Commissioner Corner Message Board
I am in four private leagues, three of which have game winning goals as a category. It is a stat I don't particularly follow. Unlike most stats it is one you cannot predict except to assume that the top goal scorers will get their share. I am not sure I would select it if I were a commissioner, but that isn't really the purpose of this post.
I would like to know what you people think about the determination of gwg. This actually came up in a discussion about how goalies get wins when two play the game.
Right now the gwg is the goal that was scored that gave the team one more than the final total of the opponents. In baseball a game winning rbi (not even sure if the stat is official) is the one that gave a team a lead that was never relinquished.
My opinion: We know how important the first goal of a game is. If a player scores it and the opponents never are able to tie the game shouldn't that be the game winning goal regardless of the final score. Instead we get game winning goals that occur when the other team scores and the game is out of reach.
What does goalies have to do with this post. But here's a FACT, goalies don't get penalized for being pulled. Their GAA and SV% is awful after a pulled game because their GAA is the average number of goals the goalie allow in 60mins. Meaning if he lets in 1 goal in 5 minutes and then gets pulled, he would have 12gaa for that 5 minutes of play. But that gaa only counts for that 5 minutes. So say the next game, he plays 55 minutes and does not let in a single goal, then his gaa would come to 1gaa. Because he let in an average of 1 goal in 60 minutes of play.
Now as for SV%, that's even more simple. It's just the # of saves divided by the # of Sogs against him. Getting pulled doesn't change anything.
This is why I hate GWG as a category, because it is random and can occur at any point in the game. You cannot draft for it, nor can you trade for it. You could argue that those who score more have a better chance, and likely many of the top players will fall in there, but there will be some random guys on the list. I don't like H2H matchups or roto categories being decided this way.
- 1 Reply to BN
GWG is as useless a category as having G, A and a points category.
Whoever wins G and A would generally just get an extra point, and in the instances where one person wins G and the other A it becomes a wash.
My head hurts after reading those posts lol. Not because they are pointless or stupid. It's actually quite thought provoking. ic.
I can appreciate both of your arguments but have to say I think it makes sense to keep it the way it is.
Now with saying that, let me say that I do agree with the purposed change. However, you would have to call it something else. Because in the essence of the phrase "Game Winning Goal", it would be the goal that enabled the team to win the game. Not the ones that lead up to it or the ones that happened after. You have to take yourself out of the box and look at it from the big picture. They look at the game as all goals being equal no matter when they were scored. This means that the battle to get to the game winner doesn't matter.
With your point, you're talking about momentum. I think.
The goal that started the team in their lead that just never let up. It's a great idea but I see the one big flaw. What happens if a team wins 3-2.
By your logic, the first goal is the gwg. And this is because it's the goal that started it all. What if after the first goal, the losing team put two away making the score 2-1. The winning team comes back and ties it then eventually pots the winning goal. Shouldn't the guy who scored the tying goal get some credit?
WIth that scenerio the 3rd goal for the winning team is by far the most substantial goal and definitely the deciding one, Game winning goal
Momentum goal I think is best suited for what you're talking about. Or maybe Game changer. Way to hard to standardize though.
Finally a discussion without whining.
Let's use the shootout as an example. There is no game winning goal here, but let's assume there was.
Team A goes first and scores. Team B misses.
Team A scores again. Team B misses. Final score 2-0
The game is over. Who would you give the gwg to. The guy who scored first or the guy who sealed the deal. The other team doesn't shoot because it doesn't matter.
I would give it to the guy who scored first.
Team A scores. Team B misses.
Team A scores. Team B scores.
Team A misses. Team B misses. Final score. 2-1.
Now who do you give the game winning goal to? Both goals are absolutely essential. But I would give it to the first guy because he put the pressure on the other team. These examples are why they don't give gwg to shootouts.
I guess it comes back to the significance...
he let in the GW.... so he gets the L.. If he would've held on his team would've won b/c they made a come back.
I know - Im answering my own question... but just thought Id add my thoughts.. lol
I didnt say change the rules....
just come up with a better way to deal with the situation...
If a team is losing 5-1 and the goalie gets pulled & then the team makes a come back but still loses 6-5 why should the new goalie get the loss for letting in one goal?
agreed, but you shouldn't set a rule like the one regarding losses based on the fact that "sometimes" goalies get pulled for themselves doing badly. If a game is 5-4 and the team winning changes their goalie and lose 6-5 you think the starting goalie should get the loss?
Why should a goalie necessarily penalized for being pulled? In the NHL more often than not a goalie is pulled because his team/defense is having nonstop breakdowns leading to a slew of PP goals/breakaways/odd man rushes and the coach switches goalies to change the tempo
- View More Messages