Points Per/60, what does it really mean?

[BlueBaron]

So was thinking about the gap between McDavid and Matthews and compared their points per/60 for their rookie seasons to see what the gap was. It was .52. (yes Oiler fans we know McDavid is better) but then I noticed some odd things.

Stamkos lead the NHL at 3.96 in a small sample size followed by Malkin then funnily enough Josh Leivo (again tiny sample) and then Crosby, Kucherov , McDavid and Backstrom.

When you look at the top names that have real sample sizes it is the usual scoring leaders but not in the order you would think. Backstrom and McDavid were practically tied. Interestingly Matthews and Laine were also almost a perfect tie.

Now obviously the more you are on the ice the more chance you have to be on the ice when a goal is scored but conversely there must be a usage point where fatigue comes into play and there are diminishing returns. So what does it all mean? If Malkin had lead the NHL in ice time would he have won the scoring title? Are some players under used/ over used when we look at the data?

How useful is this stat?

Click to read more...

 

[Mickey Marner]

Per 60 rates are a measure of efficiency, that require more context than they generally receive.

 

[The Nuge]

I hate it. Not everyone is linear in terms of more minutes=more points. For instance, someone who plays a really up tempo game might not be able to keep it up for more than 12 minutes a night, while a more cerebral player might player 20+.

Mark Letestu just had a career year in goals and points for us, and a huge playoffs (11 points in 13 games). The difference? He got too many minutes last year higher in the lineup.

 

[DJJones]

Seems like the money spot is 14-17 mins a game for forwards.

Anything more than that and your P/60 probably goes down.

 

[Jack Burton]

How does multi point games affect p/60?

Have a look a Johnny hockey's multi point games and argue with me that he's a point per game player

 

[Albus Dumbledore]

well also that fact that some players are used differently, aka defensive forwards. There ice time isnt spent trying to alway score sometimes its to protect a lead, shut down a player etc.

 

[Aceboogie]

People have no problem using points per game. It's same rationale

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

If you like small numbers you could use points per minute.

 

[jw2]

Like any other stat - it's only relevant if you understand the game and watch the guy(s) play.

 

[BlueBaron]

People have no problem using points per game. It's same rationale

It's similar but fatigue is not the same factor as in per game.

 

[JaegerDice]

Its just a more normalized version of PPG.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

How long is a shift? How many minutes did player x play per game.

Player x scored 1 pt per game ... Player y scored .5 pts per game

player x played twice as much as player y.. over lets say 50 games

pts per 60 are equal

pts per game y*2 = x x looks twice as good

 

[GMofOilers]

I hate points/60, I actually think it might be one of the worst made up stat there is.

 

[The Macho King]

I hate points/60, I actually think it might be one of the worst made up stat there is.

Depends on what it's used for. I think it's a fairly good indicator of showing those bottom 6 guys who may deserve more of an opportunity. A couple of years back Kucherov was like that - high P/60 but was only playing 13-14 minutes a night. Comparing between players though - I agree it's useless.

 

[Narow]

Its just a more accurate way to put efficiancy into numbers compared to points per game..

Issue is with usage and small sample sizes.

For example at 1000 minutes (16 hours 40 minutes) one point equals 0.06 p/60

While someone scoring 1 point in only 10 minutes of play equals 6 p/60


So it can skew it a bit.

If similar sample size and similar usage its an excellent tool

 

[Pick87your71Poison]

Yeah it has some value if used correctly as it can be tricky to compare guys that are very similar but one playing 17 minutes and one playing 14 minutes. However, if you have 2 guys with similar point production and each play about 15 minutes in the same situations during the game, but then one is used late in the defensive zone to protects leads due to faceoff strength, etc and ends up with 18 minutes, the latter player will have a worse P/60 than the first, even though he is essentially the same player with the same production, but stronger defensively. Obviously that should make him a better overall player, not worse as P/60 will tell you, so it's important to take it within the right context.

 

[Narow]

Yeah it has some value if used correctly as it can be tricky to compare guys that are very similar but one playing 17 minutes and one playing 14 minutes. However, if you have 2 guys with similar point production and each play about 15 minutes in the same situations during the game, but then one is used late in the defensive zone to protects leads due to faceoff strength, etc and ends up with 18 minutes, the latter player will have a worse P/60 than the first, even though he is essentially the same player with the same production, but stronger defensively. Obviously that should make him a better overall player, not worse as P/60 will tell you, so it's important to take it within the right context.

They should have p/60 that is zone based.

Especially offensive zone. Would give a clearer picture.

Dzone/neutral could give nice info too

 

[NickyFotiu]

Like any other stat - it's only relevant if you understand the game and watch the guy(s) play.

Well said. Most stats can be useful in context but can also be deceiving without context in other situations. One players 5th minute is not equal to another players 30th minute in a game. There are diminishing returns because guys get tired. A guy playing a 90 second shift is not equal to a guy playing a 20 second shift. Bottom line is not all minutes are equal.

 

[bossram]

I hate points/60, I actually think it might be one of the worst made up stat there is.

It's like any stat. Needs context.

And FYI, all stats are "made up". They're made up so we can measure things. Might as well hate assists, because they were "made up" to track who else contributes to goals.

All stats have flaws. You use other stats in conjunction. But P/60 is vastly superior to points per game.

 

[Machinehead]

It's a way to potentially identify scorers that could handle more minutes versus others that should play less.

For the most part, per 60 numbers aren't all that surprising relative to raw numbers.

 

[qwerty]

If you use this stat from an even strength point of view, I think it's a very useful stat in that it shows how efficient and effective a player is per shift or with the time he's given per game. There's obvious factors like linemates, zone starts, team's style of play and etc. But overall, I think it's a very underrated and underutilized stat amongst the league and a player's own team.

 

[TopShelfYzerman]

-Pts/60 can be misleading without context however no more misleading than PPG.

-In fact, it depicts a more accurate picture of a players overall effectiveness than PPG since it factors in actual game time, not just that one game is equal to one game. (10 mins does not equal 22 mins)

-For those that hate pt/60 then I cant see how you could stand using PPG.

-PPG needs context. Time on Ice is the biggest factor involved and Pt/60 is exactly that, it essentially is a more accurate depiction of player effectiveness.



Ive come up with a newer more sophisticated equation:

Pts/Hours played in decimal form x (defensive zone starts/offensive zone starts)(come up with number to increase or decrease the weight of this OZS starts/DZS for example .75 or 1.25)


then well call the stat 'contextual Pt/60'

haha, only half joking.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

I dislike stats that are not stats that I grew up knowing!

 

[Maukkis]

It is an absolutely woeful method of comparing defensemen, I can tell you that much. The point at which more TOI starts working against you with regards to this stat is surprisingly low, and as the best players take on the toughest assignments and play on the PK, their numbers suffer. A sheltered rookie logging 16 minutes each game can seem to be miles ahead of a defenseman who can play north of 23 minutes a night and still produce reasonably well. However, that assumption would be very questionable.

If you want to use this stat as a means of comparision, ES points per 60 should be used instead, and do not ever compare players with a massive gap in TOI between them. Also, context.

 

[Aceboogie]

I dislike stats that are not stats that I grew up knowing!

Amen haha