And most goals have assists.
Taken one to one, goals are better than points. But big points almost always reign supreme when it comes to comparing players. More points means the player was "in on" more goals than the other guy.
I agree.
Noting also that while I consider
the point system broken (broken-as-designed?) it's same for all players, it clearly over value offensive side of game but when doing so, do it by undervaluing goal scoring relative to categorically not-necessary one or two, more or less random passes before it.
Essentially it's bad proxy for offensive contribution, that isn't limited to passing chains of two, or that does a player have actual, real puck possession at all when acting for benefits of his line, and ultimately for his team. It dramatically underrates defensive side of the game, that can be argued to be almost equally important than offensive side, beyond that one more critical goal needed for the win.
In this thread it's about evaluation of players, putting them in some kind order of pre-eminence. Good tradition is to try back up opinions with measurable things, statistical facts, sheer number values i.e. hard evidence. How far we can really go in that if the measurement stick itself doesn't make justice to the nature of game? How much value we can really put to various trophies if their awarding criteria is based to conventional, arbitrarily set point values of only few defined in-game offensive activities while not seeing and counting others in reality worthy actions? (for another example the mask man on front of the grease who doesn't touch the puck but has important role for a scoring chance to become a high danger scoring chance and very often also - the goal scored).
It's obvious that more prodigious playmaker you are that more you will suffer from invisibility on scoring boards relative to your real offensive contribution. That's one of my primary arguments in defense of Sid's case regardless of all aforementioned about goals and goals scoring.
It's clear that Sid has been damn well "in on" more goals than he is actually credited, and I assume disproportionally more than Ovechkin-type 'pure goal scorers' (tho I can't back that assumption up by any comprehensive, reliable statistical source).
As a category 'Goals' are much more objective, easily countable and "pure" point category than assists. Differences in Quality of goals disappears from evaluation immediately after it is scored; the puck is in the net and went in legally, but variances in qualitative aspects of credited and not-credited assists doesn't not have that luxury. There are much more haze there. Arse-deflections are treated just like perfect play making saucer passes, (if they are counted at all) introducing noise to already bad proxy of offensive contribution.
The best score board invisible offensive NHL-player? -thread would be really interesting topic. /rants
