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

Kahvi

Registered User
Sponsor
Jun 4, 2007
4,900
3,540
Alberga
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.

It would be really interesting to find the optimal minutes per game for a first line forward. That would require statiscal analysis I cant even think, because there are so many variables you'd need to account for.

But I think, without any stats to back it up, that the scoring and ice time in general follows an S-curve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raccoon Jesus

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
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?

McDavid's Pts/60 for games under 20-21 minutes TOI is significantly higher than for games with more TOI.

It doesn't make sense to assume that Player X produces more if you gave them McDavid's icetime.
 

Soliloquy of a Dogge

I love you, Boots
Aug 8, 2012
40,873
5,512
San Diego, CA
We were all told Matthew's is better than Malkin/McDavid because of p/60
Only one fanbase has lived and died on the importance of P/60 and P1/60 in a desperate attempt to prop a player who has never come close to matching some of his peers.

I've yet to see the majority of them acknowledge a few simple truths. 1) Matthews doesn't have the stamina or ability to play the minutes a player like McDavid is capable of producing. 2) Production doesn't scale linearly with increased ice time. 3) Matthews produces less the more he plays, as borne out by his production tailing off considerably last season when he was over 20+ mins.
 

VoluntaryDom

Formerly DominicBoltsFan / Ⓐ / ✞
Oct 31, 2016
23,285
5,532
Tampa FL
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.
It does have clear diminishing returns but only really when you hit the insane levels of ice time of a guy like McDavid or Barkov. For most players it’s generally close to linear.
 

authentic

Registered User
Jan 28, 2015
25,405
10,421
Only one fanbase has lived and died on the importance of P/60 and P1/60 in a desperate attempt to prop a player who has never come close to matching some of his peers.

I've yet to see the majority of them acknowledge a few simple truths. 1) Matthews doesn't have the stamina or ability to play the minutes a player like McDavid is capable of producing. 2) Production doesn't scale linearly with increased ice time. 3) Matthews produces less the more he plays, as borne out by his production tailing off considerably last season when he was over 20+ mins.

Wait how many people are still really claiming Matthews is the better offensive player though? I haven't seen one in this thread or anyone claiming that lately.
 

IPS

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
15,461
24,487
Didn't take long for this to become an all-purpose Matthews discussion thread.

It's just more fun to bash Leafs players than to take time and understand how Babcock distributes ice-time.
 

WetcoastOrca

Registered User
Jun 3, 2011
38,142
21,936
Vancouver, BC
It’s a cherry picked stat used to pump up certain players. Like many single stats it’s been very badly misused over the past couple of years on here. Mainly by one fan base. The same fanbase that has now jumped on board the primary assist train.
 

pabst blue ribbon

🇺🇦🤝🇵🇱
Oct 26, 2015
3,240
1,965
PG
McDavid has the best P/60 out of any player since he entered the NHL with heavy usage. Don't know what the point of this thread is
 

FalcorMulch

Registered User
Aug 29, 2018
718
447
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.

Ice time is a zero sum game though. It’s not like if a guy gets 18 minutes you just spend 5 minutes doing nothing. Another player will be on the ice and scoring. If the reason his ice time is limited is because you have other elite players then I’ll take the 18 minute 90 point guy every time. Overall the team is better off.

Obviously it’s not a perfect comparison. A sheltered 4th liner playing 8 minutes may have high per 60 stats and you wouldn’t expect him to do the same playing 20 minutes on the first line. But if we’re talking about comparing two first liners playing similar levels of competition and the difference is between 18 and 23 minutes the IMO per 60 stats are completely valid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duke749

PromisedLand

I need more FOOD
Dec 3, 2016
41,856
52,054
Hogwarts
pts/60 without context is absolutely useless for sure.

Without context of : QoC, QoT, zone-starts, on-ice SH%, on-ice SV%, zone time (doesn't exist, but one should start this statistic as well)

pts/60 doesn't mean much IMO.

reason: what if one is scoring high rates in pts/60 but also giving up goals or playing mostly in their defensive zone and then they change and the opposition scores because goalie/d-men in the d-zone is tired playing defense for like 2mins....

pts/60 needs more context - on it's own it is a useless statistic like CF%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WetcoastOrca

biotk

Registered User
Jan 3, 2017
7,091
5,520
Buffalo
McDavid's Pts/60 for games under 20-21 minutes TOI is significantly higher than for games with more TOI.

It doesn't make sense to assume that Player X produces more if you gave them McDavid's icetime.


This is not true.

This season McDavid's points per 60 in games he has played under 20 minutes is 3.22.

In games he has played under 21 minutes it is 3.64.

In games he has played 21+ minutes it is 3.80.

These are simple facts.

It will likely change a bit under his new coach who will probably cut back his minutes in games where the Oilers are ahead and increase his minutes in games where the Oilers are behind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadLuke

Oryxo

Registered User
Oct 24, 2007
95
229
If only there wasn't an intent to the mention, right? When people punch, they should expect to get punched back.

And that's why those "haters" will keep baiting you guys. Because you give them exactly what they want.
 

Panthaz89

Buffalo Sabres, Carolina Panthers fan
Dec 24, 2016
13,191
5,711
Buffalo,NY
Ice time is a zero sum game though. It’s not like if a guy gets 18 minutes you just spend 5 minutes doing nothing. Another player will be on the ice and scoring. If the reason his ice time is limited is because you have other elite players then I’ll take the 18 minute 90 point guy every time. Overall the team is better off.

Obviously it’s not a perfect comparison. A sheltered 4th liner playing 8 minutes may have high per 60 stats and you wouldn’t expect him to do the same playing 20 minutes on the first line. But if we’re talking about comparing two first liners playing similar levels of competition and the difference is between 18 and 23 minutes the IMO per 60 stats are completely valid.
players don't score all the time with the extra 5 minutes often...and most of them feel fatigue which actually makes their play drop off especially late in the game as its better to have well rested players play. Some players can handle the minutes well while others do not and they do not simply "do nothing" when on the ice for 5 minutes hockey is a game where you play defense and offense so you are at least defending or keeping on pressure offensive to stop the other team from generating offense. Pretty much any difference after 18ish minutes(for forwards) is garbage because at that point most players aren't going at 100%.
 

Deficient Mode

Registered User
Mar 25, 2011
60,348
2,397
I'm not convinced McDavid is even a good example for per 60 truthers. His 5 on 5 on-ice shooting percentage has dropped dramatically from 9.91% last year to 8.11% (22%) so far this year, with an almost equal drop in per minute production from 3.2 p/60 to 2.62 p/60 (22%). Is his drop in shot conversion also a result of fatigue, or is it just a common variation in shooting luck? Far more likely it's the latter.
 

Maukkis

EZ4ENCE
Mar 16, 2016
10,538
7,218
Any stat sucks if it is used without context and other knowledge.

Just an example from my team: there are two forwards with an exact same amount of 5v5 points per 60. One of them is at 25 points, while the other has 9. Does the stat suck? Obviously not.

It just suggests that maybe, just maybe, the 9-point guy could do more than he currently does with 4th line usage and linemates.

If, however, you feel like ignoring /60 stats, which essentially add context to point totals, you might miss out on a good player that is surpassed by guys who play significantly more or get better linemates/PP time.

The story of Mathieu Perreault, really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Machinehead

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
This is not true.

This season McDavid's points per 60 in games he has played under 20 minutes is 3.22.

In games he has played under 21 minutes it is 3.64.

In games he has played 21+ minutes it is 3.80.

These are simple facts.

It will likely change a bit under his new coach who will probably cut back his minutes in games where the Oilers are ahead and increase his minutes in games where the Oilers are behind.

Meant his PPG. He has a higher PPG in games with lower TOI.
 

newfy

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
14,718
8,241
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.


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.

In most cases, probably not. An increase in icetime doesnt mean a for sure increase in production. 15 points is a pretty big number and actually production does matter. In that case I think you could maybe argue theyre closer than they appear but theres plenty of people on this website that would argue the 50 point guy is better because of his per 60 stats which is bs. P/60 doesnt make up for a tangible difference in production at the end of the day
 

biotk

Registered User
Jan 3, 2017
7,091
5,520
Buffalo
Meant his PPG. He has a higher PPG in games with lower TOI.


Well that is obviously equally untrue.

McDavid has 4 points in 4 games where he has played under 20 minutes. 7 points in 6 games where he has played under 21 minutes and 33 points in 22 games where he has played more than 21 minutes.
 

Luigi Lemieux

Registered User
Sep 26, 2003
21,437
9,057
McDavid has the best P/60 out of any player since he entered the NHL with heavy usage. Don't know what the point of this thread is
Is that true? I remember reading Malkin has lead the league in p/60 4 of the last 6 seasons including last year.

But total points and points/game are the more important metrics imo anyway.
 

North Cole

♧ Lem
Jan 22, 2017
11,351
12,585
McDavid's Pts/60 for games under 20-21 minutes TOI is significantly higher than for games with more TOI.

It doesn't make sense to assume that Player X produces more if you gave them McDavid's icetime.

But that's because in those games hes likely already scored twice and is played less because we have a lead. Like all offensive superstars he plays more when we chase the scoresheet...

The toi being less is a result of him scoring more and eselier. It's not the points being higher because of less toi.

Edit - never mind, saw your other comment where you said you meant ppg. I think this still applies
 

PromisedLand

I need more FOOD
Dec 3, 2016
41,856
52,054
Hogwarts
McDavid's last five games:

Connor McDavid Stats and News

Has a high TOI in close games and OT where he, and/or the Oilers have not scored a lot to put the game away early.

Last game sees a big lead, with McDavid leading the way and consequently McDavid's icetime gets shortened.

have some free time so lets do some statistics:

Since Hitch was hired below are the stats for McDavid:

GameTOICF%FF%SF%GF%SCF%HDCF%HDGF%On-Ice SH%On-Ice SV%Goals/601A/60P/60
2018-12-07 MIN at EDM2050.9847.546.4310056.5257.1410030.7710036.0112.01
2018-12-05 EDM at STL1652.7851.8545050250090.91000
2018-12-01 VGK at EDM1639.5343.7547.625029.1736.36501090.913.7803.78
2018-11-29 L.A at EDM2163.8365.7156.52-7062.5-0100000
2018-11-27 DAL at EDM1958.625657.89-5028.57-0100000
2018-11-25 EDM at L.A2060.9860.7155.56052.6357.140087.5000
2018-11-23 EDM at ANA1965.7961.5466.67-57.1450-0100000
2018-11-20 EDM at S.J226060.715566.6766.6755.5610018.1888.892.762.765.53
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

McDavid's (average) stats since Hitch was hired:
  • 2.6 p/60
  • 0.94 on-ice SV% and 7% on-ice SH%
  • GF%: 43 and HDGF%: 50%
  • CF%: 56 and HDCF%: 46%
  • SCF%: 54 and SF%: 54
Compare this to when TM was coaching (just looking at games from 6th Oct to 18 of Nov)
  • 2.6 p/60
  • 0.92 on-ice SV% and 8 on-ice SH%
  • GF%: 60% and HDGF%: 66%
  • CF%: 53% and HDCF%: 58%
  • SCF%: 53% and SF%: 54
GameTOICF%FF%SF%GF%SCF%HDCF%HDGF%On-Ice SH%On-Ice SV%Goals/601A/60P/60
2018-11-18 VGK at EDM175053.5752.385052.385033.3318.18803.4903.49
2018-11-17 EDM at CGY1742.8641.6741.18-53.3383.33-0100000
2018-11-13 MTL at EDM1661.116058.337560.8758.335021.4390010.9510.95
2018-11-11 COL at EDM1755.5652.3844.44036.3633.330090000
2018-11-08 EDM at FLA1862.561.963.165057.1462.5508.3385.7103.363.36
2018-11-06 EDM at T.B1351.726057.89057.89200075000
2018-11-05 EDM at WSH1763.896063.165055.56501008.3385.71000
2018-11-03 EDM at DET1672.7368.757010086.677510014.2910003.773.77
2018-11-01 CHI at EDM1442.8646.6742.861004053.8510011.11100004.26
2018-10-30 MIN at EDM1366.677572.7310066.6769.2310012.51004.4504.45
2018-10-28 EDM at CHI1834.2133.3331.82-36.8466.67-0100000
2018-10-27 EDM at NSH1061.5466.67655057.1483.331007.6985.715.8205.82
2018-10-25 WSH at EDM1545.715052.94046.1580-087.5000
2018-10-23 PIT at EDM1844.7457.1469.57-37.550-0100000
2018-10-20 NSH at EDM155054.5547.06064.2933.33-088.89000
2018-10-18 BOS at EDM2151.1655.1747.06-57.1455.56-0100000
2018-10-16 EDM at WPG1959.3859.265510057.1460-18.1810003.26.39
2018-10-13 EDM at NYR175048.15505053.331001001090003.51
2018-10-11 EDM at BOS1746.6741.67501005066.67-12.51003.5503.55
2018-10-06 EDM at N.J195046.1541.1810044.4420-14.29100003.24
[TBODY] [/TBODY]


Looks like McDavid's scoring rates have decreased under Hitch but his on-ice SV% has gone up by 2 full percentage points; i.e. they are not allowing as much goals as before.

However, team on the other hand seems to have improved:

TM (from start of the season to Nov. 18th)
NHL.com - Stats

  • Sv% .924
  • CF%: 54
  • PP%: 19%
  • PK%: 74
  • GP: 18; W: 9; L:8; OT: 1

Hitch (from when he was hired till now)
NHL.com - Stats

NHL.com - Stats

  • Sv% .936
  • CF%: 52
  • PP%: 17%
  • PK%: 83%
  • GP: 9; W: 6; L:2; OT: N/A

It seems that although McDavid's scoring rates have gone down; Team as a whole has improved

  • Win% > 50
  • PP% went down 2 percentage points
  • PK% went up 9 percentage points
  • CF% down 2 percentage points
  • Even strength SV% has gone up 12 percentage points (biggest improvement)
So if I was an oilers fan I would not bitch and moan about McDavid's scoring rates being down as "The Team" has been improved significantly (yea i know small sample size; but we work with what is available).
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->