Do you feel the same way with points per game as you do with points per 60mins?
Both are output divided by input.
What's more impressive?
A guy who has 20 points in 20 games playing 20 minutes a night or a guy with 20 points in 40 games playing 10 minutes a night? Hint, they both have 20 points over 400 minutes so they should be equally impressive but the other has half the points per game as the other one. Many would say points per 60 is more accurate of how much they accomplish while they're on the ice compared to the points per game.
One might argue that the guy playing 20 mins a night plays against harder competition but then they might be countered by the fact they also probably have better linemates to cancel it out.
No.
Coaches match wherever they can regardless of whether it's a home game or a road game. The guy playing 10 minutes a night is playing against easier opposition. His per 60 is useless because it's not going to scale or be relevant. You're better off going points per game and comparing to other players in his line-up position (4th line, 3rd line or even better - checking line, energy line players, etc...).
They're not equally impressive. The guy playing 20 minutes a night is doing it against tougher competition. Do people not see the changes on the fly as soon as the zone is cleared because the coach doesn't like the unfavorable matchup? They're not going to make that change for the 10min per night guy and he will receive 'easier' minutes which provides better opportunities to score.
So if you look at those two players in your example and go "wow equally impressive" and then scale him up to ~15 minutes or ~20 minutes... his points per 60 is going to drop. What do you think that implies? They're not equal achievements. They are not equal players.
And it gets much more complex than this... which is why points per 60 or anything per 60 is worthless. You could only use these numbers to compare with players in a similar situation and at that point... why not use PPG?
If anything all this amateur analysis by Yost proves is that Boucher overplays his 3rd and 4th line and gives them too many minutes... and not this 'not carrying their weight relative to the bottom 6 of other teams' narrative.
If you want a clear example of this: Tom Pyatt plays roughly the same amount as Kevin Fiala (2nd line Nashville). Tom Pyatt is not deciding to be on the ice that often. The coaching staff is. Tom Pyatt has played with some of our skilled players. He's played in the grinding role. He's not scoring like Kevin Fiala with talent, he's not scoring like him without talent.