Boston

Can you please explain why you think the Game Winning Goal stat is more meaningful than a clutch goal stat and why a scout should put more stock in GWG than in clutch goals?

Do you have a link to the +\- stat thread? I did find this one. http://www.njdevs.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=115585

What is your definition of "game winner"? And why do you define it that way? I already suggested clutch goals - perhaps a goal which is scored during the final five minutes or overtime and either: - breaks a tie - ties the game - makes a 1 goal lead a 2 goal lead - reduces a 2 goal lead to a 1 goal lead Goals like these are far more meaningful than one which puts your team up 2-0 early in the second period. Are you talking about the goal which won the game? If so, I agree with you. If you're talking about the GWG, then can you explain why all GWG's are equally important - when some give a team a 2-0 lead in the first period while some clinch the game in overtime. It depends on when in the game it was scored. Late in the 3rd period = yes; Early in the first period = no. It's already been determined that given the way GWG is calculated, the GWG isn't always scored in a clutch situation. Therefore, your questions don't make much sense.

If true, then can you please explain how a team gets a win upon taking a 2-0 lead in the second period. Don't you think similar questions were asked when someone first came up with the "assist" stat? A line has to be drawn somewhere. Please go back and review the box score in my OP. 2nd Period 07:49 DET Gustav Nyquist (2) from Damien Brunner and Joakim Andersson 08:20 DET Drew Miller (1) from Patrick Eaves and Cory Emmerton 3rd Period 04:35 CHI Patrick Kane (2) from Duncan Keith 06:46 DET Pavel Datsyuk (3) from Johan Franzen and Brendan Smith Miller gets the GWG for Detroit. Contrary to what you're saying, Chicago did score after Miller's GWG.

That's not what I meant by real time. If you score a goal, you are credited with a goal at the time of the goal. If you score a GWG, it is unknown (unless it's an overtime goal) if it will be a GWG until the end of the game. The GWG stat tells you very little about a hockey game. Did I say something to the contrary? Well, it's idiotic to measure them by quantity when you can measure them as a function of the amount of time spent on the ice. What if I have 10 goals in 200 minutes on the ice and you have 12 goals in 1000 minutes on the ice? Good question.

Very good points. I would also like to see a stat like clutch goals replace GWG.

+/- is yet another stat which is questionable. 1) it is far too dependent on number of minutes played. Revise it to be +/- per minute played 2) it is far too dependent on who is on the ice with you.

Probably who scored the game winning goal, the stat is pretty self explanatory. The stat tells you who scored the goal that won their team the game. Except in a game which is decided by a goal in overtime, the GWG isn't a goal which won the game. In the original example I cited, the goal which was credited as the GWG did not win the game. It merely gave Detroit a 2-0 lead of a game which had not yet been decided. 2nd Period 07:49 DET Gustav Nyquist (2) from Damien Brunner and Joakim Andersson 08:20 DET Drew Miller (1) from Patrick Eaves and Cory Emmerton 3rd Period 04:35 CHI Patrick Kane (2) from Duncan Keith 06:46 DET Pavel Datsyuk (3) from Johan Franzen and Brendan Smith I'm not sure what you're talking about. I understand how the GWG is calculated. What I don't know is what purpose the stat serves and what the NHL is trying to measure by using the stat. Oh, please don't go there! Putting aside the fact that unlike GWG, it's measured in real time, shooting percentage is just as idiotic a stat as GWG.

What we still don't know is what the NHL is trying to measure or accomplish by tallying the Game Winning Goal.

Interesting point. If you were a scout, would you put more stock in GWG or in third period goals?

I found this in a quick search. http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7443535/who-gets-the-game-winning-goal Pretty funny!

While I don't play in fantasy leagues, this seems strange. Why not use the aforementioned "clutch goal" stat instead of GWGs? GWG is far too dependent on things which occur after the goal, while clutch is measured in real time.

It sounds as if you're advocating the tie-breaking goal be given more credit than the GWG. Am I correct? Why not come up with a clutch goal stat? Perhaps assign it to any goal scored in the last five minutes (or overtime) of any game - provided the teams were within either 1 or 2 of each other on the scoreboard at the time of the goal. This would keep a goal which gives a team a 2-0 lead early in the first period the potential to be erroneously considered extra important.

Take a look at this box score http://www.hockey-reference.com/boxscores/201305200DET.html It is game 3 of the Red Wings/Blackhawks series. Scoring Summary 2nd Period 07:49 DET Gustav Nyquist (2) from Damien Brunner and Joakim Andersson 08:20 DET Drew Miller (1) from Patrick Eaves and Cory Emmerton 3rd Period 04:35 CHI Patrick Kane (2) from Duncan Keith 06:46 DET Pavel Datsyuk (3) from Johan Franzen and Brendan Smith According to how the GWG is determined, Miller gets the GWG. From looking at the box score, we can determine the following: 1) there is nothing to indicate Miller's goal actually won the game. 2) Miller's goal was probably less clutch than Datsyuk's goal - which gave the Wings a 3-1 lead early in the 3rd period - suggesting that GWG isn't meant to measure clutch. 3) At the time Miller scored, it was unclear what would happen after his goal. So he is not rewarded in real time. He is rewarded based on things that occur after his goal - much of which he has no control over. This raises the big question of what purpose the GWG stat serves.

Will a western team play an eastern team in the finals each year? If so, that gives an unfair advantage to western teams, as they each have a 1:14 chance of reaching the Stanley Cup finals, while eastern teams have a 1:16 chance. Or could this be justified due to the extra travel western teams are subject to?

You've hit the nail on the head. Even yourself, who advocates percentage over points earned, has admitted that you didn't think of that. Perhaps that's why the NHL uses points instead of percentage or games behind. Because they just didn't think about it.

Not necessarily. We could be comparing: 1) Same team, but two records - one for each of two coaches. 2) Same team, but record for each of two goaltenders. 3) Same team, record when they score first vs. record when opponent scores first 4) Same team - before & after a player is acquired vs. trade 5) Same team - when a particular player is injured vs. when same player is healthy

You are right that 'ahead' is the wrong word to use. More appropriate language would be 'better record'. So I'll ask you as well: Let me ask you: which do you think is a better W-L-OTL record in each of these two cases and why is it a better record?: 20-21-0 or 19-18-0? 20-0-0 or 21-61-0?

You're acting as if this a discussion about what system is being used. It's meant to be a discussion about why they use a particular system. If one glances at the standings without looking closely at the numbers, they'll be misled to think the 20-21-0 team has a better record than the 19-18-0 team. Let me ask you: which do you think is a better W-L-OTL record in each of these two cases: 20-21-0 or 19-18-0? 20-0-0 or 21-61-0?

It would be misleading to announce that the 20-21-0 team is ahead of the 19-18-0 team, regardless of how the teams are officially listed in the standings, as 19-18-0 is a better W-L-OTL record than 20-21-0. And saying they are ahead suggests they have the better record.

That's not true if what they hear is "The Bruins are ahead of the Rangers".

It's not the schedule inequity that matters. It's the misleading of the fans that matters. If the Bruins are 20-21-0 and the Rangers are 19-18-0, what sense would it make to list the Bruins ahead of the Rangers if at the end of the season, percentage and points will each yield the same seedings?

Because unlike points earned, points percentage will take into account the detrimental value of a loss. Or is there some reason you wish to ignore the detrimental value of a loss when sorting teams? That's where the games behind column comes in handy. What do you propose doing about losses to distinguish them from not playing?

Winning percentage is points divided by double the games played. E.g. 6-3-1 = 13 pts in 10 games or 13/20 = .650 percentage. Very simple. What value do you give to a loss to differentiate it from not playing? The OTL didn't hurt the effectiveness of percentage. 6-4-0 = 12 pts in 10 games = 12/20 = .600 pct 5-3-2 = 12 pts in 10 games = 12/20 = .600 pct Any questions?

There are numerous holes in the post of Aziz, most in the first paragraph. I'll find his post and respond accordingly.