How much more valuable are goals compared to assists?

[Dion TheFluff]

I think most on here would agree that scoring goals is more difficult than putting up assist (and thus more valuable) but how much more valuable would a goal be compared to an assist?

I think I seen somewhere that on average for every goal there is 1.7 assist but I'm not sure how accurate that was?

Click to read more...

 

[#2eddieshore]

Second assists devalue assists.

 

[Cup or Bust]

The most valuable player is the one that can create the most offense possible and contribute to the most goals his team scores. That is why McDavid is the best player in the world. No one creates as much offense and contributes to his team scoring more goals. I am sure he could score 50-60 goals a season himself and the Oilers would likely score 20-30 less goals a season because he would not be making the best play possible to maximize the amount of goals his team can score while he is on the ice. If all he did was focus on scoring himself he would miss other great opportunities for his team to score a goal, but that is a skill and a talent a player has to possess, it's not a choice. Some players have amazing on ice vision and some just simply don't have that talent. No individual will ever score enough goals himself to make up for what a good goal scoring elite playmaker contributes to his team offensively on a season to season basis.

 

[Shark Finn]

I'd say goals should amount to three assists and assists should be indicated on the scoreboard, not goals.

 

[NigerianNightmare]

There should be just one assist for each goal

 

[Cursed Lemon]

The value of a goal OR an assist is dependent on which of those two things required the most effort/skill in order to accomplish. You would have to evaluate goals and assists on a case-by-case basis to get this answer.

Is there an easy heuristic that could get you close to the answer? No idea.

 

[Boud]

It's simple ... it depends on the goal.

Tap in? Playmaker deserves more recognition.

Takeaway then pass to a player who scores? Both just as valuable.

Player snipes an impossible shot? Goalscorer deserves recognition.

Etc etc etc

IMO assists can be just as valuable or more. You can't analyze it the way you're trying to do. Even secondary assists can make an entire play, way more often than people like to admit, which is why it counts as a point.

 

[Straight Fire]

Whichever promotes your favorite player's stats

But seriously, some of the greatest scorers had equally or more skilled playmakers who fed them.

 

[North Cole]

Extremely hard to come up with a flat figure or value. I would say somewhere between 1-1.5x. There's 3 points on a play, so if you have 1.5x for the goal, that leaves you with 1.5x for the other two points. Weight a 1st assist between 0.75-1 gives you a weight to the 2nd assist of between 0.5-0.75.

Does it seem accurate to say:
G = 1.5x
1A = 1.0
2A = 0.5

Maybe, but I'd be more inclined to say:
G = 1.25x
1A = 1.0x
2A = 0.75x

There's lots of assists, secondary and primary, that are just a dude giving the puck to the scorer who then does all the work. There's also lots of times the primary assist maker does the same and the goal is a tap in. Like is a goal on a 2 on 1 worth more than the assist if the passer has to get it through a defender and the shooter hits a half-a-wide-open net?

It's easy to just throw some numbers together like above - goodluck actually coming up with something statistically rigorous. We don't have anywhere near the detailed data required to actually assess strength of goals other than distance from the net, and we have zero information (that I know of) about strength of assists. Other than 1 is primary and the other is secondary - this creates some bias that secondary are automatically weaker, which is I'm sure, not always true.

Edited - run on sentence.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

If you don't want to discuss the question, move along.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Extremely hard to come up with a flat figure for value. I would say somewhere between 1-1.5x. There's 3 points on a play, so if you have 1.5x for the goal, that leaves you with 1.5x for the other two points. Weight a 1st assist between 0.75-1 gives you a weight to the 2nd assist of between 0.5-0.75.

Does it seem accurate to say
G = 1.5x
1A = 1.0
2A = 0.5

Maybe, but I'd be more inclined to say
G = 1.25x
1A = 1.0x
2A = 0.75x

There's lots of assists, secondary and primary, that are just a dude giving the puck to the scorer that does all the work. There's lot of times the primary assist maker does the same and the goal is a tap in. Like is a goal on a 2 on 1 worth more than the assist if the passer has to get it through a defender and the shooter hits a half-a-wide-open net?

It's easy to just throw some numbers together - goodluck actually coming up with something statistically rigorous, we don't have anywhere near the detailed data required to actually assess strength of goals other than distance from the net, and we have zero information (that I know of) about strength of assists.

I'd say it's near impossible to judge unless one were to literally review every single goal scored and then assign "value" based on who was the most important player during that sequence.

Because otherwise people would just be assuming who was the most important player during a sequence that lead to a goal based on the idea that "goal > primary assist > secondary assist" being true for every goal scored.

 

[Dion TheFluff]

Extremely hard to come up with a flat figure for value. I would say somewhere between 1-1.5x. There's 3 points on a play, so if you have 1.5x for the goal, that leaves you with 1.5x for the other two points. Weight a 1st assist between 0.75-1 gives you a weight to the 2nd assist of between 0.5-0.75.

Does it seem accurate to say
G = 1.5x
1A = 1.0
2A = 0.5

Maybe, but I'd be more inclined to say
G = 1.25x
1A = 1.0x
2A = 0.75x

There's lots of assists, secondary and primary, that are just a dude giving the puck to the scorer that does all the work. There's lot of times the primary assist maker does the same and the goal is a tap in. Like is a goal on a 2 on 1 worth more than the assist if the passer has to get it through a defender and the shooter hits a half-a-wide-open net?

It's easy to just throw some numbers together - goodluck actually coming up with something statistically rigorous, we don't have anywhere near the detailed data required to actually assess strength of goals other than distance from the net, and we have zero information (that I know of) about strength of assists.

thanks for a legit response. I was thinking that the G = 1.5/ PA = 1/SA = 0.5 seemed kind of right but i wasn't sure. Your 2nd one (goals = 1.25 ect ect) seems like a more accurate reflection considering that every goal doesn't always have 3 points involved. I may try crunching some numbers this weekend and see if i can come to a more concrete number.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I looked into this a few years ago and wrote an article: Examining the value of the secondary assist

The general findings were primary assists have nearly the same year-over-year correlation as goals, and secondary assists have about two-thirds of the predictive value. (Obviously that's an average - on some plays, secondary assists are crucial, while on other plays, they've virtually meaningless).

So I think it's fair to discount the value of secondary assists. But I've seen people (in other threads) state that secondary assists are worth half a point, or even less, and I've never seen a rational basis for that.

 

[North Cole]

I'd say it's near impossible to judge unless one were to literally review every single goal scored and then assign "value" based on who was the most important player during that sequence.

Because otherwise people would just be assuming who was the most important player during a sequence that lead to a goal based on the idea that "goal > primary assist > secondary assist" being true for every goal scored.

Yeah, it really really difficult with the data available and every play is so different.

thanks for a legit response. I was thinking that the G = 1.5/ PA = 1/SA = 0.5 seemed kind of right but i wasn't sure. Your 2nd one (goals = 1.25 ect ect) seems like a more accurate reflection considering that every goal doesn't always have 3 points involved. I may try crunching some numbers this weekend and see if i can come to a more concrete number.

True I didn't think of other situations like that, though you would probably just weight them out of 2 and say maybe 1.2 for the G and 0.8 for the assist. Problem is there are so many situations where it could be reversed - like McDavid/Matthews make a good defensive play 5v6 and get it out of their zone, pass to someone up the ice, who scores an ENG. You've got probably 75% of the value of that goal in the Dzone and very little in the act of shooting other than hitting the net from the blue line.

I looked into this a few years ago and wrote an article: Examining the value of the secondary assist

The general findings were primary assists have nearly the same year-over-year correlation as goals, and secondary assists have about two-thirds of the predictive value. (Obviously that's an average - on some plays, secondary assists are crucial, while on other plays, they've virtually meaningless).

So I think it's fair to discount the value of secondary assists. But I've seen people (in other threads) state that secondary assists are worth half a point, or even less, and I've never seen a rational basis for that.

So your weighting would be close to:
G = 1
1A = 1
2A = 0.66

And essentially 2.66 points per goal

 

[Hockey Outsider]

So your weighting would be close to:
G = 1
1A = 1
2A = 0.66

And essentially 2.66 points per goal

Yes - these are (approximately) the weightings that, over a span of 11 years, maximize the predictive value of this year's production vs. next year's. That, to me, is the most sensible basis for determining the relative values in a systematic way (i.e. rather than judging each play individually).

 

[RebuildinVan]

its possible to have more assists than goals and loose a game. So whats more important?

 

[Puckclektr]

Second assists devalue assists.

Many times the secondary assists are from defensemen exiting the defensive zone. Getting a puck out of the defensive zone is more risky and more difficult than just passing or touching the puck in the offensive zone. Without those secondary assist, many times the puck doesn't even leave the defensive zone.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Hard to generalize. Elite passers like Gretzky probably added as much if not more value with an assist as did Lemieux. I’d put Crosby and McDavid as high value assist players too since they have a history of making their linemates a lot better.

 

[pawnster]

Goals are worth more. The reason playmakers are so important is because of the diversion/confusion it creates otherwise players would just shoot every time. But in the end, the puck usually gets to the person most likely to put it in. And for a reason - they're better at it. There's no science that applies to this, it's the most abstract question imaginable, but I say 1 goal = 2 assists.

 

[Puckclektr]

Goals are worth more. The reason playmakers are so important is because of the diversion/confusion it creates otherwise players would just shoot every time. But in the end, the puck usually gets to the person most likely to put it in. And for a reason - they're better at it. There's no science that applies to this, it's the most abstract question imaginable, but I say 1 goal = 2 assists.

But do they usually get the puck without the other person making some sort of an effort. There are people that aren't good scorers but excellent passers. If those people don't do the work do get those people the puck, that guy isn't going to score anywhere near as close.
Lets look at the players that assist in feeding the puck.
Puckhandlers- players like marner use thier hands and creativity to draw players to themselves creating open spaces for scorers. They don't just pass. it is a developed skill that not everyone has. Like you said they are important because of the diversion and confusion created. That is a skill and should be awarded no less than a goal.
Physcical players- Using your body to fight for the puck in order to get it to the person in scoring position. Or as a secondary assist. Someone like Hyman or Wilson using your body to get the puck to the primary assist getter in order to set someone up or take a shot on goal. Many times those secondary passes are more important. If that guy didn't go get the puck using his strength, then the goal wouldn't be scored.
Defensive puck movers- As I said in a previous post, moving the puck and getting it on the stick of someone in the defensive zone or outside of the defensive zone is harder to do as there is more risk. Generally nobody behind you. Most of the time those are secondary or even third assists.

These can be even more important than goal scorers, becasue without them there is NO scoring chance which would result in NO goal.
Hockey is a team game and although the scorer "finished" the play, that by no means means it was more important or easier than the other people assisting in the goal. Without that player assisting in the play, that goal most likely wouldn't have happened.
The only way we can look sating a goal is worth two assists is when it is unassisted or for the most part, every goal looked at individually and the whole play assisted. But we can't. There are many times when the assist should be worth more than the goal. I can argue that a percentage of goals maybe 10 percent, where the third assist isn't even awarded to a player but was the actual assist that created the play that led to the goal. Even many times a player can be more important to allowing the goal without even touching the puck.

 

[Salsa Shark]

But do they usually get the puck without the other person making some sort of an effort. There are people that aren't good scorers but excellent passers. If those people don't do the work do get those people the puck, that guy isn't going to score anywhere near as close.
Lets look at the players that assist in feeding the puck.
Puckhandlers- players like marner use thier hands and creativity to draw players to themselves creating open spaces for scorers. They don't just pass. it is a developed skill that not everyone has. Like you said they are important because of the diversion and confusion created. That is a skill and should be awarded no less than a goal.
Physcical players- Using your body to fight for the puck in order to get it to the person in scoring position. Or as a secondary assist. Someone like Hyman or Wilson using your body to get the puck to the primary assist getter in order to set someone up or take a shot on goal. Many times those secondary passes are more important. If that guy didn't go get the puck using his strength, then the goal wouldn't be scored.
Defensive puck movers- As I said in a previous post, moving the puck and getting it on the stick of someone in the defensive zone or outside of the defensive zone is harder to do as there is more risk. Generally nobody behind you. Most of the time those are secondary or even third assists.

These can be even more important than goal scorers, becasue without them there is NO scoring chance which would result in NO goal.
Hockey is a team game and although the scorer "finished" the play, that by no means means it was more important or easier than the other people assisting in the goal. Without that player assisting in the play, that goal most likely wouldn't have happened.
The only way we can look sating a goal is worth two assists is when it is unassisted or for the most part, every goal looked at individually and the whole play assisted. But we can't. There are many times when the assist should be worth more than the goal. I can argue that a percentage of goals maybe 10 percent, where the third assist isn't even awarded to a player but was the actual assist that created the play that led to the goal. Even many times a player can be more important to allowing the goal without even touching the puck.

This sums it up very nicely. Excellent post

This season Panarin fits your playmaker description perfectly for the rangers. Kreiders career year has been helped by panarins playmaking ability especially on the PP - goals and assists definitely aren’t equal but complimentary. It’s hard to assign value comparing them IMO.

 

[kingsholygrail]

I think most on here would agree that scoring goals is more difficult than putting up assist (and thus more valuable) but how much more valuable would a goal be compared to an assist?

I think I seen somewhere that on average for every goal there is 1.7 assist but I'm not sure how accurate that was?

Goals can be unassisted but assists can't happen without goals. Of course, many goals can't happen without the assist or assists.

 

[pawnster]

But do they usually get the puck without the other person making some sort of an effort. There are people that aren't good scorers but excellent passers. If those people don't do the work do get those people the puck, that guy isn't going to score anywhere near as close.
Lets look at the players that assist in feeding the puck.
Puckhandlers- players like marner use thier hands and creativity to draw players to themselves creating open spaces for scorers. They don't just pass. it is a developed skill that not everyone has. Like you said they are important because of the diversion and confusion created. That is a skill and should be awarded no less than a goal.
Physcical players- Using your body to fight for the puck in order to get it to the person in scoring position. Or as a secondary assist. Someone like Hyman or Wilson using your body to get the puck to the primary assist getter in order to set someone up or take a shot on goal. Many times those secondary passes are more important. If that guy didn't go get the puck using his strength, then the goal wouldn't be scored.
Defensive puck movers- As I said in a previous post, moving the puck and getting it on the stick of someone in the defensive zone or outside of the defensive zone is harder to do as there is more risk. Generally nobody behind you. Most of the time those are secondary or even third assists.

These can be even more important than goal scorers, becasue without them there is NO scoring chance which would result in NO goal.
Hockey is a team game and although the scorer "finished" the play, that by no means means it was more important or easier than the other people assisting in the goal. Without that player assisting in the play, that goal most likely wouldn't have happened.
The only way we can look sating a goal is worth two assists is when it is unassisted or for the most part, every goal looked at individually and the whole play assisted. But we can't. There are many times when the assist should be worth more than the goal. I can argue that a percentage of goals maybe 10 percent, where the third assist isn't even awarded to a player but was the actual assist that created the play that led to the goal. Even many times a player can be more important to allowing the goal without even touching the puck.

Matthews is an excellent puckhandler, likely better than your example of Marner. Matthews plays much more physical than he's given credit for. Dunno how much you watch Leafs games but Matthews is amazing at moving the puck in the d-zone. The difference is they aren't dramatic cross ice or two line passes. They're all lightning quick 6 footers that you better be ready for or it will look bad.

Honestly, I think Matthews is a better playmaker than he is a goal scorer. It's just no one can keep up.

 

[authentic]

Goals can be unassisted but assists can't happen without goals. Of course, many goals can't happen without the assist or assists.

For this reason alone goals are worth more than assists, but by how much is the question. I don’t think they’re worth much more than a primary assist but I’d say at least double a secondary on average.

 

[authentic]

Matthews is an excellent puckhandler, likely better than your example of Marner. Matthews plays much more physical than he's given credit for. Dunno how much you watch Leafs games but Matthews is amazing at moving the puck in the d-zone. The difference is they aren't dramatic cross ice or two line passes. They're all lightning quick 6 footers that you better be ready for or it will look bad.

Honestly, I think Matthews is a better playmaker than he is a goal scorer. It's just no one can keep up.

I was just about to post this. I swear people on this board don’t even watch him play because you still have people doubting he’s a better defensive player than McDavid, who has actually become pretty good himself btw.

A big part of the reason Matthews is such a good goal scorer and all around player is because he’s such a good playmaker, and his hands/puck control/hockey IQ are not just elite but basically best in the league territory.