Boston

Your suggestions seen more pointless than the original game winning goal stat line and far more complicated while also going into a opinion zone. Opinions are something you developed from stats not something you develop stats based on.

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?

My +\- comment goes back to a round and round argument, many of us had with one of the most idiotic forum members in the history of forums.

Do you have a link to the +\- stat thread?

I did find this one. http://www.njdevs.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=115585

Is the game winner as pointless as the goal that won it? Both are decided at the end of a game.

What is your definition of "game winner"? And why do you define it that way?

The only real viable argument you can present here is a practical change to a less opinionated and more game defining "stat" to track.

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.

But to tell me some game winners are less important than others that is by far the most far-fetched stance I've ever seen someone propose.

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.

So in a 1-0 nothing game is that one goal super clutch?

It depends on when in the game it was scored. Late in the 3rd period = yes; Early in the first period = no.

Is it more clutch than a overtime game in the playoffs that doesn't end until a goal is scored? Is it more clutch than the GWG scored in a 4-0 win in the cup finals?

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.

It could go somewhere but starting a topic and then providing nothing other than.

"This stat is dumb, what's it mean?"

The meaning is very obvious, it's the goal that won the game. It says that in the name.

If true, then can you please explain how a team gets a win upon taking a 2-0 lead in the second period.

Changing it to "clutch goal" as a stat? That seems far more incredulous of a stat to keep track of. What defines clutch? A game tying goal or a game winning goal? What's so clutch about a game that ends 7-8? Who's tying goal was more clutch and if they are all considered clutch goals do they get lumped in the same stat line as the winner? This breaks down into a bleak argument of semantics of opinion and defining "clutch".

Don't you think similar questions were asked when someone first came up with the "assist" stat? A line has to be drawn somewhere.

However with a stat that is easily understood like GWG there is no grey area, that was the one specific goal that won the game, the other team didn't score after it, this is a basic concept and if the fact of "real time updating" is the problem then what do we call all those reviewed plays?

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.

No stat is measured in real time, they're finial only after the game is. Why do you think fantasy leagues do corrections every week?

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.

I don't find either stat idiotic, I find it more idiotic that you "went there" and made a topic about a stat that will tell you quite a bit about a hockey game when you see it in the post-game summary.

The GWG stat tells you very little about a hockey game. Did I say something to the contrary?

What else is idiotic? Number of times icing the puck? Times offside? Time on ice? PIM? HITS?

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?

None of these stats really define a player for a scout so why do we have them?

Good question.

Not sure, since there are a good number of games that are functionally over by the third period, just as there are a number of games where the GWG really is irrelevant.

What I'd probably put the most stock in is GWG with 1 goal Margin of Victory. Not every player pots those regularly, and I'd be interested to see what players consistently pot winning goals in tie games. That's pretty much the ultimate "clutch goal" stat.

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

For us old--timers and Philly.com veterans, we should also re-address the +\- stat.

+/- 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.

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

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

Is this a hard concept to grasp?

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.

Why aren't you guys arguing about some thing like shooting %; a stat line that issues you even less information about a player and the game than the who scored the winning goal?

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.

I'd take a "Moneyball" approach to my hockey team until I got fired or it worked

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

Well it's hardly a fluke if you're consistently appearing on the list.

However I would not consider it a clutch stat, it's more of a last goal that mattered stat, since every goal before and after weren't the winners. It tells you a lot more about the game when just looking a a post game summary.

Does the league track 3rd period goals? If not I'm sure some scouts do, which would indicate more of a "clutch" player.

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

Not only that, but I've seen this exact topic played out in exactly this fashion.

It started out with a hypothetical description of goals scored and who was awarded the GWG, and then asked forum members to say why/how it worked. Then, after, the person came and told them why GWG is so wrong, blah blah blah, etc etc etc.

Seen this a few times on a few forums over the last decade.

JR

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

Pretty funny!

It is also a scoring category used often in fantasy hockey leagues.

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.

In some cases, nothing. In some cases, it means a lot.

If someone picked up a game winning goal in a 7-2 Hockey game, I would say the goal did not mean a whole lot in terms of clutch. However it "May" have. When 2 teams are tied and playing hard, sometimes the game winning goal opens the floodgates as the other team goes a bit more offensive trying to tie it back up. Witness Canada vs USA in 2002. The 5-2 score is deceiving because that game was super close. The Game winning goal in that game definitely means something.

It sounds as if you're advocating the tie-breaking goal be given more credit than the GWG. Am I correct?

And obviously, Crosby's game winning goal in the 2010 Olympics overtime was HUGE

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.

Pacific, Central, Metropolitan, Atlantic......

What say you? Do you like it?

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?

Fair enough. Hadn't thought of that use.

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.

I was there with you when you made this point several days ago. I would prefer the 19-18-0 team be listed above the 20-21-0 team in the standings (which it would be if winning pct were used). The second example would indicate that the second team somehow played 62 more games than the first--which is weird even for hockey.

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

For the most part, I'm with you in the points vs. percentage discussion. But the above isn't necessarily true. Because if the system is points, then saying they are ahead simply suggests/implies/states that a team has more points. This is a wildly bad analogy on several levels, but here goes anyway: the object of the game during the game is to score more goals than the other team. Say the Bruins are playing the Hawks and the Bruins are vastly outplaying them in every way, winning 2-1 in faceoffs, 3-1 in hits, 4-1 in shots, etc. But Rask has shown up wearing his Yoda underwear with the wrong colored lightsabre and has given up three goals on shots from center ice. So both the announcer and the screen going into the third period say "Chicago is leading the Bruins 3-2." The implication, in fact the flat out statement, is that Chicago has more goals than Boston--the only relevant measure of the object of the game. Now, one could argue that Boston has been the better team. They could argue that based on the previous two periods that if they were to keep playing that perhaps the Bruins will come out at the end with the win. But the statement "Chicago is leading" is based solely on the measurement of the object of the game.

So it is with the standings. If the object is to get the most points, then any statement that a team is "leading" implies only that a team has the most points at any given moment--since that is the measure determining the object of the game. It does not imply best record or number of co-ed conquests or anything else.

I personally like winning percentage and "leading" would clearly refer to "best record" if they went to a winning percentage system. But that's not what leading means nor implies in a points system. It simply means and should only be interpreted as "currently has the most points."

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?

Announce? They list them in the standings. I'll agree I'm not going to the corner of Main and Main with a bullhorn telling people who's in first. If they have more points, they are ahead. Until the other team passes them, IF they pass them. And that's why they're not ahead of them, because they actually have to win those games.

You like percentage. I'm fine with points. Shall we continue this pointless discussion for another 7 pages?

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?

@Boston

If they have more points, they ARE ahead of them.

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.

@Boston

It's not misleading the fans. Hockey fans know how the points system works and it's easy to figure out by the games played versus points. If I could do it when I was a kid, I can't imagine it being all that difficult..

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

Does it matter until the end of the season? If Boston plays 10 games in the first 3 weeks,and Philly plays 5, is that going to matter after 82 games? Like I said, if it's a big deal to you,fire an email off to Bettman. He loves destroying the games heritage. me, I'm fine with it the way it is.

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?

@Boston

Now you are talking about points percentage, not winning percentage. Very different concept. One that works, as you illustrate, but one to which I ask: why bother? If you are going to assign points, why then translate them into a percentage?

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?

It's less useful than the straight points. team A is at .650, team B at .589, how many wins does team B need to catch up?

That's where the games behind column comes in handy.

If you are going to award points for wins, might as well just add them up. Rather than add them up, then add up total game, multiply by two, divide points by total possible. Unless you really like doing extra math to reach essentially the same answer.

What do you propose doing about losses to distinguish them from not playing?

@Boston

the answer is, as far as I know, ties. winning percentage is wins divided by total games played...which makes ties the same as losses. a team that is 20-10-10 is at .500, same as a team that is 20-20-0. so, that doesn't work. I've seen some systems that drop the games that end in ties from the "total games played" number, but that presents problems, too. 20-10-10 is a .666 team, under that system. so, they'd be ahead of a team that was 26-14-0 (.650). which isn't right, either.

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.

the only way to deal with it is to give some kind of value to the tie itself, and thus the 2-point-win, 1-point-tie thing. which made a lot of sense and worked well. games were worth 2 points, total, winner take all...if there is no winner, both teams split them.

What value do you give to a loss to differentiate it from not playing?

the OTL point, of course, threw that out the window and the system no longer makes any sense, but the solution is to solve the point-allocation, not to go to a percentage system. unless they drop the OTL credit entirely and just call it a loss, so ultimately records would be W-L. then percentages would work. as I type that, it seems like a not bad idea. I also don't hate the idea of 3 point games, 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT/SO win, 1 point for a IT/SO loss. at least you are dealing with a fixed number of points available again.

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?

@Boston,

This post from Aziz makes the most sense of all.

I'm not a soccer fan, but I understand they use the point system, too.

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