Player Discussion Phillip Danault - Damn-oh ! Edition

[Belial]

With one or both of pacioretty/Radulov: 26 points.
Without: 12 points.

Durrrr he was producing all over the lineup durrrrrr

Ehhh, he played more games with those guys? Points per game tells you something? Come on man...

 

[NotProkofievian]

Ehhh, he played more games with those guys? Points per game tells you something? Come on man...

Not really, besides the fact that one sample size is way bigger than the other.

CoMe On MaNn

Phillip ''on pace for'' Danault is an offensive boat anchor.

 

[Belial]

Not really, besides the fact that one sample size is way bigger than the other.

CoMe On MaNn

Phillip ''on pace for'' Danault is an offensive boat anchor.

Last year there was no Radulov on his line and Pacioretty was pure trash but the offensive boat anchor was still somehow on pace for 40 points... Keep trying MaNn.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Last year there was no Radulov on his line and Pacioretty was pure trash but the offensive boat anchor was still somehow on pace for 40 points... Keep trying MaNn.

O N P A C E F O R
N
P
A
C
E
F
O
R

 

[Captain Mountain]

I am suggesting that Julien manage his bench more actively and creatively, yes. In many situations, I would prefer Kotkaniemi to play with Gallagher and Tatar. For example, if we are trailing in a game, I don't see any reason to put Danault out on the ice ahead of Jesperi. If we're leading, it's pretty clear Danault should be on the ice ahead of Jesperi. Offensive zone draw? Why put Danault out with Gallagher and Tatar? Defensive zone draw against the opponent's top line? Why put Jesperi in that position?

Because lines are a thing for a reason? Shifting lines makes it harder to manage the bench which can cause breakdowns.

You also don't want to get scored on when you're down. As it is Julien pushes the Domi line when down. And the Danault line generates a ton of chances.

Specifically regarding offensive zone face-offs, there's probably value in, you know, winning those face-offs.

I think that's pretty reasonable, so far as assumptions go. Moreover, I think Gallagher and Tatar could perhaps produce more if they weren't saddled with Phillip One Goal.

Its not though. Before injuries, Kotkaniemi wasn't playing with scrubs. He still has work to do. And if we're insulting players unfairly, Jesperi Three Goals has only 3 goals in favourable minutes.

 

[Cobra Commander]

Lehky-Danault-Gally
Drouin-Domi-Shaw
Tatar-Kotka-Byron

 

[NotProkofievian]

Because lines are a thing for a reason? Shifting lines makes it harder to manage the bench which can cause breakdowns.

You also don't want to get scored on when you're down. As it is Julien pushes the Domi line when down. And the Danault line generates a ton of chances.

This is pretty weak. These are pros who play on multiple special team units anyways, and lines get scrambled mid game all the time.

Specifically regarding offensive zone face-offs, there's probably value in, you know, winning those face-offs.

Which Jesperi will do about 44% of the time. Interesting fact, for the first month of play Jesperi averaged about 41%. Since that time he's averaged about 46%. Things are trending in the right direction with Jesperi, and the differential in efficiency is not really cause for concern.

Its not though. Before injuries, Kotkaniemi wasn't playing with scrubs. He still has work to do. And if we're insulting players unfairly, Jesperi Three Goals has only 3 goals in favourable minutes.

It's not reasonable to expect a player to produce more when playing with better players?

But it is reasonable to assume that a player would produce better against favourable opposition?

...and that's Jesperi ''three goals'' GOATkaniemi, to you.

 

[Zorba]

The guy barely cracked 200 NHL games, with your logic everything about him is funny.

With your logic, Galchenyuk is a PPG centre because he did it in a small sample size

 

[Captain Mountain]

This is pretty weak. These are pros who play on multiple special team units anyways, and lines get scrambled mid game all the time.

1) Kotkaniemi is playing on the first PP unit. What more do you want. Him to play on both units?
2) But not consistently and not part of strategy. Kotkaniemi has gotten shifts with Tatar and Gallagher this past week. But coaches shuffle lines midgame when they have to, not as a part of policy.

Which Jesperi will do about 44% of the time. Interesting fact, for the first month of play Jesperi averaged about 41%. Since that time he's averaged about 46%. Things are trending in the right direction with Jesperi, and the differential in efficiency is not really cause for concern.

Ooh, 46%. So great! As for trending in the right dirrection, no one is arguing otherwise. When he starts consistently winning more than he loses things will change.

It's not reasonable to expect a player to produce more when playing with better players?

But it is reasonable to assume that a player would produce better against favourable opposition?

...and that's Jesperi ''three goals'' GOATkaniemi, to you.

Its easier to produce against weaker competition. Its easier to produce with better linemates. Its harder to produce against tougher competition. Its harder to produce with worse linemates. Competition, teammates and zone starts ALL effect production. But guess what? With a healthy line-up, Kotkaniemi wont be getting bad wingers on the 1st line or the 3rd line. And the concern isn't the production with Kotkaniemi on the 1st line, its the chances against.

 

[Belial]

With your logic, Galchenyuk is a PPG centre because he did it in a small sample size

What small sample size are you even talking about man?

Danault played 158 games for the Habs and got 78 points, that's 40 points pace for 82 games!

And he didn't play all those games on the top lines an stuff.

 

[Sorinth]

With your logic, Galchenyuk is a PPG centre because he did it in a small sample size

In the last 3 seasons he's played 158 games (Including this season)
For about half of them he played with struggling/talentless wingers and produced around a 40 point pace. And half the games he played with very good players and produced around a 40 point pace.

By the way Galchenyuk at center is closer to 70 point pace, and people argued over and over that he should've been used at center in large part because of that. I know I have.

 

[NotProkofievian]

1) Kotkaniemi is playing on the first PP unit. What more do you want. Him to play on both units?
2) But not consistently and not part of strategy. Kotkaniemi has gotten shifts with Tatar and Gallagher this past week. But coaches shuffle lines midgame when they have to, not as a part of policy.

Sure it is. E.G. line stacking, and bench shortening.

Ooh, 46%. So great! As for trending in the right dirrection, no one is arguing otherwise. When he starts consistently winning more than he loses things will change.

Nah, things should change now because 1.) he's not that bad at faceoffs anyways, and 2.) faceoffs are an overrated part of the game.

Its easier to produce against weaker competition. Its easier to produce with better linemates. Its harder to produce against tougher competition. Its harder to produce with worse linemates. Competition, teammates and zone starts ALL effect production. But guess what? With a healthy line-up, Kotkaniemi wont be getting bad wingers on the 1st line or the 3rd line. And the concern isn't the production with Kotkaniemi on the 1st line, its the chances against.

So it is a reasonable assumption that Jesperi would produce more with better linemates. I don't know why we needed to take this bizarre little detour, but I'm glad you now agree with me. Now I suppose you'd like to argue that Tatar and Gallagher aren't significantly better than Agostino, Lehkonen, Armia, and Byron? That might be fun.

As for the bolded, this is a good way to lose an argument. By the numbers, there is absolutely nothing to worry about in terms of shot attempts, shots against, scoring chances against, or high danger scoring chances against. Jesperi's line significantly out attempts/shoots/chances the opposition, and is among the best relative to his teammates by these metrics. Now I know, ''but muh favourable minutes.'' That's fine, there's an extremely large margin of error to work with in Jesperi's case.

This isn't Galchenyuk we're dealing with.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Sure it is. E.G. line stacking, and bench shortening.

Neither of those things are consistent strategies. And, again, Julien has done those things and played him with Gallagher and Tatar.

Nah, things should change now because 1.) he's not that bad at faceoffs anyways, and 2.) faceoffs are an overrated part of the game.

They are, but that's not the reason Kotkaniemi shouldn't play on the 1st line yet one way or another. That was not a position I expressed. But face-offs do still have value and its something he still needs to work on.

So it is a reasonable assumption that Jesperi would produce more with better linemates. I don't know why we needed to take this bizarre little detour, but I'm glad you now agree with me. Now I suppose you'd like to argue that Tatar and Gallagher aren't significantly better than Agostino, Lehkonen, Armia, and Byron? That might be fun.

1) My argument was never that playing with better players doesn't help guys produce more, its that its offset by tougher minutes and less favourable zone starts.

2) Are you even interested in registering my comments or are you just arguing against a strawman? Because I'm tired of just repeating the same stuff over and over again.

As for the bolded, this is a good way to lose an argument. By the numbers, there is absolutely nothing to worry about in terms of shot attempts, shots against, scoring chances against, or high danger scoring chances against. Jesperi's line significantly out attempts/shoots/chances the opposition, and is among the best relative to his teammates by these metrics. Now I know, ''but muh favourable minutes.'' That's fine, there's an extremely large margin of error to work with in Jesperi's case.

This isn't Galchenyuk we're dealing with.

Ooh, we're using the pre-emptive "but muh favourable minutes" argument. I love those. Let's start with the Habs. Mete is Montreal's 2nd best D by GAR, is 3rd in ES P/60 and has good underlying numbers. Per your logic, he should be on the top pair immediately. Byron has the 3rd best GAR on the team, is 2nd for P/60 at ES and has great underlying numbers. He must be better than Tatar then. Drouin is 11th among forwards on the team for ES production rate and has bad underlying numbers. He should be on the 4th line.

Going further: Dominik Simon is one of the best players in the NHL, Trochek sucks. Oleksiak is a high-end D-man, Hedman is terrible. And so on and so forth.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Neither of those things are consistent strategies. And, again, Julien has done those things and played him with Gallagher and Tatar.

He has played 16 total minutes with those players. And these are examples of deviating from a set lineup and just rolling the lines. That's all I have to show for my purposes. What I'm suggesting is done regularly in all different kinds of circumstances.

They are, but that's not the reason Kotkaniemi shouldn't play on the 1st line yet one way or another. That was not a position I expressed. But face-offs do still have value and its something he still needs to work on.

Faceoffs have basically negligible value, and particularly when you're comparing two players with efficiencies fairly close to each other. It takes dozens of marginal faceoff wins before you could expect an additional goal to come from it. It would take dozens of games to rack up dozens of marginal faceoff wins. We're not comparing someone who's 60% to someone who's 30%.

And you're still talking about lines as static unchanging things and as if Jesperi playing more shifts with Gallagher and Tatar is him ''playing on the first line.'' As if Jesperi has to take all of Danaults minutes, and Danault Jesperi's minutes, but they couldn't just swap shifts a couple times per game. It's pretty cheeky of you to then go on and accuse me of not interacting with your positions.

1) My argument was never that playing with better players doesn't help guys produce more, its that its offset by tougher minutes and less favourable zone starts.

No time like the present to make that argument, I suppose. You did say that my assumption that better linemates would lead to better production wasn't reasonable. You then squirmed into this ''but muh other factors'' once the contradiction in your argument (with favourable minutes) was laid bare.

Now here's where we are in this argument: I'll graciously allow you to say that it could potentially be offset by tougher minute and less favourable zone starts. You don't have to show that it is exactly offset or detrimentally offset.

2) Are you even interested in registering my comments or are you just arguing against a strawman? Because I'm tired of just repeating the same stuff over and over again.

Your comments amount to whatever ad hoc rationalization you can piece together to argue in favour of the one goal wonder monopolizing better linemates. There has been little to no repetition, and mostly innovation as your positions fall one by one.

Ooh, we're using the pre-emptive "but muh favourable minutes" argument. I love those. Let's start with the Habs. Mete is Montreal's 2nd best D by GAR, is 3rd in ES P/60 and has good underlying numbers. Per your logic, he should be on the top pair immediately. Byron has the 3rd best GAR on the team, is 2nd for P/60 at ES and has great underlying numbers. He must be better than Tatar then. Drouin is 11th among forwards on the team for ES production rate and has bad underlying numbers. He should be on the 4th line.

Going further: Dominik Simon is one of the best players in the NHL, Trochek sucks. Oleksiak is a high-end D-man, Hedman is terrible. And so on and so forth.

''The concern with Jesperi is chances against.''

Every single metric says that Jesperi allows relatively few chances against of any kind.

''But Mete has a high GAR tho...''

I'm not going to get into an argument with you about GAR or xGF now because you want to abandon this position for higher ground too.

 

[Captain Mountain]

He has played 16 total minutes with those players. And these are examples of deviating from a set lineup and just rolling the lines. That's all I have to show for my purposes. What I'm suggesting is done regularly in all different kinds of circumstances.

For once, put up or shut up.

Faceoffs have basically negligible value, and particularly when you're comparing two players with efficiencies fairly close to each other. It takes dozens of marginal faceoff wins before you could expect an additional goal to come from it. It would take dozens of games to rack up dozens of marginal faceoff wins. We're not comparing someone who's 60% to someone who's 30%.

How How much variance do you think there is in any percentage-based stat? And I know face-offs aren't that important, I've argued it for years. They still have value, especially with a team that has had trouble defending off of D-zone face-off losses.

And you're still talking about lines as static unchanging things and as if Jesperi playing more shifts with Gallagher and Tatar is him ''playing on the first line.'' As if Jesperi has to take all of Danaults minutes, and Danault Jesperi's minutes, but they couldn't just swap shifts a couple times per game. It's pretty cheeky of you to then go on and accuse me of not interacting with your positions.

Your position is to have a regular line shake-up as a matter of course. What are some concrete examples of that in the past. Not just situational stuff (since Julien is already doing that).

No time like the present to make that argument, I suppose. You did say that my assumption that better linemates would lead to better production wasn't reasonable. You then squirmed into this ''but muh other factors'' once the contradiction in your argument (with favourable minutes) was laid bare.

I didn't squirm into it. I thought it was pretty evident. Apparently I had to state it. If you play Kotkaniemi in the minutes he's currently playing with better line-mates, you can expect better results (usually). But that wont happen if its Tatar and Gallagher. You'd be playing tougher minutes. Which affects what kind of production you can expect.

Now here's where we are in this argument: I'll graciously allow you to say that it could potentially be offset by tougher minute and less favourable zone starts. You don't have to show that it is exactly offset or detrimentally offset.

[/QUOTE]

Ok?

Your comments amount to whatever ad hoc rationalization you can piece together to argue in favour of the one goal wonder monopolizing better linemates. There has been little to no repetition, and mostly innovation as your positions fall one by one.

[/QUOTE]

Thanks for confirming my suspicions. For one, I haven't abandoned any position, I've tried to reason your relatively unsupported positions.

I'll sum it up to this. You believe Kotkaniemi should be given more minutes and better wingers (and the more difficult minutes that come with them) right now because Danault is "monopolizing better linemates". I believe that Kotkaniemi is an 18 year old playing in the NHL and still has notable flaws to his game. Further, the Danault line has been very effective all season long and there isn't any need to shake up the forward lines right now.

''The concern with Jesperi is chances against.''

Every single metric says that Jesperi allows relatively few chances against of any kind.

''But Mete has a high GAR tho...''

I'm not going to get into an argument with you about GAR or xGF now because you want to abandon this position for higher ground too.

Now look whose abandoning arguments.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Philly will score a goal tonight.

Congrats, you called it!

 

[BaseballCoach]

Philly will score a goal tonight.

Good job! You correctly foresaw him shanking his shot off Victor Mete, oops getting confused, LOL.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

While Dannault doesn't have the offensive talent that KK has, I think he's demonstrated some ability to drive the play back into the offensive zone.

I do agree though with the premise that maybe we could put KK there depending on the situation. If we're behind or if we're on the PP... might not be a bad idea to give him those chances. Even if he turns out to ultimately not be as effective as Dannault in terms of driving the overall play, it would still be good for his development and that's what we should really be thinking about right now. And I don't think there should be any dispute that he's got a lot more talent with the puck that Dannault does.

 

[Tuggy]

This is an honest question but what does this guy bring to the table?

Just completely invisible like the last month or so. The offense would be so much more dangerous with a capable C between Tatar and Gallagher.

 

[AlexGretzchenvid]

With your logic, Galchenyuk is a PPG centre because he did it in a small sample size

Galchenyuks best run was before his knee injury. Such potential ooozed from him scoring top 10 in the league.. That was his year and the higher power said no.

 

[AlexGretzchenvid]

This is an honest question but what does this guy bring to the table?

Just completely invisible like the last month or so. The offense would be so much more dangerous with a capable C between Tatar and Gallagher.

Unfortunately the only responsible C on defense at the moment is danault. Kotka too young, domi too sof.

 

[habsfan909]

What small sample size are you even talking about man?

Danault played 158 games for the Habs and got 78 points, that's 40 points pace for 82 games!

And he didn't play all those games on the top lines an stuff.

40 its = perfect for 3C. Absolutely not acceptable for our 2C.
And there you have Danault... a very good 3C.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Rather see Danault on the 3rd line in a shutdown role with Byron, Shaw, Lehkonen, or Armia vs having two of our best wingers with him in Gallagher and Tatar. Problem here is Danault is our most trusted center still. Julien and the coaches love him. Going to take time before they consider tinkering with that line.

 

[yianik]

Like it or not, Danault is our 2C until some other C pushes him down to 3C, where I think he should be ideal.

I dont have an issue at this point on how Kotkaniemi is being played since he does have skill on the wing. And I am more concerned about Kotkaniemi developing properly than anything else.

 

[Naslund]

Danault is obviously miscast as a top two lines center. He is third a 3C on a normal team, and a 4C on a contender. By the end of next year (2019-2020) or the start of 2020-2021, Kotkaniemi, Domi and Poehling will pass him on the depth chart. Danault will either play 4C, or be traded. I would not even protect him in the expansion draft. If we are out of the playoffs at the trade deadline this year, now would be the time to trade him and get something back.

2020-2021 forward depth, if no trades
Drouin-Domi-Suzuki
Tatar-Kotkaniemi-Gallagher
Lehkonen-Poehling-Armia
Byron-Danault-Shaw

Protected forwards for expansion draft: Drouin, Domi, Tatar, Kotkaniemi, Gallagher, Lehkonen, Armia