Be it resolved that Point totals > Goal Totals

[RageQuit77]

If there are player who scores let's say 40+40=80 and there other player who score 20+50=70, and all points have same value 1, then it's obvious total points > goals alone.

If there are player who scores 10+90=100 and there are other who scores 30+40=70, but assist is valued only to ~1/1.65= 0.61 Goals (approx. ratio of G/A), then first player would have scored point value of 54.9 while the second would have scored point value of 54.4. Third guy with 50+20=70 would have 62.2 point values accumulated.

It's obvious that if assists (both 1st and 2nd assists) value is 1 G (like it's set currently), what ever scores where the points total is biggest would be best score regardless of proportions of goals and assists it's composed from. That's very simple math.

Values of different kind points determine directly is xG+yA = P, or is the result bigger or smaller then 1+1=2. In reality value of A is not same as value of G, but it is conventionally considered to be 1 for both cases.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Great, the baseball community used to think Batting Average was more important than On-Base or OBPS that doesn’t mean it was the correct view. Primary points are more important than secondary ones. It doesn’t mean secondary assists are useless, just that they have less overall value.

The 2nd A is often the play that leads to the goal. The difference between goals and 1st A is very small and the difference between 1st A and 2nd is also very small. Using 1 pt for each is fine. Players getting a lot of 2nd A's must be doing something right.

 

[RageQuit77]

The 2nd A is often the play that leads to the goal. The difference between goals and 1st A is very small and the difference between 1st A and 2nd is also very small. Using 1 pt for each is fine. Players getting a lot of 2nd A's must be doing something right.

Yep. But then we must immediately ask how much excellent playmakers, defensemen, and goalies suffer from arbitrary removal of 3rd and 4th assists from score sheets?" and "How much scoring statistics undervalue that gritty hard worker who creates often room for his point scoring fellows, while being invisible on scoring boards?" And so on.

There must be lot of players with loads of 3rd assists that are doing something right.

I'm not antagonizing now, you know.

 

[Laineux]

I think assist are underrated. Scoring a goal could be done through brute force or accuracy from great snipers. An assist however might require the superior hockey IQ and in a sense it is more of a chess game rather than a physical outburst. A Connor McDavid assist surely requires more of the player than a Patrick Maroon goal won't you say?

Personally primary assist might be even more valuable for me than goal. I think creating a play is generally better/more repeatable than finishing it.

 

[Regal]

Watch the 1st goal that Draistl just scored and tell me how the heck McDavid got an assist on it? This is why I will never believe assists matter as much as goals, too many fake ones like that.

And this has nothing to do with the players involved just the fact that a 2nd assist was handed out. The guy who got the 2nd assist is literally not even in the highlight.

Then in the same game, McDavid's OT goal was a gimme set up by a ridiculous play by Drisaitl that was the far more valuable part of the goal.

 

[Regal]

Goals > assists

You can have the most dynamic player in the league but it won't matter much if the puck doesn't go into the net

An assist means the puck did go in the net though

 

[Regal]

Goals are naturally worth more. To every 1 goal there are 1.7 assists awarded. Can't have an assist without a goal but can have a goal without assist. You get no points for your team with assists, goals are a deciding factor in a hockey game.

And yes, sometimes the pass or play is the major reason for the goal. And sometimes it's all on the scorer. Those things even out in a larger set of data.

That's only an assumption. The issue with all of this is it's a generalization that's trying to apply to all players and all situations, but it doesn't work that way. There's a difference between say, Hejduk scoring 50 goals next to Forsberg or Cheechoo scoring 50 next to Thornton, and Ovechkin scoring 50 next to Backstrom.

 

[RageQuit77]

Yet another way to look at the value of points.

G+max 2 A/G for G = A1 = A2 is current way to value points. However there doesn't exist any As without that G (in this sense G's value is infinite to A's value). We could use this system like it is but give a Goal all point value it can potentially create within used system -> max 3 Points. That would still undervalue goal in context of it's meaning in winning/losing a game, but it would still make better clear and visible the fact that goals create assists and assigns the point value to them as countable points.

In reality the value of that one extra goal that can only determine the end result of the game, being also the critical minimum winning condition, is infinitely more valuable than random assist scored in that same game. They are categorically different level things in the context of the game of non-zero sum (current NHL hockey without possibility of tied game end result).

 

[Laineux]

In reality the value of that one extra goal that can only determine the end result of the game, being also the critical minimum winning condition, is infinitely more valuable than random assist scored in that same game. They are categorically different level things in the context of the game of non-zero sum (current NHL hockey without possibility of tied game end result).

Any assist means that a goal was scored.

Scoring a goal =/= creating a goal. Unassisted goals are so rare that they're statistically almost meaningless. 95% of goals do not happen without assist.

 

[shtorm2005]

Every player can make a pass, but not everyone can score.

 

[RageQuit77]

Any assist means that a goal was scored.

Scoring a goal =/= creating a goal. Unassisted goals are so rare that they're statistically almost meaningless. 95% of goals do not happen without assist.

True. But one more assist doesn't mean that the game was also won.

One more goal does. Statistically in 100% of cases.

 

[Laineux]

True. But one more assist doesn't mean that the game was also won.

One more goal does. Statistically in 100% of cases.

No but the correlation would be extremely strong over a large enough sample size.

 

[RageQuit77]

No but the correlation would be extremely strong over a large enough sample size.

True too. For goals the size of sample set is irrelevant. Correlation is always 100% from game #1 to the game #quadrillion.

Also, we can note that with arbitrary big sample sets of games you can reach similar statistical certainty using 5th assists. A random game is more likely win than lose with one more 5th assist scored.

 

[Yorkshire Leaf]

50 assists = 50 goals. You cant have an assist w/o a goal, therefore neither is "worth" more than the other.

A team that has a player with 10 goals, and 50 assists, has the same goals scored as a team with a 50 goal 10 assist player.

There is literally no difference.

The only reason I would favor a sniper over a playmaker in a vacuum, is that truly good snipers seem rarer than truly good playmakers, IMO.

Otherwise, Ill take the guy that fits my team best. A team full of Ovi's is not necessarily better than a team full of Thorntons, just because one scores more goals than the other.

A team with a mix of both would be better than both. Thus why this argument is stupid to have in the first place. You need people who can score, and those who can facilitate the scorers on your team.

But 50 goals do not equal 50 assists, a quick look shows that 1.7 assists are awarded for every goal scored, so 50 goals is the equivalent to 85 assists.

Also assists are a bit more subjective, especially secondary assists where players get credit for an assist simply for touching the puck in the build up to a goal and don’t have to do anything creative.

 

[Laineux]

But 50 goals do not equal 50 assists, a quick look shows that 1.7 assists are awarded for every goal scored, so 50 goals is the equivalent to 85 assists.

Also assists are a bit more subjective, especially secondary assists where players get credit for an assist simply for touching the puck in the build up to a goal and don’t have to do anything creative.

What you said doesn't logically follow from the premise.

There could be ten different actions leading to a goal and still the last touch being the least important of them all.

 

[Yorkshire Leaf]

What you said doesn't logically follow from the premise.

There could be ten different actions leading to a goal and still the last touch being the least important of them all.

How can the last touch be the least important? Without that last touch the ten previous touches mean nothing, they have as much effect on the outcome of the game as two defence men passing the puck across the blue line ten times.

The aim of a hockey game is to out score the opponents, most coaches realise this and could not give two hoots about individual players points totals, it is only the fans who get hung up on it. Ask The Oilers coach if he would rather have McDavid winning individual awards or have The Oilers in the play offs.

Consider this example, one team scored 3 unassisted goals, the other scored 1 goal with 2 assists, both teams accumulate 3 points, are the two assists as valuable to the result as the two goals?

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

When have either of these players been worthy of MVP awards.

There are plenty of times where a playmaker has won an award over a goalscorer with similar point totals.

Thornton over Jagr in 2006
Sedin over Crosby and OV in 2010
Crosby over OV in 2013

Nash won Maurice Richard trophy with 41 goals and 16 assist. Incredible low amount of goals and assists.( I know it's only about scoring goals, but rarely see that low amount of goals and them also only 16 assists.)


Goals are worth way more than assists btw. Goal scoring is extremely hard today and players like Laine, Ovechkin etc.. are worth a lot.

 

[Laineux]

How can the last touch be the least important? Without that last touch the ten previous touches mean nothing, they have as much effect on the outcome of the game as two defence men passing the puck across the blue line ten times.

The aim of a hockey game is to out score the opponents, most coaches realise this and could not give two hoots about individual players points totals, it is only the fans who get hung up on it. Ask The Oilers coach if he would rather have McDavid winning individual awards or have The Oilers in the play offs.

Consider this example, one team scored 3 unassisted goals, the other scored 1 goal with 2 assists, both teams accumulate 3 points, are the two assists as valuable to the result as the two goals?

A goal is never an individual effort as a player playing alone in the NHL would never come close to scoring a goal. We can assume that players are capable of replacement level efforts on the ice.

I think that creating a scoring chance, for yourself or for a teammate, is the most valuable offensive ability.

 

[RageQuit77]

Goals are valued so high that there even exists privileged, special player in a team whose main task in the game is try to prevent goals to be scored. All other player types instead concentrate in various degrees to attempts to score a goal, intercept and block opponents' passes/shots (nullify a threat of potential goal scoring situations), and so on. It's generally considered a goalie is one of the most important players (if not the most important) of a team because of his role in prevention of goals. If he manages to score a goal, it's considered almost highest achievement a goalie can do in a single game.

Yet further... because some reason tie is not an option anymore as an acceptable end result of a NHL hockey game, the high value of goal is ultimately forcibly underlined in half-gimmick competition where non-essential personnel is removed from the rink, and the game of hockey is reduced to it's naked, ultimate core: Individual player attempting best he can to score that highly valued goal (without assisting side-kicks) against individual player who tries best he can to prevent that valuable goal to be scored.

Even there would occur 100-101 shootout marathon, there wouldn't be any assists scored by anyone in any of those goals that ultimately decided which team is better in that Game.

Such high is the value of a goal over an assist that gimmicks are created based on it.

 

[Yorkshire Leaf]

A goal is never an individual effort as a player playing alone in the NHL would never come close to scoring a goal. We can assume that players are capable of replacement level efforts on the ice.

I think that creating a scoring chance, for yourself or for a teammate, is the most valuable offensive ability.

I think we are more or less arguing the same point, it is a team game and the ultimate goal is for the team to win.

As a European the plethora of individual awards and obsession of fans of comparing player v player in a team sport seems quite alien to me.

The number of Leafs fans who moan that Matthews would have 20 more point with someone other than Hyman on his wing is incredible, they fail to see Matthews points total means nothing to Babbock, he is trying to build a team capable of winning not get Matthews more points so fans can win a willy waving contest on the internet with fans for other teams.

 

[Zuluss]

Goals are not everything, but they are more important than assists. A rule of thumb that works most of the time is that if A has 5 points more than B, but B has 10 more goals than A, their offensive output is about equal (e.g., 50g+45a=40g+60a).

Some historical examples:

- St. Louis and Iginla are viewed as equals despite St. Louis being more productive in terms of points (90+ point seasons: 4-3 St. Louis, 80+ point seasons 6-5 St. Louis, if you count St. Louis' 12/13, it would be 5-3 and 7-5; VsX adjusted points for the best 7 seasons 92.4 - 86.7 St. Louis). The reason is goals, which Iginla has a big edge in and which were not St. Louis strong suit especially during his most productive seasons.

- Ovechkin was 13th in points in 15/16, but 6th in Hart voting (5th among forwards), the reason being his league-leading 50 goals

- Over 14/15 and 15/16 combined, Ovechkin collected 17 less points than Crosby (152 vs. 169), but more Hart votes (1100 vs. 938). The reason is that he had 39 goals more.

 

[RageQuit77]

Sorry about these monologies. I just find this thread extremely interesting, because conclusions from logical abstractions contradict so strikingly with applied practical conventions. It's not about that I couldn't see plain obvious importance of playmaking and passing in the game of Hockey, but you cannot truly value points objectively within currently used system.

Ok. Goal is the unit in which points are measured (follows directly from the fact that one Goal is considered as valuable as one assist). It's clear that there needs to be a 'pass' if there is assist for the goal scored. System allows 2 assists to be counted for one goal. While it's undeniable fact that Goal scored is necessary requirement for an assist(s) to be scored, it is also clear that 1st there must be 1st assists before 2nd as the 1st assist is necessary requirement there to be the 2nd (of course only and only if there really are those 2 passes before and leading to the scored goal). We accept now to use arbitrary value of 1G for both of those two assists.

But what if there was total of 8 passes in uninterrupted chain before that goal? If we are ready to give the point to 1st and 2nd assists, why we don't give it also to 3rd, and 4th and so forth all the way to the start of the passing chain that led to the goal scored? The 2nd assist is necessary requirement to that there can be 3rd assist. 3rd assist is necessary requirement there can be 4th and so forth. If value of 2nd assist is 1 point (same point value than 1 goal have), then why there are no same value added also to 3rd assist?

Situation is symmetric between 1st and 2nd assists then it's between 6th and 7th assists in that same G+8A passing chain. one pass leads to another toward oncoming goal, and when that goal is then scored all those passes in that passing chain become de facto a series of consecutive assists, but only last two are valued anyway in points, point being same as the value of goal. It is totally arbitrary thing to drawn the line of score between 2nd and 3rd preceding passes leading to the goal.

There are no semantic, mathematical, existential, or ontological reasons for this system being something that could be taken as "natural" character of hockey scoring system. Use of the system itself is blinded us to see it's faults and shortcomings.

Add: We cannot really evade the basic problem here if just staying within concept of 'Primary points' (Goals and 1st assists), because logically and practically 2nd assist is primary point to 1st assist (and visa versa), 3rd to 2nd, and so on in same passing chain that leads to the goal scored.

Cut the passing chain - no matter how long - where ever you want (often happens by a opposing player) and it's it end then: there wouldn't be either Goals, Assists, or Primary Points scored.

If the goal comes from the accidental deflection from defender's bottoms, at least one point is still scored to the last guy who touched it before the (un)lucky strike, there wouldn't be really even assist...

 

[Tripod]

Every player can make a pass, but not everyone can score.

Yet most years, it's the elite passers who are at the top of scoring races. Maybe they impact games more than you think.

 

[discobob]

Sorry about these monologies. I just find this thread extremely interesting, because conclusions from logical abstractions contradict so strikingly with applied practical conventions. It's not about that I couldn't see plain obvious importance of playmaking and passing in the game of Hockey, but you cannot truly value points objectively within currently used system.

Ok. Goal is the unit in which points are measured (follows directly from the fact that one Goal is considered as valuable as one assist). It's clear that there needs to be a 'pass' if there is assist for the goal scored. System allows 2 assists to be counted for one goal. While it's undeniable fact that Goal scored is necessary requirement for an assist(s) to be scored, it is also clear that 1st there must be 1st assists before 2nd as the 1st assist is necessary requirement there to be the 2nd (of course only and only if there really are those 2 passes before and leading to the scored goal). We accept now to use arbitrary value of 1G for both of those two assists.

But what if there was total of 8 passes in uninterrupted chain before that goal? If we are ready to give the point to 1st and 2nd assists, why we don't give it also to 3rd, and 4th and so forth all the way to the start of the passing chain that led to the goal scored? The 2nd assist is necessary requirement to that there can be 3rd assist. 3rd assist is necessary requirement there can be 4th and so forth. If value of 2nd assist is 1 point (same point value than 1 goal have), then why there are no same value added also to 3rd assist?

Situation is symmetric between 1st and 2nd assists then it's between 6th and 7th assists in that same G+8A passing chain. one pass leads to another toward oncoming goal, and when that goal is then scored all those passes in that passing chain become de facto a series of consecutive assists, but only last two are valued anyway in points, point being same as the value of goal. It is totally arbitrary thing to drawn the line of score between 2nd and 3rd preceding passes leading to the goal.

There are no semantic, mathematical, existential, or ontological reasons for this system being something that could be taken as "natural" character of hockey scoring system. Use of the system itself is blinded us to see it's faults and shortcomings.

Add: We cannot really evade the basic problem here if just staying within concept of 'Primary points' (Goals and 1st assists), because logically and practically 2nd assist is primary point to 1st assist (and visa versa), 3rd to 2nd, and so on in same passing chain that leads to the goal scored.

Cut the passing chain - no matter how long - where ever you want (often happens by a opposing player) and it's it end then: there wouldn't be either Goals, Assists, or Primary Points scored.

If the goal comes from the accidental deflection from defender's bottoms, at least one point is still scored to the last guy who touched it before the (un)lucky strike, there wouldn't be really even assist...

Imagine you are in a cave, and you are watching reflections of a hockey game on the wall of the cave. The game is happening behind you, but you can't turn around. You see a secondary assist... is it a "real" secondary assist?

 

[kmart]

An assist means the puck did go in the net though

0 assist also could mean that the puck go in the net