Player Discussion Phillip Danault - The Centermania Edition

[Mrb1p]

Pourtant @Mrb1p et moi sommes francophones. Donc selon toi, on critique Danault, parce qu'il est québécois francophobe comme nous ? Brillante analyse mon cher.

Were clearly just sucking up to the anglos man, in fact, my mom is such a suck up that she named me Mathew instead of Mathieu.

Well, according to you he's dragging down superstars Tatar and Gallagher (which they would clearly be if you give them 5-10 extra points for playing with an "actual 1st line center").



So... Danault is +19, being sent against opposition's top line as often as possible. And yet he's getting murdered? This would make sense if Danault's line was being sheltered and only sent against weak lines in the offensive zone, but it's the total opposite of how he's being used in games.

Also, scoring a goal against an opposing team's 4th line gives as much to your team as scoring against their first... If he's not being sheltered and he's at +19, he's just doing good if not great at ES, that's it. I don't care if he gets his +19 by scoring against 4th lines while preventing 1st lines from scoring, or by scoring against 1st lines and failing to do so against 4th lines. Either way helps the team just as much.

The "actual" reality is that (most) opposition's top lines score more on the PP against us than we do against them.

Danault is too weak on the PP for what people call a 1st line C (there isn't really such a thing as 1st line on the PP, but whatever). Fine. But everything else being said against him is laughable at best. His wingers are all producing at their best and he's middle of the pack of 1st line C offensively at ES and above-average defensively. His weakness is the PP. That's it. And yes, we WOULD be better off with an elite 1st line C like McDavid or Bergeron than Danault, he isn't that and never will be and hopefully we can get one from somewhere. He will also never be paid like one.



This is backwards. The problem is not "players being played too high on the depth chart". The problem IS lack of top end talent. Players being played too high on the depth chart is the result. And there's no reason to whine about it or blame the coach for doing the best he can to win games with the players he has (not that I'm a big fan of Julien, but I wouldn't blame him for keeping a 1st line that's actually performing very well together). But there is all reasons to blame the GM for being unable to get top-end talent in 8 years and ending up in a situation where our best 1st line C at ES isn't skilled enough to play on the PP and where our 2nd line wingers are just not producing much at all.

There's a misconception about line matchups, hockey is a fluid game and the Tatar/Danault/Gally line is obviously a much better line than most NHL lines (even if its, say, the 35th best line in hockey (I don't believe so, probably top 30.), that is still better than 3/4 of the league, which means it should, in theory out perform those lines in raw +/-, yielding the total we see today.

If you have line A with a superstar on it and line B with no superstar, an average to good second line, say.
Line A comes out ahead while playing line B, by a small margin but they also come out ahead by a larger margin than Line B does against lesser opponents (Lines 3-4)

This doesn't mean line B has bad stats, because they face the lesser lines too, thats why relying heavily on absolutes like +/- and even strength points or even corsi can be really misleading, and then thats only taking matchups into consideration and not goaltending (where the Habs should score high) and defense (where the Habs should score high, when it comes to the first pair.)

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

Based on real life stats, Danault passes better than you claim. He is 20th this season so far for total assists by a centreman, and 9th in ES assists.

His 31 ES assists are just two less than McDavid.

If he is 20th in assists overall, how do you say "he doesn't pass the puck well"?

What he actually does not do that well is score goals, but passing is pretty decent. Certainly top-6 level.

I guess he's almost as good as Mcdavid in that area...

When I watch him, I don't see a good passer and no matter what the stats can say. That's why he struggles on the powerplay.

 

[BaseballCoach]

I guess he's almost as good as Mcdavid in that area...

When I watch him, I don't see a good passer and no matter what the stats can say. That's why he struggles on the powerplay.

It's good to know that you will stick with your opinion no matter what the facts are.

Makes it easier to plan my time.

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

It's good to know that you will stick with your opinion no matter what the facts are.

Makes it easier to plan my time.

Your "fact" suggest that he's almost as good as Mcdavid in that area... Come on.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Your "fact" suggest that he's almost as good as Mcdavid in that area... Come on.

You can't place as much stock in ONE comparison, but being 20th in overall assists and 9th in ES assists suggests that he is not someone who "can't pass well".

If you would admit that 31ES assists and 34 assists overall are well above average, I could easily concede that McDavid is one of the 19 centers better than Danault at passing.

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

You can't place as much stock in ONE comparison, but being 20th in overall assists and 9th in ES assists suggests that he is not someone who "can't pass well".

If you would admit that 31ES assists and 34 assists overall are well above average, I could easily concede that McDavid is one of the 19 centers better than Danault at passing.

Oh, you really think that there are only 19 centremen who are better passers than Danault ?

 

[BaseballCoach]

Oh, you really think that there are only 19 centremen who are better passers than Danault ?

There are 19 with more assists. That means there are probably ABOUT 19 who are better passers. It's not exact, but you probably can't be 20th in assists and 70th in passing (since if you "can't pass well" that means below average and there are 124 centers).

P.S. It's not a fluke, by the way. Last year, Danault was 29th in total assists, once again far above average, thus hard to believe "he can't pass well".

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

There are 19 with more assists. That means there are probably ABOUT 19 who are better passers. It's not exact, but you probably can't be 20th in assists and 70th in passing.

Let's agree to disagree.

 

[Patccmoi]

Were clearly just sucking up to the anglos man, in fact, my mom is such a suck up that she named me Mathew instead of Mathieu.



There's a misconception about line matchups, hockey is a fluid game and the Tatar/Danault/Gally line is obviously a much better line than most NHL lines (even if its, say, the 35th best line in hockey (I don't believe so, probably top 30.), that is still better than 3/4 of the league, which means it should, in theory out perform those lines in raw +/-, yielding the total we see today.

If you have line A with a superstar on it and line B with no superstar, an average to good second line, say.
Line A comes out ahead while playing line B, by a small margin but they also come out ahead by a larger margin than Line B does against lesser opponents (Lines 3-4)

This doesn't mean line B has bad stats, because they face the lesser lines too, thats why relying heavily on absolutes like +/- and even strength points or even corsi can be really misleading, and then thats only taking matchups into consideration and not goaltending (where the Habs should score high) and defense (where the Habs should score high, when it comes to the first pair.)

And yet, only 5 centers with more points than him have a better +/- than he does.

How come they're all struggling so much to take advantage of the weaker competition that Danault is able to capitalize on according to you? If the defense and goaltending was the reason, surely the rest of the team would benefit, right? But somehow Danault is FAR above the others in terms of +/-, mostly because no matter who is wingers are they're outproducing the other teams at 5v5. He's at +21, the only 2 other forwards that played 50+ games at +5 or more are Gallagher (+11) and Tatar (+5). Compared to the rest of their own team (so similar goaltending/defense), that line is far, far above the rest.

I realize +/- is not the ultimate stats. But every stats point out to Danault's line (and Danault himself) being very good at ES in the NHL. And it has for more than one season. The big difference with other top lines is Danault being weaker on the PP. But it's not like he's taking up all the time there and sucking, he's not even playing on it! 105th center in the NHL for PP time, most 3rd line centers play more than he does on the PP. So sure he'll have less points. The fact that he actually reaches 50-55 points barely playing on the PP is actually really good, yet people here say that he's "struggling" to reach that as if it's a bad thing.

 

[gillyguzzler]

Back when our habs still had a shot at the playoffs, where did our forwards rank as far as who the habs would miss more due to a long term injury.

Gally is probably #1
Tatar #2?
Who is #3?

I'd argue Danault because of he's their best face-off guy and top penalty killer and plays against the top lines. To argue incessantly that he's at best a 3C ignores his other very important qualities. Plus, he's our second leading scorer but that's not what makes him so valuable.

 

[ECWHSWI]

What I'm trying to say is that TEAM plus-minus (including man advantages) decides each game.

Individual plus-minus is a stat to HELP assess the usefulness of players within the team. Admittedly, there are caveats and circumstances that make the stat open to interpretation for any given player. I'm ok with that. But the stat still has some value. It is still true that guys with hugely positive +/- are almost always fantastic players (Orr, Robinson, Lidstrom, etc.) , and guys with hugely negative +/- are usually evaluated as risky players and their teams usually lose a lot.

Ironically, many of the people who criticize the use of +/- for ES goals put a lot of stock into Corsi stats, which are....... +/- for ES SHOTS!!!!!

To me, if +/- has to be taken with a grain of salt (and I agree it does), then Corsi should be taken with four grains of salt.

200% wrong.
Team A score 4 PP goals
Team B score 3 es goals
Team A ends the game -3

Are you saying team that is-3 lose the game ??? Or are you talking about something not related to +/- at all ??

 

[BaseballCoach]

200% wrong.
Team A score 4 PP goals
Team B score 3 es goals
Team A ends the game -3

Are you saying team that is-3 lose the game ??? Or are you talking about something not related to +/- at all ??

Here is what I said:

TEAM plus-minus (including man advantages) decides each game.

 

[ECWHSWI]

Here is what I said:

TEAM plus-minus (including man advantages) decides each game.

then it's not +/-.

not wasting any more time. Ciao!

 

[LaP]

What I'm trying to say is that TEAM plus-minus (including man advantages) decides each game.

Individual plus-minus is a stat to HELP assess the usefulness of players within the team. Admittedly, there are caveats and circumstances that make the stat open to interpretation for any given player. I'm ok with that. But the stat still has some value. It is still true that guys with hugely positive +/- are almost always fantastic players (Orr, Robinson, Lidstrom, etc.) , and guys with hugely negative +/- are usually evaluated as risky players and their teams usually lose a lot.

Ironically, many of the people who criticize the use of +/- for ES goals put a lot of stock into Corsi stats, which are....... +/- for ES SHOTS!!!!!

To me, if +/- has to be taken with a grain of salt (and I agree it does), then Corsi should be taken with four grains of salt.

I agree with you that +/- is not as bad as some guys say it is. It just need to be taken for what it is. For one it's not a defensive stats. It's the differential between the offensive output of a player and his line and the defensive output of a player and his line. A legendary offensive player will be able to be +40 while being average defensively and a top notch defensive player could be -10 if he sucks *** offensively. Also it's a team stats. It can be greatly influenced by the team and line mates of a player. Usually it's a stats better if taken over a very long period of time. Very rarely you will see a bad player be +300 in career. It is usually reserved to elite players.

My main problem with the stats is between -14 and +14. I don't think there's much difference between a player -10 and +7 outside of luck. When you start to see a player +20 (or -20) it is where it can be an indication of a good (or bad) season. The closer a player is to 0 the more irrelevant it is imo. Also my other problem is the -1 on the PP and +1 on the pk and the +1/-1 when the net is empty. This should not be counted as it gives an unfair advantage to defensive players as they'll usually nab a free +5 to +10 because of that.

Defensive players get +1 for every goals on the pk without any chances of a -1 in this given situation and they get way higher chances of a +1 than a -1 with the opponent's net empty. Offensive players will get -1 for every goals against on the PP without any chances for a +1 in this given situation and they also have a way higher chance to get a -1 than a +1 when their net is empty. It skew the results a bit. All + and - should be ignored when one team is on the PP. We already have the PP and PK stats no need for + and - to cover that. Also +/- should not be counted when the net is empty. This would give a true indication of the differential of a player at 5 on 5.

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

I would like to see him more with 3rd/4th liners, to know his true value. Tonight he was invisible offensively, but it was his first time since 3/4 years without at least one good winger on his side.

 

[26Mats]

He sucks as a #1C.

See even when he has a good game, some posters are pushing me to rip into him.

Thid is exactly your problem. You're "riping" Danault for MB and Claude Julien's errors.

Who's fault is it that he's used as our #1c? MB and/or Julien's. So whenever you think to rip Danault for MB and Julien's errors, check yourself and rip them.

 

[ECWHSWI]

You can't place as much stock in ONE comparison, but being 20th in overall assists and 9th in ES assists suggests that he is not someone who "can't pass well".

If you would admit that 31ES assists and 34 assists overall are well above average, I could easily concede that McDavid is one of the 19 centers better than Danault at passing.

wether you condede or not is irrelevant, you're no expert on the matter, you're just an average fan like all of us here. saying he's nothing more than "one of the 19" is bullshit. at the age McDavid had his first 100 pts season Danault was still in Jr. at 23 McDavid has more assists than Danault as points in the NHL right now...

seriously, people should stop with their McDavid, MacKinnon, Bergeron, etc comparisons with Danault, it's really, reaaaaaallyyyy dumb.

 

[Miller Time]

Good player on a mediocre roster...

If we had him in place, at his cap hit, as our #3 C, we'd be getting excited for a cup run.

 

[Habs Halifax]

No matter how many posts you make about Kopitar on our team, I never see it happening.

Sure. I'm not some kid who will cry when it don't happen. But I do believe we are well set to make a move for a #1C like him if a team like the Kings want to rebuild. We have the pieces to get him... that's the point.

 

[DAChampion]

What I'm trying to say is that TEAM plus-minus (including man advantages) decides each game.

Individual plus-minus is a stat to HELP assess the usefulness of players within the team. Admittedly, there are caveats and circumstances that make the stat open to interpretation for any given player. I'm ok with that. But the stat still has some value. It is still true that guys with hugely positive +/- are almost always fantastic players (Orr, Robinson, Lidstrom, etc.) , and guys with hugely negative +/- are usually evaluated as risky players and their teams usually lose a lot.

Ironically, many of the people who criticize the use of +/- for ES goals put a lot of stock into Corsi stats, which are....... +/- for ES SHOTS!!!!!

To me, if +/- has to be taken with a grain of salt (and I agree it does), then Corsi should be taken with four grains of salt.

The advantage of Corsi relative to +/- is that the sample size is larger, which decreases the statistical error.

You'll notice that there's a stat that a lot of people like called "PDO". PDO is the sum of the player's goalie's save percentage, and the player's team's shot percentage, when that player is on the ice. If it's far below 1.000 then the player is unlucky, if it's far above 1.000 then he is lucky. If you think about it, the difference between +/- and Corsi is captured by PDO.

 

[26Mats]

Sure. I'm not some kid who will cry when it don't happen. But I do believe we are well set to make a move for a #1C like him if a team like the Kings want to rebuild. We have the pieces to get him... that's the point.

We have the pieces. But I'm not sure giving up the future for perhaps 2 or 3 years of Kopitar is worth it. I suppose at least it's picking a direction, if not the one I'd pick. Price and Weber are good. But nothing all that special at this point in their careers.

 

[Habs Halifax]

We have the pieces. But I'm not sure giving up the future for perhaps 2 or 3 years of Kopitar is worth it. I suppose at least it's picking a direction, if not the one I'd pick. Price and Weber are good. But nothing all that special at this point in their careers.

Totally understand the concerns of trading futures but staying in stall mode is also dumb and risky. Trying to sell is also easier said than done. I think we should buy and use parts of our futures for a 2-4 year run and then rebuild after that

 

[BaseballCoach]

I agree with you that +/- is not as bad as some guys say it is. It just need to be taken for what it is. For one it's not a defensive stats. It's the differential between the offensive output of a player and his line and the defensive output of a player and his line. A legendary offensive player will be able to be +40 while being average defensively and a top notch defensive player could be -10 if he sucks *** offensively. Also it's a team stats. It can be greatly influenced by the team and line mates of a player. Usually it's a stats better if taken over a very long period of time. Very rarely you will see a bad player be +300 in career. It is usually reserved to elite players.

My main problem with the stats is between -14 and +14. I don't think there's much difference between a player -10 and +7 outside of luck. When you start to see a player +20 (or -20) it is where it can be an indication of a good (or bad) season. The closer a player is to 0 the more irrelevant it is imo. Also my other problem is the -1 on the PP and +1 on the pk and the +1/-1 when the net is empty. This should not be counted as it gives an unfair advantage to defensive players as they'll usually nab a free +5 to +10 because of that.

Defensive players get +1 for every goals on the pk without any chances of a -1 in this given situation and they get way higher chances of a +1 than a -1 with the opponent's net empty. Offensive players will get -1 for every goals against on the PP without any chances for a +1 in this given situation and they also have a way higher chance to get a -1 than a +1 when their net is empty. It skew the results a bit. All + and - should be ignored when one team is on the PP. We already have the PP and PK stats no need for + and - to cover that. Also +/- should not be counted when the net is empty. This would give a true indication of the differential of a player at 5 on 5.

I agree with a lot of what you said.

Where I might differ a bit is if a player is +15 or +20 multiple seasons without ever being -10 for example, it is probably meaningful. Or maybe you agree, you did say that over a longer period of time, it increases relevance.

 

[BaseballCoach]

The advantage of Corsi relative to +/- is that the sample size is larger, which decreases the statistical error.

You'll notice that there's a stat that a lot of people like called "PDO". PDO is the sum of the player's goalie's save percentage, and the player's team's shot percentage, when that player is on the ice. If it's far below 1.000 then the player is unlucky, if it's far above 1.000 then he is lucky. If you think about it, the difference between +/- and Corsi is captured by PDO.

Corsi and PDO both suppress the reality that some guys shoot better than others and it is not always luck. Lehkonen, Gionta late career, Kilger, these guys couldn't shoot for their life. Tatar, on the other hand, has a better eye for the open spots on the net.

 

[Rosso Scuderia]

Oh, you really think that there are only 19 centremen who are better passers than Danault ?

It's funny that for some, having better stats means that he's better. Like they avoid completely everything and focused on one particular stat and draw a conclusion with it.

Based on their logic, Price is the 31rd best goalie in the league based on his SV%. Of course, that stats doesn't take into consideration the quality of the shots, the proximity of the shots, the quality of the defense, the quality of team etc etc... Yet again, the players in the NHL who plays against Price still see him as the best, or one of the best in the league but what do they know eh.. Hfboards member knows best because of STATS!!