Player Discussion Phillip Danault: What's My Line Edition

[Scriptor]

Why though? They've switched Tatar with Toffoli. It didn't work a great deal. They consider Danault-Gallagher as a duo, but they shouldn't. I feel Tatar-Gallagher is more of a duo than Danault-Gallagher. You put Evans in the middle, I bet both Tatar and Gallagher plays better.

Why not, though?

Because putting Danault on a 4th line is reductive and won't help him get out of a funk, IMO. It will only mess him up further. Bringing up Lehkonen to play with Danault and Gallagher would capitalize on prior chemistry between Lehkonen and both Danault and Gallagher (although individually). As for whether that chemistry would manifest itself with both players at his side, I'm not really concerned because Lehkonen shares a North\South game that they have and brings a complementary cycle game and defensive awareness for the shutdown part of the game that will be required when Julien puts them out against the opponents' best players.

Playing with Lehkonen and Gallagher brings about more stability than not and doesn't show a coaching staff that s grasping at straws.

I understand that Julien tried to add speed to KK's line by switching Tatar in for Toffoli but, it didn't really up the support for the young C to help him get put of his particular recent funk.

If Julien wanted to try to swing for a home run (not his style, let's say), he would have added Tatar to the line and kept Toffoli on there for added speed and scoring depth alongside the young C. With Lehkonen - Danault - Gallagher still capable of handling the less glamorous defensive assignment, KK could still be matched up against lesser opponents, only with better scoring potential on his line.

That's the reasoning behind the changes I propose.

Of course, I have nothing against Evans either and, sure, it would be nice to know what he could accomplish between Tatar and Gallagher but, I don't think this is the right time to be testing that fr the sake of finding out. Not when the team is having trouble. To me it doesn't carry the same potential to right the ship long term. It's more of a simple search for information.

Evans will get his chance, IMO but, when we encounter injuries at the C position. As a young player, it will be up to him to seize the day when that happens and make it hard to take him out of his new position on the depth chart when the injured player returns.

It's just the way I see things, the same way I don't see any value in placing Kulak with Weber and Chiarot with Romanov, for example. Sure, it stabilizes the D by playing a veteran with a youngster but, the actual pairings have little upside. It's just damage control and not swinging for the fences like playing Romanov with weber might be.

I know there is a lingering problem with either Chiarot or Kulak -- or even Mete, IMO -- playing RD but, that's inconsequential compared ti the upside of playing Romanov with Weber. I'd go Chiarot-Fleury rather than fuss with a lesser LD playing his off side at RD on a 3rd pairing.

In either case, Edmundson - Petry and Romanov - Weber could easily eat up 45+ minutes a game and the 3rd pairing would not see enough action to be a glaring weakness for the Habs.

Respectfully, that's the reasoning behind the moves that I feel would be beneficial to the Habs if we are to make any tangible changes to the lineup.

Other moves, to me, appear either cosmetic, too conservative or, with too little upside to them.

 

[Scriptor]

Why? Evans is faster, creates chances every shift from what i have seen. And is defensively just as effective as Danault this year. In fact i think Evans is a little snake bit and will start scoring goals. He looks like a player that wants goals, unlike Danault, who seems afraid of them. And I have watched every minute of habs games this year. And the last 2 years also. Have you , with your one line statement? Why not switch them Scriptor? Please explain.[/QUO

Through 14 games he's the return of Joe Juneau! Lol... He's struggling but history tells us he should snap out of it. Classic case of he needs one to get the monkey off his back.

It's not at 27 that he suddenly has lost all his mojo, even if it's fair to say he's not exactly known for his scoring prowess with an average of 11.5 goals per season. Still, where t=does this leitmotiv spring from that the only value of a C is by how many goals HE scores?

I thought there was some value to Cs helping their wingers score, whether directly or indirectly? Yes, the line is in a bit of a funk and Danault's confidence is obviously shaken (that's the problem, not that he outright sucks as a player, like some posters have tried to maintain for some time now).

 

[peate]

A person's last name shouldn't matter, except here, Hab's fantasy management, and of course media followers.

Lucky Phil just like lucky DD, lost cause for sure.

 

[Scriptor]

A person's last name shouldn't matter, except here, Hab's fantasy management, and of course media followers.

Lucky Phil just like lucky DD, lost cause for sure.

WTF?

 

[Mario le Magnifique]

Imagine if we had signed him 5M long term lol. Thats why you dont overpay for 3rd liners. When they stop being productive you realise you cant win games without scoring goals, and that those guys are never irreplaceable. Right now, the defense is there but he plays like a 4rth liner, a black hole offensively, cant even cycle and forecheck efficiently. Last few seasons he was dominant along the boards now he loses the puck or makes a bad play with it.

 

[Scriptor]

Imagine if we had signed him 5M long term lol. Thats why you dont overpay for 3rd liners. When they stop being productive you realise you cant win games without scoring goals, and that those guys are never irreplaceable. Right now, the defense is there but he plays like a 4rth liner, a black hole offensively, cant even cycle and forecheck efficiently. Last few seasons he was dominant along the boards now he loses the puck or makes a bad play with it.

True fans always crap on their players when they are going through a crisis. Keep up the good work. There's no reason not to expect the 27-yr-old C to return to form from the last two seasons. It's not like he's suddenly over-the-hill or as bad as a bad stretch for the rest of his career.

There's little sense in those that pile on as soon as there is an opportunity. If Danault plays the shutdown two-way hockey he has proven capable of playing, he's worth 5M, even as a 3rd line C that is deployed regularly because of the shutdown missions.

There is an argument to be made that he will perhaps not be worth the Cap hit in the final years of a longer deal but, by then, the Cap hit will surely have dropped in percentage impact on the total Cap and the style of play of Danault generally ages fairly well, at least in the shutdown department.

I'm personally not sold on Danault, in a vacuum, being essential to the team but, with our hopes pinned on Suzuki and Kotkaniemi for the top-6 C roles, I'd be inclined to say that a little safety net from a veteran like Danault is still necessary in the short term.

I disagree that a lesser 3rd line C that can be easily acquired on the UFA front with a little overpayment on a shorter term deal is enough to make this team competitive without Danault. If Danault isn't re-signed, the best thing to do, IMO, is trade him as part of a package that includes picks and prospects not named (Caufield or Guhle) to a team that is stacked with offensive Cs, even if the plan, after that, is to turn Kotkaniemi into more of a Jordan Staal type C.

 

[Deebs]

 

[le_sean]

That’s why advanced stats are stupid. Anyone who has seen the Tatar-Danault-Gallagher line this year would know that apart from like two games, they’ve been dogshit.

 

[Supersonic]

I know you’re sharing this for awareness so not intended at you but some more advanced stats mental gymnastics to show why Danault is GOOD

The eye test alone should be more than enough to see he’s the Habs 4th best center this year

Like his one time slap shot from the blue line last game surely helps his metrics but again a **** shot that leads to nothing of value for the offense

 

[Deebs]

I know you’re sharing this for awareness so not intended at you but some more advanced stats mental gymnastics to show why Danault is GOOD

The eye test alone should be more than enough to see he’s the Habs 4th best center this year

Like his one time slap shot from the blue line last game surely helps his metrics but again a **** shot that leads to nothing of value for the offense

I am. I don't think he's played well and I'm not a big believing in advanced stats because they don't tell the whole story, but thought it was interesting nevertheless.

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

Sorry, we were wrong about that line, you opened our eyes, thank you. Now MB needs to give Tatar and Danault around 6M and we are good to go.

 

[Mrb1p]

Why not, though?

Because putting Danault on a 4th line is reductive and won't help him get out of a funk, IMO. It will only mess him up further. Bringing up Lehkonen to play with Danault and Gallagher would capitalize on prior chemistry between Lehkonen and both Danault and Gallagher (although individually). As for whether that chemistry would manifest itself with both players at his side, I'm not really concerned because Lehkonen shares a North\South game that they have and brings a complementary cycle game and defensive awareness for the shutdown part of the game that will be required when Julien puts them out against the opponents' best players.

Playing with Lehkonen and Gallagher brings about more stability than not and doesn't show a coaching staff that s grasping at straws.

I understand that Julien tried to add speed to KK's line by switching Tatar in for Toffoli but, it didn't really up the support for the young C to help him get put of his particular recent funk.

If Julien wanted to try to swing for a home run (not his style, let's say), he would have added Tatar to the line and kept Toffoli on there for added speed and scoring depth alongside the young C. With Lehkonen - Danault - Gallagher still capable of handling the less glamorous defensive assignment, KK could still be matched up against lesser opponents, only with better scoring potential on his line.

That's the reasoning behind the changes I propose.

Of course, I have nothing against Evans either and, sure, it would be nice to know what he could accomplish between Tatar and Gallagher but, I don't think this is the right time to be testing that fr the sake of finding out. Not when the team is having trouble. To me it doesn't carry the same potential to right the ship long term. It's more of a simple search for information.

Evans will get his chance, IMO but, when we encounter injuries at the C position. As a young player, it will be up to him to seize the day when that happens and make it hard to take him out of his new position on the depth chart when the injured player returns.

It's just the way I see things, the same way I don't see any value in placing Kulak with Weber and Chiarot with Romanov, for example. Sure, it stabilizes the D by playing a veteran with a youngster but, the actual pairings have little upside. It's just damage control and not swinging for the fences like playing Romanov with weber might be.

I know there is a lingering problem with either Chiarot or Kulak -- or even Mete, IMO -- playing RD but, that's inconsequential compared ti the upside of playing Romanov with Weber. I'd go Chiarot-Fleury rather than fuss with a lesser LD playing his off side at RD on a 3rd pairing.

In either case, Edmundson - Petry and Romanov - Weber could easily eat up 45+ minutes a game and the 3rd pairing would not see enough action to be a glaring weakness for the Habs.

Respectfully, that's the reasoning behind the moves that I feel would be beneficial to the Habs if we are to make any tangible changes to the lineup.

Other moves, to me, appear either cosmetic, too conservative or, with too little upside to them.

Wait, and you think taking Lekhonen off Evans wing isn't reductive ? The guy has been busting his ass out there, what do you do, tell him sorry Jake, but Phils more important than you.

Then again, do you think Lekhonen wants to play with Phil after Phils comment last year ? Phil basically told everyone he needed better wingers

 

[Scriptor]

That’s why advanced stats are stupid. Anyone who has seen the Tatar-Danault-Gallagher line this year would know that apart from like two games, they’ve been dogshit.

Yeah, that's how legitimate analysis describes these things. Keep up the good work. We rely on you for your insight. Thanks, especially, for expanding (I really mean, not expanding) on the development of your hypothesis.

 

[Scriptor]

Wait, and you think taking Lekhonen off Evans wing isn't reductive ? The guy has been busting his ass out there, what do you do, tell him sorry Jake, but Phils more important than you.

Then again, do you think Lekhonen wants to play with Phil after Phils comment last year ? Phil basically told everyone he needed better wingers

Again, I'm astounded how you're not already a GM in the NHL being touted as a candidate for GM of the year. I really follow your reasoning that keeping that fourth line together through hell and high water should be the head coach's priority!

Solving a situation with a line whose contribution we need on both sides of the puck should clearly take a back seat? Better still, let's bale on a veteran C who was a successful role player the last few years and one of the best shutdown Cs in the league because of a rough patch, seizing on it to justify one's hard on against him?

A successful Danault is more important to the success of the team this year, and next, and the one after that, maybe, than you seem to comprehend.

I have a lot of hope invested in Suzuki and Kotkaniemi panning out but, until there is consistency from these players, it's still a lot of hope, skill or no skill.

In a shortened season (to maximize the contribution of our ageing veteran core), with a strong backup G (to stop the bleeding and keep slumps shorter), more scoring depth ( a chance to win more than 0-(-1) ) and a favourable divisional format (it will be hard not to finish at least 4th in the North), I'd be concentrating on trying to find solutions to get Danault going, along with Tatar, Gallagher and, lately, Kotkaniemi, rather than pushing for experiments just to lash out at players we'd be more than happy to spite, for whatever reason that motivates us.

Childish bias isn't something that builds solutions to what should be fleeting problems if properly addressed.

No, let's just keep hating on players like Danault and Drouin who, ironically, have something more in common than just a D at the start of their names.

Does everyone who despises these two players (not just one) have that as a motivating force behind their arguments, even if they won't cop up to it? I wouldn't go that far, no but, it's ironic that one could be hated because he is supposedly soft (yet producing offensively) and the other because he is not producing offensively (yet, he's not soft). Basically, I don't think there is a winning formula with some for these players to be accepted, regardless of what they do. When that's the case, you start looking for irrational reasons why they are despised that much. In fact, as soon as it sounds like they are despised, it's fair to think that there are other, unexposed motivations for such resentment.

I'm not accusing you of such bias but, that much sentiment against a player is difficult to size...

 

[canucklover123]

Yeah, that's how legitimate analysis describes these things. Keep up the good work. We rely on you for your insight. Thanks, especially, for expanding (I really mean, not expanding) on the development of your hypothesis.

The cons of statistics is that depending on the metric, it can make any individual appear worse or better than they are

The pros of statistics, with the statistic predefined, they are not interpreted from biased eyes.

Don't think you're gunna get a bias perspective on Danault, on PD hate thread where the same 8 posters go at it every day like they are the ones who got personal declined from PD rejecting his contract lol

 

[le_sean]

Yeah, that's how legitimate analysis describes these things. Keep up the good work. We rely on you for your insight. Thanks, especially, for expanding (I really mean, not expanding) on the development of your hypothesis.

I’m not going to do like you and write a wall of useless text to find underlying reasons as to their lack of production. Anyone with a set of eyes knows that they have not been good. Unless the NHL has reverted to expected goals as opposed to actual goals in determining a game.

You want a real stat with actual substance? Danault is on pace for a 0 goal 29 assist season over 82 games. But that’s fine right? Gallagher a 41 point pace when he had 43 in 59 games last season. Great too huh? Tatar 46 points when he had 61 in 68 games in 19-20.

But please show us their expected goals again because that’s what really counts.

 

[Tighthead]

True fans always crap on their players when they are going through a crisis. Keep up the good work. There's no reason not to expect the 27-yr-old C to return to form from the last two seasons. It's not like he's suddenly over-the-hill or as bad as a bad stretch for the rest of his career.

There's little sense in those that pile on as soon as there is an opportunity. If Danault plays the shutdown two-way hockey he has proven capable of playing, he's worth 5M, even as a 3rd line C that is deployed regularly because of the shutdown missions.

Love it when someone climbs on one of most tired logical fallacies begin a lecture.

Why resort to No True Scotsman? So weak.

 

[habdynasty]

He’s a 3 million dollar player. So glad He rejected that big contract.

 

[Supersonic]

Yeah, that's how legitimate analysis describes these things. Keep up the good work. We rely on you for your insight. Thanks, especially, for expanding (I really mean, not expanding) on the development of your hypothesis.

Where does his complete lack of production on the score sheet come into your analysis?

Before or after the OT breakaway debacle or the 3 on 1 no shot on net instance? Curious

 

[BLONG7]

He’s a 3 million dollar player. So glad He rejected that big contract.

Based on his play, you are being kind. Poor Phil has not even been a good 3rd liner, who deserves 3M yet this season.

 

[Doc McKenna]

Based on his play, you are being kind. Poor Phil has not even been a good 3rd liner, who deserves 3M yet this season.

Just wait, he can pick up an empty netter, or an assist and all of the sudden he will project out to a 37 point season with 5 goals! You know #1 C kinda numbers that go for 6X6, He could project right into a selke since we are talking about infinite multiverse realities.

 

[Vachon23]

Danault should look at this ..

 

[MD thaivuN]

That’s why advanced stats are stupid. Anyone who has seen the Tatar-Danault-Gallagher line this year would know that apart from like two games, they’ve been dogshit.

xGF/xGA/xG% feels like a pretentious dumber version of +/-

 

[le_sean]

xGF/xGA/xG% feels like a pretentious dumber version of +/-

That’s exactly what it is. You’re rewarded for holding onto the puck and taking weak outside shots.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Expected stats are based on shot quality, which is highly subjective and arbitrary. If a line has a much higher xG% than their true G%, than it probably means the chances they produce might not be as much on the dangerous side as stated, or are allowing chances that are more dangerous than stated, a mix of both and/or quite simply a lack of finish. Putting only expected stats is usually a sign of someone who doesn't understand expected stats.

A better look is simply pure output: