Player Discussion Phillip Danault - The Centermania Edition

[BaseballCoach]

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!!

Fair point, but actually most NHL observers say good things about Danault. The only place I see where people make serious statements like "he can't pass well" is on this Habs fan board.

 

[BaseballCoach]

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.

The reason some of us do that is that the criticisms of Danault are just way too over the top.

"He can't pass well" for example. Well, only 19 guys have more assists than him.

"He plays first line minutes". Well, he plays less minutes than all the players with more assists than him or close to him, so ice time is not boosting his numbers.

"He's playing with the best wingers". Yet these same wingers are criticized as well for not being as good as other teams' best wingers.

So yeah, when Danault's stats are closer to those of established stars than to actual real bottom-6 players, it seems we need to highlight that so that the ridiculous criticisms can be debunked and we can have a more reasonable discussion about how to get more talent and change the man's role a bit.

 

[LaP]

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.

Obviously you can't get lucky every single season i was meaning in a single season or two

 

[Rosso Scuderia]

Fair point, but actually most NHL observers say good things about Danault. The only place I see where people make serious statements like "he can't pass well" is on this Habs fan board.

I don't think he's bad or particularly good as a passer.

Danault is very effective as an even-strength player (and pk of course). Works hard, battles hard but I don't think he's anything special as a passer. The chemistry on his line is undeniable though.

 

[BaseballCoach]

I don't think he's bad or particularly good as a passer.

Danault is very effective as an even-strength player (and pk of course). Works hard, battles hard but I don't think he's anything special as a passer. The chemistry on his line is undeniable though.

You see, THAT is a reasonable critique. "He's not special as a passer" is not the same as "he can't pass well".

Anyway, what I think we all want to see is RESULTS. Better 10 seemingly ordinary passes that result in goals than one amazing, seeing eye pass every ten games that makes a highlight reel somewhere.

Danault is the type of player who is EFFECTIVE. There's a lot to be said for guys like that. They can play up and down your lineup, and help any team they are on.

I have a relative who used to play Major Junior Baseball as well as University Varsity ball. He didn't hit the ball 50 feet out of the park, and didn't throw it 90+ mph. He doesn't have muscles bulging out of his shirts. But his coaches and teammates loved him because he was effective. High batting average, low strikeouts, minimal errors, great defence, could play six positions well, good bunter, fast runner - EFFECTIVE.

There were years when he was the best player on his team. Honestly, those years were mostly not banner years for the team. But it was not because of his shortcomings, far from it. On the other hand, when there were one or two real stars, and then one or two guys like him, they won championships - several of them!

Hockey teams need effective players too, and it is ridiculous to criticize them for not being spectacular. OK, they are not. Now appreciate them anyway!

 

[DAChampion]

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.

I think that people have shown that the variation in PDO due to luck is greater than the variation due to skill. You can show that, for example, by seeing how numbers for individual players are correlated from one season to the next. I don't remember how convincing the demonstration was.

@Talks to Goalposts are you still alive?

You see, THAT is a reasonable critique. "He's not special as a passer" is not the same as "he can't pass well".

Anyway, what I think we all want to see is RESULTS. Better 10 seemingly ordinary passes that result in goals than one amazing, seeing eye pass every ten games that makes a highlight reel somewhere.

Danault is the type of player who is EFFECTIVE. There's a lot to be said for guys like that. They can play up and down your lineup, and help any team they are on.

I have a relative who used to play Major Junior Baseball as well as University Varsity ball. He didn't hit the ball 50 feet out of the park, and didn't throw it 90+ mph. He doesn't have muscles bulging out of his shirts. But his coaches and teammates loved him because he was effective. High batting average, low strikeouts, minimal errors, great defence, could play six positions well, good bunter, fast runner - EFFECTIVE.

There were years when he was the best player on his team. Honestly, those years were mostly not banner years for the team. But it was not because of his shortcomings, far from it. On the other hand, when there were one or two real stars, and then one or two guys like him, they won championships - several of them!

Hockey teams need effective players too, and it is ridiculous to criticize them for not being spectacular. OK, they are not. Now appreciate them anyway!

I remember that the same BS argument was made with respect to Pacioretty. People wrote that he had "no vision" and that all he had was a shot. He's actually a very effective passer, but in a different way than some other players. He's very good at getting the puck and creating space, which gives him good opportunities to pass.

In general, it does seem like fans are bad at judging playmaking ability.

Remember the morons who wrote that "Eller has no vision"?

 

[tazsub3]

danault is one the leagues best 3rd line centers in my eye. Sadly we need him to be much more and he aint. simple as that

 

[BaseballCoach]

I think that people have shown that the variation in PDO due to luck is greater than the variation due to skill. You can show that, for example, by seeing how numbers for individual players are correlated from one season to the next. I don't remember how convincing the demonstration was.

@Talks to Goalposts are you still alive?

I get it, but like I said, Lehkonen and post-30 Gionta keep/kept shooting at goalie crests. Eventually that is no longer luck. Tatar has a 13.1% shooting percentage over his career, Lehkonen 8.1%. Huge difference.

 

[BaseballCoach]

danault is one the leagues best 3rd line centers in my eye. Sadly we need him to be much more and he aint. simple as that

But he IS better than that. He is a fine second center. Not a second #1 on the same team, but a good #2 who would be an amazing complement to a 75+ point 1C.

 

[peate]

Zibanejad scores 5 and ends up at +/- 0. Stats say nothing, I trust my eyes more.

 

[Patccmoi]

Zibanejad scores 5 and ends up at +/- 0. Stats say nothing, I trust my eyes more.

Stats say a lot. They say he has 5 goals! That's also a stats... They also say he's been good on the PP with 2 PP goals. I'm pretty sure anyone, including everyone who actually appreciate Danault here, would trade him for Zibanejad anytime.

You see, THAT is a reasonable critique. "He's not special as a passer" is not the same as "he can't pass well".

Anyway, what I think we all want to see is RESULTS. Better 10 seemingly ordinary passes that result in goals than one amazing, seeing eye pass every ten games that makes a highlight reel somewhere.

Danault is the type of player who is EFFECTIVE. There's a lot to be said for guys like that. They can play up and down your lineup, and help any team they are on.

I have a relative who used to play Major Junior Baseball as well as University Varsity ball. He didn't hit the ball 50 feet out of the park, and didn't throw it 90+ mph. He doesn't have muscles bulging out of his shirts. But his coaches and teammates loved him because he was effective. High batting average, low strikeouts, minimal errors, great defence, could play six positions well, good bunter, fast runner - EFFECTIVE.

There were years when he was the best player on his team. Honestly, those years were mostly not banner years for the team. But it was not because of his shortcomings, far from it. On the other hand, when there were one or two real stars, and then one or two guys like him, they won championships - several of them!

Hockey teams need effective players too, and it is ridiculous to criticize them for not being spectacular. OK, they are not. Now appreciate them anyway!

This sums it up very well. Effective and non-flashy is usually liked a LOT more by coaches and teammates than it is by fans, who then complain about players being used "too much" or "too high in the line-up". Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not, but there's a reason why coaches go back to these players over and over. In some cases it's detrimental when they're not actually delivering, but Danault has been delivering everything you could expect him to, which is why the criticism is so ridiculous.

 

[peate]

Stats say a lot. They say he has 5 goals! That's also a stats... They also say he's been good on the PP with 2 PP goals. I'm pretty sure anyone, including everyone who actually appreciate Danault here, would trade him for Zibanejad anytime.



This sums it up very well. Effective and non-flashy is usually liked a LOT more by coaches and teammates than it is by fans, who then complain about players being used "too much" or "too high in the line-up". Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not, but there's a reason why coaches go back to these players over and over. In some cases it's detrimental when they're not actually delivering, but Danault has been delivering everything you could expect him to, which is why the criticism is so ridiculous.

I meant more the hidden stats, not the obvious ones like goals.

 

[ECWHSWI]

The reason some of us do that is that the criticisms of Danault are just way too over the top.

"He can't pass well" for example. Well, only 19 guys have more assists than him.

"He plays first line minutes". Well, he plays less minutes than all the players with more assists than him or close to him, so ice time is not boosting his numbers.

"He's playing with the best wingers". Yet these same wingers are criticized as well for not being as good as other teams' best wingers.

So yeah, when Danault's stats are closer to those of established stars than to actual real bottom-6 players, it seems we need to highlight that so that the ridiculous criticisms can be debunked and we can have a more reasonable discussion about how to get more talent and change the man's role a bit.

by comparing Danault to guys like MacKinnon, Bergeron, McDavid... yeah sure...


for some reason you seem to think it's stupid to say the guy can't pas well but think it's smart to compare him to the guys I mentionned, and you talk about having "reasonnable discussions"

 

[BaseballCoach]

by comparing Danault to guys like MacKinnon, Bergeron, McDavid... yeah sure...


for some reason you seem to think it's stupid to say the guy can't pas well but think it's smart to compare him to the guys I mentionned, and you talk about having "reasonnable discussions"

It is reasonable to compare the player to other players. And when you see that his actual factual results are CLOSER to those of known stars than to bottom-6 players, the honest thing is to conclude he is a good contributor and stop criticizing him for not being as dominant as the known stars.

 

[ECWHSWI]

It is reasonable to compare the player to other players. And when you see that his actual factual results are CLOSER to those of known stars than to bottom-6 players, the honest thing is to conclude he is a good contributor and stop criticizing him for not being as dominant as the known stars.

at 23 McDavid has more assists than Danault has points in his entire career
every single year McDavid played in the NHL he had more assists than Danauld had points
at the age McDavid had his 1st 100 pts season, Danault was still in Jr
at his current age McDavid is on pace for his 4th straight 100 pts season, at the same age Danault was a AHLer
McDavid has been over PPG every single season he played in this league, Danault has yet to be PPG once...


and you think it's reasonnable to compare Danault to McDavid ??

 

[ahmedou]

Could he refers us some centers at his level

 

[Mrb1p]

Ridiculous stats of the day

Zibanejad just scored 10% of Danaults career goals in 23 minutes of ice time
Zibanejad just scored 40% of Danaults career high in goal in 23 minutes of ice time


Im outtie

 

[Talks to Goalposts]

I get it, but like I said, Lehkonen and post-30 Gionta keep/kept shooting at goalie crests. Eventually that is no longer luck. Tatar has a 13.1% shooting percentage over his career, Lehkonen 8.1%. Huge difference.

On ice shooting percentage for your entire line is a very different thing than personal shooting percentage. Personal shooting percentage is a lot do with talent and play style so its much less a luck thing of the the long term although highly variable in small sample sizes. Your team's shooting percentage while you are on the ice is also talent to some degree and is a key factor in why the very best offensive players are the very best, but variance is a much bigger factor on a season to season basis, its also hard to determine because lines are rarely constant over a long period of time and few players are talented/not talented enough to really drive their lines overall ability to finish. I've never seen anything that suggests an individual forward has a significant effect on their goaltender's save percentage (there's reason to think save percentage is heavily impacted by team systems and 5 man units, but nothing a single forward can control themselves), so that can be typically disregarded as the product of chance rather than skill.

I haven't been following this discussion much but it seems to be largely about how good Danault is based on how well his line has done. My take is that the Tatar-Danault-Gallagher line is gangbusters, one of the best in the league at even strength. There's fundamentally no reason it can't be the best even strength line on a contending team. However, the bulk of its value is from the line's elite ability to drive play/control territory and it has middle-six finishing talent. I think most of the credit for this ability should accrue to Gallagher, who has become on of the leagues best ES wingers period, but Danualt has definitely held up in his role and deserves a lot of credit.

The inherent weakness of this unit though, is that it isn't an elite offensive zone group so its of marginal value on the power play, so its not a conventional first line. Ideally its paired with some top offensive talent that racks up points with the man advantage. Its not the standard way of doing things, but it is similar to how Boston used to do things with Bergeron as the "2nd line centre." The Danault-Gallagher connection probably best seen as a lesser version of that.


Now, I would rate Danault as a second tier talent at best overall and Gallagher as the actual star. But a compete caddy to a star is an honourable role and valuable type of contributor so long as you don't pay too much for it. The problem is when you do the Desharnais thing and promote them above it and pull them out of their sweet spot for contribution. Montreal's first line ES works, it works even better than the Pacioretty-Desharnais-Gallagher unit that provided similar kind of value. Get someone else to play the roles they don't excel at and it can be a foundation stone for a competitive team.

The problem with the Habs is this beaut of a line isn't being surrounded by other elements that work. 1st unit PP is a huge problem. Goaltending doesn't provide value any more and the backups in particular are a black hole. The defense is weak and aging. This line slaps though, it deserves to be on a better team.

 

[BaseballCoach]

at 23 McDavid has more assists than Danault has points in his entire career
every single year McDavid played in the NHL he had more assists than Danauld had points
at the age McDavid had his 1st 100 pts season, Danault was still in Jr
at his current age McDavid is on pace for his 4th straight 100 pts season, at the same age Danault was a AHLer
McDavid has been over PPG every single season he played in this league, Danault has yet to be PPG once...


and you think it's reasonnable to compare Danault to McDavid ??

The point in question was not Danault's overall game. It was specifically a statement that "he can't pass well". It is absolutely fair to note that only 19 players, including McDavid, have more assists than him, and only 9 including McDavid have more at ES.

The point is not to prove he is as good as McDavid. Of course he is not. It is to show how silly it is to imply he is below average at passing, when his ranking is closer to McDavid's than the ranking of bottom sixers.

There are 124 centers in the league, plus press-box guys. If he is 20th this year in assists, and was 29th last year, it is just not reasonable to say "he can't pass well".

 

[justafan22]

He's not a 1C even on a bad team.

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

It is reasonable to compare the player to other players. And when you see that his actual factual results are CLOSER to those of known stars than to bottom-6 players, the honest thing is to conclude he is a good contributor and stop criticizing him for not being as dominant as the known stars.

By the way, McDavid is at 2.82/60 and Danault at 2.53/60... That's not close at all.

You should compare him to Bonino, Kahun, Robert Thomas, Ryan Strome, Laughton... because he's close to them for ESP/60 and in general talent... I'm sure it's only a coincidence that you used McDavid, Bergeron and Co. to make your point.

Website: 2019‑2020 NHL Scoring Leaders

 

[BaseballCoach]

By the way, McDavid is at 2.82/60 and Danault at 2.53/60... That's not close at all.

You should compare him to Bonino, Kahun, Robert Thomas, Ryan Strome, Laughton... because he's close to them for ESP/60 and in general talent... I'm sure it's only a coincidence that you used McDavid, Bergeron and Co. to make your point.

Website: 2019‑2020 NHL Scoring Leaders

I didn't use Bergeron, and we weren't talking about "talent", just passing ability.

And yes, 2.53 is relatively "close to" 2.82, when most bottom sixers are at 1.00-1.25 at best. McDavid has 3 more assists at ES than Danault. Danault has more total assists than 104 regular centres, and more assists than 115 at ES.

So how about this: as a passer, McDavid >>Danault>>>>>bottom-sixers

 

[Talks to Goalposts]

I didn't use Bergeron, and we weren't talking about "talent", just passing ability.

And yes, 2.53 is relatively "close to" 2.82, when most bottom sixers are at 1.00-1.25 at best. McDavid has 3 more assists at ES than Danault. Danault has more total assists than 104 regular centres, and more assists than 115 at ES.

So how about this: as a passer, McDavid >>Danault>>>>>bottom-sixers

I note that assists don't necessarily mean passing ability as people see it on a scouting report.

I also strongly hold the opinion that we should care a lot less how a player produces and a lot more that he does. Gallagher doesn't have a great shot and it would be foolhardy to call him a sniper, but he's a terrific goal scorer due to elite ability to generate chances to shoot.

Danault isn't a play maker as conventionally understood, but he can be cog on a line that is good at scoring goals, hence assists at a good rate.

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

I didn't use Bergeron, and we weren't talking about "talent", just passing ability.

And yes, 2.53 is relatively "close to" 2.82, when most bottom sixers are at 1.00-1.25 at best. McDavid has 3 more assists at ES than Danault. Danault has more total assists than 104 regular centres, and more assists than 115 at ES.

So how about this: as a passer, McDavid >>Danault>>>>>bottom-sixers

Edit: I used points and not only assists.

For assists(ESA/60) he's "close to" Grimaldi, Robert Thomas, Mikheyev, Kahun... These are bottom-sixers(Thomas is young, but he's playing on the 3rd line mostly)

 

[ECWHSWI]

The point in question was not Danault's overall game. It was specifically a statement that "he can't pass well". It is absolutely fair to note that only 19 players, including McDavid, have more assists than him, and only 9 including McDavid have more at ES.

The point is not to prove he is as good as McDavid. Of course he is not. It is to show how silly it is to imply he is below average at passing, when his ranking is closer to McDavid's than the ranking of bottom sixers.

There are 124 centers in the league, plus press-box guys. If he is 20th this year in assists, and was 29th last year, it is just not reasonable to say "he can't pass well".

it is still very dumb to compare Danault to McDavid.

Danault will end his season with less points than McDavid has assists, and yet you INSIST in comparing the both of them...