You guys have no idea how much I love a good statistical argument.
1. "Advanced Stat trickery". Bus, is that you?
It's P/60. Points divided by ice time, normalized to 60 minutes. It's the exact inverse of PROD, except it's 5 on 5 only. There's nothing advanced about it.
2. You can't use PROD because it gets skewed by volatile powerplay performance. To illustrate the volatility, right now Jason Chimera is a top 90 scorer according to PROD, largely based on the powerplay. And because it doesn't separate 5 on 5 from 5 on 4 and 4 on 5, it gives a huge advantage to powerplay players over penalty killers. Our penalty killers (like Cam) don't stand a chance in PROD. Perhaps for that reason, P/60 has succeeded it as the statistic of choice.
3. There's several different ways coaches use their best players. You can find Kuznetsov's on the second line and Couture on the third line, and neither getting 18 minutes. Or you can find Brian Gionta and Brandon Sutter above that bar.
4. No, you don't necessarily get more favorable match ups if you play less than 18 minutes. On a lot of clubs it's the third liners who get the hardest matchups.
Let's have a look at all of the conditions you just put on what qualifies one to be a top line player.
1) 18 minutes a night. That's about 80 forwards
2) Top 90 PROD. That's a high turnover group of 90.
3) Hardest matchups.
The overlap between those three gives you, what, 30 or 40 guys? And too much turnover. The Jackets might have no players in that group today and 5 in it a few months later. It doesn't tell you as much about the quality of players on your team.
Our sources are the same. Stats.hockeyanalysis is the source data for the hero charts. The only difference between hero P/60 and the source data, is that the hero charts are using a 3 year average. You're trying to refute my 3 year data by using data with a smaller sample size. That doesn't fly. It might make sense if a player like Hartnell is slipping, because he's exiting his prime, or if a young player suddenly emerges. But normally a 3 year average has more predictive power than the current year's performance.
Foligno probably averages about 18 minutes per game over the last three years. I'm not huge on ice-time as a measure of quality, but it still tells you a lot more about his value than the number of his line on the lineup card. We have a convention of numbering our lines here that is not based on in-game usage.
1. "Advanced Stat trickery". Bus, is that you?
It's P/60. Points divided by ice time, normalized to 60 minutes. It's the exact inverse of PROD, except it's 5 on 5 only. There's nothing advanced about it.
2. You can't use PROD because it gets skewed by volatile powerplay performance. To illustrate the volatility, right now Jason Chimera is a top 90 scorer according to PROD, largely based on the powerplay. And because it doesn't separate 5 on 5 from 5 on 4 and 4 on 5, it gives a huge advantage to powerplay players over penalty killers. Our penalty killers (like Cam) don't stand a chance in PROD. Perhaps for that reason, P/60 has succeeded it as the statistic of choice.
3. There's several different ways coaches use their best players. You can find Kuznetsov's on the second line and Couture on the third line, and neither getting 18 minutes. Or you can find Brian Gionta and Brandon Sutter above that bar.
4. No, you don't necessarily get more favorable match ups if you play less than 18 minutes. On a lot of clubs it's the third liners who get the hardest matchups.
Let's have a look at all of the conditions you just put on what qualifies one to be a top line player.
1) 18 minutes a night. That's about 80 forwards
2) Top 90 PROD. That's a high turnover group of 90.
3) Hardest matchups.
The overlap between those three gives you, what, 30 or 40 guys? And too much turnover. The Jackets might have no players in that group today and 5 in it a few months later. It doesn't tell you as much about the quality of players on your team.
Our sources are the same. Stats.hockeyanalysis is the source data for the hero charts. The only difference between hero P/60 and the source data, is that the hero charts are using a 3 year average. You're trying to refute my 3 year data by using data with a smaller sample size. That doesn't fly. It might make sense if a player like Hartnell is slipping, because he's exiting his prime, or if a young player suddenly emerges. But normally a 3 year average has more predictive power than the current year's performance.
Foligno probably averages about 18 minutes per game over the last three years. I'm not huge on ice-time as a measure of quality, but it still tells you a lot more about his value than the number of his line on the lineup card. We have a convention of numbering our lines here that is not based on in-game usage.
