Your numbers show that Matthews is producing less points per 60 under Keefe getting more ice time than he did previously under Babcock, no? From 3.42 per 60 down to 3.29 per 60?
So which stat is a more accurate reflection of Matthews? The per60 one that suggests he's gotten less productive, or the raw totals which shows he's gone from outside the top 10 to inside the top 5?
If anything, the stats are an argument in favor of raw totals over per60 totals telling the "real" story of Matthews.
Youre missing the point.
.13 over these sample sizes is insignificant really but even if we want to make a big deal about it, you have to look at /60 (especially on the PP) to understand why 99 points in 83 games is actually slightly worse than 100 points in 91 games. It doesn't make sense to say that if you go by /GP models but perfect sense by /60 models.
TOI matters.
Whats really exploded have been his goal numbers though with the extra icetime despite having to play through a couple of injuries.
Since the coaching change:
Goals/60 from centers in the NHL since Keefe was hired by the Leafs:
1. Matthews: 1.99
2. Zibanejad: 1.65
3. Stamkos: 1.63
4. Bergeron: 1.57
5. Aho: 1.56
Just in a different tier scoring goals as a center than anyone in the game.
He's so good at scoring goals that even if you wanted to go Goals/GP (which underrates his scoring), he currently stands at .582 for his career. Thats just behind Brett Hull at 8th on the NHL list all time and he's catching him, with Gretzky next on the list.
I think he might be a top 5 center in this league.