What is the purpose of the NHL's Game Winning Goal statistic?

[kalaco 0]

What is the purpose of the game winning goal statistic? Let's use the scoring line from game 4 of the Capitals-Knights finals series to examine this:
1st Period
09:54 WSH 1-0 T.J. Oshie (8) Evgeny Kuznetsov and Nicklas Backstrom
16:26 WSH 2-0 Tom Wilson (5) Evgeny Kuznetsov
19:39 WSH 3-0 Devante Smith-Pelly (6) Matt Niskanen and Alex Ovechkin
2nd Period
15:23 WSH 4-0 John Carlson (5) Evgeny Kuznetsov and T.J. Oshie
3rd Period
05:43 VEG 4-1 James Neal (6) Erik Haula and Colin Miller
12:26 VEG 4-2 Reilly Smith (4) Jon Marchessault and Luca Sbisa
13:39 WSH 5-2 Michal Kempny (2) Nicklas Backstrom and T.J. Oshie
18:51 WSH 6-2 Brett Connolly (6)
According to how the GWG is defined, the GWG is awarded to Smith-Pelly, as that gave the Capitals a 3-0 lead and the Knights ended up with 2 for the entire game.

We know it isn't meant to show which goal won the game, as Smith-Pelly's goal didn't win the game. It merely made a 2-0 undecided game a 3-0 undecided game.

We know it isn't meant to show which goal was the most clutch goal, as at the time of Smith-Pelly's goal, there was no way of knowing that Vegas would end up with 2 goals. Nor is there anything to show that Smith-Pelly's goal was any more important than any of the other Capitals goals.

Some people would argue, "if Smith-Pelly didn't score, then the Capitals wouldn't have won". That argument doesn't hold up, as if Smith-Pelly didn't score, then we don't know what would have happened. And if we assume all other scoring remained the same, then we end up with a 5-2 Capitals victory.

So I ask, what purpose does this statistic serve? Does the NHL know it has no merit? Perhaps it could just be a marketing gimmick. Any thoughts out there?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

31 minutes ago, kalaco said:

What is the purpose of the game winning goal statistic? Let's use the scoring line from game 4 of the Capitals-Knights finals series to examine this:
1st Period
09:54 WSH 1-0 T.J. Oshie (8) Evgeny Kuznetsov and Nicklas Backstrom
16:26 WSH 2-0 Tom Wilson (5) Evgeny Kuznetsov
19:39 WSH 3-0 Devante Smith-Pelly (6) Matt Niskanen and Alex Ovechkin
2nd Period
15:23 WSH 4-0 John Carlson (5) Evgeny Kuznetsov and T.J. Oshie
3rd Period
05:43 VEG 4-1 James Neal (6) Erik Haula and Colin Miller
12:26 VEG 4-2 Reilly Smith (4) Jon Marchessault and Luca Sbisa
13:39 WSH 5-2 Michal Kempny (2) Nicklas Backstrom and T.J. Oshie
18:51 WSH 6-2 Brett Connolly (6)
According to how the GWG is defined, the GWG is awarded to Smith-Pelly, as that gave the Capitals a 3-0 lead and the Knights ended up with 2 for the entire game.

We know it isn't meant to show which goal won the game, as Smith-Pelly's goal didn't win the game. It merely made a 2-0 undecided game a 3-0 undecided game.

We know it isn't meant to show which goal was the most clutch goal, as at the time of Smith-Pelly's goal, there was no way of knowing that Vegas would end up with 2 goals. Nor is there anything to show that Smith-Pelly's goal was any more important than any of the other Capitals goals.

Some people would argue, "if Smith-Pelly didn't score, then the Capitals wouldn't have won". That argument doesn't hold up, as if Smith-Pelly didn't score, then we don't know what would have happened. And if we assume all other scoring remained the same, then we end up with a 5-2 Capitals victory.

So I ask, what purpose does this statistic serve? Does the NHL know it has no merit? Perhaps it could just be a marketing gimmick. Any thoughts out there?

GWG is mostly a useless stat. It doesn't tell you a whole lot about a player. Instead you should take a look at Points Earned Numerically In Shots. It's one of the newer advanced stats that you basically tells you how a player performs when that special moment comes.

[marcaractac 3,963]

Definitely a marketing gimmick. Checking the GWG leaderboards is what keeps me coming back. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

32 minutes ago, marcaractac said:

Definitely a marketing gimmick. Checking the GWG leaderboards is what keeps me coming back. 

 

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

4 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

GWG is mostly a useless stat. It doesn't tell you a whole lot about a player. Instead you should take a look at Points Earned Numerically In Shots. It's one of the newer advanced stats that you basically tells you how a player performs when that special moment comes.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Why do you keep getting these adds on your browser???

[LeftWinger 5,132]

I remember when all of you were so high on Franzen leading the team in GWG's. I said it back then and I'll say it again, it shouldn't be counted as a GWG unless the goal is scored in OT, or it's the actual goal that untied the game and puts you ahead. Too many teams are up by 6, let's say, then barely hold on to win 6-5 and that 6th goal, scored in the 2nd, is considered a GWG. And that's exactly how Franzen, amongst others, accumilated their GWG's.

[krsmith17 7,191]

9 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

I remember when all of you were so high on Franzen leading the team in GWG's. I said it back then and I'll say it again, it shouldn't be counted as a GWG unless the goal is scored in OT, or it's the actual goal that untied the game and puts you ahead. Too many teams are up by 6, let's say, then barely hold on to win 6-5 and that 6th goal, scored in the 2nd, is considered a GWG. And that's exactly how Franzen, amongst others, accumilated their GWG's.

Franzen is lazy and he sucks...

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

52 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Franzen is lazy and he sucks...

This guy gets it

[kalaco 0]

On 9/25/2018 at 2:26 PM, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

GWG is mostly a useless stat. It doesn't tell you a whole lot about a player. Instead you should take a look at Points Earned Numerically In Shots. It's one of the newer advanced stats that you basically tells you how a player performs when that special moment comes.

Let's look at the example in the OP.  Smith-Pelly's goal was at 19:39 of the 1st period and occurred with the Capitals up 2-0.  By your logic, being up 2-0 at 19:39 of the 1st period is a 'special moment'.  How do you know this?

2 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

I remember when all of you were so high on Franzen leading the team in GWG's. I said it back then and I'll say it again, it shouldn't be counted as a GWG unless the goal is scored in OT, or it's the actual goal that untied the game and puts you ahead. Too many teams are up by 6, let's say, then barely hold on to win 6-5 and that 6th goal, scored in the 2nd, is considered a GWG. And that's exactly how Franzen, amongst others, accumilated their GWG's.

Very well said.  

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

3 minutes ago, kalaco said:

Let's look at the example in the OP.  Smith-Pelly's goal was at 19:39 of the 1st period and occurred with the Capitals up 2-0.  By your logic, being up 2-0 at 19:39 of the 1st period is a 'special moment'.  How do you know this?

Very well said.  

Did you even look at Smith-Pelly's Points Earned Numerically In Shots? It's not very big most of the time, but yes, when that special moment comes, it becomes enormous.

[kalaco 0]

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Did you even look at Smith-Pelly's Points Earned Numerically In Shots? It's not very big most of the time, but yes, when that special moment comes, it becomes enormous.

So you're saying being up 2-0 at 19:39 of the 1st period is a 'special moment'.  Again, how do you know this?

[Buppy 1,720]

1 hour ago, kalaco said:

...Again, how do you know this?

There's a loud "woosh" sound, but unfortunately it can only be heard by people who don't need to hear it.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 hour ago, kalaco said:

So you're saying being up 2-0 at 19:39 of the 1st period is a 'special moment'.  Again, how do you know this?

Gonna make me type it again huh?

Points
Earned
Numerically
In
Shots

Once you've grasped this, any moment can become a special moment.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

21 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Why do you keep getting these adds on your browser???

I have a 22 yo GF. A little help doesn't hurt.

6 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

I remember when all of you were so high on Franzen leading the team in GWG's. I said it back then and I'll say it again, it shouldn't be counted as a GWG unless the goal is scored in OT, or it's the actual goal that untied the game and puts you ahead. Too many teams are up by 6, let's say, then barely hold on to win 6-5 and that 6th goal, scored in the 2nd, is considered a GWG. And that's exactly how Franzen, amongst others, accumilated their GWG's.

Franzen was more clutch than a manual transmission. Not all of his GWG's were legit, that's true, but let's not completely dismiss the timely contributions he made throughout his career, particularly in the playoffs.

6 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Franzen is lazy and he sucks...

Are you calling Stevie Y a liar?

2 hours ago, kalaco said:

So you're saying being up 2-0 at 19:39 of the 1st period is a 'special moment'.  Again, how do you know this?

This one's for you, CRL.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

16 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

I have a 22 yo GF. A little help doesn't hurt.

Franzen was more clutch than a manual transmission. Not all of his GWG's were legit, that's true, but let's not completely dismiss the timely contributions he made throughout his career, particularly in the playoffs.

Are you calling Stevie Y a liar?

This one's for you, CRL.

To be fair, it's an inside joke, so I kinda feel bad...

But then I don't because debating the purpose of a stat that we all already ignore 99% of the time is low-energy, and now were pondering how we know when a moment is special.

YOU JUST KNOW

PS tell that GF of yours to slide into my DM's, I'm feelin' special

Edited September 27, 2018 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[kalaco 0]

15 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Gonna make me type it again huh?

Points
Earned
Numerically
In
Shots

Once you've grasped this, any moment can become a special moment.

I don't see that 19:39 of the 1st period is one of those special moments.  If you do, let me know how you know this.  Your stat Points Earned Numerically In Shots isn't going to define 19:39 of the 1st period as any more of a special moment than say 16:44 of the first period or 03:57 of the second period.  

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 hour ago, kalaco said:

I don't see that 19:39 of the 1st period is one of those special moments.  If you do, let me know how you know this.  Your stat Points Earned Numerically In Shots isn't going to define 19:39 of the 1st period as any more of a special moment than say 16:44 of the first period or 03:57 of the second period.  

Your going to make me type it AGAIN?

Points Earned Numerically In Shots

Yes it is. I get the feeling you haven't even looked it up and have no clue what you're talking about, which is why you're talking in circles. I can PM you a pic of my Points Earned Numerically Through Shots if you're having trouble finding yours.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

11 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Your going to make me type it AGAIN?

Points Earned Numerically In Shots

Yes it is. I get the feeling you haven't even looked it up and have no clue what you're talking about, which is why you're talking in circles. I can PM you a pic of my Points Earned Numerically Through Shots if you're having trouble finding yours.

Isnt that what got you banned before?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 hour ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Isnt that what got you banned before?

No, but I think I got a warning for calling Babcock "Godcock" once

For reference, it was annoyingly popular to call Lidstrom "Godstrom" at the time

I still maintain that Godcock should have be allowed on these grounds and the fact that he was a great coach

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

On 9/27/2018 at 2:47 PM, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

No, but I think I got a warning for calling Babcock "Godcock" once

For reference, it was annoyingly popular to call Lidstrom "Godstrom" at the time

I still maintain that Godcock should have be allowed on these grounds and the fact that he was a great coach

Agreed. When your coach is named Babcock, (anything)cock is fair game IMO.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

On 9/28/2018 at 8:48 PM, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Agreed. When your coach is named Babcock, (anything)cock is fair game IMO.

IS THAT SO MUCH TO ASK?

[kalaco 0]

13 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

IS THAT SO MUCH TO ASK?

Again, please show how PENS is going to define 19:39 of the 1st period as any more of a special moment than say 16:44 of the first period or 03:57 of the second period.

On 9/27/2018 at 11:06 AM, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Your going to make me type it AGAIN?

Points Earned Numerically In Shots

Yes it is. I get the feeling you haven't even looked it up and have no clue what you're talking about, which is why you're talking in circles. I can PM you a pic of my Points Earned Numerically Through Shots if you're having trouble finding yours.

 

[Mckinley25 679]

22 minutes ago, kalaco said:

Again, please show how PENS is going to define 19:39 of the 1st period as any more of a special moment than say 16:44 of the first period or 03:57 of the second period.

 

Genitalia joke aside, a singular value won’t account for what you are asking, as that is not how statistics operate.  Search for patterns across the larger data set of Game Winning Goals to determine if that information can be a valuable assessment tool.

And then look at points earned numerically in shots for a more rigid and fleshed out analysis.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

9 hours ago, kalaco said:

Again, please show how PENS is going to define 19:39 of the 1st period as any more of a special moment than say 16:44 of the first period or 03:57 of the second period.

 

You're too much of a ***** to even type penis

Your thread is bad and you should feel bad