Player Discussion Phillip Danault - The Centermania Edition

[CristianoRonaldo]

Suzuki's most common linemate is Domi, the most productive Hab in a decade. He also played a decent amount with Kovalchuk who was our best forward for like 15 games. A 2nd liner would produce less with 3rd/4th liners yes, but the teams he would be a 2C on have much more talented winger depth that Danault would still be a 50-55 point defensive responsible center. The Habs winger depth is filled with 3rd liners after Tatar and Gally.

Domi was the most productive Habs last year, but it was clearly a fluke, he was nowhere near that level this year and when Suzuki played with him, it was on the wing and we all know that he's better as a centre. Kovy was good for 10 games, then he turned into a ghost, the guy is 36 years old it was expected.

Suzuki played almost 25% of the time at EVS with two scrubs on his wing and the rest of the time, even when he was playing with a top-6 player, he always had Armia/Lehky/Cousins on his other wing to drag him back.

He's also helped the best trio tremendously. He's obviously not holding Tatar back who is on pace for 75 points, or do you think Tatar would be a 90+ forward with a real 2c(whatever that is to you).

His skills are not suited for a top-6 centre.

He's strong, can cycle the puck pretty well, average passing ability, average scoring touch, better defensively than offensively, better on EVS than on the PP, not a good puck handler.

He's holding them back, the guy is not a good scorer so Tatar and Gally will potentially get fewer assists than with a centre decent in that area. He also has a lot of secondary assists, he has more secondary passes than primary assists this season and since he's not a good goal scorer, it's problematic.

A better passer and goal scorer as a centre, will open more space for the Tatar and Gally, he will also create more scoring chances with his passing and goal scoring ability, Tatar and Gally won't have to work as hard as right now to get the same amount of points. Tatar is having a career year, just like last year with Domi, it's probably a fluke.

MANY rookies struggle against tough competition unless it's a McDavid like player, it's not a weak argument at all, it's actually factual.

I never said that. I told you that Suzuki already face the tough matchup, because when a coach has the last change he avoids sending his best line against our 1st trio, so our #2C/#3C/#4C will face these guys too and many teams have two dangerous lines.

That's an understatement, Domi's an actual liability defensively. He'll score a goal, but then he will be directly responsible for 3 against. He's also been inconsistent offensively. When he's on, he's excellent and produces like crazy. When he's off, he's arguably the worst player on the team.

I mean, he's "the most productive Hab in a decade" why would you play that away from our best wingers ? Last year he was fine defensively, he was not the liability that you portrait here. He's not Danault defensively, that's for sure, but he can hold his own.

I'm talking about wingers in general, not right wingers, you keep dodging this. Yes Gallagher might be like the 20th best RW in the league. Heck why not change the criteria and make it RW that are below 5'10, he'd probably be top 5. Doesn't mean we win anything with him as our best winger. Some contending teams may have weaker RW where he would easily be the top winger, but they can do that because they have good enough LW to compensate for that. If not good enough forward core, they make up for it with their stellar defense which isn't the norm.

You can add McDavid to this team and we won't win shit... Why would you combine both wings ? Just to make Gally look worse than he really is ? Every contending team has really good centres to compensate for their average winger. The only team with better wingers than #1C is Vegas and even then Karlsson is better than Danault. Actually, their whole line is better than our first line.

I have heard little to no complaints about Chiarot since his tough start to the year. Danault will get shit on regardless if he has a 3 point night or does f*** all offensively, it's always consistent and makes no sense. He is what he is and it's not his fault that this team is so f***ing terrible that he has to be the #1 C.

You hear little to no complaint about Chiarot, because we crapped a lot on him after his signing and at the start of the season, we expected an Alzner 2.0 and he proved us wrong. You also won't read cherry-picked stats to convince us that Chiarot is a Top-4/Top-2 D, like some do with Danault. Nobody will argue that Chiarot is a legit top-2 D. But in the media, on Hf boards and Reddit, you will read that Danault is a #1C.

The last time Danault had a good night, many posters, started posting, "The no skill Danault just scored" "Danault really suck, he just had a 2-point night" naturally some including me responded, because it was clearly aimed to us. That's how you create a lot of talk about a player. If I say that Danault is a #3C, you won't like it, because you think that he's a #2C, you will then answer by a long message, then I will respond... That's why we talk a lot more about Danault.



For like the 5th time, Domi is f***ing atrocious defensively. Like to the point where we lose games mostly because of it. You never know what you get with him and he's been nowhere near as good as last year offensively. Suzuki has done a great job regardless of who he plays with. He's produced with everyone and gets PP time with the best offensive players. He's played with Domi mostly this year, who is good offensively.[/QUOTE]

So you are afraid to play Suzuki on the first line because it will be like throwing him to wolves, but you are fine with him playing with a centre "f***ing atrocious defensively", knowing that other coaches will try to exploit that line when they have the last change, by sending their best lines against them ? Also Suzuki played 70% of the season away from Domi...

Even if we ONLY want to include RW, let's say he's 20th in the league for RW. Should we be thrilled that we have the 20th best RW? It feels silly to only account for RW because there are many more factors, so I'll try it this way, should we be happy with Gallagher being the go to guy offensively for our best winger and even our best forward? Is that what contenders have, Gallagher as their best winger? Even some garbage teams have at least 1 better winger than Gally.

Some are thrilled with Danault, they are defending him and want to give him our best winger again next year and he's not even a top-50 as a centre in the NHL... We value Gallagher a lot, because he can generate tons of scoring chances from nothing and he's our most productive goal scorer. He's a great goal scorer and we need more goalscoring wingers. Danault is average as a goal scorer and as a passer... He's the weakest player of his line.

I personally want Gally to be traded, because I'm afraid of his next contract. I want to trade Tatar, Gally, Petry, Danault (unless he accepts #3C money) too. That's why I want to play Suzuki with our best wingers now, because next year at least one of them will be gone.

Some also think that Victor Mete is a top 2 dman, doesn't mean they are right.

If Danault isn't the unanimous #1 C on this team for you then Chiarot can't be the unanimous LHD for you with Mete on the team.

I don't why you compare Suzuki/Mete and Chiarot/Danault... Mete played a lot with Weber on the top pairing, Suzuki never played with our best wingers and I think Mete won't improve much, so Chiarot is not holding him back. Chiarot suck as a top-4, he should not be our best LD and nobody will advocate that. If I say that "Danault suck and he should not be playing with our best wingers" many will respond to my comment and defend him.

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

Suzuki is not clearly better, except under PP circumstances where he has more time and space. ANd even on the PP, Suzuki has made turnovers that have led to SH goals against, so let's not idealize his ability level just yet.

Suzuki looked better than Danault for a fair amount of time this season... Right now he's struggling, mostly because he's playing with two scrubs. Danault is pointless in 3 games without Tatar. When they gave him Weal and another scrub, he looked so bad.

He will, some day, be better, but if Jack Hughes as a #1 overall is not on the first line in his rookie year, Suzuki at #13 should not be expected to be ready for that kind of responsibility yet either.

Jack Huges is looking bad and he's 18 years old, he's also on pace for 28 points (Kotkaniemi had a better pace than him last year), he's projected to end with 23 fewer points than their #1C... On the other hand, Suzuki is 20 years old, he's playing well, he's projected to end the season with only 7 fewer points than Danault our #1C. Is Huges looking as good as Hichier ? No. But you can argue that Suzuki is looking as good if not better than Danault.

There is nothing wrong with the 16 minutes per game including substantial PP time that he is now getting!

"Substantial PP time", 16 more seconds on average per game than Danault, the last 41 games. He's getting a bit more than a guy who suck on the PP, I would not call that substantial.

As for Domi, you don't have to convince me. I'm the one who says that if the plan is to develop young players with potential, then Domi should be developed as a priority! His first full year at center was amazing. You don't thrown him under the bus for an inconsistent second year that occurred with frequent pairing to talent-limited wingers.

Tomas Tatar was/is still improving at 28-29 years old, Domi at 24-25 and only in his 2nd year at C should be a no-brainer for prioritizing.

So we agree on something. Domi or Suzuki on our first line, I'm good with that.

 

[mynamejeff420]

He was a Quebecois but it's not that he was skilled, it's cause he was another short center and he was put in a position that was too "big" for him. Similar to Danault now.

??? Danault is really good and definitely suited for #1C duties. It is not "too big" for him. He's done really well as a top line C. One of, if not the most, underrated Habs.

 

[DAChampion]

??? Danault is really good and definitely suited for #1C duties. It is not "too big" for him. He's done really well as a top line C. One of, if not the most, underrated Habs.

Danault is much better than Desharnais, but he's not a great first line C like you imply.

 

[Et le But]

??? Danault is really good and definitely suited for #1C duties. It is not "too big" for him. He's done really well as a top line C. One of, if not the most, underrated Habs.

Danault is a great player, but he's good not great on the offensive end and I don't love him getting offensive usage. He should be a Plekanec-esque workhorse IMO

 

[mynamejeff420]

Danault is much better than Desharnais, but he's not a great first line C like you imply.

Danault is a great player, but he's good not great on the offensive end and I don't love him getting offensive usage. He should be a Plekanec-esque workhorse IMO

Over the past 2 years he's been the matchup center and plays 1st line minutes at even strength. In that time, when Danault is on the ice (keeping in mind he plays tough minutes), the Habs control 57.84% of the goals (GF%), 58.19% of the shots (CF%), and 58.19% of the expected goals (xGF%). Simply put, the Habs dominate the opposition when Danault's on the ice. If that's not "great first line C territory", then I don't know what is. If points are more your thing, Danault has 80 at 5v5 over the past 2 years, which ranks 29th among all forwards in that time. But from any which way you look at it, whether it's offensively or defensively, Danault is a great first line centre.

 

[DAChampion]

Over the past 2 years he's been the matchup center and plays 1st line minutes at even strength. In that time, when Danault is on the ice (keeping in mind he plays tough minutes), the Habs control 57.84% of the goals (GF%), 58.19% of the shots (CF%), and 58.19% of the expected goals (xGF%). Simply put, the Habs dominate the opposition when Danault's on the ice. If that's not "great first line C territory", then I don't know what is. If points are more your thing, Danault has 80 at 5v5 over the past 2 years, which ranks 29th among all forwards in that time. But from any which way you look at it, whether it's offensively or defensively, Danault is a great first line centre.

Danault is 29th among centers, but he's helped by the fact that Gallagher is ~15th among right-wingers and Tatar might be about that good among LWers.

Don't get me wrong. I like Danault, I'm convinced that he's exceeded expectations and that he's a good player, and I'm puzzled by the negativity of many on this board. I think that he can be part of a cup Contending core. But.Not.As.A.Top.Line.C, even if we accept that he's the 29th best center, it is hard to see a team competing with the 29th best center as their first line C. All other things being equal, you should expect the team with the 16th best (not 29th best) C as their top line center to be a playoff bubble team.

However, Danault can probably be adequate as the second line C.

 

[mynamejeff420]

Danault is 29th among centers, but he's helped by the fact that Gallagher is ~15th among right-wingers and Tatar might be about that good among LWers.

Don't get me wrong. I like Danault, I'm convinced that he's exceeded expectations and that he's a good player, and I'm puzzled by the negativity of many on this board. I think that he can be part of a cup Contending core. But.Not.As.A.Top.Line.C, even if we accept that he's the 29th best center, it is hard to see a team competing with the 29th best center as their first line C. All other things being equal, you should expect the team with the 16th best (not 29th best) C as their top line center to be a playoff bubble team.

However, Danault can probably be adequate as the second line C.

That's 29th among all forwards, not just centers. That makes him a fringe #1 forward, not a fringe #1C. For comparison's sake, Ryan O'Reilly, who just won a cup as a #1C, ranks 30th in 5v5 points over the last 2 years, one spot behind Danault. Other players with fewer 5v5 Points than Danault over the last 2 years: Barzal, Kuznetsov, Zibanejad, Aho, Giroux, Larkin, Connor, Dubois, Duchene, Voracek, Monahan, Wheeler, Seguin, Hertl, Kopitar, Rantanen, Bergeron, etc. Unless you think those teams can't win a cup with those guys as their #1C/#1W, then I don't know what to tell you. In addition to that, he's 3rd among all forwards in CF%, and 7th in xGF%. Hard to argue that many forwards have been better than Danault over the last 2 years. Not centers, forwards.

 

[DAChampion]

That's 29th among all forwards, not just centers. That makes him a fringe #1 forward, not a fringe #1C. For comparison's sake, Ryan O'Reilly, who just won a cup as a #1C, ranks 30th in 5v5 points over the last 2 years, one spot behind Danault. Other players with fewer 5v5 Points than Danault over the last 2 years: Barzal, Kuznetsov, Zibanejad, Aho, Giroux, Larkin, Connor, Dubois, Duchene, Voracek, Monahan, Wheeler, Seguin, Hertl, Kopitar, Rantanen, Bergeron, etc. Unless you think those teams can't win a cup with those guys as their #1C/#1W, then I don't know what to tell you. In addition to that, he's 3rd among all forwards in CF%, and 7th in xGF%. Hard to argue that many forwards have been better than Danault over the last 2 years. Not centers, forwards.

If you were the GM of the Capitals, would you trade Kuznetsov for Danault?

And why are you including guys like Tomas Hertl, who lost significant playing time to injury? The stat that matters is 5v5 points per time on ice, at the very least, no? I think that Danault may have had more even strength points than Crosby this year

You are also counting assists as being as valuable as goals. Typically, there are two assists for every goal, and thus from an "advanced stats" perspective, you should be assigning a lower weight to assists. I remember a few years ago, Corey Pronman was suggesting "goals created", which gave a lower weight to primary assists and an even lower weight to secondary assists. Edit: I don't know if he still advocates for that.

 

[mynamejeff420]

If you were the GM of the Capitals, would you trade Kuznetsov for Danault?

And why are you including guys like Tomas Hertl, who lost significant playing time to injury? The stat that matters is 5v5 points per time on ice, at the very least, no? I think that Danault may have had more even strength points than Crosby this year

You are also counting assists as being as valuable as goals. Typically, there are two assists for every goal, and thus from an "advanced stats" perspective, you should be assigning a lower weight to assists. I remember a few years ago, Corey Pronman was suggesting "goals created", which gave a lower weight to primary assists and an even lower weight to secondary assists. Edit: I don't know if he still advocates for that.

Yeah Points Per Time On Ice (or P/60) is definitely a better way to measure this, and Danault does fall down a bit there, at 37th instead of 29th. Still very good though.

But I agree that points aren't a great metric for measuring offense, as things like injury, ice time, usage, etc aren't accounted for. Something like offensive GAR (EVO) or GF RAPM is a much better way to measure it in my opinion, as things like usage, teammates, competition, etc, are accounted for.

For EVO (Even Strength Offense), Danault ranks 27th among forwards over the last 2 years. For GF/60 RAPM, Danault ranks 18th among forwards. So safe to say he is still in that upper echelon of offensive players, even in measures that capture offense far better than raw points.

I would definitely take Danault over Kuznetsov though. He's better offensively (whether it's by points, GAR, or RAPM), and miles better defensively (Danault is one of the top defensive players in the league, while Kuznetsov is one of the worst). The only aspect of the game Kuznetsov has Danault beat in is on the power play, but given how much better Danault is at everything else, I wouldn't hesitate to pick Danault first.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

Yeah Points Per Time On Ice (or P/60) is definitely a better way to measure this, and Danault does fall down a bit there, at 37th instead of 29th. Still very good though.

But I agree that points aren't a great metric for measuring offense, as things like injury, ice time, usage, etc aren't accounted for. Something like offensive GAR (EVO) or GF RAPM is a much better way to measure it in my opinion, as things like usage, teammates, competition, etc, are accounted for.

For EVO (Even Strength Offense), Danault ranks 27th among forwards over the last 2 years. For GF/60 RAPM, Danault ranks 18th among forwards. So safe to say he is still in that upper echelon of offensive players, even in measures that capture offense far better than raw points.

I would definitely take Danault over Kuznetsov though. He's better offensively (whether it's by points, GAR, or RAPM), and miles better defensively (Danault is one of the top defensive players in the league, while Kuznetsov is one of the worst). The only aspect of the game Kuznetsov has Danault beat in is on the power play, but given how much better Danault is at everything else, I wouldn't hesitate to pick Danault first.

Except he's not though, we can't ignore his lack of high end talent and inability to perform on the PP, but some of that is offset by him being a very good defensive forward too. He's not one of the better offensive players, he's above average at ES, but leaves a lot to be desired on the PP. I'm a Danault fan, but he's not upper echelon in offensive ability, but he is highly effective overall.

 

[Rosso Scuderia]

Oh geez now Danault is better than Kuznetsov.

 

[mynamejeff420]

Except he's not though, we can't ignore his lack of high end talent and inability to perform on the PP, but some of that is offset by him being a very good defensive forward too. He's not one of the better offensive players, he's above average at ES, but leaves a lot to be desired on the PP. I'm a Danault fan, but he's not upper echelon in offensive ability, but he is highly effective overall.

Oh geez now Danault is better than Kuznetsov.

In offensive ability he may not be in the upper echelon, and I'm sure there's a number of guys who may be more skilled than him, but in terms of offensive results, there's few that are better. At the end of the day, results trump skill, and Danault's results are in the upper echelon of the league.

I'm not ignoring Kuznetsov's skill, nor his ability on the PP. But at even strength his terrible defense outweighs his offense. 75% of Kuznetsov's time on ice comes at 5v5, so that means that for 75% of his minutes, he's a net negative player. If he's only bringing value 20% of the time, is he really that valuable? Contrast that with Danault, who's bringing monster value 90% of the time (his PP TOI accounts for ~8% of his overall TOI).

Seems like an easy choice to me: I'd rather have the guy that's bringing value ~90% of the time over the guy that's bringing value ~20% of the time.

 

[HabsCowboysOwn]

I'd rather have the guy with 10X the skills, thanks. Danault couldn't even hold Kuznetsov's jockstrap. One has gamebreaking talent, the other is a good 2/3 C with a very average offensive game (for a #1 C).

Put Kuznetsov in Danault's spot and this team becomes exponentially better.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

In offensive ability he may not be in the upper echelon, and I'm sure there's a number of guys who may be more skilled than him, but in terms of offensive results, there's few that are better. At the end of the day, results trump skill, and Danault's results are in the upper echelon of the league.

I'm not ignoring Kuznetsov's skill, nor his ability on the PP. But at even strength his terrible defense outweighs his offense. 75% of Kuznetsov's time on ice comes at 5v5, so that means that for 75% of his minutes, he's a net negative player. If he's only bringing value 20% of the time, is he really that valuable? Contrast that with Danault, who's bringing monster value 90% of the time (his PP TOI accounts for ~8% of his overall TOI).

Seems like an easy choice to me: I'd rather have the guy that's bringing value ~90% of the time over the guy that's bringing value ~20% of the time.

Philip Danault has a career high of 53 points, in what f***ing world is this in the upper echelon of the league. I'm sure bro, but you're way off base here. He's barely in the 2nd tier of offensive players. PP's count and he's terrible on them.

You are way over valuing ES vs the complete game. There's not a gm in the league who takes PD over Kuznetsov. The reason being, that 20% of the time results in a shit ton of goals.

Philip Danault is a nice player. Upper echelon in offense he's nowhere close.

 

[NobleSix]

Oh geez now Danault is better than Kuznetsov.

No doubt. Kuznetsov has scored more points than Danault in literally every single season in the NHL, and has had two 70+ point seasons, and an 83 point season. But somehow Danault is the better player.

Some of the shit I read on here. For f*** sakes guys.

 

[Deficient Mode]

People really need to start thinking of power play scoring in terms of efficiency on a per minute basis and whether a player is contributing to an above league average power play or not when you're comparing a player who plays on the power play to one who doesn't. The Capitals in particular are an egregious example of this. Despite their offensive reputation, the Capitals have a slightly below league average scoring rate at 5 on 4 the past two seasons, but they keep their first unit out there - particularly Carlson and Ovechkin, but also Backstrom and Kuznetsov, who is 22nd in the league in 5 on 4 TOI/game - longer than any other team. The result is that all these players have picked up 16-20 points per season despite scoring rates half of what the truly elite PP players are scoring. Kuznetsov's 2.6 p1/60 at 5 on 4 the last two seasons isn't that much more valuable than a player (Danault) who has rarely played on the power play/doesn't play an important role. It's not enough to make up the massive gulf in even strength defense AND offense.

 

[mynamejeff420]

Philip Danault has a career high of 53 points, in what f***ing world is this in the upper echelon of the league. I'm sure bro, but you're way off base here. He's barely in the 2nd tier of offensive players. PP's count and he's terrible on them.

You are way over valuing ES vs the complete game. There's not a gm in the league who takes PD over Kuznetsov. The reason being, that 20% of the time results in a shit ton of goals.

Philip Danault is a nice player. Upper echelon in offense he's nowhere close.

At even strength he is in the upper echelon offensively. A lack of powerplay offense probably holds him back from being considered among the league's elite offense, but make no mistake: he's elite offensively (at even strength). Although, his issue with his PP production has less to do with him being "terrible" on the PP and more to do with a lack of opportunity. Over the last 2 seasons he's 13th among Habs forwards in TOI% on the PP, ahead of only Byron and Lehkonen, and behind guys like Hudon, Cousins, Weal, etc. But in terms of GF/60 on the PP, he's 5th, ahead of PP regulars like Armia, Domi, Drouin, Shaw, Kovalchuk, etc. So he's getting the results just not the opportunity. With more PP time I'm sure he'd rack up more points.

Using raw points is a terrible way to evaluate offense. It ignores tons of factors, like usage, teammates, competition, opportunity, etc. In Danault's case, point totals (relative to the rest of the league) will never accurately reflect his offensive output, since he rarely gets the opportunity to rack up the "easy" points on the PP (which we've already established is due to a lack of opportunity, not a lack of skill). Like I mentioned earlier, Danault is 29th in 5v5 points over the last 2 seasons, and 37th in 5v5 P/60. That's high end offense in my opinion.

I think you're overvaluing Kuznetsov's PP game here, and really undervaluing his complete game. He's one of the worst defensive forwards in the league, and leaks a ton of goals against as a result. He's literally a net negative at even strength. His "shit ton of goals on the PP" isn't that much, considering he has to make up for that net negative at even strength, especially in comparison to Danault. He's literally on the ice for fewer goals for than Danault, despite getting more favorable usage (weaker competition, way more PP time, more talented linemates). This season Kuznetsov has been on the ice for 67 goals, while Danault has been on the ice for 68. This is without even mentioning defense. The Habs (a weak offensive team) get more results with Danault than the Caps (a strong offensive team) do with Kuznetsov! There's literally nothing to point to that indicates that Kuznetsov is better offensively than Danault (in terms of results) except points, and that's because Kuznetsov is in a much more favorable situation to rack up points.

So even if you add in all of Kuznetsov's on ice goals on the PP, he still doesn't score as much as Danault. This is all without even mentioning defense too! Once you add in defense, the gap gets even larger, as Kuznetsov is one of the worst forwards in the league defensively, and Danault is one of the best.

Any GM picking Kuznetsov over Danault would be making a huge mistake and would be getting caught up in the point totals and the flash over the actual value of each player. In totality, Danault is better than Kuznetsov both offensively and defensively, despite being a weaker player on the PP.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

At even strength he is in the upper echelon offensively. A lack of powerplay offense probably holds him back from being considered among the league's elite offense, but make no mistake: he's elite offensively (at even strength). Although, his issue with his PP production has less to do with him being "terrible" on the PP and more to do with a lack of opportunity. Over the last 2 seasons he's 13th among Habs forwards in TOI% on the PP, ahead of only Byron and Lehkonen, and behind guys like Hudon, Cousins, Weal, etc. But in terms of GF/60 on the PP, he's 5th, ahead of PP regulars like Armia, Domi, Drouin, Shaw, Kovalchuk, etc. So he's getting the results just not the opportunity. With more PP time I'm sure he'd rack up more points.

Using raw points is a terrible way to evaluate offense. It ignores tons of factors, like usage, teammates, competition, opportunity, etc. In Danault's case, point totals (relative to the rest of the league) will never accurately reflect his offensive output, since he rarely gets the opportunity to rack up the "easy" points on the PP (which we've already established is due to a lack of opportunity, not a lack of skill). Like I mentioned earlier, Danault is 29th in 5v5 points over the last 2 seasons, and 37th in 5v5 P/60. That's high end offense in my opinion.

I think you're overvaluing Kuznetsov's PP game here, and really undervaluing his complete game. He's one of the worst defensive forwards in the league, and leaks a ton of goals against as a result. He's literally a net negative at even strength. His "shit ton of goals on the PP" isn't that much, considering he has to make up for that net negative at even strength, especially in comparison to Danault. He's literally on the ice for fewer goals for than Danault, despite getting more favorable usage (weaker competition, way more PP time, more talented linemates). This season Kuznetsov has been on the ice for 67 goals, while Danault has been on the ice for 68. This is without even mentioning defense. The Habs (a weak offensive team) get more results with Danault than the Caps (a strong offensive team) do with Kuznetsov! There's literally nothing to point to that indicates that Kuznetsov is better offensively than Danault (in terms of results) except points, and that's because Kuznetsov is in a much more favorable situation to rack up points.

So even if you add in all of Kuznetsov's on ice goals on the PP, he still doesn't score as much as Danault. This is all without even mentioning defense too! Once you add in defense, the gap gets even larger, as Kuznetsov is one of the worst forwards in the league defensively, and Danault is one of the best.

Any GM picking Kuznetsov over Danault would be making a huge mistake and would be getting caught up in the point totals and the flash over the actual value of each player. In totality, Danault is better than Kuznetsov both offensively and defensively, despite being a weaker player on the PP.

I can’t do this dude, let’s disagree and move on. I like Danault as a player.

 

[peate]

At even strength he is in the upper echelon offensively. A lack of powerplay offense probably holds him back from being considered among the league's elite offense, but make no mistake: he's elite offensively (at even strength). Although, his issue with his PP production has less to do with him being "terrible" on the PP and more to do with a lack of opportunity. Over the last 2 seasons he's 13th among Habs forwards in TOI% on the PP, ahead of only Byron and Lehkonen, and behind guys like Hudon, Cousins, Weal, etc. But in terms of GF/60 on the PP, he's 5th, ahead of PP regulars like Armia, Domi, Drouin, Shaw, Kovalchuk, etc. So he's getting the results just not the opportunity. With more PP time I'm sure he'd rack up more points.

Using raw points is a terrible way to evaluate offense. It ignores tons of factors, like usage, teammates, competition, opportunity, etc. In Danault's case, point totals (relative to the rest of the league) will never accurately reflect his offensive output, since he rarely gets the opportunity to rack up the "easy" points on the PP (which we've already established is due to a lack of opportunity, not a lack of skill). Like I mentioned earlier, Danault is 29th in 5v5 points over the last 2 seasons, and 37th in 5v5 P/60. That's high end offense in my opinion.

I think you're overvaluing Kuznetsov's PP game here, and really undervaluing his complete game. He's one of the worst defensive forwards in the league, and leaks a ton of goals against as a result. He's literally a net negative at even strength. His "shit ton of goals on the PP" isn't that much, considering he has to make up for that net negative at even strength, especially in comparison to Danault. He's literally on the ice for fewer goals for than Danault, despite getting more favorable usage (weaker competition, way more PP time, more talented linemates). This season Kuznetsov has been on the ice for 67 goals, while Danault has been on the ice for 68. This is without even mentioning defense. The Habs (a weak offensive team) get more results with Danault than the Caps (a strong offensive team) do with Kuznetsov! There's literally nothing to point to that indicates that Kuznetsov is better offensively than Danault (in terms of results) except points, and that's because Kuznetsov is in a much more favorable situation to rack up points.

So even if you add in all of Kuznetsov's on ice goals on the PP, he still doesn't score as much as Danault. This is all without even mentioning defense too! Once you add in defense, the gap gets even larger, as Kuznetsov is one of the worst forwards in the league defensively, and Danault is one of the best.

Any GM picking Kuznetsov over Danault would be making a huge mistake and would be getting caught up in the point totals and the flash over the actual value of each player. In totality, Danault is better than Kuznetsov both offensively and defensively, despite being a weaker player on the PP.

I'd like to know where you get your weed?

 

[BLONG7]

At even strength he is in the upper echelon offensively. A lack of powerplay offense probably holds him back from being considered among the league's elite offense, but make no mistake: he's elite offensively (at even strength). Although, his issue with his PP production has less to do with him being "terrible" on the PP and more to do with a lack of opportunity. Over the last 2 seasons he's 13th among Habs forwards in TOI% on the PP, ahead of only Byron and Lehkonen, and behind guys like Hudon, Cousins, Weal, etc. But in terms of GF/60 on the PP, he's 5th, ahead of PP regulars like Armia, Domi, Drouin, Shaw, Kovalchuk, etc. So he's getting the results just not the opportunity. With more PP time I'm sure he'd rack up more points.

Using raw points is a terrible way to evaluate offense. It ignores tons of factors, like usage, teammates, competition, opportunity, etc. In Danault's case, point totals (relative to the rest of the league) will never accurately reflect his offensive output, since he rarely gets the opportunity to rack up the "easy" points on the PP (which we've already established is due to a lack of opportunity, not a lack of skill). Like I mentioned earlier, Danault is 29th in 5v5 points over the last 2 seasons, and 37th in 5v5 P/60. That's high end offense in my opinion.

I think you're overvaluing Kuznetsov's PP game here, and really undervaluing his complete game. He's one of the worst defensive forwards in the league, and leaks a ton of goals against as a result. He's literally a net negative at even strength. His "shit ton of goals on the PP" isn't that much, considering he has to make up for that net negative at even strength, especially in comparison to Danault. He's literally on the ice for fewer goals for than Danault, despite getting more favorable usage (weaker competition, way more PP time, more talented linemates). This season Kuznetsov has been on the ice for 67 goals, while Danault has been on the ice for 68. This is without even mentioning defense. The Habs (a weak offensive team) get more results with Danault than the Caps (a strong offensive team) do with Kuznetsov! There's literally nothing to point to that indicates that Kuznetsov is better offensively than Danault (in terms of results) except points, and that's because Kuznetsov is in a much more favorable situation to rack up points.

So even if you add in all of Kuznetsov's on ice goals on the PP, he still doesn't score as much as Danault. This is all without even mentioning defense too! Once you add in defense, the gap gets even larger, as Kuznetsov is one of the worst forwards in the league defensively, and Danault is one of the best.

Any GM picking Kuznetsov over Danault would be making a huge mistake and would be getting caught up in the point totals and the flash over the actual value of each player. In totality, Danault is better than Kuznetsov both offensively and defensively, despite being a weaker player on the PP.

Stop....please just stop. I love Phil Danault as a 3rd line C, might just one of the best in the league. But please...........................

 

[McGuires Corndog]

People have really short attention spans.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

Stop....please just stop. I love Phil Danault as a 3rd line C, might just one of the best in the league. But please...........................

I can’t do these debates anymore. I really like PD as a player and I feel like I’m bashing him when I get into these debates because many others are over the top with their hatred towards this player.

He’s crafty along the wall, retrieving pucks, keeping plays alive, he’s a decent passer and he’s a high IQ player, but his offence is not elite. His shot is weak, his hands are nothing special and stick handling/dangling is not a strength, he is an underrated passer imo, but elite, naw. He doesn’t get much PP time and I don’t think he should. I’d be ok with having him on the 2nd wave, taking draws and going to the net, but can’t have him manning the point or half-wall, he’s not good enough for that role.

The advanced stats guys have a really hard time reconciling their numbers with an eye test or facing the fact their numbers might be misleading. At some point what actually happens needs to outweigh projections.

I remember being told Scotty Gomez was still driving the play relatively close to normal and it was just a matter of time, he then went scoreless for over a year, some even argued that wasn’t who he really was either. He was then bought out and never the same again and eventually retired. I just can’t give these guys the attention when they say things like Philip Danault is elite offensively.

 

[Andy]

Yo mods, can we take the Danault talk elsewhere?

 

[DAChampion]

@mynamejeff420,

You make a valid point. I don't know exactly how valid it is, but you're right that we're probably underrating Danault in the aggregate.

I checked the available stats myself. Among forwards who played at least 20 games this year, Danault was 31st in points/60. He averages 2.48 points per 60 minutes of even strength ice time. One can debate how good that it, but not that it's a very good performance. He was, however, in 202nd place for goals scored per 60 minutes of even strength time, with 0.67. I guess we could call that an area of potential improvement.