, targeting one of a handful of guys playing well is just like...we don't need to look to find additional reasons to be mad, there's plenty right in front of us.

This post is just to show you, with numbers, that PDO is not luck. I can't emphasize this enough. I've sorted the point % for all 32 teams this season and show you in the last column the PDO at 5 vs. 5. There's a very clear correlation between how good a team is and their PDO. You can do this season after season. How do you explain this as luck? You can't, because PDO is NOT LUCK.

 

[lumbergh]

You can measure the number and quality of shots of a line that plays against Danault versus that line's number and quality of shots verses other lines and opponents. That's one way you quantify the performance of a defensive specialist. I don't know why you insist on measuring the performance of a known defensive specialist solely by his offensive metrics.

I'm not measuring Danault by solely his offensive metrics. I'm measuring him by whether he's helping the team score more goals than the opponent all over the ice. The measurements are for his entire time on the ice, all over the ice, and they tell a story of a player who's pretty much meh. Treading water, taking up minutes. Neither good nor bad, just okay.

For a known defensive specialist, that's fine. For a 2C, that's not fine.

 

[SmytheKing]

So what you're saying is you're evaluating defense with GF% regardless of context (deployment) and essentially 'luck' (PDO is just on ice shooting percentage and save percentage--numbers tend to normalize towards 1.000). Ignoring that Danault is #5 amongst forwards on GF%, as well, I guess?

Just say you're going to ignore the advanced stats altogether if you're going to halfass an assessment.

We could use more from Danault, particularly offensively, but him and Iafallo are just behind Kopitar for all-around 'effectiveness' by just about any meaningful metric and by anyone who is watching that knows what they're looking for. Sorry to play that last card, but I don't know how else to put that delicately. We're getting exactly what we expected from him and to say he's not playing well does not jive with expectations and reality.

Like we get it--you don't like the Danault contract and you're itching for any chance to slag it. But this isn't it.

I think another thing that's being overlooked is that you're not getting him to show off something in Game 3 of the regular season. You're getting him for a big game in Round 2 of the playoffs. I'm sure everyone here has a favorite Trevor Lewis moment and I'd bet it's the same one across the board and it's not one from any regular season game.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

This post is just to show you, with numbers, that PDO is not luck. I can't emphasize this enough. I've sorted the point % for all 32 teams this season and show you in the last column the PDO at 5 vs. 5. There's a very clear correlation between how good a team is and their PDO. You can do this season after season. How do you explain this as luck? You can't, because PDO is NOT LUCK.
View attachment 474522

Here, I did your homework for you. Take it up with these guys.

Percentage Luck in Hockey, Explained



PDO actually does what it says it does

Measuring a single player with 6 games of PDO is asinine. 0 way to sugarcoat that for you.

 

[lumbergh]

Here, I did your homework for you. Take it up with these guys.

Percentage Luck in Hockey, Explained



PDO actually does what it says it does

Measuring a single player with 6 games of PDO is asinine. 0 way to sugarcoat that for you.

Did you read the articles? All three of them acknowledge that some teams and some players have consistently high PDOs. Those teams and players also happen to be really good.

Article 1: "...there are elements of PDO that aren’t caused by luck, like shooting talent and goaltending. For example, the Tampa Bay Lightning have had a PDO above 100 in eight of the past ten seasons, and have exceeded 101.7 in each of the past three campaigns. Meanwhile, the poor Senators have not exceeded 99.7 since 2016. Some teams are just better at scoring and stopping pucks than others."

Article 2: "This does not mean that every player and every team ends the season with a PDO of 100, only that the variation is reduced. For a NHL player to sustain a very high PDO, he and his linemates would need to remain extremely efficient in goal scoring and be consistently supported by lights-out goaltending."

Article 3: "However, almost no one gets to exactly 100. Some teams and players are in fact better at maintaining a slightly higher PDO than others. Some teams have both accurate shooters and great goaltending. Some players have both great linemates and great goaltenders. Some players and some teams are genuinely bad at both. These are players and teams we consider to be above or below average at shooting and goaltending. Their ability to be above or below average doesn’t negate the average."

Where all of these analyses err is that scoring in hockey is assumed to occur with statistical regularity. All shots are equal, all saves are equal. Roll some dice on every shot and that's the probability that shot will go in. Anyone who has played or watched hockey knows this is not true. Some players get better opportunities to score because they get open. Some players have harder shots. Some players have more accurate shots. Some players defend really well to prevent dangerous shots. Some goalies are more athletic than others. Some goalies have a faster glove hand than others.

PDO is, in my opinion, one of the best indicators of team quality. For individual players, it's only valuable as a comparison tool for players on the same team. For the Kings, it tells you that the best players are exactly what your eye test tells you, Kopi, RV, Brown, Iafallo. It also tells you that Kaliyev and Vilardi are playing poorly. It might surprise and tell you that Kupari is holding his own, but Trevor Moore is struggling.

 

[Bandit]

Did you read the articles? All three of them acknowledge that some teams and some players have consistently high PDOs. Those teams and players also happen to be really good.

Article 1: "...there are elements of PDO that aren’t caused by luck, like shooting talent and goaltending. For example, the Tampa Bay Lightning have had a PDO above 100 in eight of the past ten seasons, and have exceeded 101.7 in each of the past three campaigns. Meanwhile, the poor Senators have not exceeded 99.7 since 2016. Some teams are just better at scoring and stopping pucks than others."

Article 2: "This does not mean that every player and every team ends the season with a PDO of 100, only that the variation is reduced. For a NHL player to sustain a very high PDO, he and his linemates would need to remain extremely efficient in goal scoring and be consistently supported by lights-out goaltending."

Article 3: "However, almost no one gets to exactly 100. Some teams and players are in fact better at maintaining a slightly higher PDO than others. Some teams have both accurate shooters and great goaltending. Some players have both great linemates and great goaltenders. Some players and some teams are genuinely bad at both. These are players and teams we consider to be above or below average at shooting and goaltending. Their ability to be above or below average doesn’t negate the average."

Where all of these analyses err is that scoring in hockey is assumed to occur with statistical regularity. All shots are equal, all saves are equal. Roll some dice on every shot and that's the probability that shot will go in. Anyone who has played or watched hockey knows this is not true. Some players get better opportunities to score because they get open. Some players have harder shots. Some players have more accurate shots. Some players defend really well to prevent dangerous shots. Some goalies are more athletic than others. Some goalies have a faster glove hand than others.

PDO is, in my opinion, one of the best indicators of team quality. For individual players, it's only valuable as a comparison tool for players on the same team. For the Kings, it tells you that the best players are exactly what your eye test tells you, Kopi, RV, Brown, Iafallo. It also tells you that Kaliyev and Vilardi are playing poorly. It might surprise and tell you that Kupari is holding his own, but Trevor Moore is struggling.
View attachment 474572

If you really want to convince @Raccoon Jesus Just point out that Maatta's PDO is worst on the team by a mile.

 

[bland]

Once again misinterpretation of faulty advanced stats rears its ugly head.

Screw the numbers, look at his play. Its just fine.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Did you read the articles? All three of them acknowledge that some teams and some players have consistently high PDOs. Those teams and players also happen to be really good.

Article 1: "...there are elements of PDO that aren’t caused by luck, like shooting talent and goaltending. For example, the Tampa Bay Lightning have had a PDO above 100 in eight of the past ten seasons, and have exceeded 101.7 in each of the past three campaigns. Meanwhile, the poor Senators have not exceeded 99.7 since 2016. Some teams are just better at scoring and stopping pucks than others."

Article 2: "This does not mean that every player and every team ends the season with a PDO of 100, only that the variation is reduced. For a NHL player to sustain a very high PDO, he and his linemates would need to remain extremely efficient in goal scoring and be consistently supported by lights-out goaltending."

Article 3: "However, almost no one gets to exactly 100. Some teams and players are in fact better at maintaining a slightly higher PDO than others. Some teams have both accurate shooters and great goaltending. Some players have both great linemates and great goaltenders. Some players and some teams are genuinely bad at both. These are players and teams we consider to be above or below average at shooting and goaltending. Their ability to be above or below average doesn’t negate the average."

Where all of these analyses err is that scoring in hockey is assumed to occur with statistical regularity. All shots are equal, all saves are equal. Roll some dice on every shot and that's the probability that shot will go in. Anyone who has played or watched hockey knows this is not true. Some players get better opportunities to score because they get open. Some players have harder shots. Some players have more accurate shots. Some players defend really well to prevent dangerous shots. Some goalies are more athletic than others. Some goalies have a faster glove hand than others.

PDO is, in my opinion, one of the best indicators of team quality. For individual players, it's only valuable as a comparison tool for players on the same team. For the Kings, it tells you that the best players are exactly what your eye test tells you, Kopi, RV, Brown, Iafallo. It also tells you that Kaliyev and Vilardi are playing poorly. It might surprise and tell you that Kupari is holding his own, but Trevor Moore is struggling.
View attachment 474572

Yes, I acknowledged that in full, and also pointed out it happens over time, not over 6 games. YOU might think it's the single best metric of team quality--but you will have an insanely hard time finding anyone to agree with that. There's a reason folks never settled there and only use it as a piece of the puzzle and made attempts to contextualize things with WAR, xGF%, etc. (not that I particularly like those either but that's a different conversation).

To the last two paragraphs--you're so, so close to getting it. Yes, given enough time--you will see trends. Better vs. poorer shooting talent. Erik Karlsson's ability to constantly cripple his goalies. Ovechkin's on ice shooting percentage unsurprisingly insane. La Kings post-2014 having low-skill shooters. What it DOES NOT TELL YOU is someone's playing ability over six games. Over those 6 games, you can go on a shooting % bender or your goalie can just collapse.

The wrong thing--assuming correlation = causation. the right thing = pursuing inquiry--like at the end when wondering WHY the numbers are the way they are with Kupari, Moore.

Seeing a guy at or near the top of every play driving metric despite tough deployment in all situations yet lower in PDO? that tells me they're having finishing issues or goaltending issues, not that they aren't playing well. In this case, simply watching the game shows a little bit of both--and again, a wildly misplaced sense of 'fault'.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

If you really want to convince @Raccoon Jesus Just point out that Maatta's PDO is worst on the team by a mile.

I concede my entire argument here

 

[lumbergh]

Seeing a guy at or near the top of every play driving metric despite tough deployment in all situations yet lower in PDO? that tells me they're having finishing issues or goaltending issues, not that they aren't playing well. In this case, simply watching the game shows a little bit of both--and again, a wildly misplaced sense of 'fault'.

I'm not even assigning fault. Some member came and asked how Phil was doing and how he was fitting in. I'm just saying that he's not playing well and he's just kinda there taking up space and time. Danault is not the single reason why the Kings are struggling right now. I've never said that. I've made the argument before that Danault was not the right acquisition, but don't repeatedly put words in my mouth that I'm suggesting he's THE problem.

We don't have to agree on interpretation of the stats or eye test. I'm just calling it the way I see it, you can do the same. I'm fine if you think I'm "objectively" wrong. I accept that everything on this board is subjective and opinion. That's the whole point of an internet sports message board. It's my opinion that Danault has not played well and been pretty much invisible. We can agree to disagree about that.