Assist vs. Goal
- Thread starter Kaako Kappo
- Start date
-
HF Sportsbook has been reset for the new season - Click here to play.
- Status
Same if your team can shoot but no one can carry the puck or get it to one another in scoring position.
Kaako Kappo
Kaako Kappo
jetsforever
Registered User
- Dec 14, 2013
- 27,992
- 24,434
It really depends on the context and players in question. There's a difference between players who can be elite at both, and take what the defense offers; players who can score goals regardless of who they play with; players who depend on playmakers to set them up; players who are elite playmakers but who struggle to score goals; and players who get assists due to playing with better players.
In general goals are more valuable, but using this as a standard to compare the production of two players is overly simplistic. A player with 35 G and 90 PTS is not automatically worse than a player with 50 G and 90 PTS. 35 goals is still high end goalscoring, and if the player is a big play driver on his line, playing with complementary players who don't create much on their own, then in general his points are indicative of the offense he creates. If the 50 goal scorer is also a line driver playing with complementary players, then I would be more inclined to pick him as the better player, but if he's more of a shooter that just gets into soft areas to score and doesn't carry the puck much, I would likely prefer the 35 goalscorer to the 50 goal scorer as the 50 goal scorer ends up relying more on his teammates to get him the puck to score. The argument many use for goals over assists is that the playmaker is reliant on other players to finish his plays, and so the final result is out of his hands. But here, it's the 50 goal scorer that is actually more reliant on others, as he needs them to get him the puck. If teams can prevent that from happening, they can shut that player down. Meanwhile, the 35 goal scorer has shown he can do both at a high level, meaning he can take what defenses give him, making him harder to shut down. For these types of players, I don't think lower goal seasons are necessarily a sign of being any better or worse, it's just how the games played out for them. In general, players who can both score and create plays at a high level are going to be more valuable than players who are only elite at either.
As we go down the line though, I think an elite goalscorer who isn't a playdriver is still more valuable than a playmaker who isn't a good goalscorer simply due to the rarity of those goalscorers, and when we get into complementary players instead of your stars, the goalscorers are even more valuable because playmakers at that level aren't guys you want dominating the puck over your star players anyway.
In general goals are more valuable, but using this as a standard to compare the production of two players is overly simplistic. A player with 35 G and 90 PTS is not automatically worse than a player with 50 G and 90 PTS. 35 goals is still high end goalscoring, and if the player is a big play driver on his line, playing with complementary players who don't create much on their own, then in general his points are indicative of the offense he creates. If the 50 goal scorer is also a line driver playing with complementary players, then I would be more inclined to pick him as the better player, but if he's more of a shooter that just gets into soft areas to score and doesn't carry the puck much, I would likely prefer the 35 goalscorer to the 50 goal scorer as the 50 goal scorer ends up relying more on his teammates to get him the puck to score. The argument many use for goals over assists is that the playmaker is reliant on other players to finish his plays, and so the final result is out of his hands. But here, it's the 50 goal scorer that is actually more reliant on others, as he needs them to get him the puck. If teams can prevent that from happening, they can shut that player down. Meanwhile, the 35 goal scorer has shown he can do both at a high level, meaning he can take what defenses give him, making him harder to shut down. For these types of players, I don't think lower goal seasons are necessarily a sign of being any better or worse, it's just how the games played out for them. In general, players who can both score and create plays at a high level are going to be more valuable than players who are only elite at either.
As we go down the line though, I think an elite goalscorer who isn't a playdriver is still more valuable than a playmaker who isn't a good goalscorer simply due to the rarity of those goalscorers, and when we get into complementary players instead of your stars, the goalscorers are even more valuable because playmakers at that level aren't guys you want dominating the puck over your star players anyway.
RageQuit77
Registered User
Goal. Naturally. Obviously. The objective of the game, the criteria of winning condition in a hockey game, as well as necessary requirement for there to be an assist(s).
But then it goes more difficult. At least there should be clear distinction made between 1st and 2nd assists there. And while 3rd+ assists are not counted as points, they still exist.
In most cases with 1st assists it's clear that passing player's immediate intention is to deliver a puck to his team mate to be shot on goal with intent to score a goal. With 2nd and further assists this isn't that clear, not even in most cases. While typical average time period between 1st assist and goal scoring shot is rather short, with 2nd assists that time increases considerably, often containing a lot of skating, hustling, circling etc. before the goal is scored. Further we go backwards in passing chains from the scored goal, more meaningless assists will come on average as they become soon inseparable from any other pass customarily made in a game of hockey.
Not going now to their relative point values, which truly isn't and shouldn't be 1=1=1.
But then it goes more difficult. At least there should be clear distinction made between 1st and 2nd assists there. And while 3rd+ assists are not counted as points, they still exist.
In most cases with 1st assists it's clear that passing player's immediate intention is to deliver a puck to his team mate to be shot on goal with intent to score a goal. With 2nd and further assists this isn't that clear, not even in most cases. While typical average time period between 1st assist and goal scoring shot is rather short, with 2nd assists that time increases considerably, often containing a lot of skating, hustling, circling etc. before the goal is scored. Further we go backwards in passing chains from the scored goal, more meaningless assists will come on average as they become soon inseparable from any other pass customarily made in a game of hockey.
Not going now to their relative point values, which truly isn't and shouldn't be 1=1=1.
I've seen plays where the 2nd or third passes are more important then the goal.
There's goals which are wide open net one timers, just tap ins or rebounds which take no skill
There's goals which are wide open net one timers, just tap ins or rebounds which take no skill
BruinsFan37
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2015
- 1,664
- 1,882
Without context they're same.
You can't have an assist without a goal, and while a goal can be unassisted, the number of goals (especially non empty net goals) without an assist is few and far between.
You could break down each and every goal and determine which player was more important to the goal, but it's not worth the effort and thus they count the same on the score sheet.
You can't have an assist without a goal, and while a goal can be unassisted, the number of goals (especially non empty net goals) without an assist is few and far between.
You could break down each and every goal and determine which player was more important to the goal, but it's not worth the effort and thus they count the same on the score sheet.
Team Cozens
Registered User
An assist implies a goal has been scored.
I go with equal but there are elite playmakers and elite goal scorers. Is Hull really Hull without Oats?
This argument can be seen going forward in comparing Eichel who sets players up vs Matthews who is a pure scorer. If both end up with 80 points and Jack has 60 assists and Matthews has 60 goals... equal to me.
I go with equal but there are elite playmakers and elite goal scorers. Is Hull really Hull without Oats?
This argument can be seen going forward in comparing Eichel who sets players up vs Matthews who is a pure scorer. If both end up with 80 points and Jack has 60 assists and Matthews has 60 goals... equal to me.
ChaoticOrange
Registered User
shtorm2005
Registered User
You can assist without carrying the puck. You can play only with quick passes and pass is easier to make because there is no big goalie that blocks 90% of the space.
RageQuit77
Registered User
True. But as statistical categories, we talk about abstractions of average goals, 1st assists, and 2nd assists. It's also worth to note that often happens that most critical role in the goal scored was on a player who doesn't appear at all on the score sheets. For example mask maker on a net.
Order of rarity between these 3 types of points is Goals, 2nd assists, 1st assists. That doesn't mean that 2nd assists are more important than 1st assists on average, even them being more rare in their occurrence.
Often happens also that the guy who scored the goal, de facto made his own 2nd assist, but that happening is simply ignored and 2nd assist is accounted for a guy who actually made 3rd assist. (and there could be very well yet another score-sheet invisible guy who hit his guy to a boards making whole situation possible to happen.)
Without a goal you don't have a scoring context to be compared with. Without an assist you can have that context.
Typically it's not that black-and-white type distinction between play makers and goal scorers we are often used to paint it in our debates. Generally speaking there are very strong correlation between good playmakers and good goal scorers. It tends to come an issue and the topic only when a player occupies clearly one or other end of the scale. i.e. reduced to a comparison and question "which is more valuable, assists or goals?"
TheDoldrums
Registered User
RageQuit77
Registered User
Then there are important question of objectivity. A Goal is pretty clear cut category to be counted. Boom! A clock and game stops when that happens. A last guy of offensive side who touched the puck is rewarded with goal scored, and point, as there are no official category of 'own goals' counted in the hockey.
After that happening starts intense retrospective observations what actually happened before that scored goal, and it comes much more subjective how to assign point values to preceding touches to a puck. However, arbitrarily this is only limited to last two touches, and applied with more or less systematic manner also to all kinds of accidental contacts with puck before the goal, following good faith principle, even if it would be debatable was this or that more or less random touch to the puck active and intentional act, or something else. Such process however systematically ignores all those players who didn't touch the puck, and sometimes also those who did (even with their stick). Overall the statistical category of assists is motley collection of all kinds things that just happened to lead to a goal scored, far from perfect depiction of relative importances of each players' contributions to the goal. On average it's clear that most of all assists (both 1st and 2nd) are indeed happenings that can be clearly and objectively defined important and often critical, necessary things that led to the goal scored, but unlike with assists, for goals the category is 100% pure as counted in-game happenings (yes, it goes to level of meta-game when there are question about that purity).
Clear cut objective stat (goal) defines the starting point of arbitration where point values are assigned to couple of touches preceding it. People tend to think that it's an assist that is part of the goal and leading to it, when it's actually just a pass that get counted as assist only and only if a goal is scored. Thinking and use of terms is upside down. Title of this thread should be "Pass or goal?"
After that happening starts intense retrospective observations what actually happened before that scored goal, and it comes much more subjective how to assign point values to preceding touches to a puck. However, arbitrarily this is only limited to last two touches, and applied with more or less systematic manner also to all kinds of accidental contacts with puck before the goal, following good faith principle, even if it would be debatable was this or that more or less random touch to the puck active and intentional act, or something else. Such process however systematically ignores all those players who didn't touch the puck, and sometimes also those who did (even with their stick). Overall the statistical category of assists is motley collection of all kinds things that just happened to lead to a goal scored, far from perfect depiction of relative importances of each players' contributions to the goal. On average it's clear that most of all assists (both 1st and 2nd) are indeed happenings that can be clearly and objectively defined important and often critical, necessary things that led to the goal scored, but unlike with assists, for goals the category is 100% pure as counted in-game happenings (yes, it goes to level of meta-game when there are question about that purity).
Clear cut objective stat (goal) defines the starting point of arbitration where point values are assigned to couple of touches preceding it. People tend to think that it's an assist that is part of the goal and leading to it, when it's actually just a pass that get counted as assist only and only if a goal is scored. Thinking and use of terms is upside down. Title of this thread should be "Pass or goal?"
Leonhard Euler
Registered User
- Mar 5, 2018
- 514
- 646
In a vacuum it's goal that's more valuable, which is somewhat common sense.
But great play makers often do the bulk of the work and make it really easy on the guy who taps it in or gets the goal in the end.
Point is you can't make a blanket statement that playr X is better than player Y because X is goal scorer and Y is play maker, you'd have to disect it on case by case basis.
But great play makers often do the bulk of the work and make it really easy on the guy who taps it in or gets the goal in the end.
Point is you can't make a blanket statement that playr X is better than player Y because X is goal scorer and Y is play maker, you'd have to disect it on case by case basis.
Pizza the Hutt
Game 6 Truther
- Mar 22, 2012
- 2,820
- 525
Better question is do you want a guy who can score X amount of goals or get Y amount of assists.
For instance:
Do you want Claude Giroux? Or Tyler Seguin?
For instance:
Do you want Claude Giroux? Or Tyler Seguin?
Again.. A goal has on average around 1.8 assists, so a goal is worth about 1.8 times more.
In the first place, a "secondary assist" is something that doesn't even need to be recognized. There could be a system where you only count primary assists. Or there could be a system where you additionally count tertiary assists. Or there could be a system where you count no assists at all. With one system, a player could have 40 assists, with one 0 assists, and with another, a player could have 100 assists even though the amount of goals scored on the plays is the exact same. And what does that mean? Simply, that goals you can trust. Assists are "noise". In any case, in a system that has secondary assists, an assist is worth nowhere near as much as a goal.
Players being evaluated by "points" is completely faulty in a system that counts secondary assists, also. At the very least, they should be evaluated via "weighed points" that places a higher value on goals, less value on primary assists and even less value on secondary assists.
In the first place, a "secondary assist" is something that doesn't even need to be recognized. There could be a system where you only count primary assists. Or there could be a system where you additionally count tertiary assists. Or there could be a system where you count no assists at all. With one system, a player could have 40 assists, with one 0 assists, and with another, a player could have 100 assists even though the amount of goals scored on the plays is the exact same. And what does that mean? Simply, that goals you can trust. Assists are "noise". In any case, in a system that has secondary assists, an assist is worth nowhere near as much as a goal.
Players being evaluated by "points" is completely faulty in a system that counts secondary assists, also. At the very least, they should be evaluated via "weighed points" that places a higher value on goals, less value on primary assists and even less value on secondary assists.
But that's just faulty. A guy could make a great screening play that is the primary reason the goal even is scored, but that player gets no assist - Instead a secondary assist is given to a guy who touches the puck past the red line 30 seconds ago. If you count assists, count screens.
RageQuit77
Registered User
They award trophies for things that contain a lot of noise.
We have 3 guys playing hockey, scoring:
Xorphy 40+40 (40 primary assists)
Yachkin 40+41 (30 primary and 11 2nd assists)
ZacDabic 20+62 (35 primary and 27 2nd assists)
ZacDabic wins the Art Ross, despite it being everything else than plain clear his point totals are better and more valuable than Xorphy's and Yachkin's.
That sucks most in currently used points awarding system. 3 different value things are counted as same when they obviously aren't same.
We have 3 guys playing hockey, scoring:
Xorphy 40+40 (40 primary assists)
Yachkin 40+41 (30 primary and 11 2nd assists)
ZacDabic 20+62 (35 primary and 27 2nd assists)
ZacDabic wins the Art Ross, despite it being everything else than plain clear his point totals are better and more valuable than Xorphy's and Yachkin's.
That sucks most in currently used points awarding system. 3 different value things are counted as same when they obviously aren't same.
EdJovanovski
#RempeForCalder
The pass was more important than the goal? If there was no goal the pass wouldn’t matter
Pizza the Hutt
Game 6 Truther
- Mar 22, 2012
- 2,820
- 525
For sure lot of players have padded stats, but to win the Art Ross? To get the most amount of points you're gonna need a lot of primary assists. Look at previous Art Ross winners - did any of them not deserve it?
RageQuit77
Registered User
I didn't make that claim.
We also forget now 4th player playing with Xorphy, Yachkin, and ZacDapic. He is O'Gritty.
O'Gritty 25+45+10 but he has been on ice in situations where he is directly contributed to the goals scored - let's say - 20 puckless masks, 15 times "pointless" assist when making an opponents cheat toward him and freeing space and time for others to score, 5 times a mid ice hit to an opponent that caused him to lose a puck leading to an unassisted goal by some of his linemates etc. Not to mention 3rd and 4th assists that he makes more often than Xorphy, Yachkin, and ZacDabic.
He will be never considered in Art Ross race, even contributing directly to more of his team's goal scoring than other three guys to their teams' scoring.
Example is imaginary, but it's made for pointing out what sucks now. Goals are only offensive stat that is categorically both full and pure, as it takes account every individual case in the whole set of goals. Other aspects of hockey offense are far less accurately and fully accounted for in statistics.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Florida Panthers vs Dallas Stars - Nokia Arena, Tampere, FinlandWagers: 3Staked: $415.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-