First of all, "proof is in the pudding" makes absolutely no sense at all. The phrase originated as "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", which means that you can say any number of superlatives about pudding, but if it doesn't taste good, then who cares? (it's a metaphor). It's since been mangled into the nonsense form (similar to "the exception proves the rule").
As an aside...
I'm going to come to "the exception that proves the rule"'s defense. It's a good way to describe a wildly noticeable outlier.
For example, if the rule is "Smooth skaters who can move the puck make good defensemen," Phil Housley "proves the rule" because it's easy to see that smart, positional PMDs like Zubov and Bouwmeester are nothing like Phil Housley (by watching, or stats, or whatever you want to use).
As for a more general comment on the topic at hand, I wouldn't put too much stock in partners. Being Phaneuf's partner puts a defenseman in many more difficult match-up situations than being Oduya's partner, even if Phaneuf probably offers more help. QoC and on/off comparisons with partners can help, but I wouldn't go using partners as a be-all end-all argument, because you could really use that to argue both sides.