[Trade] NSH trades Ryan Ellis to the Flyers for Phillipe Myers and Nolan Patrick

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

GWG is not an official stat, as it is inherently flawed.

The 4th goal in a 7-4 game may become the GWG simply because the losing team scored a late goal.

In baseball, the game winning RBI (again not an official stat) is the one which puts the winning team into a lead that they never relinquish. That makes way more sense, as it’s always a lead changing RBI.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What a ridiculous take. An actual measure where there is no argument or faulty assumption is a flawed stat, but stats that are measures of unrelated events arrived at using a subjective means are valid stats. I'm with you and prefer the baseball methodology, but until that is changed in hockey, the GWG is still a stat and one teams and agents rely upon when discussing player values. Only an fool would suggest that game winning goals have no value. Matthews is one of the best in the game at scoring big goals and has shown that consistently during his career. Suggesting otherwise is ignoring reality.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

What a ridiculous take. An actual measure where there is no argument or faulty assumption is a flawed stat, but stats that are measures of unrelated events arrived at using a subjective means are valid stats. I'm with you and prefer the baseball methodology, but until that is changed in hockey, the GWG is still a stat and one teams and agents rely upon when discussing player values. Only an fool would suggest that game winning goals have no value. Matthews is one of the best in the game at scoring big goals and has shown that consistently during his career. Suggesting otherwise is ignoring reality.

GWG's are a way to try and quantify something teams look for in players. The meaning each team/player/agent(and even a cp poster) gives it is subjective. All stats are flawed, and half this site won't even acknowledge anything beyond the eye test. I forget which camp you're a part of.



Now for the part that bugs me - I don't get why do you have to make every argument into something personal. Aren't you tired of ridiculing posters who simply don't agree with you? Look if you honestly believe that you are surrounded by fools, why do you try to change their minds? What's wrong in having different opinions without making it personal?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

What a ridiculous take. An actual measure where there is no argument or faulty assumption is a flawed stat, but stats that are measures of unrelated events arrived at using a subjective means are valid stats. I'm with you and prefer the baseball methodology, but until that is changed in hockey, the GWG is still a stat and one teams and agents rely upon when discussing player values. Only an fool would suggest that game winning goals have no value. Matthews is one of the best in the game at scoring big goals and has shown that consistently during his career. Suggesting otherwise is ignoring reality.

Tell me that the second goal in a 5-1 game, scored in the second period into a wide open net, is somehow a bigger goal than the first or third goals. The fact it was a GWG is pretty random IMO. If the Habs score one more sometime in the next period and 3/4, it's a 5-2 game and suddenly the GWG belongs to Rasmus Sandin.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

GWG's are a way to try and quantify something teams look for in players. The meaning each team/player/agent(and even a cp poster) gives it is subjective. All stats are flawed, and half this site won't even acknowledge anything beyond the eye test. I forget which camp you're a part of.

I use both, but recognize the fallibility of stats, and rely more on the eyeball test.

Now for the part that bugs me - I don't get why do you have to make every argument into something personal. Aren't you tired of ridiculing posters who simply don't agree with you? Look if you honestly believe that you are surrounded by fools, why do you try to change their minds? What's wrong in having different opinions without making it personal?

Hahaha. You think that was personal? Good thing you weren't around during the glory days of the site. You would need a box of Kleenex next to your keyboard because it was vicious by comparison. That was not a personal attack in any way. It was a general statement of the insane tangent GioforPM forced us down while trying to discredit what I had to say by making a really stupid comment based on a recent series collapse by the entire Maple Leafs team.

And yes, it is a ridiculous take. Dismissing GWG as an unofficial stat, even though its been collected and used as a measure for decades, is a ridiculous take. I don't mind the argument the stat could be better measured, and agreed the baseball interpretation is much better, but the dismissal is ridiculous. It would be like suggesting that GAA should be adjusted for late game goals when the game is clearly out of reach. Interesting idea, but would make previous data collected all but unusable, which is ridiculous. And yes, you would have to be a fool to think that game winning goals have no value. They are the most valuable thing in the game, because they accomplish the ultimate measure of the contest - scoring the most goals during the game. Having the ability to score goals when the game is on the line makes you very valuable to teams. Suggesting otherwise is foolish. Like you wouldn't take Auston Matthews on the Flames because you think GWG is a sketchy measure? That would be a foolish decision, and I think it is completely reasonable to call that and the whole discussion out.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Hahaha. You think that was personal? Good thing you weren't around during the glory days of the site. You would need a box of Kleenex next to your keyboard because it was vicious by comparison. That was not a personal attack in any way. It was a general statement of the insane tangent GioforPM forced us down while trying to discredit what I had to say by making a really stupid comment based on a recent series collapse by the entire Maple Leafs team.

Look usually you make good points, you do add to the discussion. The way you make them though takes away from what you are trying to say. It is also likely to insult someone, or make it personal for them... even if you don't think so.


As for the Kleenex reference, in that case I am glad I wasn't a part of the forum back then. The fact that something was done a certain way in the past does not make it right. I think that you can make all your points without being rude to other posters.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I use both, but recognize the fallibility of stats, and rely more on the eyeball test.



Hahaha. You think that was personal? Good thing you weren't around during the glory days of the site. You would need a box of Kleenex next to your keyboard because it was vicious by comparison. That was not a personal attack in any way. It was a general statement of the insane tangent GioforPM forced us down while trying to discredit what I had to say by making a really stupid comment based on a recent series collapse by the entire Maple Leafs team.

And yes, it is a ridiculous take. Dismissing GWG as an unofficial stat, even though its been collected and used as a measure for decades, is a ridiculous take. I don't mind the argument the stat could be better measured, and agreed the baseball interpretation is much better, but the dismissal is ridiculous. It would be like suggesting that GAA should be adjusted for late game goals when the game is clearly out of reach. Interesting idea, but would make previous data collected all but unusable, which is ridiculous. And yes, you would have to be a fool to think that game winning goals have no value. They are the most valuable thing in the game, because they accomplish the ultimate measure of the contest - scoring the most goals during the game. Having the ability to score goals when the game is on the line makes you very valuable to teams. Suggesting otherwise is foolish. Like you wouldn't take Auston Matthews on the Flames because you think GWG is a sketchy measure? That would be a foolish decision, and I think it is completely reasonable to call that and the whole discussion out.

Who is talking about not taking Matthews on the Flames? All that was being discussed is him not properly being one of the players on the "scores big goals" list you had. When the complain about him post POs was just the opposite.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Who is talking about not taking Matthews on the Flames? All that was being discussed is him not properly being one of the players on the "scores big goals" list you had. When the complain about him post POs was just the opposite.

The complaint about Matthews after the playoffs was ridiculous. Choking away that series was a team effort, and it's something the Leafs are even better at than the Flames.

One player can't score the game-winning goal (in hockey terms) if the team loses the game. One player can't score the go-ahead goal to permanently capture the lead (GWG in baseball terms) if the team then pisses the lead away again. ‘Big goals’ are only big in context, and the Leafs' context was a slow-motion trainwreck.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The complaint about Matthews after the playoffs was ridiculous. Choking away that series was a team effort, and it's something the Leafs are even better at than the Flames.

One player can't score the game-winning goal (in hockey terms) if the team loses the game. One player can't score the go-ahead goal to permanently capture the lead (GWG in baseball terms) if the team then pisses the lead away again. ‘Big goals’ are only big in context, and the Leafs' context was a slow-motion trainwreck.

I don't disagree with spreading the blame. I just would argue there's no real track record of Matthews being more clutch than any other top line player. His play didn't elevate in the POs in my opinion (and I thought it would - I had him in my pool). Point, Barzal, Kucherov all had bigger efforts IMO.

But the larger point about big goals is exactly what I'm saying.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

What a ridiculous take. An actual measure where there is no argument or faulty assumption is a flawed stat, but stats that are measures of unrelated events arrived at using a subjective means are valid stats. I'm with you and prefer the baseball methodology, but until that is changed in hockey, the GWG is still a stat and one teams and agents rely upon when discussing player values. Only an fool would suggest that game winning goals have no value. Matthews is one of the best in the game at scoring big goals and has shown that consistently during his career. Suggesting otherwise is ignoring reality.

I think you’ll find that the games best goal scorers are the best at GWG, due to the random nature of the stat.

The only exception being those who score OT goals, as those are game winning by definition.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I think you’ll find that the games best goal scorers are the best at GWG, due to the random nature of the stat.

The only exception being those who score OT goals, as those are game winning by definition.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yup- score 50 goals you probably are scoring your fair share of GWG. Unless you are swept like McDavid.

It’s funny. Mackinnon was thought to be clutch and unstoppable until Vegas did it. Then Stone was super clutch until he wasn’t. NYI fans were complaining about Barzal against Boston until he suddenly turned it on.