What is a game winning goal supposed to tell us?

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

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.

That stands to no kind of reasoning that I can grasp.

Scenario #1: your team is leading by a goal. You nail an empty-netter. Game ends, no further scoring. Most important goal: GWG. After all, there is no empty net situation without the GWG before it.

Scenario #2: your team is leading by a goal. You nail an empty-netter. Game ends, after the opposition has scored a goal. Most important goal: GWG. After all, you're right back where you started in this scenario (a tie game) unless you've hit the EN.

The most important tally varies depending on the final score. I don't see why that's hard to understand.

[WingsFan2007 0]

Game Winning Goal statistics are pointless, if you ask me. I know thats not what the thread is about, but honestly, in a game like hockey, game winning anythings arent meaningful. Baseballs has walkoff homers, basketball has buzzer beaters, and football has their 2 minute drill. Hockey has no equivalent, and trying to force an equivalent to exist is just stupid. If anything, it should be "Game tying goals with the goalie pulled/ overtime goals" Thats clutch play, not scoring with 1 minute into a game of a 1-0 victory.

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?

That stands to no kind of reasoning that I can grasp.

Scenario #1: your team is leading by a goal. You nail an empty-netter. Game ends, no further scoring. Most important goal: GWG. After all, there is no empty net situation without the GWG before it.

Scenario #2: your team is leading by a goal. You nail an empty-netter. Game ends, after the opposition has scored a goal. Most important goal: GWG. After all, you're right back where you started in this scenario (a tie game) unless you've hit the EN.

The most important tally varies depending on the final score. I don't see why that's hard to understand.

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).

Edited February 8, 2007 by WingsFan2007

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

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).

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. Therefore, hitting the empty-netter prior to the other team scoring makes it the most important goal scored; otherwise it's off to OT with an assured victory having been averted for at least regulation.

[WingsFan2007 0]

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. Therefore, hitting the empty-netter prior to the other team scoring makes it the most important goal scored; otherwise it's off to OT with an assured victory having been averted for at least regulation.

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.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

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.

Strategies would have been different? "Try to score so we can get back to one" is the strategy, genius. The only thing that's guaranteed is that Hank has the winner.

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.

What the hell is wrong with you? I'll put in as plain English as I can: ZETTERBERG CANNOT SCORE THE EMPTY NETTER WITHOUT DATSYUK'S GOAL. There is no empty-net situation if the opposition is not down in the score. If Datsyuk does not score to give the team a one goal lead, Hank will not have the opportunity to hit the empty-net for a two goal lead.

Seriously, don't be ******* dense, dude.

[WingsFan2007 0]

Strategies would have been different? "Try to score so we can get back to one" is the strategy, genius. The only thing that's guaranteed is that Hank has the winner.

What the hell is wrong with you? I'll put in as plain English as I can: ZETTERBERG CANNOT SCORE THE EMPTY NETTER WITHOUT DATSYUK'S GOAL. There is no empty-net situation if the opposition is not down in the score. If Datsyuk does not score to give the team a one goal lead, Hank will not have the opportunity to hit the empty-net for a two goal lead.

Seriously, don't be ******* dense, dude.

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.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

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

No, because Zetterberg's goal is dependent on Datsyuk's goal. If you take away Datsyuk's goal, there is no Zetterberg goal. The Wings don't score any goals. Do you understand the concept of pulling your goalie for an extra skater? You only do that if you're trailing.

[WingsFan2007 0]

No, because Zetterberg's goal is dependent on Datsyuk's goal. If you take away Datsyuk's goal, there is no Zetterberg goal. The Wings don't score any goals. Do you understand the concept of pulling your goalie for an extra skater? You only do that if you're trailing.

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.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

I don't understand a lick of what you just wrote. Nor do I care to.

Carry on.

[WingsFan2007 0]

I don't understand a lick of what you just wrote. Nor do I care to.

Carry on.

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?

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

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?

Yes, let's do back up a bit here.

I think the question you've all been trying to get at for most of this thread now is, how many chucks would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

In conclusion I would just like to state for the record that I like pizza.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

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?

That's OK, man. I've had enough mental exercise for one day, hypothetical scenarios or otherwise. You win, and take care.

[i_like_cheese_2001 0]

If a thread about the merits of winning percentage vs standings points pops up that last shred of doubt will be removed...

Holy hell, NN is a psychic:

http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=39933

[WingsFan2007 0]

That's OK, man. I've had enough mental exercise for one day, hypothetical scenarios or otherwise. You win, and take care.

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.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Holy hell, NN is a psychic:

http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=39933

Yeah, he called it very early on that WingsFan2007 was actually Rimouski. And predicted the impending pointless thread that comes with it.

NNick is all knowing.

[stevie for president 42]

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).

i dont know what makes more sense to anyboy besides myself, but to me, it makes most sense to judge clutch play by how times you scored with your own net empty (meaning you tie the game with under a minute left) or an over time goal. I dont care about a game winning goal, because it can be scored at 5 minutes into the first period, making it, im my own opinion, meaningless.

Edited February 9, 2007 by stevie for president

[WingsFan2007 0]

i dont know what makes more sense to anyboy besides myself, but to me, it makes most sense to judge clutch play by how times you scored with your own net empty (meaning you tie the game with under a minute left) or an over time goal. I dont care about a game winning goal, because it can be scored at 5 minutes into the first period, making it, im my own opinion, meaningless.

Very well said.

[WingsFan2007 0]

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: