Points vs ppg vs points per 60 mins toi

[Sidney the Kidney]

That's actually a terrible example. It's comparing apples to oranges. Most people referencing P60 are comparing apples to apples and suggesting similar usage will produce similar raw results. Then people are amazed when it happens.

It's comparing the accuracy or reliability of P/60 versus raw points in determining who the better offensive player is. The only reason you say it's comparing apples to oranges is because it highlights the flaw in P/60 in that it doesn't indicate or illustrate the difference between a player like Robertson or Spezza who have been efficient in their limited minutes and a player like Matthews who just happens to be an elite producer.

Show me a list of the top 10 in P/60 and show me a list of the top 10 in raw points and I'll bet you any money which list will look more accurate in terms of which players should predictably end up in any sort of top ten list for "best offensive players".

 

[Dekes For Days]

It's comparing the accuracy or reliability of P/60 versus raw points in determining who the better offensive player is. The only reason you say it's comparing apples to oranges is because it highlights the flaw in P/60 in that it doesn't indicate or illustrate the difference between a player like Robertson or Spezza who have been efficient in their limited minutes and a player like Matthews who just happens to be an elite producer.

Except it's not that at all. You haven't evaluated the "accuracy" or "reliability" of per-60 metrics. You've simply cherry-picked a small sample outlier in a singular production metric in a singular game state, while ignoring all other game states and context, to misrepresent what a statistic that you don't like says, in relation to a much broader question that requires a lot more evaluation than what you've provided. While simultaneously ignoring that you see the exact same issues when misusing raw points or P/GP in the same ways. For example, as I showed above:

Jason Robertson (your chosen player) has a higher 5v5 (your chosen game state, used in isolation, like you did) P/GP (your chosen stat form) than...

Malkin
Pastrnak
Kane
Ovechkin
Barkov
Barzal
Huberdeau
Pettersson
Tavares
Couturier
Point
Aho
Zibanejad
Scheifele
...Etc...

To be consistent with what you said above, if we were to "use P/GP to determine who was the best offensive player" of all of these, would we conclude that Robertson was the best? Is that conclusion true, or, using the same logic, is P/GP also bad according to you?

We also had somebody on the previous page give examples where raw points gave the wrong conclusion without additional information. You replied to this post, and identified that that was okay - more information and context was simply needed, seen here:

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.)?

And you were right; more information and context was needed. But that then begs the question, how do you justify being so quick to explain away issues in the stats you like with additional context and evaluation, but then turn around and in your attempt to dismiss and discredit an entire branch of statistics, cherry-pick examples where you intentionally remove and exclude the same critical information you say is necessary for a proper evaluation?

Show me a list of the top 10 in P/60 and show me a list of the top 10 in raw points and I'll bet you any money which list will look more accurate in terms of which players should predictably end up in any sort of top ten list for "best offensive players".

Well, part of the problem is that your determination for what's "accurate" is incredibly biased and skewed towards raw points and P/GP. That's how you (and many people) have determined all of your/their perceptions. That doesn't make it more "accurate".

That said, I bet that if you somehow weren't able to look up on NHL.com or whatever, I could give you three lists of 10 names, representing raw points, P/GP, and P/60 leaderboards over a certain period of time, based on the proper use of these statistics, and you would have a hard time differentiating which list was which. There tend to be wild exaggerations about how different a list that considers per-60 metrics is. It just helps provide a more accurate picture of offensive ability, as it helps account for some of the opportunity discrepancies that the other versions don't.

 

[McFlyingV]

Points and PPG. The more games a player misses however, the less value PPG offers as you can never be sure if they 1) would have maintained the pace over 82, 2) they don't go through the same grind players with 82 GP face, 3) being able to stay healthy has value, and some players do it better than others despite luck sometimes being a factor.

 

[daver]

Because that would ruin your whole Crosby is best narrative..

Thank you for calling me out on having such a controversial opinion about where Crosby should be rated. It's not like he doesn't have a Top 5 resume all-time in award and award nominations (Hart/Lindsay/Conn Smythe).

 

[End of Line]

Good way to look at the Points vs PPG debate. Let’s look at Ovechkin, Crosby, and Malkin.

OV:
1,320p / 1,195gp = 1.10 ppg

Crosby:
1,319p / 1,035gp = 1.27 ppg

Malkin:
1,100p / 936gp = 1.17 ppg

Edit:
Putting McDavid into the equation:
556p / 400gp = 1.39 ppg

 

[Machinehead]

The reality is, unless you're a bonafide first unit, 90-seconds-a-pop powerplay guy, there's a ceiling on how many points you can realistically get. That's just how the sport works.

Points/60 accounts for that.

 

[HotPie]

Anyone not taking PPG into consideration when talking about point totals is lacking in objectivity.

Anyone using p/60 to move a forward up to the offensive level of an elite forward with superior points/PPG is fooling themselves.

Sure, PPG is useful for context, but it matters less than total points. It's useful when comparing players, but ultimately real points > hypothetical points.

P/60 is even less useful, and almost always a stat used to justify why an inferior player is somehow better than a superior player, definitely agree with you there.

Obviously the ideal situation is when a player has more points and a high/highest PPG.

 

[MadLuke]

Sure, PPG is useful for context, but it matters less than total points. It's useful when comparing players, but ultimately real points > hypothetical points.

There something about concentration of points still, even if it is not extremely important a la Basketball.

I would take Lemieux over Ron Francis even if I get 75 less real points, the players that play those minutes instead of the injured missed player did score points.

A forward that would play 22:30 minutes a game including most of the power play and 82 games and end up scoring only 40 points, maybe removed offense above easy replacement, a 40 points player that did it with no power play time and 14:00 minute a game on the third line was a nice asset, that added offense.

 

[HotPie]

There something about concentration of points still, even if it is not extremely important a la Basketball.

I would take Lemieux over Ron Francis even if I get 75 less real points, the players that play those minutes instead of the injured missed player did score points.

A forward that would play 22:30 minutes a game including most of the power play and 82 games and end up scoring only 40 points, maybe removed offense above easy replacement, a 40 points player that did it with no power play time and 14:00 minute a game on the third line was a nice asset, that added offense.

I mean it's true, in a situation like Lemieux vs. Francis, you obviously pick Lemieux. But it's the reason why Gretzky > Lemieux...Lemieux often gets credit for points he could have theoretically scored in those debates which I've always found absurd.

It's the same reason why I think Howe > Lemieux as well. A healthy Lemieux > Howe, but he shouldn't get credit for being unhealthy, that's an argument against him.

Obviously though if the PPG difference is massive over a substantial amount of games, it's something that needs to be considered.

I do think the importance of points vs PPG is hard to measure in terms of what matters more because they both matter, but I personally have to give the edge to points.

 

[Golden_Jet]

As I say in my response, he is telling us that utilizing a similar rate statistic (P/60) that provides more accurate and detailed information, is merely people "fooling themselves". Check.

Except you deleted the part where poster said , you cannot use P/60 to extrapolate a forward is now an elite forward. Those posters are fooling themselves, poster says.
The main problem is you are never wrong and everybody else is, so you disparage their remarks.

 

[InfinityIggy]

I like the idea of a PP/60, however, even that requires a caveat...

Player A and Player B could have identical PP/60, however, Player A might be getting 5 minutes of power play time per game without having to kill penalties, whereas Player B is playing shorthanded for 5 minutes per game without any power play time

In addition to this, zone starts are going to heavily impact a number like PP/60. If a guy scores pretty regularly but also has a lot of defensive zone starts through a game that’s going to heavily drag on his PP/60.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Except you deleted the part where poster said , you cannot use P/60 to extrapolate a forward is now an elite forward.

I didn't delete anything. The entire post is there, and it's actually you who has left out some key parts in forming your interpretation. He doesn't identify the player being compared as not an elite forward. He only identifies the player being compared to as an elite forward, who has higher raw points/PPG. Considering his comments around per-60 have pretty much entirely revolved around discussions involving players who are both elite, and his other specific comment earlier in this very thread:

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

I have a hard time believing your interpretation, but I'm open to a clarification of his position by him if he wants, instead of by a bunch of people a few days later who weren't even involved in the conversation and have zero idea what he meant.

The main problem is you are never wrong and everybody else is, so you disparage their remarks.

The remark disparaged itself. I'm allowed to call out when something or somebody is wrong, and I have extensively supported why it is wrong in this thread. I'm not perfect, and I'm open to people proving me wrong and learning, but unlike most people, my statements and positions are already based on substantiated facts.

 

[authentic]

Good way to look at the Points vs PPG debate. Let’s look at Ovechkin, Crosby, and Malkin.

OV:
1,320p / 1,195gp = 1.10 ppg

Crosby:
1,319p / 1,035gp = 1.27 ppg

Malkin:
1,100p / 936gp = 1.17 ppg

Edit:
Putting McDavid into the equation:
556p / 400gp = 1.39 ppg

Crosby after the same amount of games as McDavid had 4 less points.

 

[Sweetpotato]

Points raw totals in season(reality)>Points per game(potential)>points/60(even worse judge of potential)

 

[biturbo19]

All three are important for context. Points per game is probably the "best" metric of the three, if i have to choose just one. It gives you a little bit of insight into both the expected average scoring rate per game, which unlike raw "points", actually accounts for the number of games played. There's context clues toward the other two embedded in it. It tells you a little bit about the caliber of player you're probably talking about, or at least the type of minutes they're likely playing.

But raw "points" are also a valuable factor, in assessing both the sample size, and the reliability/durability of a player and their scoring rate.

P/60 is a metric that can be interesting to look at, but ultimately has the most potential for distortion and misrepresentation of what a player is capable of. Production isn't exactly a linear and scalable element. Some guys can be wildly productive in smaller minutes but lack the ability to translate that rate in bigger minutes. Those sort of players can be really valuable in getting contributions out of your bottom-6 and less desirable minutes, but it's contextually sensitive and doesn't mean they're "better" than their minutes. Just as on the opposite end of things, you can have a lot of players who may produce at a given satisfactory rate with boatloads of minutes and prime opportunities...but when scaled back to lesser minutes, their effectiveness and the rate itself will drop off, because they're situationally not suited to those lesser minutes.

Really, P/60 is more useful when paired with 5v5 or Even Strength splits. But even then, it's a more precise and sensitive tool than the other two, which are more of a "broad overview" metric. It's a scalpel that can be really incisive when used skillfully against other background knowledge...or when used without proper context, can make for an absolute butchery of an impression.

 

[HotPie]

All three are important for context. Points per game is probably the "best" metric of the three, if i have to choose just one. It gives you a little bit of insight into both the expected average scoring rate per game, which unlike raw "points", actually accounts for the number of games played. There's context clues toward the other two embedded in it. It tells you a little bit about the caliber of player you're probably talking about, or at least the type of minutes they're likely playing.

But raw "points" are also a valuable factor, in assessing both the sample size, and the reliability/durability of a player and their scoring rate.

P/60 is a metric that can be interesting to look at, but ultimately has the most potential for distortion and misrepresentation of what a player is capable of. Production isn't exactly a linear and scalable element. Some guys can be wildly productive in smaller minutes but lack the ability to translate that rate in bigger minutes. Those sort of players can be really valuable in getting contributions out of your bottom-6 and less desirable minutes, but it's contextually sensitive and doesn't mean they're "better" than their minutes. Just as on the opposite end of things, you can have a lot of players who may produce at a given satisfactory rate with boatloads of minutes and prime opportunities...but when scaled back to lesser minutes, their effectiveness and the rate itself will drop off, because they're situationally not suited to those lesser minutes.

Really, P/60 is more useful when paired with 5v5 or Even Strength splits. But even then, it's a more precise and sensitive tool than the other two, which are more of a "broad overview" metric. It's a scalpel that can be really incisive when used skillfully against other background knowledge...or when used without proper context, can make for an absolute butchery of an impression.

This is always what I find strange in these arguments.

The problem with P/60 is that the relation between points and ice time is not linear which is why it's a weak stat. I definitely agree there. It's by far the weakest stat of the three.

But the same problem exists with PPG. The relationship between points and games played isn't exactly linear either. PPG is still far more valuable than P/60 though.

 

[Dekes For Days]

The problem with P/60 is that the relation between points and ice time is not linear which is why it's a weak stat. I definitely agree there. It's by far the weakest stat of the three. But the same problem exists with PPG. The relationship between points and games played isn't exactly linear either.

When discussing representative samples, it's more linear in more situations than many people want to accept. For the PP especially, raw production and time on ice have extremely high correlation. But the simple fact that people don't seem to realize - it doesn't have to be linear to be better. It just has to be closer to linear than the zero value raw points gives whatever variable discrepancy is being considered (games played/time on ice), and there's really no argument that it isn't.

 

[authentic]

All three are important for context. Points per game is probably the "best" metric of the three, if i have to choose just one. It gives you a little bit of insight into both the expected average scoring rate per game, which unlike raw "points", actually accounts for the number of games played. There's context clues toward the other two embedded in it. It tells you a little bit about the caliber of player you're probably talking about, or at least the type of minutes they're likely playing.

But raw "points" are also a valuable factor, in assessing both the sample size, and the reliability/durability of a player and their scoring rate.

P/60 is a metric that can be interesting to look at, but ultimately has the most potential for distortion and misrepresentation of what a player is capable of. Production isn't exactly a linear and scalable element. Some guys can be wildly productive in smaller minutes but lack the ability to translate that rate in bigger minutes. Those sort of players can be really valuable in getting contributions out of your bottom-6 and less desirable minutes, but it's contextually sensitive and doesn't mean they're "better" than their minutes. Just as on the opposite end of things, you can have a lot of players who may produce at a given satisfactory rate with boatloads of minutes and prime opportunities...but when scaled back to lesser minutes, their effectiveness and the rate itself will drop off, because they're situationally not suited to those lesser minutes.

Really, P/60 is more useful when paired with 5v5 or Even Strength splits. But even then, it's a more precise and sensitive tool than the other two, which are more of a "broad overview" metric. It's a scalpel that can be really incisive when used skillfully against other background knowledge...or when used without proper context, can make for an absolute butchery of an impression.

Let me ask you this though, how many players do you believe wouldn't score more with an additional minute or two on the powerplay among elite level players, or wouldn't be able to handle the minutes?

 

[authentic]

When discussing representative samples, it's more linear in more situations than many people want to accept. For the PP especially, raw production and time on ice have extremely high correlation. But the simple fact that people don't seem to realize - it doesn't have to be linear to be better. It just has to be closer to linear than the zero value raw points gives whatever variable discrepancy is being considered (games played/time on ice), and there's really no argument that it isn't.

That's the entire point people on the other side of the debate haven't been able to grasp or argue against, because like you said there really is no argument against it.

 

[Machinehead]

Points raw totals in season(reality)>Points per game(potential)>points/60(even worse judge of potential)

Potential is an unknown

PPG = points/games

Points/60 = points/minutes x 60.

Neither of those are unknowns

 

[Yackiberg8]

Points raw totals in season(reality)>Points per game(potential)>points/60(even worse judge of potential)

How do the points are all that matters crowd judge McDavid's season this year? Only 100 points so just an average good season right?

 

[Sweetpotato]

How do the points are all that matters crowd judge McDavid's season this year? Only 100 points so just an average good season right?

100%, that's exactly what I meant, points are all that matter I'm glad you decrypted my post.

 

[Sweetpotato]

Potential is an unknown

PPG = points/games

Points/60 = points/minutes x 60.

Neither of those are unknowns

Raw point totals are a cumulative achievement (50 goal season, 100 point season, 30 point playoffs, etc).

Having a 1.22 ppg is what you need for a 100 point season so you have the potential to hit that number but it's not a guarantee due to other variables.

Points/60 is worse due to even more variables effecting the stat; but, it can be a decent indicator of potential ability in players for example that have lower playing time.

To me these stats are part of a puzzle in order to get a picture of the quality of a player or their potential to produce offence over a longer period of time.

 

[Dekes For Days]

How do the points are all that matters crowd judge McDavid's season this year? Only 100 points so just an average good season right?

No, you see, raw points just requires additional context in a ton of situations. It's perfectly fine. Nothing like those evil P/GP and P/60 stats. Those are useless, because they sometimes require additional context.