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

Re: Shootout GWG

Expand Messages
  • J.P. Martel
    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
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      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]
    • Morey Holzman
      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
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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]
      • Michael Poplawski
        Baseball s game-winning RBI statistic was ridiculed despite having a better pedigree than hockey s game-winning goal and is no longer an official statistic. If
        Message 3 of 6 , Aug 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Baseball's game-winning RBI statistic was ridiculed despite having a
          better pedigree than hockey's game-winning goal and is no longer an
          official statistic.

          If hockey insists on keeping GWG around, it could at least use the
          baseball definition, i.e. the goal that permanently changes the
          scoreline from a tie to a lead would be a better definition of a
          game-winner than simply the X+1 goal in a game where the opponent
          scored X goals.

          The hockey definition of GWG results in GWG being assigned to goals
          scored when a team is already winning. Many GWG are really insurance
          goals of some kind. If GWG is supposed to measure something, I think
          they should give it a stricter definition, and I think changing a tie
          to a lead, with that lead holding up, would be better.

          As for shootouts, who cares?

          --
          Mike Poplawski
          Victoria, BC
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.