WingsFan2007

Let's say the Wings beat the Blues 6-1 with the Blues scoring their lone goal with two seconds left in the game. If the GWG is meant to show clutch or ability to score important goals, then somehow the scoring of that lone Blues goal made the Wings second goal more clutch than the first goal. However, at the time of the Wings second goal, the scorer of the goal didn't know that it would become important, so he couldn't have scored that goal based on any extra ability he has to perform in clutch situations or to score more important goals. Therefore, I ask what is the game winning goal statistic really supposed to tell us? And for those who don't know how 'game winning goal' is determined, it is the goal that gives the winning team a goal total of one greater than what the losing team ends up with at the end of the game. Whether or not the goal actually wins the game is immaterial.

http://fantasysports.yahoo.com/analysis/ne...gue=fantasy/nhl On Feb. 6, Dustin Penner scored his 18th goal of the season, at the time a rather innocent looking marker that put Anaheim up 5-1 in what looked like a laugher against San Jose. The Ducks still won by a fairly comfortable 7-4 margin, but because of a three-goal Sharks rally in the third period, Penner's goal stood up as the game-winner. Which brings us to a debate that has been brewing lately inside the walls of the Yahoo! compound. What was so special about that goal? Was it retroactively clutch because Anaheim got sloppy, took a few penalties and let the Sharks back into the game? Skating off the ice, did Penner even know he was responsible for the game-winner? The early consensus here is that the game-winning goals category is going the way of the two-line pass – not eliminated as a scoring option, but removed as a default category in Yahoo! public leagues. It's just too fluky. Frankly we can't stand the thought of a rotisserie league being decided on the final day by a game-winning goal the likes of which Penner tallied Tuesday. So we've all but decided to jettison the category, but would like some input from public and private league competitors on where to go from there. Which category would you add to replace GWG? Or would you just let it go and run with five skater categories and four goalie cats? In other words: What is your ideal rotisserie league configuration? And, no, you may not consider this an open forum for protesting the inclusion of penalty minutes as a positive scoring category. We are not having that debate. The Skinny will be on vacation next weekend, but I'll use the next few weeks to accumulate your suggestions and pass them along to the decision-makers. On to the recap:

All are correct.

Each set of teams is a list of all the NHL teams a certain player played for. The teams aren't listed in chronological order. Identify the player. 1. Maple Leafs, Blackhawks, Islanders, Bruins, Avalanche, Predators, Panthers 2. Kings, Blues, Canucks, Islanders, Wild, Coyotes, Predators 3. Kings, Bruins, Nordiques, Oilers, Senators, Stars 4. Predators, Whalers, Stars, Flames 5. Capitals, Sharks, Oilers, Sabres 6. Blues, Canadiens, Devils, Lightning, Penguins 7. Flyers, Maple Leafs, Predators, Canucks, Lightning, Coyotes 8. Canadiens, Bruins, Blackhawks, Blues, Flyers, Canucks, Devils, Whalers 9. Oilers, Canucks, Devils, Bruins 10. Canucks, Flyers, Islanders, Canadiens 11. Bruins, Canadiens, Flyers, Rangers 12. Rangers, Flyers, Hurricanes, Canucks 13. Oilers, Jets, Blackhawks, Maple Leafs, Coyotes, Canadiens, DUCKS 14. Flyers, Bruins, Nordiques, Canadiens, Oilers, Hurricanes, Avalanche 15. Devils, Blues, Whalers, Coyotes, Flames, Blackhawks, Canadiens 16. Stars, Canadiens, Devils, Avalanche, Coyotes 17. Stars, Canadiens, Blues, Avalanche, Rangers, Canucks 18. Stars, Canadiens, Oilers, Senators, Ducks 19. Islanders, Flyers, Maple Leafs, Ducks, Capitals 20. Capitals, Jets, Whalers, Devils, Coyotes, Stars, Predators, Ducks, Penguins 21. Stars, Penguins, Blues, Avalanche, Ducks, Whalers, Nordiques 22. Canadiens, Sabres, Flames, Devils, Maple Leafs, Blackhawks

Here are some more: 71. Red Wings, Maple Leafs, Blues, Coyotes, Oilers 72. Senators, Flames, Canucks, Blues, Penguins, Kings, Flyers, North Stars 73. Blackhawks, Red Wings, Rangers, Penguins, Blues, Islanders, Capitals, Sharks, Senators 74. Blue Jackets, Flyers, Rangers, Blackhawks 75. Oilers, Stars, Sharks, Jets, Nordiques, Islanders 76. Flames, Senators, Canadiens, Penguins, Devils, Islanders, Capitals 77. Panthers, Ducks, Sharks, Penguins 78. Rangers, Penguins, Blues, Canucks 79. Red Wings, Stars, Whalers, Sharks 80. Maple Leafs, Blackhawks, Flyers, Blues, Penguins, Canucks, Lightning 81. Whalers, Bruins, Blues, Flames, Rangers 82. Flames, Flyers, Devils, Sharks, Ducks, Thrashers, Blackhawks, Stars 83. Rangers, Islanders, Kings, Senators 84. Blackhawks, Rangers, Avalanche, Sharks, Penguins, Flames 85. Blue Jackets, Bruins, Kings, Sabres 86. Ducks, Flames, Bruins, Islanders 87. Bruins, Oilers, Devils, Sharks, Flyers 88. Penguins, Rangers, Lightning, Red Wings, Maple Leafs, Oilers 89. Blues, Sharks, Canucks, Flames, Panthers 90. Islanders, Avalanche, Wild, Canucks, Maple Leafs 91. Sharks, Canadiens, Thrashers, Nordiques, Panthers, Flames 92. Canadiens, Rangers, Blackhawks, Capitals, Jets, Oilers, Lightning, Panthers 93. Penguins, Bruins, Oilers, Rangers, Sharks, Kings 94. Predators, Nordiques, Islanders, Flames, Sharks 95. Devils, Sharks, Flames, Lightning, Wild 96. Rangers, Islanders, Blackhawks, Maple Leafs, Blue Jackets, Bruins 97. Bruins, Oilers, Red Wings, Capitals, Sharks, Blackhawks, Blues 98. Canadiens, Sharks, Oilers, Devils, Islanders 99. Lightning, North Stars, Blue Jackets, Capitals, Red Wings 100. Coyotes, Devils, Blues, Thrashers, Blackhawks, Rangers 101. Bruins, Sharks, Kings, Avalanche, Predators, Rangers 102. Sharks, Lightning, Senators, Panthers, Ducks, Flyers 103. Islanders, Blues, Sabres, Sharks, Devils, Oilers 104. Flyers, Sharks, Flames, Red Wings, Lightning, Canadiens 105. Bruins, Flames, Penguins, Blues 106. Hurricanes, Oilers, Flyers, Maple Leafs, Penguins, Whalers 107. Islanders, Senators, Rangers, North Stars 108. Flyers, Sharks, Canadiens, Blues, Stars 109. Blues, Blackhawks, Rangers, Sharks, Flames 110. Capitals, Sabres, Nordiques

All are correct. Sorry about leaving out the Blues on Gilmour. I guess I need to be a little more diligent on double checking all of these. Left to go are: 15. Devils, Blues, Whalers, Coyotes, Flames, Blackhawks, Canadiens 24. Stars, Maple Leafs, Kings, Canucks, Canadiens, North Stars, Rangers 26. Ducks, Flames, Rangers, Bruins 27. Blues, Stars, Senators, Ducks, Rangers, Bruins, Islanders, Kings 38. Panthers, Stars, Penguins, Oilers, Flyers, Sharks, Canucks, Bruins 55. Kings, Bruins, Islanders, Predators, Wild, Thrashers, Penguins, Flyers 58. Oilers, Capitals, Canucks, Rangers, Blue Jackets, Kings 59. Oilers, Maple Leafs, Canadiens, Islanders, Bruins 67. Canadiens, Blackhawks, Bruins, Blues, Stars 68. Blackhawks, Kings, Blues, Devils, Lightning, Thrashers

Well done!!! Had Primeau played a game for the Flames at the time I posted the listed of teams he had played for? Sorry about the typo on Spacek. One of the "Panthers" should have been "Blackhawks". Good catch. All the others are good.

Aside from the division leaders being ranked 1, 2, 3, there are other cases where a team with less points should be ranked higher. For example, let's say the Wings are 20-10-1 and the Predators are 21-12-1. While the Preds may have more points earned, the Wings have a better W-L-OTL record and putting aside strength of schedule should be ranked higher. That is unless you want to completely ignore the detrimental value of losses, in which you're really just comparing 20-x-1 vs. 21-x-1.

If the Wings are 19-18-0 and the Blackhawks are 20-21-0, the Blackhawks will be listed ahead of the Wings. Yet if the Tigers are 19-18 and the White Sox are 20-21, the Tigers would be listed ahead of the White Sox. Also, let's say the Wings are 20-10-0 and the Blackhawks are 21-10-0. The Blackhawks will be listed ahead of the Wings. If the Blackhawks lose three games while the Wings don't play, the Blackhawks (21-13-0) will still be listed ahead of the Wings (20-10-0). Now let's say the Tigers are 20-10 and the White Sox are 21-10. The White Sox will be listed ahead of the Tigers. If the White Sox lose three straight games (to become 21-13) while the Tigers don't play, the Tigers (20-10) will move ahead of the White Sox (21-13). Perhaps I'm missing something, but why does the NHL do it this way?

And some more: 46. Oilers, Islanders, Rangers, Bruins, Coyotes 47. Avalanche, Lightning, Flames, Hurricanes 48. Sabres, Coyotes, Hurricanes, Flyers, Blue Jackets, Canucks, Whalers 49. Devils, Avalanche, Bruins, Sabres, Lightning, Maple Leafs 50. Panthers, Penguins, Red Wings, Sabres, Capitals 51. Capitals, Bruins, Kings, Red Wings, Penguins 52. Capitals, Lightning, Flames, Rangers, Whalers, Blackhawks, Bruins 53. Islanders, Rangers, Ducks, Kings, Senators, Bruins, Blues, Stars 54. Capitals, Thrashers, Sabres, Blue Jackets 55. Kings, Bruins, Islanders, Predators, Wild, Thrashers, Penguins, Flyers 56. Flyers, Flames, Lightning, Coyotes 57. Maple Leafs, Predators, Devils, Blackhawks 58. Oilers, Capitals, Canucks, Rangers, Blue Jackets, Kings 59. Oilers, Maple Leafs, Canadiens, Islanders, Bruins 60. Canucks, Blues, Hurricanes, Panthers 61. Canucks, Oilers, Maple Leafs, Sabres, Islanders 62. Penguins, Senators, Rangers, Wild, Lightning, Flyers 63. Bruins, Avalanche, Wild, Devils 64. Devils, Penguins, Blue Jackets, Coyotes 65. Lightning, Oilers, Maple Leafs, Blue Jackets, Maple Leafs 66. Canucks, Capitals, Canadiens, Flyers 67. Canadiens, Blackhawks, Bruins, Blues, Stars 68. Blackhawks, Kings, Blues, Devils, Lightning, Thrashers 69. Oilers, Panthers, Blue Jackets, Panthers, Sabres 70. Islanders, Rangers, Penguins, Kings, Senators, Panthers Good work

Correct. See Eva Unit Zero's next post for the #30 solution. Correct. Good job on those 3. Warriner is also correct. Excellent. Amazing that Keane and Rucinsky have six teams in common. I wonder if we can find any other two players who have six teams in common? We could start looking with guys like Mike Sillinger and J.J. Daingeault. Left to go are: 8. Canadiens, Bruins, Blackhawks, Blues, Flyers, Canucks, Devils, Whalers 15. Devils, Blues, Whalers, Coyotes, Flames, Blackhawks, Canadiens 22. Canadiens, Sabres, Flames, Devils, Maple Leafs, Blackhawks 24. Stars, Maple Leafs, Kings, Canucks, Canadiens, North Stars, Rangers 26. Ducks, Flames, Rangers, Bruins 27. Blues, Stars, Senators, Ducks, Rangers, Bruins, Islanders, Kings 28. Lightning, Bruins, Sharks, Sabres, Penguins 31. Panthers, Maple Leafs, Stars, Penguins, Ducks, Bruins 38. Panthers, Stars, Penguins, Oilers, Flyers, Sharks, Canucks, Bruins

Both are correct Good! Surprised no one got this one sooner.

I double checked. It's not supposed to be Martin Rucinsky. This would make a great trivia question: Name two players who have played for the Stars, Canadiens, Blues, Avalanche, Rangers and Canucks. Rucinsky is one and the answer to #17 is the other.

Correct. Left to go are: 7. Flyers, Maple Leafs, Predators, Canucks, Lightning, Coyotes 8. Canadiens, Bruins, Blackhawks, Blues, Flyers, Canucks, Devils, Whalers 15. Devils, Blues, Whalers, Coyotes, Flames, Blackhawks, Canadiens 17. Stars, Canadiens, Blues, Avalanche, Rangers, Canucks 22. Canadiens, Sabres, Flames, Devils, Maple Leafs, Blackhawks 23. Avalanche, Lightning, Panthers, Flyers, Sabres, Coyotes 24. Stars, Maple Leafs, Kings, Canucks, Canadiens, North Stars, Rangers 25. Blues, Islanders, Rangers, Thrashers, Kings, Whalers 26. Ducks, Flames, Rangers, Bruins 27. Blues, Stars, Senators, Ducks, Rangers, Bruins, Islanders, Kings 28. Lightning, Bruins, Sharks, Sabres, Penguins 30. Islanders, Whalers, Blue Jackets, Senators, Ducks, Flames 31. Panthers, Maple Leafs, Stars, Penguins, Ducks, Bruins 32. Coyotes, Blackhawks, Panthers, Canadiens, Stars, Devils, Penguins, Blue Jackets 37. Lightning, Stars, Sabres, Avalanche, Blackhawks, Rangers, Penguins 38. Panthers, Stars, Penguins, Oilers, Flyers, Sharks, Canucks, Bruins 40. Canadiens, Senators, Oilers, Bruins, Predators, Wild 41. Canadiens, Bruins, Sabres, Capitals, Senators, Coyotes 45. Oilers, Blues, Rangers, Panthers

All three are correct. Sorry about #35. He also played for the Maple Leafs and Blues. I can't believe I made such an egregious error. 35. Maple Leafs, Blues, Islanders, Rangers, Coyotes, Flames, Panthers, Jets

Both are correct All six are correct Those look awfully close to being Pat Verbeek and Eric Lindros. But I guess not :-(

Here are some more: 23. Avalanche, Lightning, Panthers, Flyers, Sabres, Coyotes 24. Stars, Maple Leafs, Kings, Canucks, Canadiens, North Stars, Rangers 25. Blues, Islanders, Rangers, Thrashers, Kings, Whalers 26. Ducks, Flames, Rangers, Bruins 27. Blues, Stars, Senators, Ducks, Rangers, Bruins, Islanders, Kings 28. Lightning, Bruins, Sharks, Sabres, Penguins 29. Blues, Stars, Islanders, Thrashers, Sharks, Nordiques, Oilers, Ducks, Blackhawks 30. Islanders, Whalers, Blue Jackets, Senators, Ducks, Flames 31. Panthers, Maple Leafs, Stars, Penguins, Ducks, Bruins 32. Coyotes, Blackhawks, Panthers, Canadiens, Stars, Devils, Penguins, Blue Jackets 33. Blues, Stars, Canadiens, Panthers, Flames 34. Red Wings, Thrashers, Ducks, Flames, Maple Leafs 35. Islanders, Rangers, Coyotes, Flames, Panthers, Jets 36. Red Wings, Bruins, Penguins, Oilers, Canucks, Thrashers 37. Lightning, Stars, Sabres, Avalanche, Blackhawks, Rangers, Penguins 38. Panthers, Stars, Penguins, Oilers, Flyers, Sharks, Canucks, Bruins 39. Kings, Senators, Wild, Blues 40. Canadiens, Senators, Oilers, Bruins, Predators, Wild 41. Canadiens, Bruins, Sabres, Capitals, Senators, Coyotes 42. Canucks, Stars, Capitals, Kings, Sabres, Lightning, Senators, Rangers, Bruins 43. Rangers, Penguins, Jets, Blues, Maple Leafs, Coyotes, Blackhawks 44. Oilers, Blues, Devils, Stars, Bruins 45. Oilers, Blues, Rangers, Panthers

Excellent!!! I think you're the leader with five solved. Left to go are: 6. Blues, Canadiens, Devils, Lightning, Penguins 7. Flyers, Maple Leafs, Predators, Canucks, Lightning, Coyotes 8. Canadiens, Bruins, Blackhawks, Blues, Flyers, Canucks, Devils, Whalers 9. Oilers, Canucks, Devils, Bruins 15. Devils, Blues, Whalers, Coyotes, Flames, Blackhawks, Canadiens 17. Stars, Canadiens, Blues, Avalanche, Rangers, Canucks 18. Stars, Canadiens, Oilers, Senators, Ducks 22. Canadiens, Sabres, Flames, Devils, Maple Leafs, Blackhawks

If all the teams in one conference were going to be ranked together, then shouldn't the schedule be a little more balanced and each team plays each other team in the conference the same number of times.

Very well said.

Well, we will find out who is smarter, Leafs fans or Wings fans. Should be interesting. If you read some of the nonsense one of the participants on the Leafs board is going on about, I would give the nod to Wings fans for now. These aren't ridiculous discussions. If you don't like them or you have no interest in the topic, you're free to not participate. The game winning goal is a common stat in the NHL and if you read my first post in the GWG thread, and some of the responses, you'll see that I'm raising a very good point about what appears to be a very flawed and useless statistic. Points earned has long been the way the NHL sorts teams in the standings, but since losses are the equivalent of not playing in a points earned sort, i'm raising the question of why not use the baseball model of games back or winning percentage - both of which could be easily used in the NHL. This is a very viable and meaningful topic of discussion in a hockey forum. It's not like I'm a baseball junkie who is trying to get hockey to replace the puck with a baseball! If that's the only time when points earned matters, then why does virtually every major newspaper in the USA and Canada publish the NHL standings - sorted by points earned - on a daily basis during the season? If the selection of the All Star coach is based on points, what if one team has had the benefit of playing a greater number of games? For example, let's say the Wings have 45 points in 30 games while the Predators have 46 points in 33 games. Wings have a better points pct, but do you still give the coaching job to the Preds coach?

Those can't be the reasons the NHL needs to use the points system, as an OTL (or used to be a tie) is the net equivalent of half a win and half a regulation loss. Take the OTLs and disperse them half to the W column and half to the L column and you'll get the same PE and GP. Therefore, the NHL is effectively just a win/loss league.

I'm not interested in winning. I'm trying to get a better understanding of how you come to the conclusion that in a Datsyuk/Zetterberg/Weight scenario, Zetterberg's goal is more important than Datsyuk's goal because of what you think the score would have been had Zetterberg not scored. That's all. But it is a digression from my original point that the game winning goal isn't necessarily a clutch goal and when it is scored, the scorer doesn't even know it's a clutch goal.

Take a look at http://nhl.jzap.com/standings 1. Nashville 77 2. Anaheim 74 3. Calgary 65 <---- 4. Detroit 76 5. San Jose 71 6. Dallas 66 7. Vancouver 64 8. Minnesota 62 I agree with you that it's a little skewed that the leader of the Northwest is guaranteed at least a third seed. Perhaps this is one of those things that should be changed. Another thing you don't take into consideration in your list is games played. Without knowing games played, points earned doesn't provide any information on a team's loss total.

OK, let's backpeddle a little bit so it makes sense. Wings beat the Blues 2-1. Scoring goes Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Weight. Zetterberg gets the GWG. Why does he get the GWG and was his goal more important than Datsyuk's goal?