News Article: Detroit Red Wings Andreas Athanasiou is the Unluckiest Player in the NHL

[Oddbob]

Even if you want to pretend like last year didn't happen and 17-18 was his peak, that still leaves a pretty good player. He was 79th in G/60 that year and 2nd on our team behind Nyquist. Not gamebreaking, but decent for a guy who was getting 4th line ice time with **** linemates and **** defensemen.

If he gave great effort you would have a point. Most people's frustration with him, is that he has lots of great skill and he completely wastes most of it. Also he doesn't get 4th line ice time so don't make bs up. Whenever he gets low ice time, it is because he is giving poor effort, why would any coach reward any player for that. He has enough speed and enough skill that he should cruise to 60 points, especially when you factor in, that he doesn't put much effort in his own end. Instead, we get a lazy uninterested 40 pt player, who it has been mentioned sulks about usage and ice time.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Even if you want to pretend like last year didn't happen and 17-18 was his peak, that still leaves a pretty good player. He was 79th in G/60 that year and 2nd on our team behind Nyquist. Not gamebreaking, but decent for a guy who was getting 4th line ice time with **** linemates and **** defensemen.

Now this right here, this is an example of making shit up.

Athanasiou averaged 15 minutes a night in 2017-18. That’s not remotely close to 4th line minutes.

 

[MBH]

Metrics are often times not helpful or fully truthful. Brendan Smith and other mediocre to bad players have had decent advanced stats, but their performance didn't suggest as such. An unbiased eye watching AA play tells them he is not trying very hard in the defensive end, which is on him, not on how poor the team is. Get back there and play like you care, everyone else on the team does this, except him. Then you add that he is providing next to no offence this season, and he is completely having a brutal season, which also matches his mostly brutal effort. Luck has played very little into it.

Well, I disagree.
I think he's actually trying harder in the Dzone and on the backcheck than he has. He's still not good, per se. But he's improved.

So now what?
The numbers.

FWIW, i think AA could learn a lot from the way Filppula plays. I wish he would.

And guess what? Filppula numbers are also terrible - nearly as bad as AA's.

 

[Oddbob]

Well, I disagree.
I think he's actually trying harder in the Dzone and on the backcheck than he has. He's still not good, per se. But he's improved.

So now what?
The numbers.

FWIW, i think AA could learn a lot from the way Filppula plays. I wish he would.

And guess what? Filppula numbers are also terrible - nearly as bad as AA's.

He does a lot of hope and pray stick poking when he is in the zone, which ends up not helping at all, which is not good enough in the NHL. Mantha does this to at times, but you have to engage more in the pro game.

 

[Henkka]

Just merge 3-season statistics, so you get a nice example of hot streaks and cold streaks and streaks with good and bad linemates.

Always fun to merge some data:

Mantha's last 82 games:
34+33 = 67 points
261 shots, 18:24 IT, -4 in plusminus.

Larkin's last 82 games:
27+38 = 65 points
283 shots, 21:30 IT, -21 in plusminus.

Bertuzzi's last 82 games:
27+32 = 59 points
169 shots, 18:33 IT, +0 in plusminus.

Athanasiou's last 82 games:
24+29 = 53 points
213 shots, 16:59 IT, -45 in plusminus.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Now this right here, this is an example of making **** up.

Athanasiou averaged 15 minutes a night in 2017-18. That’s not remotely close to 4th line minutes.

I saw 12 somewhere, I must have been looking at the wrong thing, now I see 15 is correct. My mistake. I stand by the rest of the post.

 

[Hen Kolland]

I saw 12 somewhere, I must have been looking at the wrong thing, now I see 15 is correct. My mistake. I stand by the rest of the post.

I think offensively he is better than 17-18, there's no way he can accomplish 18-19 without the ability. But remember Larkin's statistical regression from year one to year two? 80 games in both seasons, the first had 23 goals and 45 points compared to the second with 17 and 32 respectively. What changed between year one and two? He transitioned from playing on the wing to playing center; he had significant growing pains as he handled the added responsibility (defensively) of playing center in the NHL.

I think we might be seeing that same dynamic with Athanasiou, but with a player who was more feast or famine than Larkin was. There's a reason Larkin was drafted in the first, and a reason Athanasiou was drafted in the fourth. Larkin has the work ethic to make it part of his game, whereas Athanasiou (to me) looks like a guy who is forcing himself to do something that he doesn't have a great deal of interest in.

 

[TheOtherOne]

I think offensively he is better than 17-18, there's no way he can accomplish 18-19 without the ability. But remember Larkin's statistical regression from year one to year two? 80 games in both seasons, the first had 23 goals and 45 points compared to the second with 17 and 32 respectively. What changed between year one and two? He transitioned from playing on the wing to playing center; he had significant growing pains as he handled the added responsibility (defensively) of playing center in the NHL.

I think we might be seeing that same dynamic with Athanasiou, but with a player who was more feast or famine than Larkin was. There's a reason Larkin was drafted in the first, and a reason Athanasiou was drafted in the fourth. Larkin has the work ethic to make it part of his game, whereas Athanasiou (to me) looks like a guy who is forcing himself to do something that he doesn't have a great deal of interest in.

I'm mostly in agreement with this.

I spend too much time on this but here are my 2 main issues with the AA talk.
- I don't know if he will score 30 again or not but it's ridiculous to say it's impossible, only a half a season later, considering that he didn't exactly have the best of circumstances the first time he accomplished it. He didn't have McDavid feeding him or Datsyuk bouncing goals in off his ass or Lidstrom leading his breakaways, he did it with a bad supporting cast, so surely it's at the very least possible for him to do it again, especially if we improve the team around him as a whole.
- Even if his REAL peak is somewhere between the '18 and '19 seasons, that's still a pretty good player. Certainly not a superstar. Certainly not the disposable trash it sometimes sounds like around here.

That's it. I'm concluding on that for now.

 

[Retire91]

Every player on the team has regressed in proportion to their stand alone talent. The players that don't need linemates to succeed like Larkin Mantha Bertuzzi are still producing but also with some regression because the team got worse. AA is showing worse numbers because he is not a stand alone talent, he needs a functioning roster to create the conditions where he puts up top 6 numbers. It's not about luck.

 

[Mlotek]

Unfair comparison. Larkin is better than Mantha too why aren't we saying that? AA has done more as a 4th rounder than Larkin has as a 1st...

It don't matter where a player was drafted. Don't get too hung up on that, cause it don't matter.

What matters is what they are to the team and what they can provide.

What was Datsyuk's supposed reaction to learn he was drafted? Something along the lines of, 'good, nothing changes'.

 

[SCD]

The only person that deserves credit for a player who outperforms their draft position is the GM.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Even if you want to pretend like last year didn't happen and 17-18 was his peak, that still leaves a pretty good player. He was 79th in G/60 that year and 2nd on our team behind Nyquist. Not gamebreaking, but decent for a guy who was getting 4th line ice time with **** linemates and **** defensemen.

Right. AA is a pretty good player. He has the skillset to be a great player. If he bridged the gap between his talent and his consistent effort, he would be. Like AA has elite speed, good size, great hands, and a great shot. What is he doing sucking on defense (which his speed should make him a gamebreaker on) and only occasionally showing out on offense?

 

[Steve Yzerlland]

It don't matter where a player was drafted. Don't get too hung up on that, cause it don't matter.

What matters is what they are to the team and what they can provide.

What was Datsyuk's supposed reaction to learn he was drafted? Something along the lines of, 'good, nothing changes'.

It is unfair to say a 4th round player sucks by comparing him to a 1st round talent.

 

[Steve Yzerlland]

Woohoo. Jonathan Ericsson vastly outperformed his draft position too.

Doesn’t mean that he’s a good hockey player now.

Draft position means nothing after draft night. Andreas Athanasiou was a 4th round pick because he was, rightly or wrongly, labeled a malcontent in London and in Barrie. He always had 1st round talent.

Dylan Larkin is a better hockey player than Andreas Athanasiou and it isn’t close.

Isn't that why he went in the first round?

 

[Mlotek]

It is unfair to say a 4th round player sucks by comparing him to a 1st round talent.

I prefer to rank players based on merit rather than draft position.

Its unfair to say John Scott is no Mario Lemieux?

More of a reality.

Think of the many players who went undrafted.

Does anyone compare Rinne to Dubnyk or Schneider on draft position? Or are they compared for the players that they are.

If you wanna put stock in prospects based on where they were drafted hmmm okay. But when you are talking about guys who have been in the NHL for years now, when and what position they were drafted MEANS 0!

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

It is unfair to say a 4th round player sucks by comparing him to a 1st round talent.

Draft spot means nothing. What don't you get about this?

Tom McCollum was a 1st round pick. Henrik Lundqvist was a 7th rounder. Dylan McIlrath went 10th OA and John Klingberg went in the 150s. Artemi Panarin went undrafted for like three seasons before Chicago signed him. Pavel Datsyuk went undrafted for a year or two before Detroit took him in the 6th.

AA was a fourth round pick because he was a space cadet who gave an effort when he felt like it who clashed with his coach in London and clashed with his coach in Barrie... and then clashed with his two different coaches in Detroit. When you're butting heads with anyone you play for... the problem is you, not them.

AA sucks because he doesn't seem to take playing defense seriously nor has he done anything to materially improve his positioning or hockey sense. He's getting bad opportunities because he's not doing anything to earn good opportunities. To put it simply, I can say that AA sucks (or is disappointing, because sucks is very harsh. I don't think he sucks, just is very underwhelming compared to what a player with his skills and measureables should be) on his own merit without mentioning Larkin in relation to him.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Isn't that why he went in the first round?

That's exactly why he went in the first round. Like AA's butting heads with coaching staffs in juniors and general space cadet nature in terms of positioning were why he was taken in the 4th. His skills had him, as some others said, as a borderline top ten pick. A little bit like how Ryan Merkley in his draft class should have been one of the top 3D drafted based on skill but dropped into the 20s based off of his immaturity.

 

[Henkka]

I prefer to rank players based on merit rather than draft position.

If you wanna put stock in prospects based on where they were drafted hmmm okay. But when you are talking about guys who have been in the NHL for years now, when and what position they were drafted MEANS 0!

Andreas Athanasiou vs. 2012 draft class:
- 6th most career goals
- 13th most career points
- 7th best career points/game
- 8th most Game-winning goals
- 11th highest Avg career Ice-Time of forwards

Fun fact special:

Athanasiou has more points and less minuses than the 1st overall from the same draft.

 

[Shaman464]

Andreas Athanasiou vs. 2012 draft class:
- 6th most career goals
- 13th most career points
- 7th best career points/game
- 8th most Game-winning goals
- 11th highest Avg career Ice-Time of forwards

Fun fact special:

Athanasiou has more points and less minuses than the 1st overall from the same draft.

Yeah, but Nail was one of the biggest busts in recent memory. And the whole 2012 draft was one of the weakest in living memory.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Andreas Athanasiou vs. 2012 draft class:
- 6th most career goals
- 13th most career points
- 7th best career points/game
- 8th most Game-winning goals
- 11th highest Avg career Ice-Time of forwards

Fun fact special:

Athanasiou has more points and less minuses than the 1st overall from the same draft.

Cool.

1) It was an abysmal draft.
2) AA should have been taken in the first round based off of his skill set. He didn't fall because he was hurt or because he wasn't good. He fell because he was a pud to his junior teams. Guys don't drop in the draft like that unless they've got big question marks. Nobody is saying that Andreas Athanasiou was a bad draft pick. He was actually a fantastic one. But it's not a positive that he's outperforming his draft slot... at least not like it's trying to be used here.

Like I said, Jonathan Ericsson outperformed what a 7th rounder should do more than what AA is doing for the 4th round. Clearly Jonathan Ericsson must be an even bigger success story. Oh wait, no, Ericsson sucks now and everyone can agree on that.

 

[TheOtherOne]

This whole "draft position doesn't matter" narrative is complete bullshit. Of course it matters. If Ericsson busted and never made the NHL, nobody ever would have given 2 shits. If Larkin turned out to be a 4th liner at best we would be bitching about it nonstop because we used an extremely valuable pick to get him. It's the same reason we talk about how disappointing the Svechnikov situation is without being able to remember whoever the hell was drafted in the late rounds in the same year.

It's assets versus return, the exact same conversation is had constantly with salary instead of pick number. If Glendening and Nielsen are the exact same player separated by 4 million dollars, we have a very good reason to prefer one over the other. Just change salary to draft capital and you have the same conversation.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

This whole "draft position doesn't matter" narrative is complete bull****. Of course it matters. If Ericsson busted and never made the NHL, nobody ever would have given 2 ****s. If Larkin turned out to be a 4th liner at best we would be *****ing about it nonstop because we used an extremely valuable pick to get him. It's the same reason we talk about how disappointing the Svechnikov situation is without being able to remember whoever the hell was drafted in the late rounds in the same year.

It's assets versus return, the exact same conversation is had constantly with salary instead of pick number. If Glendening and Nielsen are the exact same player separated by 4 million dollars, we have a very good reason to prefer one over the other. Just change salary to draft capital and you have the same conversation.

It matters in expectations for a player. However... AA is in his 5th year now? You don't get brownie points for being taken later after you're an established NHLer. Right now, it doesn't matter where Larkin and AA were taken.

I agree that we care more about whether a guy like Larkin turns out to be good because more investment was made into him... but Larkin is just unequivocally a better player than AA. In every way. AA being taken in the fourth round does nothing to inform now in 2019-2020 how he should be playing. Congratulations to him making it to be a proven NHL player. That's the real issue where draft position matters. Do you make the NHL in a proven capacity? Now, AA isn't more valuable to Detroit because he was a 4th rounder vs. a 1st rounder. Larkin is more valuable because he's simply a better hockey player and leader.

Your salary argument doesn't hold much water either. That salary would be currently affecting the team. Like you'd be able to afford better players elsewhere with Glenny at 1.8 vs an equivalent Nielsen at 5.5. Using a draft pick is a one-and-done asset cost. The difference in player salary carries over year after year. A draft pick is made and then it is gone. Salary is a continued investment.

Long story short, AA being taken in the 4th round and making himself a viable NHL player is a win for Detroit's management. They used a lower value asset to get a better value player. It's got nothing to do with how Andreas Athanasiou's play in 19-20 is viewed. Now, he's a disappointment compared to what he has shown in the past and is not a good enough future piece to go full bore into re-signing him long term for big money.

 

[Hen Kolland]

This whole "draft position doesn't matter" narrative is complete bull****. Of course it matters. If Ericsson busted and never made the NHL, nobody ever would have given 2 ****s. If Larkin turned out to be a 4th liner at best we would be *****ing about it nonstop because we used an extremely valuable pick to get him. It's the same reason we talk about how disappointing the Svechnikov situation is without being able to remember whoever the hell was drafted in the late rounds in the same year.

The assessment of the player doesn't matter at all. Once a player is drafted or signed, they are on the exact same playing field. The best players are the best players. Doesn't matter if you are Sidney Crosby drafted #1 overall, or Nikita Kucherov drafted in the second round, or Pavel Datsyuk drafted in the sixth round, or Martin St. Louis signed as an undrafted free agent. They got their foot in the door, and they will be compared for their accomplishments in the NHL, not how they made it to the NHL.

Draft position can, and should, be used in assessing GMs and scouting staff. Even player development staff. But Athanasiou doesn't get a bump to his lifetime achievements because he was a jackass in juniors and fell in the draft. The same as when you think of Crosby you don't think "yeah but he was #1 overall, so being the best player in the world doesn't matter as much."

 

[Shaman464]

This whole "draft position doesn't matter" narrative is complete bull****. Of course it matters. If Ericsson busted and never made the NHL, nobody ever would have given 2 ****s. If Larkin turned out to be a 4th liner at best we would be *****ing about it nonstop because we used an extremely valuable pick to get him. It's the same reason we talk about how disappointing the Svechnikov situation is without being able to remember whoever the hell was drafted in the late rounds in the same year.

It's assets versus return, the exact same conversation is had constantly with salary instead of pick number. If Glendening and Nielsen are the exact same player separated by 4 million dollars, we have a very good reason to prefer one over the other. Just change salary to draft capital and you have the same conversation.

Except every NHL team knew AA was an NHL level talent. No scouting report, GM, or team source ever question his ability to be an NHL player. They questioned his commitment to team play, his compete level, and his attitude. Doesn't matter if you score 20-30 goals a season if you're a prolapsed anus of a human. And given the extensive track record of AA never seeming to like where he's at, or the coaches or whatever, it seems many NHL teams were willing to take their chances on riskier picks than they were to give him a chance.

 

[ShelbyZ]

Like I said, Jonathan Ericsson outperformed what a 7th rounder should do more than what AA is doing for the 4th round. Clearly Jonathan Ericsson must be an even bigger success story. Oh wait, no, Ericsson sucks now and everyone can agree on that.

When you consider he was actually a 9th rounder... he definitely IS the bigger success story.