I agree points per 60 is ridiculous. All that counts are actual points.
If a player scores 90 points playing 18 minutes a game vs a player scores 100 points playing 23 minutes a games - give me the 100 points guy. 100 points is more useful than 90 points - and too bad for the 90 point guy for either:
1. Not being able to convince his coach to play him more minutes so he can contribute/produce more
2. Not being able to handle playing more minutes
The only time where i could maybe buy into looking at points per 60 metrics is if someone is able to show a clear example of how an increase in ice time led to a similar increase in points. Ie a player going from 15 minutes a game and 75 points to 20 minutes a game and 100 points. I'm thinking in 90% of cases, the player going from 15 minute a game and 75 points to 20 mins a game sees a few extra points, but nowhere near 25 extra points. ie - this is mostly useless. And this would *only* be relevant if we can bump the player's ice time up. If we leave him at 15mins a game - simply "knowing" he'd do more with 20mins is completely useless.
That's very small picture thinking.
Hockey is played by multiple players. If you can get more total points reducing one guy slightly and increasing one guy slightly, that's worth more than what one individual does. Plus there are things like fatigue to consider. Can't say it was the definitive cause (only one possible reason) but McDavid's numbers decrease massively in the playoffs. Could be fatigue or simply that others know "hey just focus on that guy all game cause no one else is going to do anything". Further though, your analysis completely ignores HOW a person is used with respect to increased minutes. If, for example they come from being on a 1 PP, it's reasonable to expect more points. P/60 isn't a linear relationship. You need to dig deeper.
OP certainly needs to dig a lot deeper than 5 games.
Also, a coach may play his players a certain way because it leads to more wins. Is it wiser to load all your talent on one line and play them 25 minutes per night or to spread them apart and give them more equal opportunity knowing it allows you to better exploit the other team's weakness? If you coach to produce individual stats, you'll probably lose a lot given how much of a game of inches the NHL is. I mean how stupid IS Pittsburgh to not just roll Malkin, Crosby and Kessel together 25 minutes a night? Probably the only way to win a Cup, right?