Welcome back to Goldipucks and the Three Skaters, a play on words of the Goldilocks and the Three Bears story. Instead of there being three bowls of porridge though, I cover three skaters and declare one too hot (i.e., doing unsustainably better than he should), another too cold (i.e., doing unsustainably worse), and a third “just right” (i.e., producing where he should be). In addition, I also assign each a rating of 1-10, indicating how hot (rated 7-10, where 10 is the most unsustainably hot), cold (rated 1-4, where 1 is the most unsustainably cold), or “just right” (rated 4-7, where 5.5 is the most “just right”) he is.

Despite again not having the benefit of 82 games of data to analyze, that won't stop me from bringing to you Goldipucks, including this week, when the spotlight shines on John Tavares, Artemi Panarin, and Chandler Stephenson. As usual, to get the most out of this column you need to stop here and try to deduce which of these three players' 2020-21 production was too hot, whose was too cold, and whose was just right, and then read on to find out if your intuitions were correct.

John Tavares

The 2020-21 campaign witnessed Tavares turn 30 and his production rate decline for the second straight season since coming to Toronto. Accordingly, some have started to wonder if this downward trend will continue or if instead Tavares might be due for a rebound given that he still should have gas left in the tank and with opponents forced to focus more now on Auston Matthews' line. The answer is neither, as Tavares probably has reached his new normal given his age, role, and trends.

At first it seems Tavares could have been snake bit for 2020-21, as his SH% dropped for a second straight season and not only sat a good bit below his career rate but was lower than it's been in all but one of the last nine seasons. Yet this, on top of a SOG rate marking the first time since Tavares was a rookie he didn't average 3+ SOG per game, makes it so we have to give serious consideration to the idea that Tavares is indeed starting to slow. Those aren't the only areas hampering Tavares' production, as his ice time per game also was his lowest since his rookie campaign, his PPPts per game represented a career low, and his secondary assist percentage was his second highest of his last seven campaigns.

Why then isn't the conclusion Tavares is slowing, and, in turn, that it's inevitable he'll continue to shed points? For one, Tavares still had the same P/60 as last season when his scoring rate was five points higher, plus Tavares had his second best IPP overall out of the last five seasons, suggesting even as he's shooting and playing less, he's more dialed into his team's offense. Still though, his PP time was down and his IPP on the PP marked a career low. As such, he probably won't rebound in that area, even if – for now – his spot on the top PP unit looks to be safe, making it so things shouldn't worsen.

What's also interesting about Tavares is he's the only player in NHL history to sore at a rate between 0.85 per game and 1.15 per game in more than ten seasons by age 30. What do we see when we look at the centers who had ten such seasons in that age range? For one, Mike Modano, posted 84 points at age 30, following that with 77, 77, and 85 points in three of his next four seasons. Also, Mats Sundin had 80 points at age 30, then 72-78 in each of his next five campaigns. Based on these comparables, we can surmise that players – exemplified by Tavares – who'd been solid but unspectacularly consistent throughout their 20s, tend to produce generally similar numbers from age 31-35 as they did at age 30.

On the other hand, adding a 2.9+ SOG requirement to the same points per game and age range, we see Tavares still had 11 such seasons, with the next highest total being seven, by the likes of Eric Staal, Alexei Yashin, and Brad Richards. Unlike Modano and Sundin, each of them saw worse scoring after age 30, although Staal briefly bounced back. Should this be a concern? Probably not, as Tavares met the criteria four more times than any of them; plus, if we drop the number from seven to six we get players like Modano, Patrice Bergeron, and Sergei Fedorov, who fared much better. Although this is additional food for thought, I'd label these comparables less meaningful versus the ones based on pure scoring rate.

Lastly, Tavares performed best in Q4, with better than point per game scoring thanks to a season high average PP time per game, a 14.2% SH% and three SOG per game. However, Tavares had his second-best quarter in Q1, negating the idea that he started slow and improved as the season went on. What I'd say this shows is Tavares is no longer as consistent as he was even last season, when for each quarter he had either the same number of points as games played or just one fewer point. The result is him dropping to a slightly lower level in terms of production.

I believe the details above likely rule out that Tavares will continue to see his production wane; however, they also do not give a lot of hope to those who think he can return to the 80+ point mark. Instead, he should score in the 70-75 point range as long as he remains on Toronto's PP1, which he should indefinitely. Thus, Tavares' 2020-21 was JUST RIGHT and he's assigned a rating of 5.75.

Artemi Panarin

For those who doubted Panarin was among the best of the best, he went out and equaled his 113-point pace from last season despite the craziness of the 2020-21 campaign. Not even being removed from the line-up temporarily could slow him down, as his scoring pace was slightly higher after he returned. With Panarin set to turn 30 in 2021-22, can he still be counted upon for more of the same? The answer is probably no, as while he should remain in the top echelon of scorers, factors point to him being more of a 100 point player.

First and foremost, Panarin only averaged 2.5 SOG per game, which is more significant than it seems given his age (29) position (wing) and scoring rate (1.38 points per game). That's because dating back to 1990-91, there were 66 other instances of a wing scoring at a rate of 1.25+ points per game while playing 40+ games; but just two (Martin St. Louis in 2012-13, Mark Recchi in 1990-91) averaged fewer SOG per game than Pararin, with only five more averaging under 3.0 SOG per game, and barely a third (i.e., 23 of 66) not averaging at least a full SOG more per game than him. Of the seven who averaged less than 3.0 SOG, four (St. Louis, Brad Marchand in 2017-18 and 2020-21, and Steve Larmer in 1990-91), were age 29 or older when they met the criteria, with the average points per game rate for them in the same season(s) being 1.27, and none being higher than 1.30.

Moreover, it's significant Panarin had such a high scoring rate despite no other forward on his team producing at even a 0.90 point per game rate. When St. Louis posted a scoring rate of 1.25 per game, Vincent Lecavalier was just behind at 1.19. Likewise, Larmer's 1990-91 came in the same season as teammate Jeremy Roenick averaging 1.19 points per game as well. Although Partice Bergeron didn't produce as he usually did, Marchand skated with David Pastrnak, who was a point per game player despite missing time due to injury.

Beyond this, if we look at the same 66 players, Panarin's goals per game rates over the past two seasons ranked him second to last and sixth to last. Yes, this is to be expected to some degree in view of Panarin's low SOG total; however, let's also not forget Panarin's SH% for 2020-21 tied his career best of 16.0%, up from his prior career cumulative rate of 14.0%. He did this despite 1.3 times as many shots taken from 31+ feet than from 0-30 feet. That's a big deal, because of the players who appeared in 40+ games and had a higher SH% than Panarin's this season, only three (Marchand, Mikko Rantanen, and Kirill Kaprizov) had as many SOG as Panarin's from 31+ feet; yet each of them not only had more total SOG from 0-30 feet than 31+ feet, but substantially more, with an average ratio of 1.85 SOG from 0-30 feet for every SOG from 31+ feet. Moreover, in 2019-20 Panarin achieved 1.38 points per game with a slightly lower SH% of 15.3% and having a nearly flipped ratio of 1.28 to one SOG from 0-30 feet versus those from 31+ feet. Therefore, even though it does not appear Panarin had an grossly elevated SH% for 2020-21 in view of his past seasons and career average, comparative data suggests it was in fact undeservedly high given his shot selection, meaning he likely lucked into quite a few more goals than he should've scored.

Turning to other metrics, Panarin's Secondary Assist percentage, while not stratospheric at 39%, marked his second highest rate, trailing only his 44% from last season and above his average of 33.75% prior to coming to the Big Apple. Similarly, his IPP of 84.1% was high even for him, marking a decent sized increase versus his average of 79.4% over his five seasons in the league. Even his IPP with the man advantage, at 69.2%, was above his norm of 67.4% prior to this season. Together these paint a further/clearer picture of a player who unsustainably overachieved.

If you're a Panarin owner and what you just read has you worried, don't be. He's still among the most elite players in the league. What he isn't, though, is a player who should be scoring above a 100 point full season pace given his SOG rate, his shot selection, and his lack of high scoring linemates, not to mention that at 29 he's likely at his peak. Given all this, Panarin's 2020-21 was TOO HOT, and receives a rating of 8.25. It may seem crazy to ponder trading Panarin; however, it might be worthwhile to try and capitalize on a value that might never be higher, particularly in banger leagues where Panarin's low HIT, BLK and PIM totals are a drag in addition to his abnormally low SOG rate for a high scorer.

Chandler Stephenson

In his first full campaign as a Golden Knight, Stephenson hit the jackpot by centering the team's top line consisting of him, Mark Stone and Max Pacioretty, who finished 12th and 24th in league scoring this season. Despite this plum gig, Stephenson's scoring lagged, landing him only 88th in points. Given this, should we expect more of the same from Stephenson, leaving the lion's share of scoring to his linemates; or could he be at risk of losing his spot in favor of someone who could create a trifecta of scorers? I'd say neither, as he not only should continue to center the top line but also see his scoring improve.

This season Stone and Pacioretty scored above a point per game level, while Stephenson's rate was 0.68 points per game. If it sounds like a wide gap, it's because it is. Even more so than the gap itself is two wingers scoring that much without their center also doing so. Yes it also happened this season with Patrick Kane and Alex DeBrincat in Chicago; however, they didn't have a constant center like Stone and Pacioretty did with Stephenson. Other than these two instances, this type of thing hasn't happened on any team in the past decade!

Okay, so maybe that means Stone and/or Pacioretty overachieved, which, if you read my columns, I've already said occurred. Stone's SOG rate was one of the lowest dating back to 1990-91 for a winger who averaged 1.1+ points per game, plus he scored more on the PP than he usually does. As for Pacioretty, dating back to 2000-01 there are only nine other instances of players who, at age 32+, fired 3.5+ SOG per game while averaging 1.05 points per game. What did the rest have in common? Scoring 98+ points in at least one prior season, with several of them having done so on multiple occasions. That's in stark contrast to Pacioretty, who'd only twice ever scored at a 70+ point pace and never higher than 76.

Between how unusual it is for just two wingers to be top scorers, and the fact both Stone and Pacioretty appear to have overachieved, it makes sense that Stephenson would be due to see his points rise; but is that indeed the case, according to data? Seemingly yes. By Q4, Stephenson was shooting more (2.26 SOG per game, versus 1.6 for the season as a whole) and getting ample ice time (19:38 per game overall, with 2:53 on the PP, versus 18:06 and 2:06 for the season as a whole). Just as importantly, he was responding, as he had 12 points in 15 games (65 point full season pace), and nine points in his last ten, during which he averaged 20:00+ in all but two contests. It stands to reason Stephenson was already starting to score at a pace more in line with his deployment.

For further evidence that his 2020-21 scoring pace was unsustainably low, we need only look at Stephenson's luck metrics. Yes, playing with Stone and Pacioretty should lead to lower IPPs than if he played with less talented players, but his IPP overall was a paltry 52.2%, and on the powerplay it was an even lower 38.5%. Add to that a 38.1% secondary assists percentage, which is quite low for a center, and it paints the picture of a player due to tally more points in the normal course. To put this in better context, Stephenson had a 5×5 team shooting percentage of 12.9% due to how well his line played. That was fifth in the league among the 59 forwards who played 40+ games and had double digit 5×5 team shooting percentages, with only four (Zach Parise, Victor Rask, Jesse Puljujarvi, Alex Wennberg) of the 59 having an IPP lower than Stephenson. Could Stephenson become Wennberg or Rask? It is possible; but it's more likely this serves as further evidence of Stephenson's scoring being unsustainably low given his role/deployment and end of season trends.

Vegas clearly found magic with the Stone/Pacioretty/Stephenson line. Rather than Stephenson continuing to be an afterthought compared to those two, the data suggests they overachieved while he underachieved. Plus, Stephenson was already starting to show he had more in him by Q4. Should we expect his scoring to skyrocket? Most likely not, as those two will continue to be points magnets; however, a jump to 65-70 points is within reason if things fall into place as the numbers suggest they should, and as Q4 already previewed. As such, Stephenson's 2020-21 was TOO COLD, with his rating being a 2.25.

************

Questions for Mailbag

My monthly mailbag is a few weeks away so you have time to get me your question(s). To do so, you can either (1) private message “rizzeedizzee” via the DobberHockey Forums or, instead, (2) email [email protected] with “Roos Mailbag” as the subject line.