Points vs ppg vs points per 60 mins toi

[Yackiberg8]

Points, there's not "what if"

what if "X" player ends up being injury prone his entire career, game lost due to injury has to be factored

Are you implying that if a player plays a full season they won't be injured for the rest of their career or what is your point?

Let's use Connor McDavid as an example. Him and Max Domi are both rookies. McDavid has 48 PTS in 45 GP, Domi has 52 PTS in 81 GP.

You should not draw the conclusion that Domi was the better player that season and you should not think Domi will be better in their careers because he played a full season and had more points.

Luckily you can use PTS/GP and save yourself some embarrassment.

 

[Yackiberg8]

I'll ignore your unnecessary insults and give you a more detailed explanation.

Having one player score 60 points in 82 games, means he's playing and contributing the whole season. Points aren't the only thing that matters in hockey.

He could be a hitting machine, he could be great on the PP and/or PK, he could be amazing at cycling the puck and applying sustained pressure in the o-zone, he could be a faceoff wizard (if he's a C), he could be great defensively, he could be a forechecking/backchecking machine, a breakaway machine, etc, etc. Unless he's a pure offensive player and a complete defensive liability, he will be greatly contributing every time he's on the ice, regardless if he's scoring points, and his play will contribute to the team winning games.

In your scenario, you have an extremely talented guy that's always injured, so every time he's missing games you have to shuffle a top 9 tweener/ third line guy/ 4th line grinder in your top 6 or top line, depending on where this 2 ppg player is playing. Then you'd be relying on an AHL-er to replace that tweener on your 3rd/4th line. Suddenly, instead of relying on an amazingly consistent forward, you have to juggle 3 different players, and constaly shuffle your lines, so line/team chemistry becomes an issue. Without even going into cap hit complications since I doubt you'd be paying the injury prone 2ppg player pennies on the dollar; you'd constantly have to be calling-up and relying on random responsible AHL-ers and pray they actually contribute something and able to hold their own; and your issues will be further exposed in the playoffs, where teams either roll 4 deep lines, or they double-shift their top lines. So, now the question becomes, how comfortable are you with the plug in your top 6 and the AHL-er in your 4th line?

If you want to look at it for just the season the player was injured then sure, you could say you want someone else.

However if you are looking to judge offensive talent/better player then moving forward you would want the Sidney Crosby (37 PTS in 82 GP) over Matt Cooke (38 PTS in 82 GP) and Connor McDavid (48 PTS in 45 GP) over Max Domi (52 PTS in 81 GP).

 

[keglu]

That opinion is not really supported by anything.

Obviously it's subjective but i think Stamkos and Huberdau not being Top 10 players in NHL is very popular opinion.

 

[daver]

It is though, no matter how much you choose to deny it. Kucherov through age 24-26 was closer to McDavid through age 20-24 in point production ability, than raw production would lead one to believe.

You are the one denying the actual difference in their raw production with a stat that is meaningless without context, and frankly is meaningless among the elite offensive forwards whose primary job is to create offense, FULL STOP.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Obviously it's subjective but i think Stamkos and Huberdau not being Top 10 players in NHL is very popular opinion.

1. "Top 10 players" are not determined exclusively by looking at short-term point production anyway, regardless of form.
2. "Popular opinion" is extremely raw-point centric, so really, that's quite meaningless. Your argument essentially boils down to dismissing a stat other than P/GP, because it's not P/GP, and things don't match 100% perfectly to the biased opinions you have engrained from your overreliance on that stat.
3. Huberdeau is 9th in raw points and Huberdeau and Stamkos are 13th and 19th respectively in P/GP over that time, in a range of the leaderboard that is fairly tightly packed, so them being 9th and 10th in another production stat isn't really the outrageous result you're representing it as.
4. As I already mentioned, all-situations P/60 does not account for discrepancies in distributions of game states, which is why in actual comparisons, it's important to separate the production within each game state. I'm not going to do the calculations for every single player in the league, just to create a meaningless list for you to draw incorrect conclusions from, which is why I showed all-situations P/60 (as it was at least better than the exclusion of game states you tried to do), but Stamkos and Huberdeau are two players that are overrepresented in the all-situations per-60 leaderboard, as their ice time distribution is skewed more heavily to the PP. Utilizing per-60 in the ideal way, both would very likely fall outside of the top-10 anyway.

 

[authentic]

No, it really isn't. You have a different team situations and team needs.

You didn't respond to the point where McDavid's P/60 is higher when he plays less minutes. Of course his P/60 would be affected if he is being double-shifted in the 3rd period when his team is behind. It is not fair to treat those extra minutes as being the same as the first 20 minutes.

There is zero reason to believe their raw points or PPGs change if they were in different team situations or with different TOI.

First you discount P/60 metrics because of different team situations and team needs, which holds true for points and points per game. Then you end with saying there's zero reason to believe their production changes if they were in different team situations... ?

 

[Dekes For Days]

You are the one denying the actual difference in their raw production with a stat that is meaningless without context, and frankly is meaningless among the elite offensive forwards whose primary job is to create offense, FULL STOP.

I am not denying the difference in their raw production over those respective samples (which is really not as big in the first place, as you're making it seem). It exists, and I even said that McDavid would lead regardless of form of production used. The question however is why the gap in raw production exists to that extent - offensive ability or opportunity. You are attempting to attribute it entirely to offensive ability, and that is factually incorrect. Much of it was opportunity.

All statistics require context, but no, per-60 metrics are not at all meaningless among the elite offensive forwards. It's very much relevant and important to consider, as you've been shown.

 

[daver]

First you discount P/60 metrics because of different team situations and team needs, which holds true for points and points per game. Then you end with saying there's zero reason to believe their production changes if they were in different team situations... ?

I discount p/60 metrics for the elite offensive forwards, Full Stop.

 

[keglu]

1. "Top 10 players" are not determined exclusively by looking at short-term point production anyway, regardless of form.
2. "Popular opinion" is extremely raw-point centric, so really, that's quite meaningless. Your argument essentially boils down to dismissing a stat other than P/GP, because it's not P/GP, and things don't match 100% perfectly to the biased opinions you have engrained from your overreliance on that stat.
3. Huberdeau is 9th in raw points and Huberdeau and Stamkos are 13th and 19th respectively in P/GP over that time, in a range of the leaderboard that is fairly tightly packed, so them being 9th and 10th in another production stat isn't really the outrageous result you're representing it as.
4. As I already mentioned, all-situations P/60 does not account for discrepancies in distributions of game states, which is why in actual comparisons, it's important to separate the production within each game state. I'm not going to do the calculations for every single player in the league, just to create a meaningless list for you to draw incorrect conclusions from, which is why I showed all-situations P/60 (as it was at least better than the exclusion of game states you tried to do), but Stamkos and Huberdeau are two players that are overrepresented in the all-situations per-60 leaderboard, as their ice time distribution is skewed more heavily to the PP. Utilizing per-60 in the ideal way, both would very likely fall outside of the top-10 anyway.

I dont dismiss anything i stated my opinion that PPG>raw production-> /60 stats to evaluate players answering OP question.
I dont consider them being TOP 10 outragous, i even said that list looks quite good, but still worse than list based on PPG.
Seems like quite difficult method.

 

[daver]

I am not denying the difference in their raw production over those respective samples (which is really not as big in the first place, as you're making it seem). It exists, and I even said that McDavid would lead regardless of form of production used. The question however is why the gap in raw production exists to that extent - offensive ability or opportunity. You are attempting to attribute it entirely to offensive ability, and that is factually incorrect. Much of it was opportunity.

All statistics require context, but no, per-60 metrics are not at all meaningless among the elite offensive forwards. It's very much relevant and important to consider, as you've been shown.

So Matthews is 9th in p/60 this season NHL Stats

He was 3rd in a previous season.

Which version of Matthews was better?

 

[Dekes For Days]

So Matthews is 8th in p/60 this season after being higher up in other seasons.

That is not true. This is Matthews' best season, according to per-60 metrics.

 

[Dekes For Days]

still worse than list based on PPG.

Again, that claim is based on absolutely nothing, except your own personal biases.

Seems like quite difficult method.

Not really if you understand it, but also, more complexity and information isn't a bad thing. The easiest method usually isn't the best method.

 

[daver]

That is not true. This is Matthews' best season, according to per-60 metrics.

The stat from the NHL is not true?

Or are you going to play the RAW numbers game because it fits your narrative?

 

[Dekes For Days]

The stat from the NHL is not true?

What you referenced was a singular game state, so not what we were talking about, and on top of that, Matthews is actually having his best season in that particular game state, according to per-60.

 

[shaner82]

PPG can sometimes show a players true value. A guy like Lemieux for example. His career was cut drastically short. Even though he had a ton of points, there's lots who have more. If we look at his PPG numbers, however, that's when he separates himself from the pack, and rightfully so. We all know if he was able to play more games, then his actual points would be significantly higher, probably 2nd only to Gretzky.

With a large sample size, PPG shows what a player could have done, but unfortunately didn't get to due to injuries, or perhaps choosing to retire young.

With a small sample size, PPG is useless, same with P/60.

 

[Golden_Jet]

That is not true. This is Matthews' best season, according to per-60 metrics.

Looks like it is true at 5 on 5 for this season.
No, it isn’t a 1 game stat.
NHL Stats
It’s still a good stat being 9th.

 

[Dr Salt]

I think this requires proper context to matter. I think P/60 probably does a better job than PPG with the obvious exception of small samples which skews both but the former even heavier. Points + P/60 is how I like to look at it personally but PPG has its use in context. What matters is proper context is used for all three.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Looks like it is true at 5 on 5 for this season.

It's not. Matthews is currently at the best 5v5 P/60 of his career, and is also hitting that mark in a more sustainable way than his next best season in that stat.

 

[Golden_Jet]

It's not. Matthews is currently at the best 5v5 P/60 of his career, and is also hitting that mark in a more sustainable way than his next best season in that stat.

so the link I posted after you disagreed with another poster, saying he was 9th this year in P/60, 5 on 5 is wrong.
I guess take it up with the NHL.
If your trying to say the NHL is wrong, then show us.

 

[c3z4r]

If you want to look at it for just the season the player was injured then sure, you could say you want someone else.

However if you are looking to judge offensive talent/better player then moving forward you would want the Sidney Crosby (37 PTS in 82 GP) over Matt Cooke (38 PTS in 82 GP) and Connor McDavid (48 PTS in 45 GP) over Max Domi (52 PTS in 81 GP).

How about Lupul with 46 points in 56 games versus Gallagher with 47 in 82 or Taylor Hall with 37 points in 33 games vs Sean Couturier with 37 points in 82 games?

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

If you want to look at it for just the season the player was injured then sure, you could say you want someone else.

However if you are looking to judge offensive talent/better player then moving forward you would want the Sidney Crosby (37 PTS in 82 GP) over Matt Cooke (38 PTS in 82 GP) and Connor McDavid (48 PTS in 45 GP) over Max Domi (52 PTS in 81 GP).

I think the problem with this approach is it's assuming one just chooses *one* of the options without then evaluating further after making that choice to see if there are extenuating circumstances that lead to those total points not accurately detailing who is "better".

For instance, I'll give myself as an example. Of the three stats listed in the OP I'd favor total points. However, my evaluation doesn't just stop there. It's more of a step by step process, whereby the first "step" would be me comparing two players by first comparing them by point totals. But after that, I'd look at the "why". Is there a reason one player has less points than the other (ie. injured half the year, anomalous down year with zero puck luck, etc.)?

So in your above example, even though I favor total points, before I'd settle on a final answer for who is better, I'd see that the reason Cooke has more points than Crosby is because Crosby missed most of the season. I'd see that the reason Domi outscored McDavid is because McDavid missed significant time with injury.

The situations in which I'd favor total production is when the two players being compared are in similar situations (ie. their games played are similar, their usage by their team is similar, etc.). But that doesn't mean I'd apply that to situations where there are other factors for why raw points are different.

 

[Dekes For Days]

so the link I posted after you disagreed with another poster, saying he was 9th this year in P/60, 5 on 5 is wrong.

The link isn't wrong. You're just focusing exclusively on rank and ignoring the actual data and all underlying context for some reason.

 

[Golden_Jet]

The link isn't wrong. You're just focusing exclusively on rank and ignoring the actual data and all underlying context for some reason.

Thanks, I was just showing what other poster claimed.
If you want to change context of the original post, fine,
But you should say, yes that’s right but what about these points.
Instead of just replying your wrong when poster wasn’t (based on what poster said)

 

[authentic]

Thanks, I was just showing what other poster claimed.
If you want to change context of the original post, fine,
But you should say, yes that’s right but what about these points.
Instead of just replying your wrong when poster wasn’t (based on what poster said)

To be fair he's been right far more often and shown more than everyone else in this thread arguing against him claiming they're right lol

 

[Golden_Jet]

To be fair he's been right far more often and shown more than everyone else in this thread arguing against him claiming they're right lol

And that’s fair, I’m just pointing out poster shouldn’t say people are wrong all the time, when said poster is trying to make a different point or angle, albeit on same subject.