The confusion isnt mine.
you said:
I'm not convinced that Mitch is a better passer than Willy. Mitch makes risky passes, and when they work they're beautiful, but a lot of them don't click. I think some people forget those and only see the ones that work (others focus on the ones that don't). Willy on the other hand doesn't go for the risky passes as much, but makes a lot of really good ones. For example the one in the video - not a high risk pass, but could easily have been a goal.
I'd be interested in seeing a stat on passes attempted and completed.
There wasn't a goal scored on the play, so how would an "assists stat" help?
I said use assist statistics to aid in your investigation.
Seems pretty clear until you said:
There wasn't a goal scored on the play, so how would an "assists stat" help?
You made a statement, that you aren't convinced Mitch is a better passer than Willy and seem to narrow to a limited sample when there are literally years of data to make the connection through an assists count.
You're conflating up two posts, but OK.
I mentioned two things:
1 - I pointed out to the poster that I was responding to, that it was not Marner who made that pass.
2 - I suggested that Marner wasn't necessarily the better passer, and said "I'd be interested is seeing a stat on passes attempted and completed."
You said "Absent that you might want to check a highly correlated assists stat."
I wasn't sure whether you comment was regarding item 1 or item 2, and asked for clarity.
I didn't "narrow to a limited sample", I asked if there was data.
If you are assuming that assists are the same as "passes attempted and completed" that's fine, although I disagree with that assumption.