What purpose does the Game Winning Goal stat serve?

[Amoroq]

Not the when is a game winning goal a game winning goal argument!

[Boston]

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.

[Boston]

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.

[Boston]

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.

[NRH]

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?

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.

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

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

[NRH]

+/- is really only an important stat for defenders you'll never see wingers and centers centered around it.

[hf101]

Some topics really can go round and round and have very little value.

[Boston]

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.

[NRH]

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.

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

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

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.

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

[JR Ewing]

+/- 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.

Not to mention that it's extremely sensitive to zone starts.

JR

[NRH]

Most stats are unknown until the end of they happen, why should a GWG be instantly known?

[DaGreatGazoo]

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.

[Boston]

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.

[Boston]

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.

[Boston]

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

Edited July 22, 2013 by Boston

[NRH]

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.

[J0e Th0rnton]

[DaGreatGazoo]

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

I did find this one. http://www.njdevs.co...howtopic=115585

I don't. I haven't returned to the forum where the discussion was-and haven't for a long time.

Sorry, bud.

[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?

[hf101]

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?

I think we've had enough. Take your stat questions to another forum.