Goals vs. Assists: If you had to weight them, how would you?

[Goose]

I think it's safe to say that most people believe goals are a more valuable stat than assists, but I'm curious how much more people think.

Taking two players who are equal in all other ways, how would you personally weigh the value of goals vs assists in terms of which player you'd pick for your team if that's all you knew about them? If you had to ballpark a ratio, what would it be?

This table shows "equal" production between Player A (goal scorer) and Player B (assist getter) based on the ratio weight. In these scenarios, Player B scores half as many goals but more overall points based on the ratio. The question is, at what ratio do you start picking Player B over Player A? I think most people will take a 30/30 player over a 15/48 player, but it gets less clear the further you go down.

Ratio	A - Goals	A - Assists	A - Points		B - Goals	B - Assists	B - Points	Net Difference
1.2	30	30	60		15	48	63	3
1.2	60	30	90		30	66	96	6
1.5	30	30	60		15	53	68	8
1.5	60	30	90		30	75	105	15
2	30	30	60		15	60	75	15
2	60	30	90		30	90	120	30​
2.5	30	30	60		15	68	83	23
2.5	60	30	90		30	105	135	45

Ratios are also a bit crude, because they get a little weird the more lopsided the point distribution is between goals and assists, but this is just a thought exercise to see where people generally fall, or if there's a contingent out there that think assists and goals are equally valuable.

Edit: Player B having more points doesn't mean the hypothetical team scored more goals overall.

 

[PensandCaps]

It depends, some plays the pass is way more important than flipping the puck in a wide open net.

 

[Goose]

It depends, some plays the pass is way more important than flipping the puck in a wide open net.

Roger that, it’s clearly an imperfect metric, but it’s just a gut generalization I’m looking for.

 

[OysterForever]

Goals anytime.

 

[Hockey4Lyfe]

To receive a point, a goal needs to happen in any case.

Player A has 999 goals and player B has 1000 points. Give me player B every single time.

 

[filinski77]

There are about 60-70% more assists than there are goals. Statistically that shows that goals are more valuable and hard to accumulate. This is further ilustrated from the qualitative understanding that the primary objective of hockey is to score goals.

Realistically, I'm on board with a primary assist = a goal, but secondary assists do not have the same value to me as goals do. The 2nd assist is arbitrary and if the NHL decided to never count them back in the day, nobody would really bat an eye - similar to how most soccer leagues don't count secondary assists, and similar to how we don't see people here advocating for tertiary assists.

I agree that sometimes the primary or secondary assist can be more fundamental to the goal. But the reality is that the further you go down the chain: Goal -> primary assist -> secondar assist -> tertiary assist -> 4th assist etc. the less impactful or meaningful that play or pass goes towards the final outcome which is the goal.

I will take a guy that is 80 goals, 20 assists over the 20 goal, 80 assist guy. Therefore also logical to say that I would still take the 80 goal (100 point) guy over the 20 goal (110 point) guy even if he had 10 more points.

 

[Hockey4Lyfe]

There are about 60-70% more assists than there are goals. Statistically that shows that goals are more valuable and hard to accumulate. This is further ilustrated from the qualitative understanding that the primary objective of hockey is to score goals.

Realistically, I'm on board with a primary assist = a goal, but secondary assists do not have the same value to me as goals do. The 2nd assist is arbitrary and if the NHL decided to never count them back in the day, nobody would really bat an eye - similar to how most soccer leagues don't count secondary assists, and similar to how we don't see people here advocating for tertiary assists.

I agree that sometimes the primary or secondary assist can be more fundamental to the goal. But the reality is that the further you go down the chain: Goal -> primary assist -> secondar assist -> tertiary assist -> 4th assist etc. the less impactful or meaningful that play or pass goes towards the final outcome which is the goal.

I will take a guy that is 80 goals, 20 assists over the 20 goal, 80 assist guy. Therefore also logical to say that I would still take the 80 goal (100 point) guy over the 20 goal (110 point) guy even if he had 10 more points.

This makes no sense. So you would willingly take a player that contributed to less goals?

Why?

 

[Vipers31]

This makes no sense. So you would willingly take a player that contributed to less goals?

Why?

Contribution doesn’t end at the secondary assist, to be fair.

 

[Hockey4Lyfe]

Contribution doesn’t end at the secondary assist, to be fair.

Absolutely. But that goes much further than what we are being given in this scenario.

Looking solely at points (goals scored no matter who is the final goal scorer), why would one pick the player that has less of that overall statistic?

Its a black and white scenario that seems fairly simple on paper to make. But yes, there is some gray area as you implied. Past the amount of points… positional value, defensive impacts, etc. need to come into play as simply being good at accumulating points/goals isnt the only key in being a great hockey player.

 

[rogking65]

To receive a point, a goal needs to happen in any case.

Player A has 999 goals and player B has 1000 points. Give me player B every single time.

you have got to be joking

 

[Hockey4Lyfe]

you have got to be joking

Do you want to provide an actual educated response to why you feel that is wrong or just leave it with your comment?

 

[Emerald Duck]

It's too bad the NHL doesn't track primary vs secondary assists. Primary assists are almost as valuable as goals while secondary assists often accrue to a player who handles the puck a lot in a team's offensive scheme.

 

[wasup]

1.629865 / 1

 

[Lou Sassole]

Do you want to provide an actual educated response to why you feel that is wrong or just leave it with your comment?

I think it's because if goals are more valuable, than the guy that generates more goals himself is more valuable. That 1000 points could be 1 goal and 999 secondary assists. If he established that goals are harder to create than assists, than the guy with 999 goals is more valuable.

 

[Vipers31]

Absolutely. But that goes much further than what we are being given in this scenario.

Looking solely at points (goals scored no matter who is the final goal scorer), why would one pick the player that has less of that overall statistic?

Its a black and white scenario that seems fairly simple on paper to make. But yes, there is some gray area as you implied. Past the amount of points… positional value, defensive impacts, etc. need to come into play as simply being good at accumulating points/goals isnt the only key in being a great hockey player.

Yeah, there’s really little to disagree on - just imagine there wouldn’t be two assists rewarded, which is a pretty random decision that was made. The games that were played wouldn’t change, just whether the 1st, 2nd and 3rd assist (or even beyond) were counted would make a difference on paper. Your approach clearly has logical merit, though.

 

[Hockey4Lyfe]

I think it's because if goals are more valuable, than the guy that generates more goals himself is more valuable. That 1000 points could be 1 goal and 999 assists. If he established that goals are harder to create than assists, than the guy with 999 goals is more valuable.

But in one situation my team has scored 1000 goals. And in the other only 999.

I will take the 1000 goals.

 

[Lou Sassole]

But in one situation my team has scored 1000 goals. And in the other only 999.

I will take the 1000 goals.

Ok, you go ahead and do that.

 

[filinski77]

This makes no sense. So you would willingly take a player that contributed to less goals?

Why?

Because of that players importance and impact to the goal being scored. As discussed, the last component of scoring a goal is the most important part and therefore I put more emphasis on it.

Therefore, I'm looking at what on-average contributes MORE to the goal. This also includes the understanding that a goal scorer can't also get an assist on their own goal, even if they made a secondary assist-type pass to a player that passed it back to them and then they scored the goal.

If you want to talk about "contributed to less goals" - then you are inherently assuming that all touches of the puck contribute equally. Not only do I disagree, but I would say that it's also foolish to act like that is accurate.

But let's say we take you at face value and talk about contributing to actual goals. If a breakout pass that's the secondary assist is on average just as valued as the goal, what about the 3rd/4th/5th assist. What about the person screening the goalie, what about the player that simply existed and drew defenders towards him that opened up the ice for everyone else?

For example above ^. Even though Crosby had 86 more points, he actually contributed to 56 less actual goals. This is following your logic that regardless of what that player was doing (routine breakout pass, scoring the actual goal, whatever), it all should be valued the same.

Of course - I don't look at it this way, but just illustrating the slope that your logic takes you down.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I have goals slightly ahead of 1st assists and 1st assists notably ahead of 2nd assists.

 

[Hockey4Lyfe]

Because of that players importance and impact to the goal being scored. As discussed, the last component of scoring a goal is the most important part and therefore I put more emphasis on it.

Therefore, I'm looking at what on-average contributes MORE to the goal. This also includes the understanding that a goal scorer can't also get an assist on their own goal, even if they made a secondary assist-type pass to a player that passed it back to them and then they scored the goal.

If you want to talk about "contributed to less goals" - then you are inherently assuming that all touches of the puck contribute equally. Not only do I disagree, but I would say that it's also foolish to act like that is accurate.

But let's say we take you at face value and talk about contributing to actual goals. If a breakout pass that's the secondary assist is on average just as valued as the goal, what about the 3rd/4th/5th assist. What about the person screening the goalie, what about the player that simply existed and drew defenders towards him that opened up the ice for everyone else?

View attachment 1002904

For example above ^. Even though Crosby had 86 more points, he actually contributed to 56 less actual goals. This is following your logic that regardless of what that player was doing (routine breakout pass, scoring the actual goal, whatever), it all should be valued the same.

Of course - I don't look at it this way, but just illustrating the slope that your logic takes you down.

Why compare two players when one is 2 years older and has played many more games? That's illogical.

You are also adding parameters that weren't initially given.

 

[kingsholygrail]

A goal can be scored without an assist.

 

[dr robbie]

I've come to believe that no system of scoring is perfect. Sometimes the guy scoring the goal does all of the work while some random guy did a dump in that lead to the assist. Sometimes someone dangles 4 guys and passes to someone with an open net and only gets an assist. Sometimes the guy with the main impact leading to the goal doesn't even show up on the scoresheet. What about screening the goalie without touching the puck at all? Or a big hit that frees up the puck for a breakaway? That's not even factoring things like being short-handed, being on a power-play, the other team having an open-net, etc. etc..

That said, I think the system in place makes the most sense. Each goal is unique and without assessing each one individually, just making it a blanket point across the board keeps the playing field even.

 

[SI90]

I would prefer an elite goal scorer but there’s a special talent that elite playmakers have that makes their teammates around them better and that’s extremely valuable.

 

[GlitchMarner]

I don't have exact ratios. I'm okay with valuing primary assists as much or close to as much as goals (I'm sure no one would say Zach Hyman was a lot better offensively last season than McDavid), but secondary assists definitely shouldn't be considered close to as valuable as either (generally speaking - yes, there are the rare instances where a player makes a brilliant solo effort and then another player shovels the puck toward the net and a third player scores on the rebound).

I believe @Hockey Outsider did a study in which he concluded a secondary assist has about two-thirds the value of a goal.

 

[GlitchMarner]

I've come to believe that no system of scoring is perfect. Sometimes the guy scoring the goal does all of the work while some random guy did a dump in that lead to the assist. Sometimes someone dangles 4 guys and passes to someone with an open net and only gets an assist. Sometimes the guy with the main impact leading to the goal doesn't even show up on the scoresheet. What about screening the goalie without touching the puck at all? Or a big hit that frees up the puck for a breakaway? That's not even factoring things like being short-handed, being on a power-play, the other team having an open-net, etc. etc..

That said, I think the system in place makes the most sense. Each goal is unique and without assessing each one individually, just making it a blanket point across the board keeps the playing field even.