An ultimate downside of the now defunct Hockey Analysis site was the immediate loss of IPP, IGP & IAP, acronyms calculated on the site, making it easy to find for any player and situation. The acronyms represent the Individual Percentage of goals (Individual Goals Percentage), assists (IAP) and points (IPP) a player earned on goals scored while on the ice. Measured over a variety of different game situations, 5v5, 5v4 etc.
Editor's Note: Rotoworld’s Season Pass is now available for the low price of $19.99. You get plenty of extra articles including the minor league report, the junior report and much, much more. Buy it now!
I’ve used IPP extensively in relation to player performance and have written about it on a few occasions, including this one focusing on defensemen from last season. When doing player analysis for the McKeen’s Yearbook IPP is a great leading indicator of performance in relation to on-ice production. When used in conjunction with other metrics (such as individual shooting percentage or on-ice shooting percentage as examples), analysis can focus on whether a player’s performance is somewhat overvalued, or undervalued.
Player analysis is distinctly about properly identifying over/under valued assets. Anticipating the sophistication of expected goals models to further capture the nuances of shot quality, much like that, IPP can provide a ready-made list of potential flags, positive or negative.
Over or undervalued assets typically incite visions of a recovery or deflation in the case of hot streak, but it’s not always that simple for factors beyond any control. ‘Regression to the mean’ is a common refrain, but isn’t always the case, and that occurs over larger sample sizes. In a random set of games and situations, there may not necessarily be any regression down (in the case of over production) or up (in case of under production).
So let’s take a dive into 5v5 data from Corsica.Hockey in 2017-18 beginning with some players that have contributed to every goal scored with them on the ice. The average time on ice for this group of 26 players is about 130 minutes, made up mostly of replacement level players and temporary call ups.
One player on this list stands out, having 464 accumulated minutes at 5v5, Alex Galchenyuk.
The Habs winger – a somewhat misused asset – has earned points on every goal scored while on the ice, scoring 41.67% of goals himself.
The next tier of players contain an interesting name floating around the top. With the Montreal Canadiens struggling for goals, discarded David Desharnais has contributed 16 points at 5v5 representing a point on 94.12% of on-ice goals. The table below belongs lists of players that have played over 400 minutes at 5v5, and earned a point on 80% or more of the on-ice goals.
Editor’s Note: FanDuel’s main NHL contest, the NHL Breakaway, boasts thousands in cash prizes every night and costs less than $5 to enter. Get in on the action!
Among the notables listed below, is a solid player from Arizona, Jordan Martinook, with a point on 87.5% of on-ice goals. The sparkplug is highly visible and energetic, a staple to get to the dirty areas and a forechecking asset.
The players that have scored over half of the on-ice goals, (skating minimum of over the league average minutes at 5v5) are shown below, led by Benoit Pouliot with seven goals. Brock Boeser (who we will expand on shortly) with 15 goals is unique as a rookie, and the other surprise being Michael Grabner, with 11 goals at 5v5 – scoring at an incredible pace for the second consecutive season.
On the power play, at 5v4, the Chicago Blackhawks Artem Anisimov has skated 101 minutes entering the games on Tuesday night and scored seven goals – the only goals scored while on the ice. Another Canadiens player shows up here with Charles Hudon earning five points – despite playing 57 minutes. Other notables here are Matthew Tkachuk, and Vancouver’s Thomas Vanek, with a point on every goal scored while on the ice.
The next tier of players is led by another, more prominent Canucks forward carving a path towards a Calder Trophy – after Clayton Keller has also slowed from a quick start. Boeser has earned a point on 93.75% of on-ice goals, contributing 37.5% of the goals on his own.
On a side note, the rookies' side-by-side at 5v5 have contributed similarly on a points percentage basis – despite a 100 minute disparity in time on ice. Boeser’s 15 goals represent 57.69% of on-ice goals – the second most among players with 400+ minutes.
Last season Toronto’s William Nylander was solid at 5v4, and at around this time of the season was a key contributor to the Leafs potent power play. This season he’s earned four out of five points on the power play. Those five points represent 71.43% of on-ice goals. The power play is a strange animal that can be affected by a multitude of different items. The potent Leafs power play featured Nylander firing bullets from the top of the face off circle in 2016-17, but less so in 2017-18, focusing on the slot line passes to generate scoring opportunities.
When doing your player analysis, try to incorporate individual player percentages to show just important a player was to on-ice contributions. A player with a high percentage of points earned in on-ice goals in conjunction with other metrics can paint a very distinguished picture. Use all the tools available to you for your analysis – that is, when you’re not following my analysis.
Happy New Year to one and all!