News Article: Red Wings' Mantha, Athanasiou respond to 'poke-and-hope' criticism

[The Zetterberg Era]

I think that TZE guy always says consistency is what makes the elite players elite, if I’m not mistaken.

I mean you do need the requisite talent. Glendening cannot be a star. With that said, I do think the most important element is consistency. That is what makes professional athletes and the great ones are phenomenal at that, replicating something over and over again.

 

[kliq]

No. I'm asking him if he values goals, assists and points.

Why would someone value G-A-P not not value the /60 variant?

A guy like Sheahan or Glendening isn't going to do a lot for you GAP (or Helm or Abby or Nielsen, for that matter) or P/60.

They can still have value, obviously.

But doesn't production matter?

Show me another Red Wings team in history where the top producers were all RFA and entry level producers and the bottom producers were the UFA contracts.

It's crazy that you guys just refuse to see anything there.

Its not a meaningless stat, but it has major flaws. First two reasons that come to mind are that playing the PK will significantly hurt your P/60, and it implies that playing 20min a game is no harder then playing 10min a game. Any stat that says Frk and Bertuzze are playing better then Zetterberg this season is a flawed stat.

 

[Roy S]

I think the P/60 stat being referenced is just for even strength. It doesn't include PK time.

 

[jkutswings]

Let's say Detroit beats LA on Thursday 4-2. And during the course of the game, Svech has a total ice time of 7 minutes, with no real impact on the first 58 minutes of the game. But he happens to be out there to either score or assist on an empty netter to seal the deal.

P/60 would be through the roof (8.57, if all 7 minutes we're ES), and would scream for him to get a lot more ice time...in a game where he was of zero impact for 96% of the duration.

It's a stat that demands supplemental context to be of any use.

 

[kliq]

I think the P/60 stat being referenced is just for even strength. It doesn't include PK time.

Oh interesting.....Redder, is this true?

 

[Frk It]

Oh interesting.....Redder, is this true?

It's the default filter for any advanced stats website, typically.

It's a stat that demands supplemental context to be of any use.

That's all of them.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Any stat is meaningless or becomes meaningless if you toss it around like gospel and ignore the context behind it. Any statistic can be of vital importance or of no importance.

And I do value goals-assists-points over p/60, because one talks about things that have actually happened. One tries to predict the future using the past and is very prone to being misstated or misleading because of small sample sizes.

Also, for all of AA's fantastic rate stats, he's never hit 40 points in a year in his third full season. At some point, the fact that he misses games or is benched because his effort sucks should be used as a strike against him not as a point for "oh, if he'd have just played in that game that Blashill sat him because he was lazy the game before".

Blashill and Holland want to win. A good AA helps that out, like you've shown. A lazy AA that gives up more scoring chances than he creates does not.

 

[Flowah]

I think that TZE guy always says consistency is what makes the elite players elite, if I’m not mistaken.

That's certainly a big part of it, but some players just don't have the requisite skills. Helm is consistent and a worker. He's just not good enough to be elite. AA is the opposite and it is infuriating.

 

[Flowah]

I think the P/60 stat being referenced is just for even strength. It doesn't include PK time.

Even if his isn't, I did my own 5v5 P/60 and AA was still on top.

Again, I think that misses the broader point of context. I think you'd be silly to assume his numbers stay that high if he got more IT.

 

[Redder Winger]

I think the P/60 stat being referenced is just for even strength. It doesn't include PK time.

Yes, it's 5 on 5 play.
So guys don't get penalized for PK play, which obviously reduces productivity.
Or they don't get bumped up for PP play.

 

[Redder Winger]

Even if his isn't, I did my own 5v5 P/60 and AA was still on top.

Again, I think that misses the broader point of context. I think you'd be silly to assume his numbers stay that high if he got more IT.

People have been saying this for 3 years now.
His icetime continues to rise he is always at or near the top of the team.

And if you think "I'm silly" if I think his numbers would stay high, I'd like to know why.
And I'd like you to look at this link.
Andreas Athanasiou 2017-18 Game Log | Hockey-Reference.com
Now, click on TOI and sort by ice time so that high icetimes are at the top.

Check two stats.
Look at GAP.

I think people are silly when they ignore data.

Some people try to make excuses for the data. "Blash just plays him when he plays well."

But that's bull shit.

Go back to the chronological view.

His sudden increases in TOI didn't come after he scored or had big games.

I can tell you that one of those increases this year came when Mantha was injured.

The other one, I suspect, was the Red Wings trying to showcase him for a trade. Maybe for Vatanen.

 

[Flowah]

And if you think "I'm silly" if I think his numbers would stay high, I'd like to know why.

Because according to ES P/60, AA is better than Crosby, Marchand is nearly double the player that Crosby is, Tyler Bertuzzi is ahead of AA by a bigger gap than AA is ahead of Crosby. There's literally 99 players ahead of Crosby and obviously that is ridiculous.

So yeah, I think ES P/60 is extremely flawed as a single number.

 

[Redder Winger]

Because according to ES P/60, AA is better than Crosby, Marchand is nearly double the player that Crosby is, Tyler Bertuzzi is ahead of AA by a bigger gap than AA is ahead of Crosby. There's literally 99 players ahead of Crosby and obviously that is ridiculous.

So yeah, I think ES P/60 is extremely flawed as a single number.

Well, I think if you're a Penguins fan, you'd have to say that Crosby's production is a little concerning.
His production is way down, from 2.63 (elite level) to 1.56 (pedestrian).

 

[Flowah]

Well, I think if you're a Penguins fan, you'd have to say that Crosby's production is a little concerning.
His production is way down, from 2.63 (elite level) to 1.56 (pedestrian).

Great deflection.

Maybe 10 of the players on the list you could make a passable argument for taking ahead of Crosby. That there's still ~80 players who are unequivocally worse than Crosby ranked ahead of him, some by a lot, means your insistence on using the stat in a vacuum is ridiculous. It's not just a few outliers. It's 80 freaking players.

 

[kliq]

Yes, it's 5 on 5 play.
So guys don't get penalized for PK play, which obviously reduces productivity.
Or they don't get bumped up for PP play.

Thanks for clarifying, I didn't know that. Does change my perspective a bit.

 

[kliq]

Well, I think if you're a Penguins fan, you'd have to say that Crosby's production is a little concerning.
His production is way down, from 2.63 (elite level) to 1.56 (pedestrian).

Agreed that would be concerning. But would you not agree that saying Tyler Bertuzzi is better then Sidney Crosby solely based on P/60 would be inaccurate?

Not that you even insinuated this, but I am just making the point that P/60 while being a good stat, does not tell 100% of the story.

I personally think that the more ice time a player gets, the more accurate it becomes.

 

[Redder Winger]

Agreed that would be concerning. But would you not agree that saying Tyler Bertuzzi is better then Sidney Crosby solely based on P/60 would be inaccurate?

Not that you even insinuated this, but I am just making the point that P/60 while being a good stat, does not tell 100% of the story.

I personally think that the more ice time a player gets, the more accurate it becomes.

I would say that Tyler Bertuzzi has been more productive at 5 on 5.
Because that's accurate.

Look, people can crap all over the numbers if they want.
But every player under the UFA age is better than every player over the UFA age.

And as to your last point, AA has played close to the same number of minutes as Abdelkader, Helm, Nielsen.
Larkin and Mantha have played more than all those guys.
Larkin has played nearly as much as Nyquist and not that far off of Z.

 

[TatarTangle]

Because according to ES P/60, AA is better than Crosby, Marchand is nearly double the player that Crosby is, Tyler Bertuzzi is ahead of AA by a bigger gap than AA is ahead of Crosby. There's literally 99 players ahead of Crosby and obviously that is ridiculous.

So yeah, I think ES P/60 is extremely flawed as a single number.

That Landon Ferraro guy is having one hell of a season, what was Holland thinking?

 

[kliq]

I would say that Tyler Bertuzzi has been more productive at 5 on 5.
Because that's accurate.

Look, people can crap all over the numbers if they want.
But every player under the UFA age is better than every player over the UFA age.

And as to your last point, AA has played close to the same number of minutes as Abdelkader, Helm, Nielsen.
Larkin and Mantha have played more than all those guys.
Larkin has played nearly as much as Nyquist and not that far off of Z.

I'm not "crapping all over anything", this is not a black or white situation. Its not "this stat is gospel", or "this stat is crap".

Bertuzzi has not been more productive then Crosby this year, the guy has 18 points. His small sample size is skewing the stat. This is an example of the P/60 stat not painting an accurate picture. Doesn't mean its a bad stat, just one example of it not being 100% accurate.

I get that you don't want to admit any holes in a stat that you clearly stand behind, but just try to take emotion out of the equation and look at it objectively. I believe you're an intelligent individual, I don't even believe that you believe its the be all end all. I think you just don't want to post anything against it because someone will use that against you.

 

[Redder Winger]

I'm not "crapping all over anything", this is not a black or white situation. Its not "this stat is gospel", or "this stat is crap".

Bertuzzi has not been more productive then Crosby this year, the guy has 18 points. His small sample size is skewing the stat. This is an example of the P/60 stat not painting an accurate picture. Doesn't mean its a bad stat, just one example of it not being 100% accurate.

I get that you don't want to admit any holes in a stat that you clearly stand behind, but just try to take emotion out of the equation and look at it objectively. I believe you're an intelligent individual, I don't even believe that you believe its the be all end all. I think you just don't want to post anything against it because someone will use that against you.

He absolutely has.
I know his small sample size is skewed after last night's 3 point game.
But it is what it is.
We'll see where it is at the end of the year. I suspect he drops.
But as of right now, he's producing more points per minute played at 5 on 5.
That's indisputable.
It's fact.

Now, if you want to include powerplay, Crosby jumps WAY over Bertuzzi.
But if you don't, Bertuzzi is more productive.

Again, I'm not comparing one guy... Bertuzzi vs Crosby, for example.

I'm comparing ALL the 24 and under forwards on Detroit to ALL the 27 and older forward on Detroit.
And ALL the 24 and under guys finish ahead of ALL the 27 and older guys.

This isn't just one little coincidence. One skewed stat.
This is across the board.

What do you think that means?
That all of Detroit's young guys get the easy matchups? Even though many of these kids are spending so much of the season on the same lines with the old guys?

 

[kliq]

He absolutely has.
I know his small sample size is skewed after last night's 3 point game.
But it is what it is.
We'll see where it is at the end of the year. I suspect he drops.
But as of right now, he's producing more points per minute played at 5 on 5.
That's indisputable.
It's fact.

Now, if you want to include powerplay, Crosby jumps WAY over Bertuzzi.
But if you don't, Bertuzzi is more productive.

Again, I'm not comparing one guy... Bertuzzi vs Crosby, for example.

I'm comparing ALL the 24 and under forwards on Detroit to ALL the 27 and older forward on Detroit.
And ALL the 24 and under guys finish ahead of ALL the 27 and older guys.

This isn't just one little coincidence. One skewed stat.
This is across the board.

What do you think that means?
That all of Detroit's young guys get the easy matchups? Even though many of these kids are spending so much of the season on the same lines with the old guys?

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.

 

[Redder Winger]

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.

I have never said that P/60 is good for anything than measuring points/60.
I believe it's a better stat than goals/assists/points, the standard method of measuring production, because not everyone gets first line powerplay minutes. Not everyone gets 19-20 minutes a night.

What you can tell from Bertuzzi's points/60 is that he's been extremely productive in his minutes.

If you work in factory, they measure you by parts per hour.
If you work in sales, it's sales per hour.
If you work at hockey, it's often scoring, so goals per minute.

What you can see is that a guy like Frk, despite barely playing, is easily outclassing a guy like Darren Helm, in the production department.

And, on the whole, with the numbers I posted in relation to this thread topic, you can tell that the Kids are actually doing pretty damn good.

It's the veterans who are struggling. They're the ones who make the big dollars. They're the ones wearing the Cs and the As. They're the ones who aren't producing.

And yet, after the games, we only hear pointed criticism about the guys who aren't experienced. About the guys who don't make the big money and don't have the 7-year contracts and 12-year contracts.

It's back-asswards.

 

[SoupGuru]

There should be something like Godwin's Law on this board: The longer any thread goes, the more likely it will end up with Redder Winger monopolizing the conversation with arguments as to why AA needs more ice time.

 

[kliq]

I have never said that P/60 is good for anything than measuring points/60.
I believe it's a better stat than goals/assists/points, the standard method of measuring production, because not everyone gets first line powerplay minutes. Not everyone gets 19-20 minutes a night.

What you can tell from Bertuzzi's points/60 is that he's been extremely productive in his minutes.

If you work in factory, they measure you by parts per hour.
If you work in sales, it's sales per hour.
If you work at hockey, it's often scoring, so goals per minute.

What you can see is that a guy like Frk, despite barely playing, is easily outclassing a guy like Darren Helm, in the production department.

And, on the whole, with the numbers I posted in relation to this thread topic, you can tell that the Kids are actually doing pretty damn good.

It's the veterans who are struggling. They're the ones who make the big dollars. They're the ones wearing the Cs and the As. They're the ones who aren't producing.

And yet, after the games, we only hear pointed criticism about the guys who aren't experienced. About the guys who don't make the big money and don't have the 7-year contracts and 12-year contracts.

It's back-asswards.

How can you say that you have never said that P/60 is good for anything than measuring points P/60, then immediately go to say you believe its a better stat to measure production then G/A/P? Isn't the second sentence a complete contradiction of the first sentence?

I don't work in a factory, but I do work in sales and I can tell you it's not as simple as sales per hour, but that is another conversation for another day. But, on that note this is exactly what I am talking about. It tells one part of the story, it may be a very important part, and if you are looking over long periods of time it will become more accurate, but in small sample sizes it can be inaccurate.

I agree P/60 says Bertuzzi has been very productive with his minutes, that is an example of the stat being used properly IMO. If you are using it to say Bertuzzi is a more productive player then Crosby, I think the stat is being used incorrectly.

Won't argue you on the Frk/Helm comparison, I agree with you there. Same thing with the kids doing good, I agree with you there as well. I also dont disagree with you that a lot of the vets are struggling.

The last bold is where you and I don't see eye to eye, and I think we never will. It really bothers you that the kids get called out. Personally, it doesn't bother me at all.

If I was one of those kids, I would be 100% ok with having my ass called out if my captain thinks I'm slacking. It shows me he cares, it shows me they believe in me. You know what the worst thing Z can show one of the kids is? Its apathy. Larkin/AA/Mantha are the future of this team, and I (and I think Zetterberg) hope that they turn out better then Nyquist/Tatar/Jurco/Sheahan etc. and IMO this is important to their development. The goal is for these kids to be great, not just good, that ship has sailed for guys like Abby/Helm/Nielsen, they are what they are (I wish DD got called out a bit more though, he's still young enough to change).

I believe the kids are strong enough to take this and learn from it, and hopefully they become better players because of it. Mantha especially has shown to have really thick skin, and I respect him for it.

 

[Redder Winger]

How can you say that you have never said that P/60 is good for anything than measuring points P/60, then immediately go to say you believe its a better stat to measure production then G/A/P? Isn't the second sentence a complete contradiction of the first sentence?

Because production is a rate.
GAP? What is that?
If someone scores 20-20-40 in 30 games, is that the same as someone who scores 20-20-40 in 82 games? Or 192 games? Or 800 games?

Production is a rate. If you don't find a way to rate it, it's a useless, meaningless statistic.

I don't work in a factory, but I do work in sales and I can tell you it's not as simple as sales per hour, but that is another conversation for another day. But, on that note this is exactly what I am talking about. It tells one part of the story, it may be a very important part, and if you are looking over long periods of time it will become more accurate, but in small sample sizes it can be inaccurate.

It's not inaccurate.
it's totally accurate.
But it's more prone to change. It's less predictive.
But it's totally accurate. it's what happened.

I agree P/60 says Bertuzzi has been very productive with his minutes, that is an example of the stat being used properly IMO. If you are using it to say Bertuzzi is a more productive player then Crosby, I think the stat is being used incorrectly.

It means that Bertuzzi has been more productive than Crosby at 5 on 5 this year.
That's obvious.
It could change in 3 weeks if Bertuzzi goes ice cold.

Won't argue you on the Frk/Helm comparison, I agree with you there. Same thing with the kids doing good, I agree with you there as well. I also dont disagree with you that a lot of the vets are struggling.

The vets aren't struggling?
So who is struggling?
Why are we sixth last in goals/60?

The last bold is where you and I don't see eye to eye, and I think we never will. It really bothers you that the kids get called out. Personally, it doesn't bother me at all.

No, it doesn't bother me if kids are called out.
It bothers me that that kids ARE THE ONLY ONES called out.

There are no articles where HSJ or Khan go ask Zetterberg what they think of the coach calling out the shitty leadership of the team.
There are no articles where HSJ or Khan go ask Helm about Zetterberg criticizing the awful turnovers he had.

It's Mantha. It's AA. Or, maybe it's the kids.

Because 1) this coach is a coward who's never controlled the veterans on this team and 2) the leadership in the Red Wings' dressing is nowhere near as good as advertised.[/QUOTE]