Goals vs secondary assists

[Jot]

Not at all. As long as you can agree that a secondary assist can be equal to a goal which you just did and if you can acknowledge certain players are better at getting those "equal to goal" secondary assists (because some players actually are) then we are good.

Yes i agreed on the fact that outliers exist. This is why i agreed with you. We are good only if...

Goal > Secondary Assist,
not
Goal = Secondary Assist.

Where did you place your vote? Mines and the majority are on "Goal > Secondary Assist"

Now if you tell me, "I voted Goal > Secondary Assist", then i don't even know why we're having this discussion.

 

[ConnorMcMullet]

Still, more points are better - Mcdavid is better than Matthews

 

[daver]

This is basically asking if you prefer a goalscorer or a playmaker.

The idea that 2nd assists are somehow randomly or even biasedly awarded is ridiculous.

 

[daver]

Goals are far more important than secondary assists and it is shockingly absurd that hatred/disdain for Leaf fans have skewed these results such that it isn't a complete and utter blowout. In a myriad of idiotic poll results I have seen on here in my time here, this probably takes the cake, which is saying something.

Total points are more important than goals scored.

 

[bobholly39]

In a vacuum a point is a point. So I voted option 1.

All else being equal goals can be said to be slightly more valuable but that's the exception.

Ex. Player 1 has 20 goals and 100 points. Player 2 has 50 goals and 90 points. I still take player 1
But if player 1 had 100 points and 20 goals while player 2 had 98 points and 50 goals? Sur give me player 2.

So goals do count for a bit more maybe to differetiate equal players but for the most part 1 point = 1 point.

 

[bobholly39]

Yes i agreed on the fact that outliers exist. This is why i agreed with you. We are good only if...

Goal > Secondary Assist,
not
Goal = Secondary Assist.

Where did you place your vote? Mines and the majority are on "Goal > Secondary Assist"

Now if you tell me, "I voted Goal > Secondary Assist", then i don't even know why we're having this discussion.

If you dumb it down to a single goal scored - sure goal > assist, whether primary or secondary.

But if you're comparing 2 players overall, and comparing the importance of a secondary assist to a goal, i'd say they're around the same. Because total points is what matters the most. If points are equal (or very close) - then sure, you can use goals to differentiate.

During their best years, looking strictly at offense, when Ovi matched Crosby's point totals but had more goals - sure, Ovi > Crosby for offense. But when Crosby starts to pull away on points by even 5 points, i'd start to say Crosby > Ovi for offense. I think Points trump all.

But the biggest dynamic here is that total points is what counts, and in that regards a goal = assist (primary or not).

 

[Morgs]

Goals >= 1st assists > 2nd assists

 

[613Leafer]

This is basically asking if you prefer a goalscorer or a playmaker.

The idea that 2nd assists are somehow randomly or even biasedly awarded is ridiculous.

There is evidence out there that 2nd assists fluctuate a ton season-to-season (relative to goal scoring / primary assists - which mind you, still fluctuate themselves), which indicates it's not really a repeatable skill and more based on the team/linemates that you have.

Some secondary assists are skilled plays, but they're very very often just basic passes, cycling it in the opponents zone or a simple breakout pass, rather than a particularly skilled playmaking play. I don't think criticizing secondary assists means people are criticizing playmaking - primary assists are a very valid statistic which receive essentially zero criticism.

Simplify scoring: drop the pointless secondary assist

 

[Jot]

If you dumb it down to a single goal scored - sure goal > assist, whether primary or secondary.

But if you're comparing 2 players overall, and comparing the importance of a secondary assist to a goal, i'd say they're around the same. Because total points is what matters the most. If points are equal (or very close) - then sure, you can use goals to differentiate.

During their best years, looking strictly at offense, when Ovi matched Crosby's point totals but had more goals - sure, Ovi > Crosby for offense. But when Crosby starts to pull away on points by even 5 points, i'd start to say Crosby > Ovi for offense. I think Points trump all.

But the biggest dynamic here is that total points is what counts, and in that regards a goal = assist (primary or not).

Secondary Assist = Needs to have 1 Player to pass to, who needs to pass it to another player, whos shoots and scores. This one is a MUST for 2 other competent players to finish their job for a goal to occur.

Goal = Find Open Ice, Shoot and Score. This one is possible to happen without 2 more or players.

Goal > Secondary Assist.

When evaluating players, alot of variables are there to look at.

When it comes down to specifics, Goal > Secondary Assist.

I don't see how you can argue against it.

 

[Tweaky]

For this discussion, we are talking abotu the value of a goal or assist in regards to evaluating players, not impact on the games.

At best, a secondary assist can only ever be equal in value to a goal. It can never be higher. Regardless of how amazing a secondary assist may be, it does not make on to the scoreboard without the goal scorer. Does not matter if it is a tap in, and deflection, a rebound, etc. If the goal scorer does not put the "shot" on net and past the goalie, that second assist does not exist. The goal scorer had to get in the right place, at the right time, and do the right thing (even if it means sticking his ass out for the puck to bounce off of and into the net).

The only goals that should be considered less valuable in this sense are the own-goal variety, where an opponent scores on his own net and the goal is awarded to the last "attacker" to touch the puck (or the center that lost the faceoff).

On the flip side, a second assist can scale down in relative importance to the play as compared to the goal. It can be almost meaningless (but never totally meaningless, else there would not be a second assist).

All that being said, in evaluating players, using simple raw numbers such as G, 1A, 2A, etc. is highly suspect. In comparing players, if there is a significant difference in scoring rate, the player that is involved in more goals will usually be considered the better player. If the difference in PPG is negligible, then we should value goal scoring over assists, as explained above. A good example of this is the 2003 Ross/Hart/Pearson results. Forsberg led the league in scoring (29-77-106 +52), his childhood friend Naslund was second (48-56-104 +6). Forsberg got the Ross and the Hart, Naslund got the Pearson. It is a worthy debate for either player. As it was, the writers thought Forsberg was more valuable to his team (2-way play drove this in addition to point totals), and the players thought Naslund was the better player (pretty sure more goals prompted this). Personally, I am a Forsberg homer, so obviously I was happy with the result. But I would not have argued much had Naslund gotten the Hart.

 

[Lonewolfe2015]

On average I would value one goal more than one assist, because without the goal the assist doesn't happen. Even a spectacular play for a secondary assist is worth nothing on the scoresheet if someone doesn't put it in the net.

But on any individual play it depends, so the above statement is really worthless when comparing players in a vacuum. That's why the secondary assist isn't meaningless, nor are assist truly worth less. Because if you broke down every play when comparing two players the playmaker with 30 secondary assists could be making the magic happen while the net-front guy with 30 goals could be just deflecting them in.

So basically, this is a loaded question and the results are meaningless. @Tweaky we said the same thing at the same time. High five!

 

[Spazkat]

Went with equal, although the poll itself seems flawed. (Not that this is surprising... half the polls created on HF are set up in such a way as to steer results in the direction the OP wants to prove some random point or another)

Sometimes that goal is the direct result of the goal scorers effort, but as often as not its just someone standing in front of the net with a timely tip in or rebound and 90% of the work is done before the puck goes anywhere near them. In the end, this is really voting for is if you prefer goal scorers or playmakers.

 

[93LEAFS]

If you dumb it down to a single goal scored - sure goal > assist, whether primary or secondary.

But if you're comparing 2 players overall, and comparing the importance of a secondary assist to a goal, i'd say they're around the same. Because total points is what matters the most. If points are equal (or very close) - then sure, you can use goals to differentiate.

During their best years, looking strictly at offense, when Ovi matched Crosby's point totals but had more goals - sure, Ovi > Crosby for offense. But when Crosby starts to pull away on points by even 5 points, i'd start to say Crosby > Ovi for offense. I think Points trump all.

But the biggest dynamic here is that total points is what counts, and in that regards a goal = assist (primary or not).

There were other things to point to for Crosby being better which weren't as obvious. I mean, even during Ovi's dominate 2007-2008 season, Crosby was better at getting primary points per 60 at 5v5, and has always been the more consistent possession players. There are things that capture Crosby being better that aren't built on total points. I mean, here's there primary points per 60 since that stat has been tracked for each year.

2007/08
Crosby: 2.69
Ovi: 2.41

2008/09
Crosby: 2.27
Ovi: 2.11

2009/10
Crosby: 2.88
Ovi: 2.99

2010/11
Crosby: 3.12 (Really injury shortened)
Ovi: 1.85

2011/12
Crosby: 3.44 (Really Injury shortened)
Ovi: 1.36

2012/13
Crosby: 3.31
Ovi: 1.96

2013/14
Crosby: 2.03
Ovi: 1.44

2014/15
Crosby: 1.8
Ovi: 1.63

2015/16
Crosby: 1.88
Ovi: 1.47

2016/17
Crosby: 2.31
Ovi: 1.48

I'm not saying the powerplay points don't count, or anything along those lines. But there are better things than total points to make the case of Crosby being the better player using statistics. Crosby has always been more consistent at 5V5 and the better producer of primary points at 5v5. I find those much more convincing than pointing to total points.

 

[A4T1L6]

No worries. No one is perfect. Look at The poll question. Equal is misspelled. Maybe a goal is not eqaul to a secondary assist as there is no such word as eqaul.

Is a goal eqaul to a secondary assist

This is very cringe

 

[tony d]

I went with Option 2.

 

[Strait2thecup]

There really is. Especially if people think judging players off raw point totals is a good way to break it down.


Except I'm asking on average, not for an individual play.

Ooo now I get it. You’re trying to reach for an argument of Matthews being as good as mcdavid.

Goals are generally more valuable but secondary assists are often just as important to the play. Saying “raw” point totals (same as point totals) isn’t a good way to evaluate players doesn’t make any sense. There are other factors sure but point totals are probably the most important statistic to look at for forwards

 

[93LEAFS]

Ooo now I get it. You’re trying to reach for an argument of Matthews being as good as mcdavid.

Goals are generally more valuable but secondary assists are often just as important to the play. Saying “raw” point totals (same as point totals) isn’t a good way to evaluate players doesn’t make any sense. There are other factors sure but point totals are probably the most important statistic to look at for forwards

I don't think Matthews is equal to McDavid. I've said maybe 200 times that he is a tier below. I just thought the people arguing that basic point totals as the main tool in evaluating players was absolutely ridiculous. In an era of information, with things such as real-time stats, why are we stuck using primarily stats from the 1940's. Considering the issues in secondary assists (lack of repeatability at 5v5 and inconsistent tracking of them), I don't see them having serious value, especially due to an actual goal. Then a bunch come from the powerplay. While I believe QBing the powerplay is an important skill, raking up a bunch of them that way while good, probably isn't the best measure of players powerplay ability. Your team's efficiency on the powerplay, and ability to get primary points are probably more important.

Look at where Tavares stands when you remove secondary assists from the equation, he actually looks better and it is probably a better reflection. The same with Stamkos.

 

[spiny norman]

A consensus has been reached.

Closed.