Great example of why pts/60 TOI is a basically useless comparison.

Machinehead

GoAwayKakko
Jan 21, 2011
141,167
109,563
NYC
giphy.gif
 

Bobby Terrance

Registered User
Jul 21, 2018
602
415
So any time someone scores a hat trick I expect you to make a thread saying it is sustainable based off this absolute sound logic.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,074
14,579
I agree points per 60 is ridiculous. All that counts are actual points.

If a player scores 90 points playing 18 minutes a game vs a player scores 100 points playing 23 minutes a games - give me the 100 points guy. 100 points is more useful than 90 points - and too bad for the 90 point guy for either:

1. Not being able to convince his coach to play him more minutes so he can contribute/produce more
2. Not being able to handle playing more minutes

The only time where i could maybe buy into looking at points per 60 metrics is if someone is able to show a clear example of how an increase in ice time led to a similar increase in points. Ie a player going from 15 minutes a game and 75 points to 20 minutes a game and 100 points. I'm thinking in 90% of cases, the player going from 15 minute a game and 75 points to 20 mins a game sees a few extra points, but nowhere near 25 extra points. ie - this is mostly useless. And this would *only* be relevant if we can bump the player's ice time up. If we leave him at 15mins a game - simply "knowing" he'd do more with 20mins is completely useless.
 

newfy

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
14,718
8,241
I think its got a bit of value but its pretty hilarious watching people live or die by that stat on here sometimes. You could have a 55 point vs a 70 point player and people would still use points/60 and try to make an argument about who is better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Foppberg and Kahvi

Filthy Dangles

Registered User*
Oct 23, 2014
28,355
39,716
I always thought it was a pretty dumb and flawed stat. The best players usually get the most icetime so yeah, generally the best players have the highest p/60... efficiency goes down as ice time goes up. some players get more defensive ice time defending leads and what not ...etc.
 

Aladyyn

they praying for the death of a rockstar
Apr 6, 2015
18,087
7,204
Czech Republic
Per60 stats are just superior to totals. And the "convince the coach" argument is just dumb. Coaches in this league aren't some infallible beings, mostly the opposite actually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DominicBoltsFan

6 Karlsson 5

Registered User
Aug 9, 2012
3,671
262
I agree points per 60 is ridiculous. All that counts are actual points.

If a player scores 90 points playing 18 minutes a game vs a player scores 100 points playing 23 minutes a games - give me the 100 points guy. 100 points is more useful than 90 points - and too bad for the 90 point guy for either:

1. Not being able to convince his coach to play him more minutes so he can contribute/produce more
2. Not being able to handle playing more minutes

The only time where i could maybe buy into looking at points per 60 metrics is if someone is able to show a clear example of how an increase in ice time led to a similar increase in points. Ie a player going from 15 minutes a game and 75 points to 20 minutes a game and 100 points. I'm thinking in 90% of cases, the player going from 15 minute a game and 75 points to 20 mins a game sees a few extra points, but nowhere near 25 extra points. ie - this is mostly useless. And this would *only* be relevant if we can bump the player's ice time up. If we leave him at 15mins a game - simply "knowing" he'd do more with 20mins is completely useless.

What a terrible display of logic
 

Nithoniniel

Registered User
Sep 7, 2012
20,913
16,749
Skövde, Sweden
Some of the points raised in this thread are great examples of why per 60 stats are flawed. However, they don't need to be flawless. They just need to be less flawed than the alternative, and they are.

I think its got a bit of value but its pretty hilarious watching people live or die by that stat on here sometimes. You could have a 55 point vs a 70 point player and people would still use points/60 and try to make an argument about who is better.
Depending on the case, that might be the way to do it. A 55 point guy playing limited minutes due to being on a deep team might very well be better than a 70 point guy on a shallow team getting tons of opportunities to score.
 

Rants Mulliniks

Registered User
Jun 22, 2008
22,957
6,028
I agree points per 60 is ridiculous. All that counts are actual points.

If a player scores 90 points playing 18 minutes a game vs a player scores 100 points playing 23 minutes a games - give me the 100 points guy. 100 points is more useful than 90 points - and too bad for the 90 point guy for either:

1. Not being able to convince his coach to play him more minutes so he can contribute/produce more
2. Not being able to handle playing more minutes

The only time where i could maybe buy into looking at points per 60 metrics is if someone is able to show a clear example of how an increase in ice time led to a similar increase in points. Ie a player going from 15 minutes a game and 75 points to 20 minutes a game and 100 points. I'm thinking in 90% of cases, the player going from 15 minute a game and 75 points to 20 mins a game sees a few extra points, but nowhere near 25 extra points. ie - this is mostly useless. And this would *only* be relevant if we can bump the player's ice time up. If we leave him at 15mins a game - simply "knowing" he'd do more with 20mins is completely useless.

That's very small picture thinking.

Hockey is played by multiple players. If you can get more total points reducing one guy slightly and increasing one guy slightly, that's worth more than what one individual does. Plus there are things like fatigue to consider. Can't say it was the definitive cause (only one possible reason) but McDavid's numbers decrease massively in the playoffs. Could be fatigue or simply that others know "hey just focus on that guy all game cause no one else is going to do anything". Further though, your analysis completely ignores HOW a person is used with respect to increased minutes. If, for example they come from being on a 1 PP, it's reasonable to expect more points. P/60 isn't a linear relationship. You need to dig deeper.

OP certainly needs to dig a lot deeper than 5 games.

Also, a coach may play his players a certain way because it leads to more wins. Is it wiser to load all your talent on one line and play them 25 minutes per night or to spread them apart and give them more equal opportunity knowing it allows you to better exploit the other team's weakness? If you coach to produce individual stats, you'll probably lose a lot given how much of a game of inches the NHL is. I mean how stupid IS Pittsburgh to not just roll Malkin, Crosby and Kessel together 25 minutes a night? Probably the only way to win a Cup, right?
 
Last edited:

nbwingsfan

Registered User
Dec 13, 2009
20,842
14,549
I think its got a bit of value but its pretty hilarious watching people live or die by that stat on here sometimes. You could have a 55 point vs a 70 point player and people would still use points/60 and try to make an argument about who is better.

We were all told Matthew's is better than Malkin/McDavid because of p/60
 

Kale Hulls

Registered User
May 15, 2013
3,620
2,452
Hopefully we can make this thread as good as the Petterson one with abstract statistics that say more about geometry than they do about hockey.
 

Pierce Hawthorne

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2012
44,892
41,977
Caverns of Draconis
Everybody outside of a particular group of Leafs fans recognizes it's pretty useless by itself. But yea that group of Leafs fans was very vocal for a while on here about how that stat was pretty much the most important statistic to ever exist and we all know why they felt that way.


Like anything, it can be a useful tool when used the right way and when having a proper understanding of what it means but by itself it's next to useless
 

Raccoon Jesus

Todd McLellan is an inside agent
Oct 30, 2008
61,473
60,895
I.E.
One thing you need to remember. Points per 60 is not linear. The more you play, the harder the minutes are and you are more tired. Comparing a 15min third liner and 22min first liner using points/60 is basically useless

Thank you. Thank you so much. I don't understand why people don't get this. "Just play him more" is so frivolous, it has obvious diminishing returns. I mean, why not play McDavid 45 minutes a game?

It's interesting to look at and maybe it's useful to wonder if a guy is capable of moving up, but using it to evaluate players in different lines, teams, usage situations? Barf.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kahvi

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->