Zone starts to do not have a significant impact on expected goals either. Bailey starts in the offensive zone just as much as Wahlstrom and his expected goals for per 60 is brutal. Same with Kieffer Bellows, he starts 62% in the ozone and he's well below average in terms of expected goals for per 60.

What numbers are they showing for you?

Thought we might run into this problem let me clarify. Bailey is not a good player and has bad numbers despite o-zone starts. But bailey starting 18% of his shifts in the o-zone is going to have a higher xGoals than if he started 13% of his shifts in the o-zone. So wahlstrom starts a lot more of his shifts in the o-zone than jgp. That doesnt necessarily mean that wahlstrom is an inferior player but it does mean that to an extent you cant say jgp is worse just based on xGoals/60. We know that to be true bc if they were the exact same player jgp would have worse numbers.

My bad just went back and checked your comment i thought you meant xGoals/60. Which actually are worse for me and better for you lol. I just think goals/60 is pretty much just as useless as +/-, xGoals is a much more accurate metric.

Bailey starting 18% of his shifts in the ozone is not going to have a higher expected goals for per 60 than if he started 13% of his shifts in the ozone - he is an awful possession player and the puck dies on his stick, it wouldn't matter if he had 70% of his shifts in the ozone, he just can't generate quality scoring chances so it wouldn't make a notable difference.

I'm not saying Pageau is worse than Wahlstrom just on that one metric - their isn't an offensive metric that Pageau Is even close to Wahlstrom in. Every public advanced analytics platform out there factors in zone starts, teammates, and competition so the expected goals numbers are accurate and provide context.

I'm not sure if you're saying goals/per 60 is useless or goals for per 60 min is useless, but both two of the top 5 rate stats when measuring offensive impact.

Goals for per 60 is showing how much a player increases the rate his team scores goals, it's arguably the most important metric out there. Goals per 60 min puts every forward on the same level to see who makes the most of their ice time.

+/- lacks context which is why it's a terrible stat to use, GF/60 provides context if you're looking at the right platforms, individual scoring rates are important because ultimately goals win games.

Not true. The same way using points is a terrible way to judge a player so is goals for per 60. All that does is even out playing time but it doesnt address linemates or luck. Its actually a very inaccurate stat to measure a players contributions. Theres a reason expected stats have become so popular. Its because theyre much more accurate stats in terms of both accurately depicting play and predicting how a player will play in the future.
Like i said before the mark of a bad evaluator is someone who sees things only for what they become.

Points are not a terrible way to judge a player, only if you're strictly using points and nothing else

You have to know how to read the charts - If there is a huge difference between a players expected goals for and actual goals for per 60 , then most likely they are getting lucky. But there are multiple stars with elite shooting and passing ability that do have a big difference in their expected and actual goals.. For example , David Pastrnak and Jonathan Hubedeau. There are years where Pastrnak's isolated impact shows he's average in terms of expected goals and elite in goals for per 60. Same with Huberdeau - but if a bottom 6 plug gets lucky one year and has a ridiculous on ice s% which increases his GF/60 that doesn't match his career norm , then yeah its safe to say he's getting lucky and the following year he'll likely see regression.

Pageau is below average in expected goals per 60 and actual goals for per 60. Wahlstrom's expected goals per 60 and goals for per 60 are much higher than Pageau.

Bailey this season is on pace for 43+ points over 82 games. A 40-45 point winger making 5m for 2 more years is worth more than bailey.
Aho is on pace for 31+ points over 82 games. I know that you think aho is a terrible player.
Bellows is on pace for 38+ points over 82 games. Youve said bellows is a terrible player.
Wahlstrom is only on pace for 35+ points over 82 games. Would you say vellows and bailey have played better than wahly? Now i know icetime is a concern here so here the ATOI.
Bailey - 17:19 much more than the other 2 but
Wahlstrom - 13:03 and
Bellows - 12:07 averaging almost 1 minute less than wahlstrom a game yet he is on pace for more points than wahlstrom. Now that doesnt mean that bellows has been better than wahly but it does show that points are a terrible evaluating metric.

I don't know what you're trying to argue here - I never argued one player was better than another using strictly points - a player who puts up points but has awful underlying numbers (for example Aho and bellows) are not good players. Wahlstrom produces at a high rate and has great underlying numbers. It's kind of bizarre to disregard points entirely,

Bellows producing at a slightly higher rate than Wahlstrom doesn't show that they are a terrible evaluating metric. Bellows has a 105 PDO (highest on the isles) which means he's getting lucky to an extent, he will see regression to the mean sooner than later.