Are GOALS worth more than ASSISTS?

[Canada Drai]

Since it's been somewhat of a hot topic issue around these parts I think we should find out what the people ACTUALLY think.

Click to read more...

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

HF: "If my team's player is a goal scorer, then yes. If my team's player is a playmaker, then no."

 

[Filthy Dangles]

What does 'worth more' even mean? Every play and goal scored is a separate case. Sometimes a goal scorer can go end to end, deke a team and put the puck over the goal line himself. Sometimes a player can get a 2ndary assist and basically do all the work on the goal like entering the zone, drawing defenders and setting up a tap in for a goal scorer.

 

[Master P]

Goal = 1pt
Assist = 1pt

Seems equal to me. Goals are just sexier.

 

[TheDoldrums]

In general, yes. If one hypothetical player has 40 goals 0 assists and another has 0 goals 40 assists, I think the goal scorer is probably the more valuable player with no other context.

But on specific plays, there are certainly times when the assist contributed more to the goal than the finisher.

 

[Master P]

In general, yes. If one player has 40 goals 0 assists and another has 0 goals 40 assists, I think the goal scorer is probably the more valuable player with no other context.

But on specific plays, there are certainly times when the assist contributed more to the goal than the finisher.

I thought about that to but a player with 40 assists was just as responsible for the 40 goals scored as the player/s who scored them.

 

[Sol]

Goals are easily more valuable regardless of what anyone says. You can score without assists. And assist points only register when someone scores.

 

[Mickey Marner]

If I were to weight goal, primary assist, & secondary assist against one another it would be something like 1, 0.95, 0.75.

Obviously it depends on the player though. A McDavid 2nd assist and a Polak 2nd assist probably weren't equally valuable.

 

[Albus Dumbledore]

Scoring goals is the hardest thing to do in hockey. There is a premium on goals scorers then playmakers. Goals are worth more Imo.

 

[Strait2thecup]

I feel like the guys racking up assists are typically the guys who are driving play. Goalscorers have more of a tendency to be one dimensional players. That said goal scorers are able to get away with that because goals in the end win games.

Think the point system is perfect as is. Let’s the most well rounded offensive players still finish on top (ex mcdavid while not being the best goal scorer in the nhl is likely the best offensive player in the nhl, and therefore should win the “scoring title” )

 

[Regal]

Depends on the context. Is the goalscorer the driver of his line or the beneficiary of his teammates' work? Are the assists going to guys who are simply getting the goalscorer the puck or are they the player who is drawing defenders and creating a prime opportunity for the goalscorer?

Obviously context is needed for every play, but we're not really going to go over every single play to compare two players. In general we need to rely on knowledge of their teammates and their abilities as a player. I think in general goals tend to be a little more valuable, as putting the put in the net is the hardest thing, and even when you have prime opportunities you still need to be capable of taking the time to put the puck in the right spot. I think this applies more to complementary players though than the elite stars. It's more likely the a complementary player is relying on his teammates to get his assists than to get his goals, and given that most elite players are capable of setting up their linemates, a complementary player who can capitalize on his chances tends to be more valuable than a complementary playmaker who gets the puck to an elite player who might get his chances regardless.

When it comes to elite players though, I think balance is more important than looking at specific totals. Players who are both elite at goalscoring and playmaking typically are harder to stop and will take what defenses are giving them rather than try to force one or the other. This means their totals may be quite different from one year to the next but doesn't mean their higher goal years are necessarily any better if their assists go down with it. So while I would take a pure goalscorer over a pure playmaker, I don't think the goalscorer is necessarily any better than a player who puts up similar points but is elite at both. So I would take the 50 G, 30 A, 80 PT player over the 20 G, 60 A, 80 PT player, but I dont think the 50 goal scorer is necessarily better than a 35 G, 45 A, 80 PT player.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Scoring goals is the hardest thing to do in hockey. There is a premium on goals scorers then playmakers. Goals are worth more Imo.

That's a bit too simplistic. If that were the case, then why do playmaking make up the majority of the best players?

Since the 2005 lockout, these are the winners of the Hart trophy:
Hall
McDavid
Kane
Crosby x2
Ovechkin x3
Malkin
Perry
H. Sedin
Thornton

Only two players on that list (Ovechkin and Perry) would be considered goal scorers (ie. known more for their goal scoring), while seven of them are known for their playmaking.

Lindsay award since the 2005 lockout:
McDavid x2
Kane
Crosby x3
Malkin
D. Sedin
Ovechkin x3
Jagr

Again, only Ovechkin would be considered a goal scorer on that list. The rest are known more for their playmaking.

So I think reducing it to "scoring goals is the hardest thing in hockey" is ignoring the fact that those who create the most chances often lead to their team scoring the most, even if they themselves aren't the one to ultimately put the puck in the net.

 

[Albus Dumbledore]

That's a bit too simplistic. If that were the case, then why do playmaking make up the majority of the best players?

Since the 2005 lockout, these are the winners of the Hart trophy:
Hall
McDavid
Kane
Crosby x2
Ovechkin x3
Malkin
Perry
H. Sedin
Thornton

Only two players on that list (Ovechkin and Perry) would be considered goal scorers (ie. known more for their goal scoring), while seven of them are known for their playmaking.

Lindsay award since the 2005 lockout:
McDavid x2
Kane
Crosby x3
Malkin
D. Sedin
Ovechkin x3
Jagr

Again, only Ovechkin would be considered a goal scorer on that list. The rest are known more for their playmaking.

So I think reducing it to "scoring goals is the hardest thing in hockey" is ignoring the fact that those who create the most chances often lead to their team scoring the most, even if they themselves aren't the one to ultimately put the puck in the net.

Scoring is hard to do that's why I already said it. no one wins the hart with goals cause its too hard to do. Picking up assists is far easier. You can get up to two assists on a goal. Far more opertunity there.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

Scoring goals is the hardest thing to do in hockey. There is a premium on goals scorers then playmakers. Goals are worth more Imo.

I'd say it's the opposite. High level playmakers are the most sought after as they raise the level of play of everyone around them. Playmakers tend to win the art ross, and that trophy has the highest percentage of its winners in the hall of fame. Whereas players like Cheechoo, Nash, Perry, Hejduk can win the rocket.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Scoring is hard to do that's why I already said it. no one wins the hart with goals cause its too hard to do. Picking up assists is far easier. You can get up to two assists on a goal. Far more opertunity there.

What does scoring goals or getting assists have to do with the Hart or Lindsay? I didn't list the Art Ross because I figured that would be the excuse given for that award, but those two other awards are for MVP and Most Outstanding, not who has the most points (though that seems to be the case often enough, for good reason).

 

[34]

Yes they are. Goals are worth way more.

 

[Albus Dumbledore]

What does scoring goals or getting assists have to do with the Hart or Lindsay? I didn't list the Art Ross because I figured that would be the excuse given for that award, but those two other awards are for MVP and Most Outstanding, not who has the most points (though that seems to be the case often enough, for good reason).

Those winners tend to have tons of assists and not goals cause goals in general are hard to score. It's easier to rack up assists and win MVP then it is goals. 40 goal guys are a lot more rarer then 40 assist guys for a reason.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Those winners tend to have tons of assists and not goals cause goals in general are hard to score. It's easier to rack up assists and win MVP then it is goals. 40 goal guys are a lot more rarer then 40 assist guys for a reason.

In your mind, was Cheechoo the real MVP in 2005-06 instead of Thornton? Did Crosby get robbed of the Hart and Lindsay in 2016-17 when they gave both to McDavid? Should Ovechkin have been considered the clear cut NHL best from 2012 to 2016?

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

You can score without assists.

 

[Albus Dumbledore]

In your mind, was Cheechoo the real MVP in 2005-06 instead of Thornton? Did Crosby get robbed of the Hart and Lindsay in 2016-17 when they gave both to McDavid? Should Ovechkin have been considered the clear cut NHL best from 2012 to 2016?

Context matters we know thornton was the real person who drove that line. Crosby was a bit injured in 2016, if he played all 82 and was only behind in a few points that year he should have won. When there are similar point totals usually the one who scored more goals is better.

And finally no, centers play a premium position they usually have to be responsible at both ends of the ice.

We are talking goals here. They are harder to come by. 40 goals are pretty rare, 40 assists aren't.

 

[wasup]

If I were to weight goal, primary assist, & secondary assist against one another it would be something like 1, 0.95, 0.75.

Obviously it depends on the player though. A McDavid 2nd assist and a Polak 2nd assist probably weren't equally valuable.

I would do goal 1 point , primary assist .66 secondary assist .34 . You usually get two assists for one goal that way the math works out. easy

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Context matters we know thornton was the real person who drove that line. Crosby was a bit injured in 2016, if he played all 82 and was only behind in a few points that year he should have won. When there are similar point totals usually the one who scored more goals is better.

And finally no, centers play a premium position they usually have to be responsible at both ends of the ice.

We are talking goals here. They are harder to come by. 40 goals are pretty rare, 40 assists aren't.

The bolded is my point about why you can't just say goal scorers are more important than playmakers or goals are more important than assists. It doesn't factor in how those goals were created or generated.

 

[Fantomas]

People often confuse the question of valuing metrics (goals v assists) with the matter of valuing scoring and playmaking.

Scoring is not more valuable than playmaking. But goals are more reflective of offensive value than assists.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

People often confuse the question of valuing metrics (goals v assists) with the matter of valuing scoring and playmaking.

Scoring is not more valuable than playmaking. But goals are more reflective of offensive value than assists.

How do you separate the one point from the other, though? If a goal is more reflective of offensive value, doesn't that downplay the role of the playmaker versus the goal scorer?

For instance, if a goal is worth 1 point and an assist is with half a point, then McDavid taking the puck end to end, then making a pinpoint pass in front for Maroon to tap into a wide open net punishes McDavid by saying his part in that goal was only worth .5 points, whereas Maroon gets a full point for his part.

 

[Fantomas]

How do you separate the one point from the other, though? If a goal is more reflective of offensive value, doesn't that downplay the role of the playmaker versus the goal scorer?

For instance, if a goal is worth 1 point and an assist is with half a point, then McDavid taking the puck end to end, then making a pinpoint pass in front for Maroon to tap into a wide open net punishes McDavid by saying his part in that goal was only worth .5 points, whereas Maroon gets a full point for his part.

That's just one play. Even if you feel that primary assists should count the same as goals, most secondary assists are not catalysts to a goal.