Yes its fact, but it was also a fact that after Abby scored a hat trick in the season opener a few years back that he was the #1 goal scorer in the league, but nobody in their right mind would say Abby was the best goal scorer in the NHL. I know that's an extreme with a sample size of one game, but my point is that small sample sizes can lead to inaccurate data. Guys that play low minutes or have only a few games under their belt are going to skew the stats. I could have said: "Abby leads the league in goals...FACT. He has more goals then Ovie, FACT" and that technically would have been accurate, but its just as valid as your Bertuzzi vs Crosby FACT.
I'm not sure if you're mixing up what others are saying with me, but MY opinion is that P/60 is a good stat to track, but its not the be all end all. It's flaw is it lets small sample sizes skew it. That DOES NOT mean its meaningless or even a bad stat, just a reality. Just like total points can have flaws. I remember when Kip Miller was a top player in 2003, but his point totals were not an accurate assessment of him as a player because his totals were so high (50 points in 72 games) because he played with Jagr/Lang. Its not black or white, the stat is not perfect or crap. Its ok to discuss the flaws in a stat. The truth, is all these stats collectively will paint you an accurate picture. You admitting that P/60 has a flaw does not mean you are saying its not valid, not that I expect you to do that.
As to your question, that is a good question and one I think is valid of discussion. I dont know if I have the answer to it, but if you're asking me I would say this:
I think that some of our kids are very talented. Mantha/AA/Larkin are likely the best 3 players offensively not named Z on our team, and that stat helps show it. As for as Frk and Bertuzzi, I think they are ok players that are getting a bump due to small sample size. As for guys like Abby/Helm/Nielsen/Glendening, I dont think they are that great when it comes to scoring and the kids likely are more talented then them. Assignments can also play a factor, if a guy like Z is asked to shadow an opposing teams top centerman, but a guy like Larkin is asked to simply score, I think that plays a factor as well. I think things like this are due to a variety of reasons, and the problem is people like to pin-point 1 thing because that is easier when it comes to controlling a narrative.
At the end of the day I do agree that the kids should be playing more, I am all for playing the kids and moving out some of the vets. But I am not going to say that if player A has a higher P/60 then player B, they are automatically a better player because that is simply not true.