Originally Posted by Gotlaid
I read through this a few times and I still don't get what you're trying to drive at?
Are you saying that first assists is the key to success and identifying future trends/production?
With points, we know that we look at things like ice-time (Even-Strength & PP), linemates, and maturation.
With goals, we all know that we can look at a combination of SOG & shooting percentage, and considerations to upcoming year playmaking-linemate quality.
With assists - we never really get into examining the statistics.
Maybe we should?
If a guy has 30 assists... what does it tell us?
Most of the time, I think we all just take assists and use the same number for future seasons.
But if we know a guy had 28 first assists & 2 second assists... I believe we can say "Wow, this guy must be an incredible passer to set-up goals - and perhaps he was very unlucky that he only got 2 second assists."
I think first assists is a fairly reliable stat.
It's something we should "count" on with a little more security.
I think second assists is a less reliable stat.
If a player had a high number of second assists, perhaps we should adjust his future assist totals to be a bit lower (with regard to second assists).
If a player had a low number of second assists, perhaps we should adjust his future assist totals to be a bit higher (with regard to second assists).
Claude Giroux's 2009-2010 vs. 2010-2011 breakout season seems to be a glowing example of the value in assist-analysis.
In that season, Giroux had 47pts, averaging 16:37 in ice time.
16 goals, 31 assists.
Most of us pegged him for 50-60pts in 2010-2011 because there were a lot of star players in Philly eating ice-time (M.Richards, J.Carter, Briere, JVR).
Giroux went BOOM and put up 76pts in 2010-2011, in just 19:24.
Q: Should we have seen that coming?
A: No (would be the common answer), but maybe the answer should have been yes.
1. Let's start by making an assuming that Giroux was going to get 19min/game. That would have extrapolated his point totals from 47 to 54pts.
2. Let's say that we give him an extra +5% bump just for maturation. That brings him up to 57pts. That's in the 50-60pt range that most of us pegged him at.
3. But here's the thing... Giroux's 31 assists break down to 29 first assists & 2 second assists. If first assists are the more reliable, then we could expect that Giroux would put up that total again + a few more (based on the ice-time increase and maturation). Perhaps 33 first assists would be fair. What about those second assists? Well, two (for any full-time player) is far too low. Historically, I'd guess that 2 of every 3 goals scored have a second assist... which would mean Giroux should be inline for about 20 second assists (not two). That's 18 additional points!!!
4. What does this equal?
We bump his 16G up to 20G. [He actually scored 25G]
We bump his 29 first assists up to 33A. [He actually scored 34 first assists on a 66:34 A1:A2 ratio]
We bump his 2 second assists up to 20A. [He actually scored 17 second assists]
That extrapolation prediction amounts to 73points.
He actually scored 76points in that break-out year
. (a few extra goals on above-average shooting percentage)
So... while we all pegged Giroux for 50-60pts... perhaps there was enough information (the strong A1:A2 ratio) to have pegged Giroux for significantly more.
Back in that thread (which I'm sure you reviewed
), nobody mentioned the ratio of first assists or second assists... so nobody predicting 70+pts for Giroux really could use this basis to justify their high predictions.
Anyways - this is a good case to examine... and perhaps (going forward) we should spend some time every off-season looking at player's A1:A2 splits.
ps. You know I love your stuff... but I have a hard time believing you really didn't understand the direction of this thread.