Goals and points per 60 minutes of ice time show some surprises

Carl Hagelin, even better than you think.

Carl Hagelin, even better than you think.

As the Rangers struggle to score goals, it is sometimes important to look past raw point and goal totals and give every player an even playing field. In hockey, that means taking counting stats like goals and making them into a goals (and points) per 60 minutes of ice time. A hockey game (generally) lasts 60 minutes, and since ice time varies by player, this puts everyone on an equal playing field to measure contribution based on ice time. The theory here is that players who get more ice time will score more, thus their counting stats will be higher. Making this a “per 60″ stat eliminates that variable.

To get a good gauge on how ice time really affects this, we first need to look at the raw totals for the Rangers (for players who have played at least 20 games) in addition to the evened out ratios per 60 minutes of ice time. The table below has some interesting results.

First, let’s sort the table in terms of goals:

Goals Points G/60 P/60
Nash 10 25 1.13 2.55
Callahan 9 15 0.59 1.33
Gaborik 9 18 0.91 1.43
Stepan 8 20 0.64 1.42
Hagelin 8 17 0.89 2.02
Pyatt 4 6 0.45 0.75
Richards 4 15 0.55 1.80
Stralman 3 5 0.40 0.67
Del Zotto 3 13 0.12 0.98
McDonagh 2 11 0.20 1.02
Staal 2 11 0.14 1.16
Miller 2 4 0.23 0.46
Girardi 1 10 0.11 1.12
Boyle 1 2 0.40 0.40

The results are what you’d expect, but note the order of the top five guys. Now let’s sort the table in goals per 60 minutes of ice time:

Goals Points G/60 P/60
Nash 10 25 1.13 2.55
Gaborik 9 18 0.91 1.43
Hagelin 8 17 0.89 2.02
Stepan 8 20 0.64 1.42
Callahan 9 15 0.59 1.33
Richards 4 15 0.55 1.80
Pyatt 4 6 0.45 0.75
Stralman 3 5 0.40 0.67
Boyle 1 2 0.40 0.40
Miller 2 4 0.23 0.46
McDonagh 2 11 0.20 1.02
Staal 2 11 0.14 1.16
Del Zotto 3 13 0.12 0.98
Girardi 1 10 0.11 1.12

The results are changed a bit, but this is due to two reasons. The first is that the raw totals (first table) reflect all aspects of the game (even strength, powerplay, shorthanded). The per 60 table (second table) reflects only even strength. But we can still draw a few conclusions from the table itself.

The first thing that is very noticeable is that Ryan Callahan, who is tied for second on the team in goals (9), drops to fifth on the team in even strength goals per 60. Marian Gaborik, who also has nine goals, remains second on the team in G/60. The conclusion we can draw here is that Cally produces very well on the powerplay, but Gaborik is the better producer at even strength.

The other thing worth noting is that although Brian Boyle has just one goal to Taylor Pyatt’s four, there is a marginal difference between their even strength productivity when evening out the playing time. Neither are performing all that well offensively, but it’s something worth noting.

Moving on to points, let’s first sort by raw points, which again includes powerplay and shorthanded points:

Goals Points G/60 P/60
Nash 10 25 1.13 2.55
Stepan 8 20 0.64 1.42
Gaborik 9 18 0.91 1.43
Hagelin 8 17 0.89 2.02
Callahan 9 15 0.59 1.33
Richards 4 15 0.55 1.80
Del Zotto 3 13 0.12 0.98
McDonagh 2 11 0.20 1.02
Staal 2 11 0.14 1.16
Girardi 1 10 0.11 1.12
Pyatt 4 6 0.45 0.75
Stralman 3 5 0.40 0.67
Miller 2 4 0.23 0.46
Boyle 1 2 0.40 0.40

Again these aren’t much of a surprise, as these are the stats you can get anywhere. But let’s look at this from a points per 60 minutes of even strength time, like we did above:

Goals Points G/60 P/60
Nash 10 25 1.13 2.55
Hagelin 8 17 0.89 2.02
Richards 4 15 0.55 1.80
Gaborik 9 18 0.91 1.43
Stepan 8 20 0.64 1.42
Callahan 9 15 0.59 1.33
Staal 2 11 0.14 1.16
Girardi 1 10 0.11 1.12
McDonagh 2 11 0.20 1.02
Del Zotto 3 13 0.12 0.98
Pyatt 4 6 0.45 0.75
Stralman 3 5 0.40 0.67
Miller 2 4 0.23 0.46
Boyle 1 2 0.40 0.40

Now this is where things get interesting. Carl Hagelin, who is fourth on the team in points, is second on the team at P/60, suggesting he is the second best point producer at even strength. This may seem surprising at first, but considering how much of a puck possession monster Hagelin is, the points follow suit.

Brad Richards, who has been the subject of much debate, also comes out on the favorable end on this statistic. With just 15 points, Richards sits sixth on the team in scoring. But in P/60 (again, only at even strength), Richards jumps to third on the team. This suggests that Richards’ woes are on the powerplay, not at even strength. That may not seem too comforting, considering Richards is a key powerplay guy, but it’s a silver lining that he can at least produce at even strength.

One other thing to look at is the P/60 from the defense. Stressing again that the “/60″ stats are at even strength only, this shows just how much the club misses Marc Staal. He is the best even strength point producer on the club, and while Dan Girardi is right behind him (not surprising), Ryan McDonagh and Michael Del Zotto are far behind. On Del Zotto, 40% of his assists have come on the powerplay, so that affects his P/60.

The last thing to look at: There is not a single fourth line player on this list. Darroll Powe is the only current Ranger that meets the 20 game threshold, and he doesn’t have a point on the season yet. He only plays 5-7 minutes per night, of which half of that is on the penalty kill, so that plays into this here. Even with this analysis, ice time can still play a factor.

5 Responses to “Goals and points per 60 minutes of ice time show some surprises”

  1. PAL says:

    Great stats, thank you. The most frustrating thing about this season is that the Rangers have the third best goals-against-per-game in the conference. How different this season would have been if they could have figured out a way to score just a little more.
    I’ll pretend this is our “1992-1993″ year.

    • Dave says:

      The lack of offense is troubling, but their PDO (puck luck) is below normal, so they aren’t getting the bounces. Everyone is panicking because it’s a short season too.

      • PAL says:

        Gaborik’s shooting percentage I think reflects the lack of puck luck: 8.8% this year, 14.9% last year.

  2. Jamie says:

    Thanks for the stats. One thing that wasn’t clear to me – are these even strength goals & points per even strength 60 minutes, or total goals & points per even strength 60 minutes?

    thanks