Originally Posted by Hey_Robbie
I wonder if your assumptions about the consistency of A1 vs. A2 differentially hold true for player situation. I could imagine a lot of interaction between, say anomalous power play production in a given year and extreme (high or low) ratios of primary to secondary assists. If a defenseman's team had unusual success on the power play last year, might that give a boost in A2 vs. A1? We likely all consider a trade from an offensive team to a defensive team when making our projections, but I could imagine I'd be more concerned if a player with a low A1:A2 ratio was traded to a lower-scoring team than if a player with a high ratio were in a similar situation, because those secondary assists may have been boosted by the team around him, while the primary assists might travel with the player if they represent in part the player's inherent passing skill.
Yup, all true.
You understand the cases all well - which is key, because any analyst has to have an understanding of ALL the criteria involved to make an educated forecast.
Everything is a case-by-case basis and there are definitely some anomalies.
Dan Boyle was very A2-heavy last year.
Am I worried? No, not really... the SJ PP moves the puck a lot and Boyle's job is just to keep it moving. He doesn't bomb a lot of shots on net, he's just trying to create the pass to shift the defense... so he's a perfect guy to be A2-heavy and yet not of concern.
Mostly, I'm focused on A2 numbers.
If they were incredibly high... I might take a deeper look at the player to see if there is a reason WHY that makes sense. (Yes, for Boyle)
If they were incredibly low... I might take a deeper look at the player to see if there is a reason WHY that makes sense. (No, for Giroux's low A2 count in 2009-2010, which was just bad luck.)