I have no idea how you can watch the NHL and reach this conclusion.
For example, when people discussed Ovechkin vs Matthews for scoring, Ovechkin received, literally almost 20 full 60 minute games of extra PP time. Do you honestly think Matthews lacked the skill set or conditioning for extra PP time? In fact, when you are talking top players, rate production is all the more relevant. Why? Well the argument you get against rate arguments is "Yeah well it isn't linear", which in and of itself is a silly argument in that no one has ever said it is 100% linear. The angle those folks are trying to use is "well if I gave X third liner that time his raw totals wouldn't play out the same". No, likely not, because you are comparing apples to oranges. In this context you are comparing apples to apples. One would think when people see the very thing that was pointed out to them play out in real life, at some point they would stop and think "Huh. Maybe they were onto something?". Give comparable elite players similar ice time and odds are it becomes relevant to raw production. Games played in and of itself is no different than P60.
Individual coaches make decisions all the time that have little to nothing to do with player ability and sometimes more with coach style. This year (and part of last year) Keefe made the shocking decision to ride his horses. His team is on pace to set the franchise record for winning percentage.
We might be arguing the same point from a different perspective.
My point is that all of these guys are (or should be) elite two-way centers. They are used in all situations. Your point about Matthews vs Ovechkin... he's a winger, different utilization, so you need to use rate data to compare, I agree.
But these guys are all apples. They will likely have quite similar utilization. If they don't then they aren't really apples and they shouldn't be in the conversation.
Fictional Example:
- Let's say Drai was so poor defensively and so poor on the draw that he couldn't be trusted for own zone draws or played when defending the lead.
- In contrast, Matthews was the go-to guy in such situations.
- If their offense was actually equivalent, Matthews would have a lower P/60 than Drai, simply because he has more utilization in situations where pressing for offense is not the coaches mandate.
Now if you want to talk about specific rate data to determine who is better in a specific situation... for example PPGF/60, then I agree... it can tell you who a better PP scorer is. Same for PKGA/60. Either would give you a mark of a players' efficiency in a given situation.
but that's not what the poster was advocating.... and I was objecting to P/60 (where perhaps I should have been more specific about that).
And, this might be nit-picking, but it isn't relevant to raw production... its a rate of production. At the end of the day, if you want to talk about offense, it comes down to actual production. Points produced in all situations (which may penalize/reflect accurately oft-injured players, depending on one's perspective). Or Points/game if you want to balance for production based on guys who were injured, or to compare across shortened seasons, etc.
.
