The Value Of Assists

As hockey statistics continue to expand, new measures and multiplication factors are thought up every day. But for all the sophistication that is emerging regarding shots, saves and the like, we are still left as fans with the albatross of the NHL scoring leaders at the heart of everything.

As you well know, the NHL scoring leaders is a blunt tool to assess a player’s worth. A simple record of who touched the puck last, second to last and third to last as pucks flew by goaltenders into the net. It does little to instruct us on who created the goals, who made the play that unlocked the D or the goalie.

As you know, we at LIW took issue with this and undertook to examine each goal the Montreal Canadiens scored over an entire season. Instead of simply assigning equal points to the last three guys who touched the puck (as scoring leaders does), we decided to evaluate each goal on its own merits, assigning points to each of the players involved (not limiting the contributors at three, but sometimes stopping short as well). We called it goals created.

The product of this analysis was very interesting, and I promise to share it with you soon in an upcoming post. But today I wanted to talk about one of the by-products of the statistical compilation that we undertook: the average value of each component part (i.e., G, A1, A2, others). In particular, I wanted to address the value of the second assist.


What is the value of an assist?

I think we've all exclaimed at one point or another the silliness of assigning the same weight to some assists as a goalscorer gets for an unassisted goal. I think we can all remember thinking that perhaps goals and assists are not worth the same amount just because the stats page tells they do, and that some goals, some assists are better than others.

As I looked at the statistics we were gathering, I was curious to see what might have been written on this topic in the past. As it turns out, there is quite a bit.

The general consensus seems to be that a second assist is worth less than a goal and less than a first assist, but to what extent is (and will remain) unclear. James Mirtle chimed in on this a few years ago. And the new stats community has been in on the discussion. But it seems the area where this has seen the most light is among those who attempt to make the NHL statistics speak to player contribution through mathematical manipulation ¬ specifically Allan Ryder of Goals Created.

Allan writes an extensive thesis on how he thinks players contribute to the results (wins) on the ice. If you’re keen you can find some of his full work here. If you want to stick to assists today, then he wrote on those for the Globe and Mail a few years back too.

After reading all the fretting over the inadequacy of the NHL scoring methods, it came a quite a surprise that statistical experts have come to one of three conclusions on this:

1. Analysts are limited by the information in the scoring reports, and only the NHL has the ability to increase the data
2. Second assists are worth less, so we’ll remove them altogether for a G+A1 look
3. Second assists are worth less, but we’re not sure how much, so we’ll assign a number based on individual intuition to create a correction factor

Obviously, point one is outdated and has been completely misproven by the work of Olivier in the Habs camp and many others like him around the league. Point two is an improvement, but discounting second assists altogether might be as wrong as counting them equally in the first place. The third approach is the step in the right direction, but it stops short of illuminating anything, as it is unclear how much data and research plays a part in the divining of those numbers.

In his lengthy 2004 report on player contribution, Allan Ryder wrote:

“I know of no research on the relative value of goals versus assists. So you will just have to live with my best guess.”

I don’t pretend to have taken the definitive step in settling this age old debate, but I think what we have done is at least an interesting starting point. By looking at all the goals individually and recording situation, players and contribution score we at least raise a flag to say that perhaps 0.5 a goal and 0.25 per assist is out of whack.


Goal distribution

Historical statistics for the NHL show that typically 5% of goals are unassisted, 20% of goals have one assist and the other 75% have the full two. This means there are 1.7 assists per goal scored.

This season, the Montreal Canadiens scored a total of 256 goals.

193 of the goals had 2 assists credited (75%)
45 of the goals had 1 assist credited (18%)
18 goals were unassisted (7%)

These numbers mean there were 1.68 assists per goal this year in Montreal.

That looks just about right, considering what we should expect. I agree the sample would be better with goals from all teams included, but at least the Habs aren’t some unassisted goalscoring anomaly to waste a season worth of data collection.


Value of goals


It seems that those who suggested a goalscorer should get about 50% of credit on all NHL goals might be vindicated. A season's worth of Habs goals puts goalscoring credit at about 54%, pretty close to half.

Interesting to note, however, is that not all goals are created equally. Shorthanded goals show a trend to being more goalscorer driven (not surprising), and PP goals have the goalscorer sharing much more credit with his teammates.

All in all, the goalscoring picture is about where we might have thought with a number out of the air. So far so good.


Value of assists




This is where things get interesting. With about 46% of credit left to dole out, an equitable soul might place the first and second assists at about 23% each. The most daring of stats guessers put the ratio at 3:2
(or 0.28 and 0.18, or thereabouts).

Total numbers showing 0.33 and 0.13 put these estimates way off.

Data for ES and PP all show the same - that a first assist is a major contribution to a goal, a second assist is a minor one.


What does this mean?

If this data is indicative of the way things happen elsewhere, then as suspected, the NHL scoring leaders do not do a very good job of representing player contribution.

While we already know that goals are better than assists, we can tease that information just by looking at the scoring breakdown. But if there is a massive difference between first and second assist then scoring summaries that don't split into two sets of helpers must be severely questioned.

This we mostly knew already. Hence the rise of the player contribution systems from both Allan Ryder and Tom Awad. There are implications for these systems too. Awad for example feeds all assists into his GVT at the same value, and may have a value for goals (0.43) that underestimates the triggerman.

The last, and probably most important thing, this data tells me is that generalizing values to situation (whether it be ES, PP or SH, or 1assists, 2 assists goals) creates error. If we as fans want to get to the bottom of player contribution, then we have have work to do.

Getting The Puck In NetThe Candiens PP Resurgence

The Montreal Canadiens have scored 25 goals on their last 100 powerplays.

Consider that in their first 173 PPs, they only scored 24 times and you start to get the idea about the extent to which a resurgence has occurred.


The difference is marked. 25% in their last 100 PPs as opposed to the lowly 13.8% for the first three months of the season.

How did this happen?

A lot of people point to Mathieu Schneider as the major turning point in the Canadiens PP this season. There is no doubt that he will help bolster an already good PP that refound its form long before his arrival. The 7 PPGs in 12 opportunities since his reinsertion into the Canadiens lineup certainly help to make the numbers look a little rosier.

However, before Schneider there was a first surge. The surge that helped us win all those games we're pretty thankful to have won now – in January.


Game 39
The turnaround as it happens took place some time during a game against the New York Rangers on January 7th. That game, the Canadiens were going in on a 3-game drought PP-wise, a drought they extended from 15 to 17 PPs over the course of the night. While the even-strength goals were going in, the Rangers were able to answer each time. With a PP at 2:29 of the third period, the Canadiens had another opportunity.

Would they score and solidify their position in the game, or would they let another chance go wasting and balance the battle on a knife's edge?

It didn't take long to answer. Plekanec won the PP and Markov was able to snap a shot past a dozing Henrik Lundqvist. It turned that game around, and as it turns out, it seems to have turned around the fortunes of the would-be number one PP of the league (two years running and resurgent). As if to hammer home the homecoming of the 5-man unit, Lang scored an absolute stunner 2 minutes later on a double PP – the play of the game for LIW that night:

It's Robert Lang's goal, but not the one you think - it was his first on the PP. The amazing thing about this whole play, which admittedly was a 5-on-3, was the speed at which the puck covered distance in the Rangers zone. The play essentially starts when Lang having received the puck from Markov, returns the puck to him. Markov readies himself and one-times a pass to Andrei Kostitsyn at the other point (finally Carbo) and he in turn one-times a shot. The shot misses the net but luckily rebounds behind the net cleanly out the other side right to Lang, where he completes the 4-touch play by one-timing a shot himself. Kovalev, not involved in the play himself also played a nice part as he signaled to his old buddy Lang that the puck was coming around cleanly.

This is the Canadiens PP of last season. It's been a long time...

From that time the Canadiens have scored 25 goals in 92 opportunities (that's 27%). I haven't confirmed it with months of calculations, but I'd be willing to bet that's league leading over this period of time.

Even taking away the Schneider games, the Habs still coast to 22.5% clip – already an impressive turnaround in my books.


Maestro
A lot of the talk about the Habs PP over the past two years has focused naturally on the main protagonists – the goalscorers themselves. In 2006-07, wonder shot Sheldon Souray personally accounted for a score of Canadiens PP goals. The natural fear upon his loss cried for a lost PP. It didn't happen. Pundits scrambled to explain it, Mike Farber said Koivu, others to using regular lines instead of special units; many were just confused.

This year, the commentators love to hone in on missing piece Mark Streit. While I would certainly expect the Canadiens PP to be better with Streit than not (for his passing excellence); I hoped, nay expected, they should find a way around the Streit and Ryder losses with the core of talent they had: Kovalev, Koivu, Tanguay, Markov, Kostitsyn, Higgins, Lang.

I was pretty certain back last season, as I am now that most of the success on the PP can be traced pretty reliably to one person in particular:

"His tricks on the PP include breakout passes, gaining the zone, keeping the puck in, simple passing, cross-ice seeing eye passing, shooting from the point, and pinching when appropriate. His biggest trick is how he manages to do all this and garner hardly a mention from the critics who drooled over Souray.

If you watch him on the ice, watch his eyes. What you can see is concentration, poise and vision at the line. He passes and sets himself up for the next play seconds ahead of the opposition. He inherently knows where Koivu and Kovalev will be. When to pass to Streit and when to take on the defenders."

At the beginning of this resurgence, we said this of the player who had the power to kick this PP back into gear:

"If the PP is back for a short stay, it's because he has dragged it back. His goal on the PP was opportunistic and patient at the same time. He sprung to get to the puck but waited to unleash his accurate wrist shot until Lundqvist was sliding. His involvement in the second PP goal was textbook Doug Jarvis PP work. His game up front was impressive and his game on defence this game was solid, despite being on the ice fr a couple of goals. That's to say, his play also prevented a number of chances."

The maestro is Andrei Markov, of course. Fitting that his goal started this road to recovery. Fitting that he set up the most beautiful PP goal of the season (that Lang goal). And, it's fitting that he should be recognised now.

Because although Schneider has provided an indubitable spark, it is Markov who directs, assists and maintains the Canadiens PP. His most recent game was a primo performance from the maestro.


Schneider
The addition of Mathieu Schneider should do two things immediately:

1) Get more accurate and powerful shots on goalies
2) And, more importantly, make opposing coaches think about the Canadiens PP again

For a long stretch, the Canadiens did not have a viable option on the point fr the PP. This was before Kovalev made his move back there, before Andrei Kostitsyn was tried and before Josh Gorges had any clue what he should do outside his own zone. They have since regained themselves, so adding Schneider comes at a good time – it gives the team a bonus option.

With Schneider, the team can set up for a shot from the point instead of trying to jam the puck in from the side of the net. They will still try to jam it in – but should have more space to do it with the defenders worried about Schneider.


The goal of the PP
It is sometimes forgotten, but the goal of PPs across this league is to discourage people from taking penalties. The penalties in place, of course, to discourage people from breaking the rules as they are on that night.

A team with a good PP benefits doubly from it. Not only will they score many goals, but the opposition must play them cleanly.

A team playing at full force and full energy (can anyone remember that? other than the last game guys...) can then win battles and put the other team into a series of compromising dilemmas – let the man go free or hook/trip/crosscheck to prevent the opening at risk of a PP.

I give Benoit Brunet a hard time, but I wanted to highlight probably the most insightful thing I have heard during a hockey broadcast in an age. It was said during the good times, of course, but it still applies. When discussing Georges Laraque and the way the Canadiens were being disrespected around the league, he said (something like):

"The way to get people to stop roughing you up and disrespecting you isn't to have an enforcer; the way is to punish them by scoring goals with a god PP"

Hit them where it hurts, so to speak. On the scoreboard, in the standings. Nobody reels from a black eye to a guy who plays to fight for a living (that is a sideshow). Hit Koivu from behind: Markov scores on the PP. High-stick Kovalev: Kostitsyn rifles one home on the PP. A coach will not stand for penalties that cost the team. So long as they don't, he will (maybe not publicly).

The Canadiens need to heed this great advice from number 17/22.



Matt Schneider has been here for 3 games, but I think it is fair to say we haven't seen the full potential of this addition yet. The next game for example, no self-respecting coach will fail to note to his team that Montreal is 58% on the PP over the last 3 games. No coach will fail to notice that the Habs have scored 12 goals since his arrival.

I think we should start to see a few less liberties taken by opposition players, opening up the ice for the Plekanecs of the team who love the open surface. I think the Canadiens will have the potential to hammer home leads like they once did using the PP. I think it should change the complexion of things from here on. I think the brain-dead calls to trade Andrei Markov will dry up like the Okavango in the Kalahari.

Eklund Was Born With Powers

Yeah powers. A very vivid imagination...

I don't know why I still read this guy's website, I don't. Maybe I'm bored?

But today, Eklund, the ever self-praising made another outlandish claim. He claims, and I quote:

"Anyway, as my buddy will attest, I called the Hextall goal about 30 seconds before hand."

This goes down as one of his legendary overclaims, which is saying a lot considering who we're dealing with. No goalie has ever scored before and Eklund has a prmonition about it? Then again, he probably just read it on TSN and claimed he knew before anyone else as usual.

I should stop before I give the guy anymore air time. Just thought it was funny, really.