Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

48614Re: Shootout GWG

Expand Messages
  • Morey Holzman
    Aug 2, 2005
      This doesn't entirely work either. If the Oilers beat the Kings in
      a playoff game, say 10-8, and the Oilers lead all the way, the first
      goal should not be the GWG.

      I prefer a hybrid system, something that baseball uses to determine
      wins and losses for the pitchers. Love to hear suggestions.

      Morey



      --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "J.P. Martel" <jpmartel_18@y...>
      wrote:
      > The current method for determining the GWG is plain wrong.
      >
      > In a few occasions, a team up by one goal scored an empty-net
      > goal with about a minute left in the game. Then, in the dying
      > seconds of the game, the losing team managed to get a (useless)
      > goal. The author of the empty-net goal is credited with the GWG.
      > That's how Alex Kovalev scored his first goal with the Canadiens
      > last year. As a corollary, the goalie who sits at the bench
      > during the empty-net goal is given the loss.
      >
      > In at least one occasion, the goalie had been called late in the
      > game, and had not let in a single goal. Yes, the loss was put on
      > his record, because he was the one who left his net for the sixth
      > attacker.
      >
      > The GWG should be given to whoever scores the go-ahead goal for
      > the last time in the game, even if it happens in the first minute
      > of play of the first period.
      >
      > In the case of a shootout, there should be no GWG credited to
      > anyone, since actually no team really won.
      >
      > J.-Patrice
      >
      > --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "Morey Holzman"
      <epenaltybox@y...>
      > wrote:
      > > True to a point. But then I think back to the Oilers-Kings game
      > > dubbed out here as The Miracle On Manchester.
      > >
      > > The Oilers went up 5-0 after two periods, gave up 5 in the third
      > and
      > > lost in OT. The Kings tying goal was scored with a few seconds
      > > left. If Fuhr would have been able to bar the door, should the
      > > fifth goal really be counted as a GWG, especially with the
      Oilers
      > > laughing about it all the way to the locker room between periods?
      > >
      > > Morey
      > >
      > > --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "DAVE SOUTTER" <dsoutter@m...>
      > > wrote:
      > > > Joe:
      > > >
      > > > Going by your logic in the first paragraph, the same could be
      > > applied to the first 60 minutes of a game. In a 2-1 game (60
      > > minutes, no OT or SO), is ANY goal is more important than any
      > > other? The answer is simple: The one that puts the team ahead
      to
      > > stay is critical because the name of the game is WINNING, and
      you
      > > cannot win without scoring more goals than the other team.
      > Without
      > > the second goal, you don't win. If, going by your example, a GWG
      > > stat should only be awarded for a goal scored late in the game
      (or
      > > OT), then where do you draw the line? Less than a minute to go
      in
      > > the third period? Less than 5 minutes?
      > > >
      > > > Your example shows how stats can be somewhat misleading. I
      agree
      > > with you to a certain extent. I've seen teams come from behind
      to
      > > win, and it almost seems the game-tying and game-winning goals
      are
      > > simply academic. It's momentum shift that cannot be
      statistically
      > > analyzed, and this shift may not always be best demonstrated by
      a
      > > goal, but that is the yardstick success is measured by in
      hockey.
      > > We've all seen teams outplay another team and still lose. Did
      > Tampa
      > > Bay outplay Calgary in game 7 in the 2004 Stanley Cup finals?
      > Maybe
      > > not, but they scored 2 goals, and Calgary scored zip. That's
      what
      > > matters. Scoreboard, baby.
      > > >
      > > > How do you feel about a 2-0 game, where the first goal is
      scored
      > > late in the third period, then an empty-netter to top it off? Is
      > the
      > > GWG stat still a joke in this example? It shouldn't and doesn't
      > > matter how much time ticks off after the GWG is scored--that
      goal,
      > > whenever it was scored, won the game.
      > > >
      > > > --Dave Soutter
      > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > From: joe_gucciardo<mailto:joe_gucciardo@y...>
      > > > To:
      hockhist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
      > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 6:33 AM
      > > > Subject: [hockhist] Shootout GWG
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > I think this stat has to be separated from the regular
      stats.
      > > Every
      > > > goal scored during a shootout is critical. If a team wins a
      > > shootout 2
      > > > goals to 1, how could you really say that 2nd goal was more
      > > important
      > > > than the first one.
      > > >
      > > > Also, the GWG statistic is a joke. A Game Winning Goal
      should
      > > not
      > > > awarded in a 5-0 game. When I think of GWG's, I think of a
      > goal
      > > in the
      > > > third period that puts a team ahead to stay and/or an
      overtime
      > > goal.
      > > >
      > > > Joe
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic