Are GOALS worth more than ASSISTS?

[Sidney the Kidney]

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.

The problem is, from a scoring perspective, you'd have to know exactly which ones were catalysts or not. And that's the problem with putting certain values on assists or secondary assists. You'd either have to literally review every secondary assist to see which ones were "catalysts" and which ones were "oops just bumped off my toe", or you'd have to assume every single one was just the latter.

That's why I'm not in favor of the downgrading of assists or secondary assists. There's no measurement available that determines which of them were catalysts and which of them were incidental contact that had very little to do with the eventual goal.

 

[Fantomas]

Something to add about the hypothetical McDavid to Maroon play:

- The incredible effort and pass by McDavid won't result in a point if Maroon does not convert the pass

- The act of anticipating the pass and getting in the right scoring position is very underrated. It is often assumed that because the conversion looks easy the overall physical and mental effort in converting the play was easy

Just food for thought.

 

[Fantomas]

The problem is, from a scoring perspective, you'd have to know exactly which ones were catalysts or not. And that's the problem with putting certain values on assists or secondary assists. You'd either have to literally review every secondary assist to see which ones were "catalysts" and which ones were "oops just bumped off my toe", or you'd have to assume every single one was just the latter.

That's why I'm not in favor of the downgrading of assists or secondary assists. There's no measurement available that determines which of them were catalysts and which of them were incidental contact that had very little to do with the eventual goal.

But we already do put certain values on assists. We assign them the value of 1, as we do with goals.

I have said before that I would prefer to count goals and assists, but not add them up into "points." I don't think the idea of "points" makes any sense.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

But we already do put certain values on assists. We assign them the value of 1, as we do with goals.

I have said before that I would prefer to count goals and assists, but not add them up into "points." I don't think the idea of "points" makes any sense.

I should have been more clear. I meant "lesser value" for certain assists.

 

[Haatley]

They are each worth exactly one point. No more. No less.
Can't get more equal than that.

 

[Sol]

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” )

"driving". Sure. That play is useless if they don't pot in the goal. That's why playmakers tend to have mediocre shots while goal scorers are not the best passers.

 

[Albus Dumbledore]

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.

okay but in general goals are harder to come by, like i said how many 40+ assist guys are there in the league compared to 40 goal guys. assists are so easy to pick up when you can have up to two per goal???

 

[Karl Eriksson]

You can win a game with no assists. Can’t win without goals. Goals are king.

 

[Leafidelity]

They don't score games by the amount of points produced

 

[Strait2thecup]

"driving". Sure. That play is useless if they don't pot in the goal. That's why playmakers tend to have mediocre shots while goal scorers are not the best passers.

That’s kind of a ridiculous statement... can’t get scored on if you have the puck

 

[DitchMarner]

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.

I would have said something similar.



Observe goal number three of this countdown. It seems silly that a secondary assist on that goal (if awarded) would have the same value as the goal.

However, there can also be a play where one player carries the puck around the net, shields it and gets it to the net and then a teammate merely touches the puck before another teammates puts in from the crease.

In general, unless you watch a highlight of every point a player scored, though, I'd say it's fair to assume secondary assists over the long run don't (or shouldn't) have the same value as goals. I wouldn't call them worthless, but the method of awarding a point per secondary assist seems flawed.

Personally, I may give secondary assists about .75 the value of goals.


I don't consider goals more valuable than primary assists, however.

 

[RageQuit77]

"goal" Google Kääntäjä

"assist" Google Kääntäjä

I can't simply get why this whole thing is even in debate. Only because assist(s) have arbitrarily set point value of 1 which happens to be also the set point value of a goal?

A goal, - when it's scored -, is only thing that can create and assign any point value at all to preceding happenings (to max 2 "passes") in currently used system. A goal is the objective and "the goal" of the game as it is needed for a win. There can very well exist goals without any assists credited, but there cannot ever exist anything called "assist" without the goal scored. A goal is unavoidable precondition and requirement for all points to be counted in 100% of case examples.

Dramatic overvalue in points is put to an average 2nd assist particularly. That's bigger problem, especially when 3rd and 4th assists, and critical plays for a goal without a puck are credited with point value of zero.

 

[Hynh]

The idea that goals, assists and points have concrete value is wrong

Goal scorer is most important


Primary assist is most important


Secondary assist is most important


You don't even need to touch the puck to get credit.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Do they tally up the amount of assists at the end of a game to establish who won? Didn't think so.

Winning>>> Goals, Assists, Points

 

[Ezekial]

Goals take you as far as your team.

Goal-scoring is only one facet of the game, a playmaker can mean more to his team than a goal scorer and vice versa

 

[Skolman]

It depends if the player we are talking about is Matthews or Marner.

 

[Morbo]

It depends if the player we are talking about is Matthews or Marner.

I know you guys are obsessed...but can you try for once not to make everything about the Leafs?

 

[VoluntaryDom]

In general, Goals>1st assist>2nd assist

 

[Skolman]

I know you guys are obsessed...but can you try for once not to make everything about the Leafs?

No, because my post is very relevant to the comparison. It's just that you hear the hypocrisy most often with those two players.

Not only with Leafs fans, but other fan bases as well

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

They're all equal to me.
This is about the ultimate goal, and the ultimate goal is to win the cup. And in order to win the cup you have to put the best team together. The best team will have both. You can't put a team of too many of one of the other type of players (goal scorers, playmakers) and expect to achieve the ultimate goal.
Sometimes the goal scorer does more on the scoring play. Sometimes the primary assist guy does more. Sometimes the secondary assist guy does more.

 

[LakeLivin]

They're all equal to me.
This is about the ultimate goal, and the ultimate goal is to win the cup. And in order to win the cup you have to put the best team together. The best team will have both. You can't put a team of too many of one of the other type of players (goal scorers, playmakers) and expect to achieve the ultimate goal.
Sometimes the goal scorer does more on the scoring play. Sometimes the primary assist guy does more. Sometimes the secondary assist guy does more.

Sure, but "Points" is a single stat that is too crude to differentiate between those 3 different scenarios. Given that limitation, IN GENERAL how often would you say the first occurs vs. the second vs. the third? My observation is that the goal scorer does more on the scoring play more often than the primary assist guy does more. And that the primary assist guy does more on the scoring play more often than the secondary assist guy does. If that's the case, valuing them all equally is even more flawed than a tiered scoring system that "shortchanges" those occurrences where an assist makes the play.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

Sure, but "Points" is a single stat that is too crude to differentiate between those 3 different scenarios. Given that limitation, IN GENERAL how often would you say the first occurs vs. the second vs. the third? My observation is that the goal scorer does more on the scoring play more often than the primary assist guy does more. And that the primary assist guy does more on the scoring play more often than the secondary assist guy does. If that's the case, valuing them all equally is even more flawed than a tiered scoring system that "shortchanges" those occurrences where an assist makes the play.

Is the key phrase here. No offense, but that doesn't cover everything.

 

[Echo Roku]

Worth enough more to basically be a tie breaker, but nothing more

 

[LakeLivin]

Is the key phrase here. No offense, but that doesn't cover everything.

Sorry, but to validly address the question, "In General" is a more important phrase. I have no problem if someone asserts that, based on their observations, assists "make the play" more often than goals, or even the same amount of times as goals. Which would support a "same value" argument. I'd disagree, but that's just a difference of experience/opinion. But arguing that they should be counted the same because it sometimes happens is flawed logic. The Scoring stat is flawed because it can't accommodate the nuances of which part of a play contributed most to a goal, but that limitation is what requires one to address it "In General".

 

[Zuluss]

My rule of thumb always was that 10 extra goals can make up for a 5-point gap. E.g., 40g+60a and 50g+45a are comparable stat lines. So, on the one hand, one cannot close a really large gap in offensive production by scoring a lot more goals (50g+20a is still far behind 20g+80a). On the other hand, mathematically my rule of thumb means 1g=1.5a.