Goals vs secondary assists

[biotk]

Do this for forwards only, or just centres.

Here is a stat: NHL.com - Stats

From 2013/14 to today here are the the Top Ten 1A Centres (with their placing in 2As):

1. Getzlaf (9th)
2. Seguin (26th)
3. Crosby (4th)
4. Backstrom (1st)
5. Thornton (3rd)
6. Tavares (19th)
7. Zetterberg (13th)
8. Malkin (15th)
9. Kopitar (6th)
10. Johansen (8th)

Six of the Top Ten are in the Top Ten in 2As and only one player (Seguin) is out of the Top 20.

Seems to be a very strong connection between centers who get 1As and 2As.

I don't see any point in restricting it to centres and then looking at it over a 5 year period, as it severely restricts the number of players who can reasonably be looked at: players who have been 1Cs for the past 5 seasons. But even still, for Seguin to be 2nd in 1As and 26th in 2As among Cs along with Tavares being 6th and 19th in pretty damning in terms of the value of 2As. It confirms what I have said - it strongly measures a player's linemates as well as their PP time and if the PP revolves around them.

 

[93LEAFS]

To me they're perfectly the same. If there isn't one (an assist, whether primary or secondary, and a goal), there isn't the other. It's like trying to argue who's more important at conception, the guy or the girl.

But then again, wouldn't everything that isn't measured by NHL scoring before each goal happen be just as valuable then? For example, the save that led to regaining possession which eventually led to a cycle established for a goal? The goal doesn't happen if it isn't for that save.

 

[biotk]

Secondary assists tend to vary wildly season over season.

So if a player, hypothetically won the Art Ross on the basis of a huge number of secondary assists, then good for him. Those points are in no way less valuable. It is, however, less likely that he will be challenging for an Art Ross again on the basis of similar secondary assist production.

Expanding on this idea:

St Louis won the Art Ross in 2013. If it was given for primary points it would have gone to Kane and St Louis wouldn't have finished in the top 10.

Also:

Ovechkin would have won the Ross in 2009 (instead of Malkin)
Crosby would have won over Sedin in 2010
Perry would have won over Sedin in 2011
Perry would have won over Crosby in 2014
Ovechkin would have won over Benn in 2015.
This year Stamkos would currently be 8th (behind Kucherov, McDavid, Wheeler, Gaudreau, Kessel, Schwartz and Ovechkin).

I am not a fan of either Perry or Ovechkin, but I have to give them their due. I also am not advocating for only primary points, but I have long felt that the current system is not ideal and that goals should count for as much as potential assists do, and several years ago I tried giving 3 points for a goal, 2 points for a primary assists, and 1 point for a secondary assist. There are problems with that as well, but I prefer it over the current system.

 

[daver]

I don't see any point in restricting it to centres and then looking at it over a 5 year period, as it severely restricts the number of players who can reasonably be looked at: players who have been 1Cs for the past 5 seasons. But even still, for Seguin to be 2nd in 1As and 26th in 2As among Cs along with Tavares being 6th and 19th in pretty damning in terms of the value of 2As. It confirms what I have said - it strongly measures a player's linemates as well as their PP time and if the PP revolves around them.

It's for all centres, not just the 30 #1Cs. Seguin is the exception out of the 9 players.

 

[biotk]

It's for all centres, not just the 30 #1Cs. Seguin is the exception out of the 9 players.

I realize that. What I am saying is that it effectively restricts the pool to players who have been 1Cs for that entire 5 year period, as other Cs have either played fewer seasons, or not had much PP time etc. Of course the Cs in that position are going to have lots of 2As, compared to ones who have not had the same advantage. But the bottom line is that year after year the top 10 leaders in 2As bare little resemblance to the top 10 leaders in 1As because the former is a troubling statistic that measures quality of linemates and role on the PP.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

The best playmakers generally have the most 2nd assists so they should not be relegated to be worth less.

According to the OP, Cheechoo would have been arguably the star for the Sharks in 2005/06.

Not until we see Thornton had 32 more pts.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

To me they're perfectly the same. If there isn't one (an assist, whether primary or secondary, and a goal), there isn't the other. It's like trying to argue who's more important at conception, the guy or the girl.

there are goals without secondary assists though. sometimes even goals without primary assists

 

[Dustin]

I've said multiple times, its a decent indicator, but far from the best, and shouldn't be used as the main source of comparison. You should look at a bunch of factors in totality.

And to be honest, I don't think it'd be a better indicator than just looking at primary points outright in a similar manner. Especially when comparing forwards.

Well we differ on that I suppose. I believe total points over a period of time is a fine indicator of a superior player. Either way though that's certainly not what we are talking about in this thread so the point is moot.

 

[daver]

I realize that. What I am saying is that it effectively restricts the pool to players who have been 1Cs for that entire 5 year period, as other Cs have either played fewer seasons, or not had much PP time etc. Of course the Cs in that position are going to have lots of 2As, compared to ones who have not had the same advantage. But the bottom line is that year after year the top 10 leaders in 2As bare little resemblance to the top 10 leaders in 1As because the former is a troubling statistic that measures quality of linemates and role on the PP.

I think I clearly showed that there is no real randomness to 2As. Matthews will get as many as his playmaking skills can create which is what this thread is about.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Goal scoring is the hardest thing to do in the NHL. There's a trophy for goals, not assists. Goals are the tie breaker for the ross. Since the lockout there have been 60+ assists seasons (48x), 70+ (11x), 80+ (4x) and 90+ (2x). Flip that to goals and we get 2-0-0-0. Obvious which is harder and more valuable.



But despite having fewer goals, McDavid is better than Matthews because he has way more pts (this season, last season, through the same GP of career). If they were within ~10pts I'd give it to the goal scorer, but when one guy is 30+pts ahead then... Yeah.

 

[93LEAFS]

Well we differ on that I suppose. I believe total points over a period of time is a fine indicator of a superior player. Either way though that's certainly not what we are talking about in this thread so the point is moot.

Its a fine indicator, but shouldn't account for over 50% of your opinion. I really don't see how over an entire season, looking at total points and primary points makes one superior.

 

[93LEAFS]

I think I clearly showed that there is no real randomness to 2As. Matthews will get as many as his playmaking skills can create which is what this thread is about.

Look at secondary assists at 5v5 over a 5 year period. There is massive amounts of randomness to it. Just look at this. The reason a bunch stay in the consistent total wise is ice-time driven and based on PP minutes.

2013/14 Leaders in 5v5 2nd Assists per 60 at 5V5 with players who played over 1000 minutes
Taylor Hall (.95)
Jamie Benn (.87)
Getzlaf (.77)
H. Sedin (.75)
Brendan Gallagher (.74)
Joe Thornton (.74)
Okposo (.71)
Backes (.69)
Krejci (.69)
Jagr (.68)
Where did they finish in subsequent years. Using a minimum of 1000 minutes

Hall
2014/15: Wouldn’t Qualify played less than 1000 minutes, but would be tied for 41st (.44)
2015/16: 92nd (.29)
2016/17: 76th (.38)

Benn
2014/15: 8Tth (.69)
2015/16: 11th (.63)
2016/17: 22nd (.56)

Getzlaf
2014/15: 92nd (.28)
2015/16: 7th (.66)
2016/17: 6th (.7)

H. Sedin
2014/15: 2ND : (.76)
2015/16: (.48) Not enough minutes but would be tied for 40th
2016/17: 15th (.58)

Gallagher
2014/15: Not in top 100 (.11)
2015/16: Not enough minutes but would rank 29th (.53)
2016/17: Not enough minutes but would rank 102nd (.3)

Thornton
2014/15: 19th (.55)
2015/16: 1st (1.07)
2016/17: 39th (.5)

Okposo
2014/15: Not eligible minutes wise but would be at 32nd if so. (.47)
2015/16: 47th (.43)
2016/17: Didn’t qualify minutes wise but would be 102nd (.26)

Backes
2014/15: 10th (.61)
2015/16: 103rd (.22)
2016/17: 81st (.36)

Krejci
2014/15: Not eligible but would be tied for 6th (.71)
2015/16: 90th (.29)
2016/17: 111th (.26)

Jagr
2014/15: 79th (.33)
2015/16: 4th (.77)
2016/17: 58th (.42)

 

[FlappyGiraffe]

Pathetic, petty thread. Gotta go with secondary assists > goals

 

[BruinLVGA]

But then again, wouldn't everything that isn't measured by NHL scoring before each goal happen be just as valuable then? For example, the save that led to regaining possession which eventually led to a cycle established for a goal? The goal doesn't happen if it isn't for that save.

Yes, that's what I believe. The ultimate and only thing is winning in sport, IMO.
Sorry for the analogy, but here's one again: winning is like a cake, all actions leading to it (goals, assists, saves, blocks, hits, poke checks, etc etc) are the ingredients. Some might feel more important than others, but at the end if you want the cake, you need more ingredients than just two (= goals and assists). Goals and assists are the most "flashy" ingredients (say the cherry and the icing, maybe?), people will always see them as the highlights - red light goes on, horn blaring, crowd goes nuts: it's a sportive climax - but IMO connoisseurs know that without the whole... ingredients list, you are not gonna have that delicious cake.

PS now I am hungry...

 

[BruinLVGA]

there are goals without secondary assists though. sometimes even goals without primary assists

You are right. However, that's the minority by far.

 

[Future GOAT]

How many great goals can you think of? How many great secondary assists?

Go watch video of McDavid's secondary assists from last season, you'll see a lot of McDavid's secondary assists are equal quality to the goals that were scored because of them. Goals that only existed solely because of McDavid's vision, IQ, play reading, speed and hands. You can still view all those plays on NHL.com.

 

[biotk]

I think I clearly showed that there is no real randomness to 2As.

There is massive randomness in secondary assists.

Over the past 10 seasons the leader in primary assists has finished in the top 15 in primary assists 8 times. The only exceptions being Malkin who was injured in 2013, but was on pace for an easy top 5 finish, and Kuznetsov in 2017.

Over the past 10 seasons the leader in secondary assists has finished in the top 15 in secondary assists the following season only 3 times. The leader in secondary assists on any given year has averaged finishing 36th in secondary assists the following year.

Very random.

 

[93LEAFS]

There is massive randomness in secondary assists.

Over the past 10 seasons the leader in primary assists has finished in the top 15 in primary assists 8 times. The only exceptions being Malkin who was injured in 2013, but was on pace for an easy top 5 finish, and Kuznetsov in 2017.

Over the past 10 seasons the leader in secondary assists has finished in the top 15 in secondary assists the following season only 3 times. The leader in secondary assists on any given year has averaged finishing 36th in secondary assists the following year.

Very random.

You should see what happens when its isolated to a per minute basis and at 5v5.A bunch stays high fueled on PP and ice-time. Isolating them they appear to be extremely random. With ridiculous swings year to year.

Taylor Hall led the league one year (2013/14), and hasn't finished top 40 among forwards since.

 

[Dustin]

Go watch video of McDavid's secondary assists from last season, you'll see a lot of McDavid's secondary assists are equal quality to the goals that were scored because of them. Goals that only existed solely because of McDavid's vision, IQ, play reading, speed and hands. You can still view all those plays on NHL.com.

 

[hockeyguy1967]

I'm not hiding my agenda at all. I said it was due to a debate. Hell, I even linked the poll from that thread. A bunch of people are saying they are equal, and that most people think that way. I want to see it.

Matthews is not even a top 20 forward in the NHL this year. Give it up. McDavid is at least 2 tiers above him.

 

[Dustin]

Go watch video of McDavid's secondary assists from last season, you'll see a lot of McDavid's secondary assists are equal quality to the goals that were scored because of them. Goals that only existed solely because of McDavid's vision, IQ, play reading, speed and hands. You can still view all those plays on NHL.com.

Yup. They are all as good as Bobby Orr scoring the game winning goal or Ovechkin on his back scoring a goal behind he head.

Secondary assists are rarely remembered. I'm not saying all secondary assists aren't or that secondary assists can never be important but on average the goal is usually the most important part of the play and in my opinion is worth more.

Also what does McDavid have to do with it? I get this poll was started because of another thread but I'm not interested in another Matthews vs McDavid crap fest.

Simply put on average I value goal scoring more than secondary assists.

 

[Eternal Leaf]

Exceptions are always there.

But on average, a goal is worth way more than a secondary assist.

 

[Yasuo]

Mcdavid is better than Matthews

 

[Future GOAT]

Yup. They are all as good as Bobby Orr scoring the game winning goal or Ovechkin on his back scoring a goal behind he head.

Secondary assists are rarely remembered. I'm not saying all secondary assists aren't or that secondary assists can never be important but on average the goal is usually the most important part of the play and in my opinion is worth more.

Also what does McDavid have to do with it? I get this poll was started because of another thread but I'm not interested in another Matthews vs McDavid crap fest.

Simply put on average I value goal scoring more than secondary assists.

I'm glad that you get where this thread came from. It's been explained to you numerous times what McDavid has to do with it. Pretending you don't know or don't remember doesn't do anything for you.

Now with that out of the way... again... you asked a question, I answered it and recommended you or anyone else see for yourselves how many of McDavid's secondary assists last year were just the "less valuable ones" or the ones that enable the goal to happen and created the whole play. So you and anyone else for that matter could see for yourselves the quality of McDavid's secondary assists and see how many of them were the whole play and how many were the "less valuable ones".

Simply put McDavid isn't an "on average" player with "on average" secondary assists. Since it's been pointed out that there are different quality secondary assists and it has been shown that 93LEAFS is trying to marginalize McDavid using secondary assists to lower him in an attempt to close the gap between him and Matthews, and then throwing this poll up to skew things in his favor after getting soundly rekt in the original thread he attempted to use this argument in, it's a good idea to recognize this poll for what it is. A marginalization attempt to get himself back into the other thread after being laughed out of it.

 

[93LEAFS]

I'm glad that you get where this thread came from. It's been explained to you numerous times what McDavid has to do with it. Pretending you don't know or don't remember doesn't do anything for you.

Now with that out of the way... again... you asked a question, I answered it and recommended you or anyone else see for yourselves how many of McDavid's secondary assists last year were just the "less valuable ones" or the ones that enable the goal to happen and created the whole play. So you and anyone else for that matter could see for yourselves the quality of McDavid's secondary assists and see how many of them were the whole play and how many were the "less valuable ones".

Simply put McDavid isn't an "on average" player with "on average" secondary assists. Since it's been pointed out that there are different quality secondary assists and it has been shown that 93LEAFS is trying to marginalize McDavid using secondary assists to lower him in an attempt to close the gap between him and Matthews, and then throwing this poll up to skew things in his favor after getting soundly rekt in the original thread he attempted to use this argument in, it's a good idea to recognize this poll for what it is. A marginalization attempt to get himself back into the other thread after being laughed out of it.

Then why doesn't he lead the league in secondary assists again. His primary points is actually more reflective of where he stands this year.

I took it here, because a bunch of people were incapable of subtracting Matthews and McDavid from the general point. That primary points are worth more than secondary ones. That doesn't make Matthews better than McDavid. But it makes it closer than repeatedly pointing to 100>69 as the gap. Saying that total points was by far the best measure of a player. Which, I think on a whole is ridiculous. Its one of many factors.