And i stand by it. Winning alot of faceoffs isnt important when it comes to the outcome of the game. You said its a key stat for centers. It really isnt. If it were a key stat, the best teams in the league should be leading it or be top 5 every year. Because center depth is one of the most important things to have in hockey. NYR have won presidents trophy, played a cup final, conference final etc beeing a horrible faceoff team.
The thing is that the difference between the worst faceoff team and the best was under 10%. Arizona won 54%(best) and Vancouver 45%(worst). If you average 60 faceoffs per game which is normal. 54% is 32,4 wins. 45% is 27 wins. It just doesnt mean anything if you win 32 or 27 and the standings prove it. Beeing a good faceoff team isnt important at all if you wanna win games.
Im not saying you want to lose them but the advantage you get from winning faceoffs Are rarely big enough for it to actually have a big enough impact on the game, that winning 5 more than the other team matter. Its what you do with and without the puck after the draws that matter. How else could a team like NYR go so far in the playoffs year after year while beeing a horrible faceoff team?
Is it a positive to be able to win faceoffs? Sure. But they arent a key stat that are important to be great at if you wanna win games. Its proven year after year.
Stamkos won 45% in 11-12 season and scored 60. He took 27th most faceoffs in the league so he took tons of them. More faceoffs than Toews took that year. You just dont need to win alot of them to be an effective player/center.
Center depth is a team related thing, not an individual skill.
But anyway, i like stats, you can always use them to support your case and you never have to explain them in wider setting and it's even better in most cases not to bring the whole truth. Ask salesmen
About the team examples, Rangers were/are a good team and actually on a paper it should be really good. Maybe they would indeed score more if they got the puck more as you referred to their poor stats and well, success compared to expectations and names on the roster.
Carolinas position on the other hand was a positive surprise to me as their team was so much worse in terms of quality compared to Rangers last season. Also Ward/Lack<<<<<<<Lundqvist/Raanta
Also Arizona was really positive surprise the past season, the same description as i wrote before is correct in this case too. They are low in the standings but who didn't expect then to be dead last or right next to it? They were in total rebuilding mode which Rangers surely were not last season. Aaand Smith/Domingue/Lindbäck<<<<<<<<Lundqvist/Raanta.
Vancouver had 'comparable' talent to those aforementioned rebuilders (still not talking about potential or future) the past season and worst FO% as you mentioned and the result is also in this case visible in the bottom of the standings even with sedins.
2011-2012 Stamkos, like Malkin are in a whole different class, not comparable at all to normal players.
I have to say that i fail to see how you're examples prove your case? Looks like you're supporting my point with your arguments and still stating totally the opposite?