• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Guest BCM

What is the purpose of the Game Winning Goal statistic?

Rate this topic

41 posts in this topic

What is the Game Winning Goal statistic meant to tell us?

If you look at the scoring summary of the Wings 4-1 victory over the Wild, we see that Cleary gets credit for the GWG.

1st Period

Detroit 4:38, Henrik Zetterberg 13 (Niklas Kronwall, Johan Franzen)

Detroit 8:59, Danny Cleary 16 (Valtteri Filppula)

2nd Period

Detroit 5:30, Kris Draper 1 (Niklas Kronwall, Jonathan Ericsson)

Detroit 13:50, Tomas Holmstrom 10 (power play) (Henrik Zetterberg, Nicklas Lidstrom)

3rd Period

Minnesota16:20, Brent Burns 10 (power play) (Martin Havlat, Patrick O'Sullivan)

However, there is nothing to suggest Cleary's goal was any more clutch or more important than any of the Wings other goals. So we can learn from this box score that the GWG isn't meant to convey clutch or importance. So what is the purpose of the GWG stat and what information is it meant to provide us?

Edited by BCM
wings1110 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all the goals really do count the same. You only need one more than the other team. You never know when in a game that wlll happen. GWG keeps track of who that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all the goals really do count the same. You only need one more than the other team. You never know when in a game that wlll happen. GWG keeps track of who that is.

What do you mean that not all goals count the same? NHL rules stipulate that any goal scored in regulation or overtime counts as one goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of the stat (like a lot of others) is just for fun.

That seems to be the case. But why have the stat if it doesn't measure clutch or importance?

Anything over the one goal advantage to win is not needed, just gravy.

I'm not sure I understand. Can you please elaborate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One team scores 2, so the other team needs to score 3 to win. If they score 5, it just pads the stats. You only need to score one more goal then your opponent to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One team scores 2, so the other team needs to score 3 to win. If they score 5, it just pads the stats. You only need to score one more goal then your opponent to win.

That is correct. Winning 1-0 nets you just as much a victory as winning 5-0. But it does little to explain why the GWG stat exists. Since we know through the Wings/Wild example that the GWG stat isn't meant to measure clutch or importance, it raises the question of what it is meant to measure.

That is the significance to the GWG stat. It states who hot the one goal needed to win the game. That easy.

In the case of the Wings/Wild game, which single goal was needed to win the game? Since the Wild scored one, doesn't that mean the Wings need two goals to win the game? If true, then they needed more than one goal to win the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, ultimately, if a player is credited with a GWG, it means they broke a tie in the game. Whether it was a goal in OT or the first goal past a time in a blowout, said player is ultimately the one who broke the stalemate that resulted in the final score.

While it's certainly a 'just for fun' stat to some extent, I think if a player has a relatively high # of GWGs as compared to their goalscoring pace, it can say something about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, ultimately, if a player is credited with a GWG, it means they broke a tie in the game. Whether it was a goal in OT or the first goal past a time in a blowout, said player is ultimately the one who broke the stalemate that resulted in the final score.

Are you sure? If you're right, then Zetterberg must have gotten the GWG - despite the stat sheets which say that Cleary was awarded the GWG. Furthermore, according to the NHL's official website, Cleary would get credited with the GWG.

1st Period

Detroit 4:38, Henrik Zetterberg 13 (Niklas Kronwall, Johan Franzen)

Detroit 8:59, Danny Cleary 16 (Valtteri Filppula)

2nd Period

Detroit 5:30, Kris Draper 1 (Niklas Kronwall, Jonathan Ericsson)

Detroit 13:50, Tomas Holmstrom 10 (power play) (Henrik Zetterberg, Nicklas Lidstrom)

3rd Period

Minnesota16:20, Brent Burns 10 (power play) (Martin Havlat, Patrick O'Sullivan)

While it's certainly a 'just for fun' stat to some extent, I think if a player has a relatively high # of GWGs as compared to their goalscoring pace, it can say something about them.

Well since we've established that the GWG isn't meant to measure clutch or importance, what would it say about a player if he had an unusually high proportion of GWGs?

Don't you understand what it is for? It is an extra comparison stat for fantasy hockey. The statisticians of the NHL saw it coming and thus created it. GENIUS!!! :lol::yowza::hehe:

Well, any new stats are good for fantasy hockey. But what is the stat supposed to convey? It's obviously not meant to measure clutch or important goals. What is it's purpose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GWG is a simple stat that shows which goal scored won the game.

Zetterberg scored, but Burns goal in the 3rd negated that goal. Thus, 1 - 1

Cleary's goal, which was #2 for the Wings kept it so that the Wings won. The other goals after are just extras.

If the other two had not scored, Cleary would still have the GWG as he scored the goal that made the difference in the game. If the Wild scored again, Draper would have had the GWG.

The GWG can be scored in the first minute of the game, or the very last. It's only apparent after the game is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like plus-minus, i think the GWG stat is easily altered by fluke effects, but isn't entirely meaningless. sure, you're going to have situations like this one with cleary where he just happened to end up in the right spot in the goal-scoring order. then you have, say, OT winners or goals that break a late tie that are obviously deserving of the GWG stat.

i suppose you could make more complicated requirements -- like, for example, a GWG HAS to actually break a tie after which the other team doesn't score. so, in the example given by OP, no one would get a GWG because zetterberg broke a tie but cleary had the goal that put the winning team up by one goal. you'd have a lot less GWGs, but it would be a more telling stat, maybe. still, if dude breaks a 0-0 tie a minute in to the game and his team goes on to win 5-0, it still wasn't a "clutch" goal -- he just got lucky because his goalie got a shutout.

like i said, i feel the same way about GWG as i do about plus-minus -- you have to take the stat with a large grain of salt, but that doesn't mean it's completely worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GWG should only be used if the goal is scored in OT, or the last goal in the last few minutes of the game that puts your team ahead. Maybe put a stipulation for the goal along the lines of last 3-5 minutes of the game, and game must be tied when goal is scored (obvi). The goal must also be the winner.

I def agree that the GWG in the first period is garbage, and no way shows the clutch factor in the player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

since when was the GWG stat supposed to indicate how "clutch" someone is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It means guys are f****n' clutch... oh wait, this is serious?

In the case of the Wings/Wild game, Cleary's goal was no more clutch than any other goal that gave a team a 2-0 lead midway through the first period. Yet Cleary gets credited for a GWG, when many others who put their team up 2-0 midway through the first period don't. Therefore, the GWG is not meant to measure clutch. Just what is it meant to measure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GWG is a simple stat that shows which goal scored won the game.

In the Wings/Wild game, Cleary's goal didn't win the game. Actually, no Wings goal single-handedly won that game. So if you're right that the GWG shows which goal scored won the game, then there wouldn't have been a GWG in the Wings/Wild game.

Zetterberg scored, but Burns goal in the 3rd negated that goal. Thus, 1 - 1

Isn't it sort of arbitrary which goal Burns' goal negated? In the Wings/Wild example, let's say Holmstrom's goal which made a 3-0 game into a 4-0 game was followed 30 seconds later by Burns' goal to make it once again a 3 goal lead. Couldn't we then justifiably say Burns' goal negated or cancelled out Holmstrom's goal - as the game reverted to a 3 goal lead after the goals of Holmstrom and Burns?

Cleary's goal, which was #2 for the Wings kept it so that the Wings won. The other goals after are just extras.

Cleary's goal simply put the Wings up 2-0. It certainly didn't win the game.

If the other two had not scored, Cleary would still have the GWG as he scored the goal that made the difference in the game. If the Wild scored again, Draper would have had the GWG.

I understand how the GWG is calculated. But what purpose does it serve? Since Cleary's goal obviously didn't win the game, wasn't anymore clutch than the other Wings goals, then why should there be a stat that reflects positively upon Cleary? Furthermore, since the GWG doesn't actually win the game (unless it is scored in OT), then why call it a Game Winning Goal?

The GWG can be scored in the first minute of the game, or the very last. It's only apparent after the game is over.

Thank you. You're only further emphasizing my point that the GWG isn't meant to measure clutch or importance.

I see a tendency of those responding to try to explain how the GWG is calculated. I know how the GWG is calculated. What I don't know - and would like to know - is what purpose the stat serves and what is it meant to convey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like plus-minus, i think the GWG stat is easily altered by fluke effects, but isn't entirely meaningless. sure, you're going to have situations like this one with cleary where he just happened to end up in the right spot in the goal-scoring order. then you have, say, OT winners or goals that break a late tie that are obviously deserving of the GWG stat.

i suppose you could make more complicated requirements -- like, for example, a GWG HAS to actually break a tie after which the other team doesn't score. so, in the example given by OP, no one would get a GWG because zetterberg broke a tie but cleary had the goal that put the winning team up by one goal. you'd have a lot less GWGs, but it would be a more telling stat, maybe. still, if dude breaks a 0-0 tie a minute in to the game and his team goes on to win 5-0, it still wasn't a "clutch" goal -- he just got lucky because his goalie got a shutout.

like i said, i feel the same way about GWG as i do about plus-minus -- you have to take the stat with a large grain of salt, but that doesn't mean it's completely worthless.

You're suggesting a goal scoring stat be affected (or eligible) by what happens after the goal is scored. If you're trying to measure clutch or importance, why not measure in the present?

Example:

Wings vs. Hawks, Wings win 1-0

Zetterberg scores midway through the third to make it 1-0; Zetterberg would get a "clutch goal"

Wings vs. Hawks, Wings win 2-1

Zetterberg scores midway through the third to make it 1-0

Kane then scores to tie the game

Datsyuk then scores a tie-breaking goal to give the Wings the lead later in the third period.

How does the presence of the Kane/Datsyuk goals diminish the clutchness of Zetterberg's goal?

but cleary had the goal that put the winning team up by one goal.

You may want to check the box score again. Cleary's goal put the Wings up by two, not one. It was Zetterberg's goal which put the Wings up by one.

1st Period

Detroit 4:38, Henrik Zetterberg 13 (Niklas Kronwall, Johan Franzen)

Detroit 8:59, Danny Cleary 16 (Valtteri Filppula)

2nd Period

Detroit 5:30, Kris Draper 1 (Niklas Kronwall, Jonathan Ericsson)

Detroit 13:50, Tomas Holmstrom 10 (power play) (Henrik Zetterberg, Nicklas Lidstrom)

3rd Period

Minnesota16:20, Brent Burns 10 (power play) (Martin Havlat, Patrick O'Sullivan)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think game winning goal and +/- are a similar type of stat when they stand out when i guy is +20 you know there is something special about that player, when a guy has 12 Game winning goals in the playoffs you know he wants to win bad he is battling he is showing heart.

To me its a good stat when measure in extremes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By its name it sounds like it somehow indicates how clutch a guy is, but it's a completely useless stat.

If it's tied 2-2 and Zetterberg scores with a couple seconds left to win the game, then that's a clutch goal.

But the score could just as easily be 5-0 in the first period, with Mule having the game winner since he scored the first goal. Then the Wings get sloppy late in the third and the opponent scores a meaningless goal to make it 5-1. Zetterberg had the second goal, which means he now gets the game winning goal. Clutch? Not exactly.

It's useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now