Which metric do you use to rate a player's point production?

[Kaners Bald Spot]

Which metric is better?

Click to read more...

 

[McJazz]

Doesn’t really fit the question, but one of my favorite stats to determine a player’s offensive production is 5v5 points per 60. Really useful.

 

[Vancouver Canucks]

82-game average.

 

[daver]

Which metric is better?

Both require context which normally pisses off the poster that was trying to only use PPG or raw point totals to make an argument.

 

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

82-game pace, then points per 60, excluding secondary assists (so primary points per 60).

 

[Deficient Mode]

5 on 5 scoring, 5 on 5 scoring per 60.

 

[GlitchMarner]

I know people love their 5 vs 5 scoring, but to me a point is a point. I value PP and ES points the same.

Primary points > secondary assists, but the latter do have worth as far as I'm concerned.

As for the question: I'd say for a veteran player, it's fair to use the latter metric if you're talking in a career-sense about a player's optimal production, but for someone who is new, maybe the former is better to use in the same context.

 

[SotasicA]

If a player is not utilized in a scoring role, I wouldn't use any metric because it is useless. The eye-test says more about how they help their team.

Or carefully chosen advanced stats.

 

[Martin Skoula]

I know people love their 5 vs 5 scoring, but to me a point is a point. I value PP and ES points the same.

Primary points > secondary assists, but the latter do have worth as far as I'm concerned.

As for the question: I'd say for a veteran player, it's fair to use the latter metric, but for someone who is new, maybe the former is better to use.

A point is a point but PP scoring can often fluctuate for reasons outside of a player's control. If the coaching staff decided to switch from a 2 Dman set up to a 4 forwards set up, 2 Dmen are going to have their PP points cut down to nothing despite not playing worse.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Depends on the context, could be both.

For instance, if a player is a 100 point player for 3 seasons, gets injured and only plays 60 games the next three seasons, I'd factor his points per 82 games into it since he's proven over a full season he can reach those totals as well.

 

[ESH]

No matter what, all statistics need context. In the case of someone like Eichel who very easily could have had 70-80 points each of the past 2 seasons, I wouldn’t call him an 80 point player because he hasn’t done it. But he’s also not a 55 point player.

 

[McFlyingV]

P/60 is valuable when comparing players with similar TOI/game and usage. Too often people use it to prorate what a player would produce in a bigger role, and that is incredibly flawed.

 

[Laineux]

All of the available stats. Can't go with either or, you need to look at every piece of info available.

 

[daver]

P/60 is valuable when comparing players with similar TOI/game and usage. Too often people use it to prorate what a player would produce in a bigger role, and that is incredibly flawed.

Ypu can also include assuming someone scores more on the PP if given more time.

 

[BruinLVGA]

82 games pace and then 5vs5 points.

 

[ConnorMcMullet]

Both require context, but PPG.

 

[Zamuz]

5 on 5 scoring, 5 on 5 scoring per 60.

why would you completely leave out power plays which are a big part of hockey? some players can use the advantage of PP's siginificantly better than others.

 

[Kingfan1967]

Percentage of points for a team ie:
is a 60 point player on a team that scores 300 goals more valuable
than a 55 point player on a 250 goal team ?
( 20% of a teams scoring vs 22% )

 

[Deficient Mode]

why would you completely leave out power plays which are a big part of hockey? some players can use the advantage of PP's siginificantly better than others.

If you're comparing players from different teams - for forwards at least - it's the best way to level the playing field. Individual power play production and team power play success are heavily dependent on role, structure, and coaching. Except for a few teams - Pittsburgh, Washington, Boston - the league's best power plays vary dramatically from year to year, as does individual power play scoring. That's not nearly as true with 5 on 5 scoring. That indicates that 5 on 5 scoring is more repeatable, more driven by individual talent, and a more reliable indicator of a player's value.

Percentage of points for a team ie:
is a 60 point player on a team that scores 300 goals more valuable
than a 55 point player on a 250 goal team ?
( 20% of a teams scoring vs 22% )

That would rather suggest to me a team is putting all its eggs in one basket, or that there's a poor supporting cast, than that one player is necessarily better than the other.

 

[tony d]

I went with Option 1.

 

[McFlyingV]

Ypu can also include assuming someone scores more on the PP if given more time.

I was more talking about projecting a linear increase in scoring with increased ice time. With the PP time you should expect some additional scoring with more time, but how much is anyone's guess.