Do Stats Such as P/60 Ignore the Athletic Aspect of Hockey?

[kingsholygrail]

Don't wanna brag, but my P/60 is pretty great.

 

[PromisedLand]

pts/60 is a useless stat.

you could have high pts/60 but be on ice for goals against even more for example; whats the point of that?

pts/60 is also absolutely STUPID when you consider that most teams when they have a sizable lead turtle and do not look for offense while still rolling the lines; so when teams trailing start cheating for offense to even the game or get within a goal of the opposition they usually get scored on

there are other major factors in the game where pts/60 on its own is absolutely USELESS like that dumbass corsi stat

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

The problem with that is it leads to results like Conor Sheary leading the entire NHL in P/60 at 5on5 and thus, arguing he was "better" that season than McDavid and Crosby, but simply wasn't given the ice time those two were.

That, to me, is the biggest flaw in using these stats as some sort of "they're better than raw totals to judge players". It has the potential to have way more anomalous results than raw totals would. Thus, why I don't agree at all that it's "still more valuable than raw points".

Per 60 numbers can be useful when they're used to SUPPLEMENT things like raw totals. The problems arise when they're used as a REPLACEMENT for raw totals when judging players.

I think you can see anomalies where some random 3rd liner with barely any minutes can have an absurd p/60 rate, whereas the leading raw point scorer will almost always be an elite player, but I think there can still be plenty of anomalies with raw points in their own right. For instance, I think rookie McDavid was a top 5 offensive player as opposed to 105th. I also think Crosby was the best offensive player from 2010-13 as opposed to 36th best. Maybe it's a case of looking at raw points can unfairly penalize a player for things beyond their control, and p/60 can unfairly elevate a player for things beyond their control, and you need to look at other things for better results. Maybe increase the sample size, look at linemates, isolate PP vs 5v5 minutes, look at primary vs secondary points, etc.

 

[pabst blue ribbon]

I think you can see anomalies where some random 3rd liner with barely any minutes can have an absurd p/60 rate, whereas the leading raw point scorer will almost always be an elite player, but I think there can still be plenty of anomalies with raw points in their own right. For instance, I think rookie McDavid was a top 5 offensive player as opposed to 105th. I also think Crosby was the best offensive player from 2010-13 as opposed to 36th best. Maybe it's a case of looking at raw points can unfairly penalize a player for things beyond their control, and p/60 can unfairly elevate a player for things beyond their control, and you need to look at other things for better results. Maybe increase the sample size, look at linemates, isolate PP vs 5v5 minutes, look at primary vs secondary points, etc.

We had a year where Nick Foligno and Jiri Hudler finished in the top 10 of scoring, anomalies exist in basic counting stats yet they don't face any scrutiny for those results

 

[NyQuil]

I'm not a big fan, personally.

The complete units of time for the NHL are the game and the season. There are 60 minutes in a game and 82 games in a season.

Sure, if a guy gets injured, maybe he COULD have put up 100 points over a full season.

But I tend to be of the belief that 82 games is a grind, and that it's easier to pace at a high level than it is to actually put up those goals and points.

The same goes for P/60.

 

[Kairi Zaide]

The real issue is in people's assumptions that it scales perfectly with increased time. Everyone tries to use that in arguments.

I use /60 stats quite often, and this is absolutely something I take into consideration. A player with X P/60 playing N minutes a game is very likely to see his P/60 go down to Y P/60 playing M minutes a game (where X>Y and M>N) - assuming the PP/PK/ES playing times keep the same proportions. There's definitely some athletic considerations, and maybe a little matchup considerations.

Something to keep in mind is that there's not just athletic considerations, however - more often than not, playing time is heavily dependant on how coaches roll their lines, and you see some absolutely dominating units getting much less ice time than they should get. A good example would be, from last year, the Tatar-Danault-Gallagher line, as Julien seems to like distributing ice time somewhat equally between the top two lines.

 

[FerrisRox]

There is absolutely zero proven evidence that some players can effectively play more minutes than others, yet this myth is often perpetuated to discount players who are just as good and produce just as well, but get less opportunity, either due to coaches or team strength or circumstance.

There is zero evidence that stamina is a thing?

Really?

So if that's the case, why even have lines? Why not just play the first line all game? Why do some top blueliners log over 25 minutes a game and others only play 22? Simply because a coach arbitrarily has decided to limit that player?

Are you serious with this?

 

[Dekes For Days]

So if that's the case, why even have lines? Why not just play the first line all game?

There is a limit for the human body, and eventually, you will hit a point of diminishing returns. But there is zero evidence that it is within the range that these players play, or that there is something special about the players that do it. And especially on the PP, where even small TOI differences heavily affect production, fatigue is not much of a factor.

Why do some top blueliners log over 25 minutes a game and others only play 22? Simply because a coach arbitrarily has decided to limit that player?

Coaching style, team depth, whether you PP/PK/both, etc.

Speaking of which, weird how so many of the people who magically have this rare skill that grants them the ability to play 22-25 minutes ended up as defensemen, eh?

 

[HTFN]

Seems to me based on the posts in this thread that it’s more useful for figuring out if a player is utilized correctly than it is for assessing the individual or their production ceiling, and even that has some flaws when you think about it for a moment or three.

 

[FerrisRox]

There is a limit for the human body, and eventually, you will hit a point of diminishing returns. But there is zero evidence that it is within the range that these players play, or that there is something special about the players that do it. And especially on the PP, where even small TOI differences heavily affect production, fatigue is not much of a factor.


Coaching style, team depth, whether you PP/PK/both, etc.

Speaking of which, weird how so many of the people who magically have this rare skill that grants them the ability to play 22-25 minutes ended up as defensemen, eh?

This is one of the funniest posts I've ever read on this website in all the time I've been here.

Unbelievable.

 

[Dekes For Days]

This is one of the funniest posts I've ever read on this website in all the time I've been here.
Unbelievable.

Went for the usual deflection I see.

I guess you missed the other posts in this thread.

 

[Machinehead]

Honestly, I'm not sure what the expectation is. People call it a garbage stat but it's really just a measure of efficiency. How well is a player producing for their minutes? Depending on the answer, it may indicate players who are over or under used.

If a third liner has a higher p/60 than a first liner, it doesn't mean he's better. It just means he's probably a higher-end third liner while the first liner is a lower-end first liner. If it persists, maybe the coach considers trying them both on the second line. That's it.

To me, this is a case of posters making up a narrative and then getting mad about what they made up.

 

[Duke Silver]

I see such stats used frequently, but at times it seems as though they're applied with the assumption that all players are essentially equal physically, athletically and in terms of conditioning. However, NHL players are not video game characters. They don't share identical physical characteristics, and in a sense stats like p/60 and p1/60 fail to give players who are able to perform at a relatively high level in greater ice time than others credit for superior fitness and conditioning.

What should be used instead?

So you have a problem with arbitrarily choosing to divide all stats by the length of an NHL game despite nobody outside of goalies playing the full length of the game?

This is like asking why speed limits are in per-hour increments if most people are taking 20 minute journeys.

Honestly, I'm not sure what the expectation is. People call it a garbage stat but it's really just a measure of efficiency. How well is a player producing for their minutes? Depending on the answer, it may indicate players who are over or under used.

If a third liner has a higher p/60 than a first liner, it doesn't mean he's better. It just means he's probably a higher-end third liner while the first liner is a lower-end first liner. If it persists, maybe the coach considers trying them both on the second line. That's it.

To me, this is a case of posters making up a narrative and then getting mad about what they made up.

Pretty much this.

As with everything, a bunch of context needs to be taken into consideration.