P/60 stats: How useful and reliable are they? Does production increase linearly with ice time?

[McFlyingV]

secondary assists aren't super meaningful, so it's smart to do that in most discussions in my opinion

Of course they aren't because you said so. Weird that all the best playmakers in the league collect high numbers of secondary assists. Must be coincidence.

 

[biotk]

Smart to move on from P/60 to P1/60 in any McDavid-Matthews discussion.

I have been using P1/60 from the beginning. I sometimes include P/60 to comfort the fans of players who rack up non-primary points.

 

[TheDoldrums]

Agreed. Thats why i posted the flat P/60 top 10 for reference. I'd like to see the top 10 list for all scenarios but don't have the time. Maybe you do?

This will get lost in the arguments but

5v5 P/60

1. McDavid - 3.2
2. MacKinnon - 3
3. Matthews - 2.93
4. Barzal - 2.89
5. Kucherov - 2.85
6. Marchand - 2.83
7. Dadonov - 2.82
8. Giroux - 2.73
9. Stone - 2.68
10. Gourde - 2.66

Power play P/60

1. Hall - 9.9
2. Wheeler - 9.25
3. Rielly - 8.82
4. Marner - 8.4
5. Palmieri - 8.16
6. Bailey - 8.06
7. Kessel - 7.97
8. Malkin - 7.96
9. Kucherov - 7.82
10. Boeser - 7.81

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

Of course they aren't because you said so. Weird that all the best playmakers in the league collect high numbers of secondary assists. Must be coincidence.

I mean, they also collect a high number of primary assists. why not worry more about those?

 

[Tobias Kahun]

secondary assists aren't super meaningful, so it's smart to do that in most discussions in my opinion

You mean its smart to do that when it makes your player look better.

 

[snipes]

I mean, they also collect a high number of primary assists. why not worry more about those?

Because diminishing secondary assists hurts players who are playmakers.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

What's funny is the clear agenda that is being pushed by posters in this thread. This is basically just another McDavid vs. Matthews thread that was disguised by the thread title.


Which is a shame because this actually had the potential to create a rare, meaningful discussion on a topic more advanced then usual for HF but its already devolved into silliness again.

 

[Snippit]

I mean, they also collect a high number of primary assists. why not worry more about those?

Eh it’s not like secondary assists should be disregarded though.

Especially for a guy like McDavid who often does quite a bit of work with his secondaries. He’s usually the guy rushing the puck into the zone and beating guys to make a play

Secondary assists and PP assists are volatile year to year so I like to use ES primary as well. But with guys like McDavid who are pretty consistent in those metrics, it’s just not necessary to handicap him.

 

[snipes]

How do the numbers differ when it goes from 5 v 5 to even strength as a filter? I suspect McDavids numbers look better when using "even strength".

Natural stat trick works like **** on my phone.

 

[McFlyingV]

I mean, they also collect a high number of primary assists. why not worry more about those?

I'm worried about both, but as you noticed the post I quoted didn't even involve actual P/60 at all. But again, because you said so secondary assists don't matter. All coincidence that the best playmakers in the league have both high primary and secondary assists.

 

[Snippit]

What's funny is the clear agenda that is being pushed by posters in this thread. This is basically just another McDavid vs. Matthews thread that was disguised by the thread title.


Which is a shame because this actually had the potential to create a rare, meaningful discussion on a topic more advanced then usual for HF but its already devolved into silliness again.

It was a tangent for Matthews vs Mackinnon actually.

But yes, it is a shame because there are good posters out there that I want in put from.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

How do the numbers differ when it goes from 5 v 5 to even strength as a filter? I suspect McDavids numbers look better when using "even strength".

Natural stat trick works like **** on my phone.

3v3 is considered even strength,

 

[McFlyingV]

What's funny is the clear agenda that is being pushed by posters in this thread. This is basically just another McDavid vs. Matthews thread that was disguised by the thread title.


Which is a shame because this actually had the potential to create a rare, meaningful discussion on a topic more advanced then usual for HF but its already devolved into silliness again.

It was actually a Toronto fan who made it about McDavid vs. Matthews. I simply used an example to Zeke of when he used P/60 as a poor comparison and another poster decided to jump on it.

 

[snipes]

3v3 is considered even strength,

Exactly. Which is why it would be interesting to see the numbers but I'm on my phone at the moment.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

secondary assists aren't super meaningful, so it's smart to do that in most discussions in my opinion

It's a little unfair to playmakers since they'll rack up more secondary assists than goal scorers will, and are punished more in these per 60 primary points comparisons.

Removing them implies that all (or most) goals are created by either the goal scorer or the last person to pass them the puck. But anyone who watches hockey enough knows that's often not the case. Puck carrier carries the puck from the D-zone, through the neutral zone, backs up the D and enters the O-zone, then drops a pass to a trailing player who shoots it, goalie saves it, and someone stuffs in the rebound. The secondary assist on that play created the entire goal, but he'd be "punished" because LOL secondary assists are cheap.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

Because diminishing secondary assists hurts players who are playmakers.

I don't think that's necessarily true, as primary assists (and some other stats) do pretty well identifying the best playmakers in the league. You can still tell that McDavid is the best offensive player in the league when you look at primary points. It's still okay to track secondary assists (and honestly I'd be interested in 3rd and 4th assists), but I don't think they should be held up with the same value as primary points.

 

[McFlyingV]

Exactly. Which is why it would be interesting to see the numbers but I'm on my phone at the moment.

The numbers are 3.52/60 for McDavid and 2.97 for Matthews.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

Exactly. Which is why it would be interesting to see the numbers but I'm on my phone at the moment.

Oh I see.

5v5
Matthews 2.9 p/60
McDavid 3.2 p/60

Even Strength
Matthews 3.0 p/60
McDavid 3.6 p/60

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

It was a tangent for Matthews vs Mackinnon actually.

But yes, it is a shame because there are good posters out there that I want in put from.

I think the clear and obvious thing that should be gathered from the stats of last season is that there's a very good chance next season McDavid, Matthews, and Mackinnon should establish themselves as the Top 3 Centers in the league by a decent margin.

They all have very comparable advanced metrics across the most important categories(P/60, P1/60, QoC, QoT, etc) and they seem to be the leaders in those categories by a decent margin.

I'd say its splitting hairs to argue who will be better. I'm sure for Oilers/McDavid fans they dont like to hear that but the advanced stats certainly suggest it to be true. Of course if McDavid continues getting the significantly higher minutes he'll continue to produce more points as well. But if the ice time evens up I think these 3 will separate themselves as the class of the field offensively as Crosby, Malkin, Stamkos, etc. slow down a little as they get older. At least at 5 on 5.

There's also definitely still something to be said about both Matthews and Mackinnon as well. For Matthews, the stats all suggest he's due for a big jump in production but as we've seen countless times hockey is played on the stat sheets and Matthews still has to go out and actually take that next step and perform at that high level first. And for Mackinnon, last year was the first year where he really blew up and put everything together over a full 82 game season the way he did. So he still has to go out and prove that last year wasn't just a 1 year peak for him and that he's capable of doing it again.

Until Mackinnon repeats, and until Matthews on ice product finally catches up to the statistics, I think its fair to say McDavid is still in a class of his own. And even if Matthews and Mackinnon both take that next step next year its very likely McDavid still ends up a small step above the other two.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

It's a little unfair to playmakers since they'll rack up more secondary assists than goal scorers will, and are punished more in these per 60 primary points comparisons.

Removing them implies that all (or most) goals are created by either the goal scorer or the last person to pass them the puck. But anyone who watches hockey enough knows that's often not the case. Puck carrier carries the puck from the D-zone, through the neutral zone, backs up the D and enters the O-zone, then drops a pass to a trailing player who shoots it, goalie saves it, and someone stuffs in the rebound. The secondary assist on that play created the entire goal, but he'd be "punished" because LOL secondary assists are cheap.

doesn't it also unfairly punish goal scorers to rank primary points equal to secondary points though? for instance, Malkin was pretty terrible with secondary assists last year, and I don't think anyone would question his ability to generate offense. even Crosby was entirely mediocre in 16/17 in that regard for some reason despite putting up excellent primary point production. I find it too prone to variance and with too many weird cases for me to want to put complete faith in it

I know that there are secondary assists that can be as good as goals, but for the most part that isn't the case. The best way to look at it is to look at which players get a ton of secondary assists, and what fluctuation looks like year to year

 

[JaegerDice]

P/60 is just a better, more granular version of PPG.

If you're fine with PPG, you should be fine with P/60.

 

[snipes]

It's a little unfair to playmakers since they'll rack up more secondary assists than goal scorers will, and are punished more in these per 60 primary points comparisons.

Removing them implies that all (or most) goals are created by either the goal scorer or the last person to pass them the puck. But anyone who watches hockey enough knows that's often not the case. Puck carrier carries the puck from the D-zone, through the neutral zone, backs up the D and enters the O-zone, then drops a pass to a trailing player who shoots it, goalie saves it, and someone stuffs in the rebound. The secondary assist on that play created the entire goal, but he'd be "punished" because LOL secondary assists are cheap.

Great post.

 

[JaegerDice]

It's a little unfair to playmakers since they'll rack up more secondary assists than goal scorers will, and are punished more in these per 60 primary points comparisons.

Removing them implies that all (or most) goals are created by either the goal scorer or the last person to pass them the puck. But anyone who watches hockey enough knows that's often not the case. Puck carrier carries the puck from the D-zone, through the neutral zone, backs up the D and enters the O-zone, then drops a pass to a trailing player who shoots it, goalie saves it, and someone stuffs in the rebound. The secondary assist on that play created the entire goal, but he'd be "punished" because LOL secondary assists are cheap.

This seems reasonable on an intuitive level, but it doesn't actually bear out in practice. Whereas goals and assists have a fair degree of predictability and repeatability year-over-year (weighted for recency obviously, the last 3 seasons are more predictive than the last eight or whatever), secondary assists fluctuate wildly year over year.

That said, even beyond secondary assists, there are a lot of important plays can be made that have impact on a goal scored, without actually getting credit on the score-sheet, both with and without the puck. How many goals are scored thanks to a guy standing in the crease and blocking the goalie's eyes, without ever touching the puck? And that's just one example. How about driving to the net to create lanes, or drawing coverage to create space, creating turnovers that start the transition, etc. TONS of what goes into a goal doesn't get credit on the score-sheet. There's honestly no perfect way to properly 'score' impact on a goal.

 

[biotk]

It's a little unfair to playmakers since they'll rack up more secondary assists than goal scorers will, and are punished more in these per 60 primary points comparisons.

Removing them implies that all (or most) goals are created by either the goal scorer or the last person to pass them the puck. But anyone who watches hockey enough knows that's often not the case. Puck carrier carries the puck from the D-zone, through the neutral zone, backs up the D and enters the O-zone, then drops a pass to a trailing player who shoots it, goalie saves it, and someone stuffs in the rebound. The secondary assist on that play created the entire goal, but he'd be "punished" because LOL secondary assists are cheap.

Most goals are created by either the goal scorer or the last person to pass them the puck. Yes, there are goals where the most important player in the goal was the player who had the puck before that, but guess what? There are goals where the most important player in the goal was the player even before that, but we don't even record tertiary assists. On average the most important player in the creation of a goal is the goal scorer, then the primary assist, then the secondary one.

In 2016/17 at 5v5 Sheary had 16 secondary assists. Crosby had 6 (despite far more ice time). As is almost always the case, primary points indicated who was far more instrumental in the offense the line created.

 

[McFlyingV]

Most goals are created by either the goal scorer or the last person to pass them the puck. Yes, there are goals where the most important player in the goal was the player who had the puck before that, but guess what? There are goals where the most important player in the goal was the player even before that, but we don't even record tertiary assists. On average the most important player in the creation of a goal is the goal scorer, then the primary assist, then the secondary one.

In 2016/17 at 5v5 Sheary had 16 secondary assists. Crosby had 6 (despite far more ice time). As is almost always the case, primary points indicated who was far more instrumental in the offense the line created.

You've posted no evidence of your claim on the hierarchy of point importance (not that I fully disagree, but you cant quantify it). One example of Sheary is not enough evidence, and its kind of sad that you thought it was enough to prove your point.