What it means is he's playing against mainly "third liners" and some fourth liners, whatever that means. It's not a science and it's something plenty of us have argued plenty of times when it comes to calling Eller a "third liner" or whether or not Plekanec is a "first liner" or not. What it does mean is the the type of players Desharnais & co. play against are the type that start in their own zone, which means they are expected to exert energy on defense more or at least as much as they do on offense. This includes everything from two way threats like Eller to defensive specialists to tweeners put there because nobody knows what else to do with them.
What that does mean is Desharnais does play against quality competition at times, including defenses that are difficult to break down. Which means Desharnais has to at least be above replacement level offensively to produce, which he clearly is. What it also means is that he can focus on the offensive side of things more exclusively than others on this team which makes his job easier in that regard. I'm sure you will agree that Desharnais doesn't have to fight for the puck as much as other centers on this team do. Would Plekanec and Eller be more productive offensively in Desharnais' role? Most likely. Would they be significantly more productive than Desharnais? This is debatable, in my opinion Plekanec would, but not to a significant degree. And having Plekanec get 60 points in a 2 way role is far more valuable than having him get 70 in a 1 way role.
And yes, sometimes "third lines" are more dangerous than "first lines". What we do mean though, is that if Therrien knows that the the opposing coach just put out what he thinks is their best or even second best offensive line, he's putting out Plekanec, and if not Plek, then Eller or maybe even Halpern in some situations.
If you admit Desharnais goes against strong defensive lineups and potentially weak offensive ones then it would be erroneous to suggest if Eller or someone else is put in the role they will succeed offensively. End of the day, I understand where you're coming from and the correlation but it's not a given. They may produce less. Who said Galchenyuk can handle going up defensively specialists? What makes a player like Eller suited for the position is he can defend and also contribute but the level of contribution may include a weaker defense he faces. Simply put, If DD faces top 2/4 defensive lines then one of Plekanec/Galchenyuk/Eller most likely don't so who is to say they can play better against those better defensive players?
IMO, it's merely the coach putting players to their strengths. If DD was put in Eller's role he does not have the defensive game to cause turnovers and send puck other way as often in order to create scoring chances versus a potential weaker defensive. However, in his current role he can focus on offense as you suggested. In the case of Eller, he can get those turnovers and send it to the other way and create chances but like DD, perhaps versus stronger defensive line-ups he can't get it past to make chances.
In addition, having offensive zone starts suggests you'll face a better faceoff man. Yet, we rarely hear Desharnais praised(too strong a word but you get idea) for that.
It is essentially what I meant earlier. The definition is subjective. Statistics can be used to say anything, it merely depends on what context you use.
No arguments here. I'm sure this argument could work in some cases (if Boullion is playing more than Subban, it's probably effecting our win/loss record), but in this thread it seems cherry picked.
It's a stat without context IMO.
I agree completely, and if I use stats more than most, it's because I hate to see them butchered for someone's agenda. In this thread, stats are being cherry picked by a few extreme posters on both sides. There's nothing wrong with using stats to fit your argument though, especially when they show an obvious trend. But I'm at least trying to frame things within context.
Statistics in hockey aren't as good as say baseball. They are very raw and may paint a picture but they are not to be all of player evaluation.
QCOM is pretty useless without context. It's one of my favourite stats for comparisons though, as long as the comparisons are sane.
Again, we agree.
Let me put it this way with Corsi, Desharnais has the highest corsi of any center on this team this year; last year only Gomez and Dumont had higher. Eller and Plekanec have slightly negative corsi. As far as I'm concerned it's a useless measure by itself. However, for an "exploitation" role having negative corsi would be unacceptable. Desharnais doesn't have this problem, so there's nothing to dicuss here. I think possession stats are more important looking at the team as a whole though.
As far as shots go, it's possible to be effective being both a high volume, low accuracy shooter (Gionta made a career of this!) and a high accuracy opportunist shooter, but it's pretty obvious if you are outshooting the oppisition by a considerable amount you are more likely to win. This doesn't take into account goaltending though, which makes or breaks team. This picture sums it up far better than I can:
http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2013/4/4/4178716/why-possession-matters-a-visual-guide-to-fenwick Basically, teams with high possession are 3/4ths more successful in the playoffs (poor Sharks). Since 2008 the only team to win the cup with a sub-.500 Fenwick was the 2009 Pens, and that's only because of the poor start of the season under MT - they well over it after Bylsma took over.
I gotta look into this statistic more. Seems interesting.
Last I checked PK's QOC is greater than DD's, as his his starts. His stats are skewed by his usage for the first few weeks after holding out - another problem with stats is that this season is distorted by the lockout, individual games can mess the numbers up. Therrien has been using PK in a harder and harder role as the season has gone on.
PK's QOC is -0.661. His rel QOC is 0.025. Diaz has 0.880 rel qoc, Emelin has 0.649 rel qoc. It goes on. Would we say Subban gets sheltered minutes and does not deserve the Norris talk? He starts in o-zone more than d-zone too.
My point is, if they were the hot topic then anyone can make an argument that for our top D he can't handle top competition. Would be a fallacy.
I'm sorry I didn't reply to this earlier, was a quality post Et le But.
