Where did you get your stats ? Pretty sure you can't compare with or without Danault, because they always played together since Tatar is here...
It's not only about amazing passes, it's about creating opportunities when the simple play does not work. It's about slowing down the pace with your skills and make the perfect pass at the right moment in order to create a scoring chance. It's about unblocking games by your own when nothing is working for your team... It's about that, that's what a #1C should do and that's not Danault.
A goal is a goal, yes!
The "he doesn't make amazing passes" is important for people who like to be impressed and their judgment is based on that.
I'll try to answer why he is not a true #1C. He desn't have a good shot, so opposite teams can adapt a strategy where they will cut his passing line to force him to shoot. He doesn't make great dekes so he cannot make amazing plays to have a nice shot on goal or great pass, like true elite centers do. He skate fast but not as fast as McDavid. He is somehow tall but not tall and heavy like Tavares. He have a good hockey IQ but not as much as Bergeron, etc. I can go like that all night long, lol. He is overall good but he lacks some skills to be elite. His best qualities are puck protection, plays among the board, overall speed, endurance, hockey IQ, intercept opponent passes, face-offs and good passes (without amazing).
1) Over the past 2 seasons Danault and Gallagher have spent 1628:16 together, and Gallagher has played 279:28 without Danault. Danault and Tatar have played 1481:16 with each other and Tatar has played 501:46 without Danault. So you can actually compare with and without Danault, there's a pretty good sample of both situations. The results are clear, the Habs score more with Tatar w/ Danault or Gallagher w/ Danault vs Tatar w/o Danault or Gallagher w/o Danault.
2) While Danault may not make those high skill plays with consistency, he still plays against elite competition and outscores them to a large degree, while also scoring at a higher rate than 95% of the forwards in the league. The team with the most goals wins, not the team with the most high skill plays. When Danault is on the ice, the Habs get 58% of the goals at even strength. That's is better than 90% of the forwards who have played over the last 2 seasons. I couldn't care less about how many high skill plays he makes, as long as he's getting results. Because it's the results that matter, as they are the thing that determines the winner of the game.
3) If teams were able to adapt to a strategy where they cut off the passing lanes for Danault and forcing him to shoot, don't you think they would've done so already? He's spent the past 2 years dominating the competition. If it was easy enough to do, it would've happened. It's been 2 years.
4) I get that, from an entertainment perspective, things like "amazing passes" or "high skill plays" are important. They're fun to watch. But a simple pass that results in a goal is worth just as much as an amazing pass that leads to a highlight reel goal. It's all the same. So it's kind of a silly thing to place importance on, in my opinion, because a goal is a goal. It's silly in my opinion to base your judgement on a player's value to winning on that. From an entertainment perspective, it makes sense to put value on that, because entertainment is subjective and you do you. But to place value on it from a "who does a better job at helping his team win games" perspective, it makes no sense. Danault
heavily outscores the competition. That's what matters. Not the flashy plays.
5) While Danault may not have the flash you're looking for, it doesn't change the fact that he drives goalscoring for his teammates to a high degree. Over the last 2 years, few have done a better job.
6) At a certain point you have to put value on the results, not the process. 2 years is more than enough time to judge value. Here's a little thought experiment: which player would you rather have, and which player do you think does more to help you win:
| GF/60 | GA/60 | GF% |
Player A | 3.43 | 2.50 | 57.84 |
Player B | 3.23 | 2.81 | 53.55 |
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
In my opinion, it's Player A. Player A scores more and does better than defense. So overall he's getting a larger goal share. The larger goal share is better and does more to help the team win, because goals are what win games. So even if Player B might be more "flashy" than Player A, Player A is still doing more to help you win, both offensively and defensively.
(Player A is Danault and Player B is Matthews)