The detailed study of supernovae ( SNe ) and their progenitors allows a better understanding of the evolution of massive stars and how these end their lives . Despite its importance , the range of physical parameters for the most common type of explosion , the type II supernovae ( SNe II ) , is still unknown . In particular , previous studies of type II-Plateau supernovae ( SNe II-P ) showed a discrepancy between the progenitor masses inferred from hydrodynamic models and those determined from the analysis of direct detections in archival images . Our goal is to derive physical parameters ( progenitor mass , radius , explosion energy and total mass of nickel ) through hydrodynamical modelling of light curves and expansion velocity evolution for a select group of six SNe II-P ( SN 2004A , SN 2004et , SN 2005cs , SN 2008bk , SN 2012aw , and SN 2012ec ) that fulfilled the following three criteria : 1 ) enough photometric and spectroscopic monitoring is available to allow for a reliable hydrodynamical modelling ; 2 ) a direct progenitor detection has been achieved ; and 3 ) there exists confirmation of the progenitor identification via its disappearance in post-explosion images . We then compare the masses obtained by our hydrodynamic models with those obtained by direct detections of the progenitors to test the existence of such a discrepancy . As opposed to some previous works , we find good agreement between both methods . We obtain a wide range in the physical parameters for our SN sample . We infer presupernova masses between 10 and 23 M _ { \odot } , progenitor radii between 400 and 1250 R _ { \odot } , explosion energies between 0.2 and 1.4 foe , and ^ { 56 } Ni masses between 0.0015 and 0.085 M _ { \odot } . An analysis of possible correlations between different explosion parameters is presented . The clearest relation found is that between the mass and the explosion energy , in the sense that more-massive objects produce higher-energy explosions , in agreement with previous studies . Finally , we also compare our results with previous physical–observed parameter relations widely used in the literature . We find significant differences between both methods , which indicates that caution should be exercised when using these relations .