WingsFan2007

Correct Odjick is also correct. I know 13 looks like Manson, but it isn't. My goof that I have Jets on there twice. Ducks should be on there. So #13 is Oilers, Jets, Blackhawks, Maple Leafs, Coyotes, Canadiens, Ducks Excellent!!!

Once again, correct. You're pretty good!

I gather you disagree with me. Let's say the Wings have a 7-3-5 record in January. That's a .633 points percentage. In what way is it meant to show anything above and beyond what they've done during that 15 game stretch?

Correct. Correct.

Well done. Fitzgerald is correct for #1.

By that logic, points earned is meaningless, as there is no guarantee you will maintain the same number of points in the future. Winning percentage or points percentage have nothing to do with the future and aren't meant to suggest that you'll continue at that pace in the future. They're meant to show what you've done to date.

By that rationale, if you take away Zetterberg's goal, there is no Weight goal. So by taking away Datsyuk's goal, what do you think you then get? A 1-0 loss with Weight scoring the lone goal. If that's the case, then Datsyuk's goal is just as important as Zetterberg's goal - if not more important. If you get a 0-0 tie without Datsyuk's goal, then it is just as important as Zetterberg's goal, as you indicated without Zetterberg's goal, you get a 1-1 tie. So earlier, you said Zetterberg's goal is more important than Datsyuk's and now - depending on whether or not Weight still scores - you're saying that Datsyuk's goal is either as important or more important than Zetterberg's goal.

Perhaps you misunderstood. Earlier, you said, You misunderstand: in scenario #2, if your team had not scored the empty-netter, then the game would have been tied by the opposition's buzzer-beater. Prior to that, I had presented a scenario of the Wings winning 2-1 over the Blues with the scoring going Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Weight. I can see from your comment that you're assuming everything else plays out the same. This was the basis behind you saying that Zetterberg's goal was the most important goal. But if you're going to apply that hypothesis to one goal and show a positive, you must also apply the same hypothesis to the other goals and show a negative to each one - or your hypothesis doesn't tell us anything. Since you removed Zetterberg's goal and got a 1-1 tie, you need to remove Datsyuk's goal and show something other than a 1-1 tie, or your hypothesis fails to distinguish Zetterberg's goal from Datsyuk's goal. If you remove Datsyuk's goal and leave everything else the same - as you did when you removed Zetterberg's goal - you still get a 1-1 tie with goals from Zetterberg and Weight. So you have failed to distinguish Zetterberg's goal from Datsyuk's goal.

I could be wrong. I don't know much about the history of uniforms going back before the '60s. But throughout the 60's & '70s & '80s, the home team always wore white (except for the Kings - yellow and the Golden Seals - also yellow). But your team is also guaranteed of having at least 30 losses. Your guarantee of losses is seven greater than your guarantee of wins, while my guarantee of losses is ten less than my guarantee of wins. Thus, I am 10 games above .500, while you're 7 games below .500.

The point system that the NHL uses to sort teams causes a loss to have the same effect as not playing. Perhaps that's what I should have asked at the onset, as that's what I really want to know. Why does the NHL use a method for sorting the teams in the standings in which a loss is precisely the same as not playing - when a much more viable alternative, like that used in baseball, is available and has been used with success in many sports? I feel I made a very good example with the 21-10 team losing three straight and falling to 21-13. In one sport, they lose a position to the 20-10 team, while in the other sport they don't. This is along the lines of what I suspect to be true. That the NHL had a lot of ties in the old days and was quite removed from the mainstream sports such as MLB. Perhaps in the early days of the NHL, all teams played on the same days, meaning there was never a discrepancy in games played. When there is never a discrepancy in games played, points earned works well. It's when you get discrepancies that is gets misleading. Take 20-10-0 vs. 21-13-0 for example. While the NHL is very tradition based, I can't imagine that's the sole reason the NHL hasn't switched over to the baseball model for sorting teams. Tradition was violated when the NHL adopted the point for an overtime loss, when the league expanded from six teams and when they started having the home team wear the colored jerseys. That's part of the advantage of a games behind or percentage sorted system. No need to use games in hand. Sounds like a good idea.

The points system was in place long before I was even born. Therefore, they couldn't have done it this way specifically to annoy me. I'm guessing there is either a conspiracy here to not look back into the history and try to get an answer to my question or there is something painful about talking about it.

As a tie (or now OTL) is the net equivalent of half a win and half a loss, the presence of ties can't be the reason the NHL uses a points system instead of the more viable games behind or winning percentage system used in baseball. Take for example the Red Wings record of 35-14-6, which is 76 points in 55 games. If we take those 6 OTLs and disperse them half among wins and half among losses, we get 38-17-0, which is also 76 points in 55 games. The winning percentage can be figured from there, which will be the same as points percentage.

Yes, the Blackhawks would never be 21-10-0 When I ask why the NHL does it this way, what I'm really getting at is why they use points to sort teams when the method used in baseball seems to be a more viable option.

OK, let's simplify this. Datsyuk scores to make it 1-0; Zetterberg scores an empty-netter to make it 2-0; Weight scores for the Blues with two seconds to make it a 2-1 final. If I understand you correctly, you're saying Zetterberg's goal is the most important goal because they would go to OT had he not scored. There are a couple of flaws in your thinking. 1) Had Zetterberg not scored the empty-netter, there is no guarantee that Weight still would have scored for the Blues. Strategies would have been different, perhaps the Wings would have played a tighter defense being ahead by one than being ahead by two. 2) If the score would have been tied without the 2nd Wings goal (Zetterberg), then you must be assuming everything else plays out the same. So let's see what happens if Datsyuk doesn't score and everything else plays out the same. You still have a 1-1 tie, with goals coming from Zetterberg and Weight. Now using your logic, Datsyuk's goal is just as important as Zetterberg's goal.

At minimum, wouldn't it make more sense for it to be the last go-ahead goal than the goal that puts you one up on the number of goals the losing teams has scored by the end of the game? (which would make it meaningless at the time it's scored, as you have no idea how many the other team will end up with at the end of the game). That's why I ask, just what purpose is it supposed to serve? Your scenario #2 is completely messed up. The empty-netter puts you up by two. If the opposition scores one after that, then you win by one. Without the empty-netter, you don't necessarily tie (or go into OT).

If Zetterberg's goal was more important than Datsyuk's goal and a last second Phoenix goal doesn't have an impact on who wins, then it would stand to reason that Zetterberg's goal would still be more important than Datsyuk's goal - even with the last second Phoenix goal that closes the gap to 4-3.

So let's say the Coyotes scored a goal with 3 seconds left and the final was 4-3. If Zetterberg's goal indeed was more important than Datsyuk's goal, then the GWG ends up going to the less important goal - Datsyuk's.

Let's look at tonight's game: Phoenix 9:06, Owen Nolan 13 (Ladislav Nagy, Steve Reinprecht) 2nd Period Detroit 4:51, Robert Lang 14 (Brett Lebda, Chris Chelios) Detroit 16:27, Henrik Zetterberg 23 (Danny Markov, Tomas Holmstrom) Phoenix 19:43, Shane Doan 19 (power play) (Yanic Perreault, Mike Zigomanis) 3rd Period Detroit 3:22, Henrik Zetterberg 24 (Nicklas Lidstrom, Tomas Holmstrom) Detroit 19:00, Pavel Datsyuk 16 (Henrik Zetterberg) Zetterberg is credited with the game winning goal, but I would say Datsyuk's goal was more important, as it gave the Wings the extra insurance they needed in the event Phoenix scored in the closing seconds. However, if Zetterberg's goal were scored much later in the third period - perhaps at the 16:00 or 17:00 mark, then I would say it is more important than Datsyuk's goal. Any other thoughts?

I gather Rimouski was someone who posted threads about game winning goals and standings. If I'm correct, did he have any viable points? Perhaps you have a link to some of his posts.

The same could be said for a player who scores more goals. He'll also stand a better chance of having scored more game breaking goals.

Why not get rid of the game winning goal stat and develop a 'clutch goal' stat. Perhaps it could be a goal that is scored in the final 10 minutes when the game is reasonably close, say when there is not more than a 2 goal lead. Well, if you take the term 'game winning goal' literally, it should only be awarded if it is a clinching goal. That would mean it would have to be scored at the last second of the third period to win the game or in overtime.

Good point with respect to what Draper_Rocks#33 said. Perhaps he thinks the game winning goal is the goal that gives your team a lead that you don't relinquish. However, there could be several goals in one game that break ties.