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

[Laineux]

Here is 5vs5 offensive GAR/82 from last year and the components it uses, all weighed based on their ability to predict future goals.

Yeah if you combine everything there's not really anyone that close to McDavid in 5vs5 offense.

 

[MrLunatik]

Points do not increase at a linear rate with ice-time because as ice-time improves, so does the level of competition against.

 

[Nithoniniel]

AM: ES 3.03 / 2.71 (13.6oish%)

Yeah that's what I'm talking about. That's the type of thing that only happens to one or two players in an NHL season. It's never the same players either.

Matthew's second season at 5 on 5 is an outlier. He's very likely to drop some in his 3rd season.

I think you're missing the point.

OISH% is a stat with wild variation that regresses towards the true ability of the players on the ice over time. This is true in all cases. The reason it's mostly talked about with the more extreme cases is because that's where you see the biggest effect, good or bad.

You can't just pick out Matthews second year for regression and ignore that it will happen in the other seasons as well, to a certain degree. Matthews is likely to see negative regression in his second year, but also a positive one from his first year. McDavid on the other hand will also see a negative regression from one year. As can be seen when adding the two seasons up, McDavid actually has a better case for a negative regression overall than Matthews has based on the comparable years.

 

[daver]

PPG seems a bit unfair for guys with lower ice time, although P/60 isn't perfect either. Both need to be taken with context.

Why are they getting lower icetime?

 

[daver]

When talking about elite offensive forwards, it is not very useful at all.

 

[BeastoftheEast85]

I think P/60 is interesting to look at for younger players as a gauge of potential as their ice time increases. However I don’t believe it’s for valuable comparing prime players. E.g. people used to say the Sedins were the best players in the world because their p/60 was higher than Ovechkin and often Crosby. That was BS. You want your top players to be out on the ice as much as possible and other players shouldn’t get credit because they couldn’t handle additional icetime and different situations. The more icetime a player gets the more likely they are playing in situations where it is more difficult to score.

 

[BoldNewLettuce]

Im not sure stats capture strategy or momentum very well....ergo the eye test. A lot of that results in goals too.

 

[Brownies]

From personal experience at levels a 1000x lower than the NHL, some players are talented but do not have great endurance, so they get their points in the first half of the game more often than not. Would like to see a study on the subject... Time for a request on the By the numbers part of HFboard ?

 

[daver]

This is a likely a veiled McDavid vs. Matthews thread.

McDavid's ES/60 was much higher when his icetime was between 18 and 19 mins vs. 20 to 21 minutes. You can wonder why it went down the more minutes he played.

 

[joe dirte]

It’s used far too simplistically. People assume that points will just increase proportionally with more ice time.

Maybe not proportionally. But it's common sense a player getting 25 minutes will collect more points than if the same player was playing 20. No one can say for sure how many more points one will score with more icetime. But they will obviously score more.

 

[Laineux]

Maybe not proportionally. But it's common sense a player getting 25 minutes will collect more points than if the same player was playing 20. No one can say for sure how many more points one will score with more icetime. But they will obviously score more.

I think that if any 1st line forward was taxed with playing 25 minutes of average ice time for a full season their production would decline instead of rise.

That's not a realistic amount to play.

 

[Help]

Hey, Help here. Big time p/60 proponent. Just figured I would chime in here:

Any increase in QoC that comes as a result of increased ice time (if any) is going to be outweighed by the increase QoT

I will say that often times a player's p/60 can be high is a result of unsustainable oish%, which coaches will almost never recognize. That player gets wrongfully bumped up the depth chart, gets more ice-time, the oish% regresses to normal, and you see the rise in icetime followed by a dip in p/60. But it would be a mistake to think that ice-time, not a natural regression in shooting luck, caused the dip

I don't see any reason aside from fatigue (and god knows if, or to what extent that plays a role) to suggest that production wouldn't increase at least linearly

 

[zeke]

This is a likely a veiled McDavid vs. Matthews thread.

McDavid's ES/60 was much higher when his icetime was between 18 and 19 mins vs. 20 to 21 minutes. You can wonder why it went down the more minutes he played.

false.

Yr1: ES 15:08, 2.70p/50, 2.05p1/60
Yr2: ES 17:18, 3.00p/60, 2.43p1/60
Yr3: ES 17:30, 3.30p/60, 2.43p1/60

McDavid's per minute production has gone UP as his minutes have gone UP.

 

[zeke]

Yeah but Matthews was real lucky his second year.

The guys that finish 13% in on-ice shooting %, well that's a one and done kind of thing.

and he was real unlucky his first year.

over their first 2yrs, as shown, McDavid had a higher on-ice shooting percentage.

 

[Sypher04]

I think p/60 using to compare players who are at least close in QoC can be very telling.

But, no, it's obviously not perfect. Few stats are.

 

[Sypher04]

Points do not increase at a linear rate with ice-time because as ice-time improves, so does the level of competition against.

That's not necessarily true. Ice time increase doesn't mean you're playing against different people. It just means you are playing more.

 

[daver]

false.

Yr1: ES 15:08, 2.70p/50, 2.05p1/60
Yr2: ES 17:18, 3.00p/60, 2.43p1/60
Yr3: ES 17:30, 3.30p/60, 2.43p1/60

McDavid's per minute production has gone UP as his minutes have gone UP.

I am talking about his games this past season. His ES Pts/60 is higher when his minutes were lower.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

the best players score the most it's really quite simple.

P/60 isn't even better than points because p/60 is basically how efficiently you produce points. but again, the best players will simply score the most over the long haul regardless of efficiency. You then have to dig deeper and examine their value when those players aren't producing points and factor that in if their points are close.

 

[tucker3434]

It adds a bit of context, but generally if somebody has lower overall production but higher p/60, I tend to think there’s a reason for it. You have to also look at QoC and zone starts to get a fuller picture.

 

[easton117]

Stupid stat. Just use your eyeballs. Good players will score more with more ice time.

Less good will score more too. Just not as much.

Which is what everyone already new before someone invented a stupid statistic. Probably an agent.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

I am talking about his games this past season. His ES Pts/60 is higher when his minutes were lower.

That's probably the worst possible way to attempt to use P/60 as an argument in either direction, to use it in much smaller sample sizes within individual games instead of a full season.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Stupid stat. Just use your eyeballs. Good players will score more with more ice time.

Less good will score more too. Just not as much.

Which is what everyone already new before someone invented a stupid statistic. Probably an agent.

This about as caveman of a mentality as one can possibly have right now in the NHL. Just say you dont understand the numbers and move on would be a better response to make you look less foolish.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

Stupid stat. Just use your eyeballs. Good players will score more with more ice time.

Less good will score more too. Just not as much.

Which is what everyone already new before someone invented a stupid statistic. Probably an agent.

are you saying that they shouldn't track points because we can watch the games to figure that stuff out?

 

[easton117]

This about as caveman of a mentality as one can possibly have right now in the NHL. Just say you dont understand the numbers and move on would be a better response to make you look less foolish.

I absolutely understand the numbers. This one is silly.

I’m sure there’s lots of stat guys who love it. Just like there’s lots of caveman guys who roll their eyes at it.

Neither is right or wrong. There’s lots of ways to judge a player.

 

[Peggy]

nobody assumes that, actually.

though the anti-p60 crowd does seem to want to assume that p60 goes down with more usage, which isn't actually supported by anything.

using a random example like, say, Auston Matthews - his ES minutes increased significantly last year, as did his quality of competition.....and yet his p60 increased even more. in his case, more and tougher minutes resulted in better p60, not worse.

but the more important point here is to realize that while p60 has flaws, raw points is a stat with even bigger flaws.

Yes ppl do. Around here anyways