ToIpP follow-up; oh and we won a game

So, yes, we beat the second-worst team in the league (and the one with the worst goal differential, by the way), by a pretty-resounding-if-you-ignore-the-total-breakdown-we-survived-for-about-ten-minutes-bridging-the-second-and-third-periods score of 4-1. That's certainly better than not beating them. Forgive me if I don't get all excited about it yet. Carolina lost in regulation, which was nice (and yes, the Devils won again). But let's remember the overall standings and games-in-hand situation. We have three games in the next week: Flyers, Ducks, and Sharks. We're gonna need to come away from those games with points. Let's see that happen, then I'll get excited.

Of note: Avery was still given the least ice time of any Ranger forward, but it was much more balanced. He got 11:32 while Christensen got 12:35, Prospal got 12:47, Zuccarello got 13:06, etc. Dubinksy was the only forward with over 20 minutes. Does more balanced ice time for our four lines lead directly to more winning? One game is hardly proof, but there are some numbers for you to think about.

Anyway, I wanted to follow up on yesterday's Time on Ice per Point post, as reader Chris left an interesting analysis in the comments (hooray for comments) and I wanted to make sure everyone saw it. Chris did similar math, calculating how much time on ice a given forward requires to score a point, but factored out all special teams. He used only even strength time on ice and counted only even strength points. The numbers, as he pointed out, look even better for Avery this way.

With stats now adjusted to include last night's game as well, Avery is good for a point every 32:52 of even strength time. This puts him behind Wolski, Gaborik, Stepan, Dubinsky, and Callahan - and ahead of every other Ranger forward. It puts him only 1:46 behind Cally and 2:22 behind Dubi, while he's 3:04 ahead of Anisimov, 4:02 ahead of Christensen, and so on. At even strength, he's one of the top six most valuable Ranger forwards, in terms of raw point production.

So what's the disparity? The difference is that he is never damn used on the power play. The other forwards' numbers are inflated by getting more time on the power play, when it is more likely that you will get points in less time. Avery averages only 25 seconds of PP time per game (ahead of only Brandon "all PK, all the time" Prust), so his Even Strength ToIpP (32:52) is almost exactly his total ToIpP (32:41). Meanwhile, you take someone like Mats Zuccarello, who averages 2:46 on the PP per game. His total ToIpP sits well above Avery's, at 28:49. However, that includes a bunch of power play points, and his actual Even Strength ToIpP is down at 40:07, significantly worse than Avery's.

Big hat tip to reader Chris here, as I think this is a much more relevant way of looking at these numbers. Again, there are a lot of things a hockey player contributes to a team that aren't raw point production, but this is a good way to analyze point production itself.

So this got me thinking: Avery's point production is better than a lot of other Ranger forwards, but his numbers are skewed by: a) low ice time, and b) virtually no PP time. Are those the same thing? Is Avery's shortened ice time simply a lack of use on the PP, or is he shafted on even strength time as well? Turns out: Avery's average even strength TOI per game is 11:17. Near the bottom of the heap (ahead of only Christensen and Prospal), but not by a ton: Dubinsky's is only 14:45, while most Ranger forwards fall between Zuccarello (12:32) and Callahan (13:53). At even strength, it looks like Avery is averaging only a shift or two fewer than he should be: weird, to be sure, but not really ground-breaking.

On the PP, as we saw earlier, Avery is given almost nothing: about 25 seconds a game (compare to Callahan's 3:21, Zuccarello's 2:46, Christensen's 2:10, etc.). This is where the real disparity in ice time comes from: special teams (needless to say Avery has seen a total of 8 shorthanded seconds all season long). So maybe that's the real story here.

Here's what we've definitely learned: those who say Avery doesn't deserve as much ice time as others because, despite his good play, he never finds the back of the net are full of shit. Avery is more productive at even strength, in terms of just raw point production, than the average Ranger forward, and if you want to use raw point production alone, he should be a top-six forward.

Here's what we've probably learned: given his solid production and play, it is still clear that Avery is getting a couple fewer shifts than he should be in each game. This is where the real question for Torts lies: why? What is it that he doesn't like that he's seeing from Avery? Or is it all pre-conceived, having nothing to do with what he actually sees?

Here's what we may or may not have learned: it's time to start trying Avery on the PP? He's proven to be very good in terms of production at even strength, where his ice time is a little lower than it should be, but he's been largely untested on the PP all season long. Meanwhile, our PP is shitty. Maybe it's time to give the Grate One a go.