Bondurant
Registered User
Alright, the Kings need to pass us now.
They did. Bravo to them. We currently stand above Ottawa only.
Alright, the Kings need to pass us now.
Phoning it in is never acceptable. Not ever. It happens from time to time but it's shameful. The day it becomes no big deal to not even try is the day I stop being a fan.Wow..Ican't believe the amount of whining about the effort level of Mantha and other players in this thread..it was a bad game that helped the tank, that's all we can expect from a team that has been hovering above the bottom for the bigger part of the season..what are these players supposed to play for, with 13-14 games left to the season? A worse draft possition? A possible injury that can affect their offseason preparation? Be reasonable guys
I don't know, maybe pride? Maybe because they are payed millions of dollars to perform? They are here for our entertainment are they not?
They did. Bravo to them. We currently stand above Ottawa only.
You think he gives a damn about us? Do you think anyone on that roster gives a single **** about our entertainment? This mindset has to change, man. They care about winning, and we are entertained and take joy out of them winning. But in this case 1+1 does not equal 2.
Mantha was a mid/late round first, and has established himself as a quality NHL player who can score (on pace) 20+ goals year after year. Does he have the potential to be a better player? Yes. Should that potential being left untapped justify people crucifying him for every decision he makes? I don't think so, but that's not going to stop the outrage culture that this fan base abides by.
If they care about winning, Mantha isn't showing it with his continual lazy play. They players may not specifically care about entertainment, but the owners sure do.
Nobody is passing them. You can see that dumpster fire from space.
Thanks for the welcome.. been a long-time lurker, decided to join in on the discussion in these troubled but hopeful timesWelcome
Welcome to sports. Fans find a whipping boy, and, well...You want to move on from Mantha? Fine. Go for it. Won't hear me complain. But I bet I will hear multiple complaints about someone else a week later. That's my point. People get so pissed at a single player, and then as soon as they aren't in the picture (see: Smith, Sheahan) they just find someone else to get pissed at. It's not like Mantha is a bad player by any definition, but the way people talk about him sounds as if he is the plague.
It's just that a few games ago, Mantha and AA were declared the best players with Larkin out..today, they are judged on the merits of a bad performance in a game where the whole team didn't show up, but somehow this narrative that they don't care/are lazy is assigned to the two of them, but not to the rest of the players on the ice last night. It's getting old is what I'm saying. And focusing your criticism on the players that actually contributed the most behind Larkin and Gus is a weird thing to do..if anything, you can focus on the guys that help make the Wings the highest paid team in the league with a 30th place in the standings to show for it.If they care about winning, Mantha isn't showing it with his continual lazy play. They players may not specifically care about entertainment, but the owners sure do.
I'd say it happens a lot,also with other teams,especially at the end of dissapointing seasons. At the end of the day, they are just people, and judging from Kronwall's interview before the TDL, I'm sure they are even more frustrated by the outcome of this season than their fans. All they can do now is embrace the tank and work hard during the summer to improve next season.Phoning it in is never acceptable. Not ever. It happens from time to time but it's shameful. The day it becomes no big deal to not even try is the day I stop being a fan.
It's just that a few games ago, Mantha and AA were declared the best players with Larkin out..today, they are judged on the merits of a bad performance in a game where the whole team didn't show up, but somehow this narrative that they don't care/are lazy is assigned to the two of them, but not to the rest of the players on the ice last night. It's getting old is what I'm saying. And focusing your criticism on the players that actually contributed the most behind Larkin and Gus is a weird thing to do..if anything, you can focus on the guys that help make the Wings the highest paid team in the league with a 30th place in the standings to show for it.
They are what they are. AA is ideally a 3rd line winger that can explode once in a while and win you a game. Mantha a player that can score 25+goals a season, ideally on the second line. The problem here is that even with their warts, they are still top5 contributors on this team. So it's really not about them being lazy, but about the veterans being even worse. I also think it's too early in the rebuild to give-up on young players that are able to score 20+goals. How many of those does Detroit have, excluding Larkin, AA and Mo?It isn't about the last game or 2 games ago. Both players in your posting have had the lazy/uninspired knock on them their entire careers. If it quacks like a duck and all that...
If it quacks like a duck and all that...
Mantha quacks like a 24 year old duck that scores my team 25+ per season. That's a hell of a duck.
Odd duck you are! I don't see any season that Mantha has scored even 25 goals let alone 25+. Perhaps if he tried harder in 50% more games than he does now, the little engine that sometimes could would get to that 25+ mark.
Mantha has everything to dominate this game , but he doesn't and its frustrate peopleYou want to move on from Mantha? Fine. Go for it. Won't hear me complain. But I bet I will hear multiple complaints about someone else a week later. That's my point. People get so pissed at a single player, and then as soon as they aren't in the picture (see: Smith, Sheahan) they just find someone else to get pissed at. It's not like Mantha is a bad player by any definition, but the way people talk about him sounds as if he is the plague.
Mantha has everything to dominate this game , but he doesn't and its frustrate people
Pls evryone stop using 'pace" ever again, period.
Its arbitrary as their is no agreed minimum number of games required to base the "pace" on
It's a stat used to embellish a point if view.
If you haven't done it you haven't done it, case closed
In total: 58 goals in 194 games. 24.52 goals per 82 games.
This also assumes he is healthy and in the lineup for essentially full seasons going forward, which is something he is not yet on pace for.I know you're only posting this because you disagree with me, so I'll bring you into this too.
Take a look at the quote below. It's more than two full seasons worth of games over his first 3 full time seasons in the NHL, oh and what's that? Still an average of 25 goals. Go figure. Pace is looking at future production, in this context it's what we call historical averages. I don't care how you slice it, you are wrong in this case, he has done it.
Also, Pace (noun) - a rate of activity, progress, growth, performance, etc. You don't need a basis to determine what is an acceptable scenario for "pace" because a pace is literally just assessing what you would produce of continuing at your current rate of production. Here's an example: you are on pace to still be wrong in this argument.
This also assumes he is healthy and in the lineup for essentially full seasons going forward, which is something he is not yet on pace for.
Hey, I found the context that you lost:
16/17: 17 goals in 60 games. 23.23 goals per 82 games.
17/18: 24 goals in 80 games. 24.60 goals per 82 games.
18/19: 17 goals in 54 games. 25.81 goals per 82 games.
In total: 58 goals in 194 games. 24.52 goals per 82 games.
I'm no math expert, but I'm pretty damn good with rounding and have a decent grasp on the concept of the law of averages (humble brag) it looks like he's pretty much a 25 goal guy. I feel comfortable in my description; a guy who can offer 25 year in and year out. The + is an assumption that based on him being 24 and only one season of playing a full season in the NHL, he has the potential of adding more than the 25.
I won't argue with you that he could be a 30 or even a 40 goal player with greater intensity and consistency. I also don't think we have seen the final product of Mantha, but you obviously do.
I know you're only posting this because you disagree with me, so I'll bring you into this too.
Take a look at the quote below. It's more than two full seasons worth of games over his first 3 full time seasons in the NHL, oh and what's that? Still an average of 25 goals. Go figure. Pace is looking at future production, in this context it's what we call historical averages. I don't care how you slice it, you are wrong in this case, he has done it.
Also, Pace (noun) - a rate of activity, progress, growth, performance, etc. You don't need a basis to determine what is an acceptable scenario for "pace" because a pace is literally just assessing what you would produce of continuing at your current rate of production. Here's an example: you are on pace to still be wrong in this argument.
So a player never has to actually accomplish a feat for you to decide he is a repeated performer of that feat?
That makes me a NHL star since I played hockey and was on pace to make the NHL when I was 8.
Yahhh for me