Empty net goal scoring is getting out of control

[TheStatican]

Last season, I created a thread discussing the increased prominence of empty-net scoring and its underappreciated effect on the scoring rates of the league’s top players (along with 3-on-3 OT);

Empty Net & Overtime Scoring: Their Effects on Scoring Distribution and the Resulting Inflation of Point Totals for the League's Top Players

Empty net scoring has seen a huge uptick in recent seasons, largely thanks to analytics revealing that playing with an empty net is actually of a net benefit for a team aiming to make a comeback. Goals conceded during these situations are now considered to be largely inconsequential; after all...

forums.hfboards.com

This season, I’ve noticed that many games have featured multiple empty-net goals, and it seems as though their overall frequency continues to rise. So, I checked the numbers and sure enough the stats corroborate this observation. Empty-net goals are up a whopping 34% this year compared to last season, which was already at near record-setting levels. We’ve now reached a point where over 10% of all NHL goals (127 of 1173=10.8%) are being scored in these situations, either playing against(83) and with(44) an empty net;

For comparison purposes, powerplay scoring represents just over 20% of all NHL goals while OT and shorthanded scoring each account for 2.6%(30 each) Yes, that's right, the number of goals scored in empty net situations is now more than half of the total number of powerplay goals scored so far this season(238).

Seasons​	​	PPG/Gm​	ENG/Gm​	6v5G/Gm​	ENG % of all G​	6v5 % of all G​	For & Against ENG​	PP % of all G​
1963 to 1967​	O6 sample​	1.29​	0.06​	​	1.0%​	0.5%*​	1.5%​	22.2%​
1967 to 1979​	Post O6 Expansion​	1.39​	0.09​	​	1.4%​	0.7%*​	2.1%​	21.5%​
1979 to 1994​	Post WHL Expansion​	1.89​	0.14​	​	1.9%​	0.9%*​	2.7%​	25.6%​
1994 to 2014​	Post '94 lockout​	1.45​	0.17​	​	3.0%​	1.5%*​	4.5%​	26.2%​
2014 to 2018​	surge in EN scoring​	1.17​	0.26​	0.11​	4.7%​	2.1%​	6.7%​	21.3%​
2018 to 2024​	subtle increase​	1.21​	0.33​	0.14​	5.4%​	2.3%​	7.6%​	19.9%​
This season​	second surge​	1.29​	0.45​	0.24​	7.1%​	3.8%​	10.8%​	20.4%​

* denotes estimates - 6v5 numbers are not available prior to the 1999-00 season the estimate is based off a rate of 0.5 6v5 goals per ENG. The numbers since 1999-00 are accurate and taken from naturalstattrick

Yearly change in goals per game, all higher scoring situations.
Higher scoring 3v3 OT was introduced in 15-16;

Empty net scoring is becoming the new and improved 'power play,' - scoring rates and playing with an empty net are higher than powerplay scoring rates and scoring rates playing against an empty net are 3 times as high! If I did the math right, teams have only played a total of about 2.7% of all regulation game time with a goalie pulled and yet teams have scored 11.1% of their regulation goals in during this time(127 of 1173 -28 OT goals). This shift is leading to a scoring bonanza and part of the reason why scoring rates are currently at their highest level in over 30 years. The question is: should the NHL be concerned about this trend, or is it a positive development for the league?

For the record, I’m not arguing for or against it, the alarming thread title was just to get you 'in the door.' I simply want to highlight this trend and its potential implications when comparing players across different eras.

Click to read more...

 

[Reality Czech]

Crazy, but it makes sense. A lot of players can really pad their stats via the ENG.

 

[alko]

What would Brett Hull do with that?

 

[SoundAndFury]

Most teams are pulling goalies with around 2 minutes left nowadays because analytics told that's the way if you want to change something. Naturally, if you are going to play with an empty net twice as long, opponents will score into it many more times. Not to mention that last minutes used to be given to "shutdown lines" to handle on the defensive side of things who would just get the puck out of the zone and change, shooting at an empty net was almost taboo. While now we often see top guys on the ice whose primary focus is to get that empty netter which ends the game.

 

[Coffee]

@alko said it best

What would Hull do?

 

[JoVel]

I think it's a positive thing because it makes gamblers mad and my favorite player likes to score empty netters.

 

[TheStatican]

@alko said it best

What would Hull do?

Nothing. Brian Sutter would come out of coaching retirement and staple his ass to the bench.

 

[Coffee]

Nothing. Brian Sutter would come out of coaching retirement and staple his ass to the bench.

What would Datsyuk do

 

[TheStatican]

What would Datsyuk do

Would have to look more deeply into his late game performance and usage, but my current guess would be score approx. 50% more points

 

[Beukeboom]

Al Iafrate does not approve...

 

[ijuka]

Let me put it this way.

If you're trailing by one but don't pull the goalie for the last 2 minutes, your chances of scoring might be 10%, same with the opponent's, with 80% of no goal. So 80% you lose by 1, 10% you lose by 2, 10% you tie the game.

But if you do pull the goalie for the last 2 min, it might look something more like: your chances of scoring 20%, opponent chances of scoring 60%, chances of no goal 20%. So 20% you lose by 1, 60% you lose by 2, 20% you tie the game.

It's unimportant whether you lose by 1 goal or 2 goals. But having twice the chance of tying the game in the final 2 minutes should be worth the risk of getting a goal scored against you, because if the status quo is maintained, you lose.

Of course, it's not quite this simple, because if you pull the goalie at 2min left and the opponent scores an empty netter against you at 1:40, then for these last 1:40, your chances of tying the game will probably be lower than it would have if you never pulled the goalie. It gets pretty complicated, but even then, pulling the goalie relatively early should be correct.

 

[DFC]

I'll bet it correlates exactly to how much earlier teams pull goalies these days.

 

[TheStatican]

Let me put it this way.

If you're trailing by one but don't pull the goalie for the last 2 minutes, your chances of scoring might be 10%, same with the opponent's, with 80% of no goal. So 80% you lose by 1, 10% you lose by 2, 10% you tie the game.

But if you do pull the goalie for the last 2 min, it might look something more like: your chances of scoring 20%, opponent chances of scoring 60%, chances of no goal 20%. So 20% you lose by 1, 60% you lose by 2, 20% you tie the game.

It's unimportant whether you lose by 1 goal or 2 goals. But having twice the chance of tying the game in the final 2 minutes should be worth the risk of getting a goal scored against you, because if the status quo is maintained, you lose.

Of course, it's not quite this simple, because if you pull the goalie at 2min left and the opponent scores an empty netter against you at 1:40, then for these last 1:40, your chances of tying the game will probably be lower than it would have if you never pulled the goalie. It gets pretty complicated, but even then, pulling the goalie relatively early should be correct.

Sure, that makes a lot of sense analytically and there’s little doubt pulling the goalie earlier statistically improves a team’s chances of winning. But is it good for the integrity of the sport I wonder?

When the strategy of pulling the goalie first emerged it was clearly meant to be a rarely seen, last-resort gamble rather than a go-to tactic with significant time left. As teams increasingly adopt the approach and analytics push them to pull goalies earlier and earlier - along with potentially other future unorthodox tactics, it could start to feel like an artificial, almost 'gimmicky' aspect of play, much like how many still feel about 3-on-3 overtime and shootouts. Though at least those game time situations while inelegant, were designed to address a legitimate longstanding issue(ties).

If teams routinely pull their goalies earlier it risks detracting from the traditional flow of the game imo. At what point does the game’s authenticity feel compromised just for the sake of 'playing the odds'? Would fans really be fine with situations like Game 5 of the 2023 Finals between Florida and Vegas becoming the norm? Or teams scoring as much as say a quarter of their goals without ever having to beat a goalie?

 

[SoundAndFury]

If teams routinely pull their goalies earlier it risks detracting from the traditional flow of the game imo.

Or it adds the ultimate climax to the game, where the stakes are the highest. Something that the usual flow of a hockey game lacks because seeing 5 on 5 scrum along the boards isn't nearly as exciting.

This desperate, throwing caution to the wind approach applies to pretty much every sport. Basketball takes it to the extreme altogether where end of every reasonably close game turns into a chess match. Why can't hockey have this? What is gimmicky about teams trying their hardest to win every game utilizing something that has always been a part of that game? 3 on 3 or shootout is in no way comparable to this because those were manufactured "in the lab" with clear purposes in mind.

Every sport is evolving. Technology, analysis and more skilled players make the changes natural. Is playing 4 forwards on the PP also breaking the tradition? Trying to gatekeep the game to some "perfect form" is, frankly, ridiculous when it's simply about trying to win the game with a given set of rules. And it provides some of the most tense, exciting, and sometimes flat-out miraculous moments to the viewer.

 

[John Mandalorian]

Last season, I created a thread discussing the increased prominence of empty-net scoring and its underappreciated effect on the scoring rates of the league’s top players (along with 3-on-3 OT);

Empty Net & Overtime Scoring: Their Effects on Scoring Distribution and the Resulting Inflation of Point Totals for the League's Top Players

Empty net scoring has seen a huge uptick in recent seasons, largely thanks to analytics revealing that playing with an empty net is actually of a net benefit for a team aiming to make a comeback. Goals conceded during these situations are now considered to be largely inconsequential; after all...

forums.hfboards.com

This season, I’ve noticed that many games have featured multiple empty-net goals, and it seems as though their overall frequency continues to rise. So, I checked the numbers and sure enough the stats corroborate this observation. Empty-net goals are up a whopping 34% this year compared to last season, which was already at near record-setting levels. We’ve now reached a point where over 10% of all NHL goals (127 of 1173=10.8%) are being scored in these situations, either playing against(83) and with(44) an empty net;
View attachment 926467

For comparison purposes, powerplay scoring represents just over 20% of all NHL goals while OT and shorthanded scoring each account for 2.6%(30 each) Yes, that's right, the number of goals scored in empty net situations is now more than half of the total number of powerplay goals scored so far this season(238).

Seasons​	​	PPG/Gm​	ENG/Gm​	6v5G/Gm​	ENG % of all G​	6v5 % of all G​	For & Against ENG​	PP % of all G​
1963 to 1967​	O6 sample​	1.29​	0.06​	​	1.0%​	0.5%*​	1.5%​	22.2%​
1967 to 1979​	Post O6 Expansion​	1.39​	0.09​	​	1.4%​	0.7%*​	2.1%​	21.5%​
1979 to 1994​	Post WHL Expansion​	1.89​	0.14​	​	1.9%​	0.9%*​	2.7%​	25.6%​
1994 to 2014​	Post '94 lockout​	1.45​	0.17​	​	3.0%​	1.5%*​	4.5%​	26.2%​
2014 to 2018​	surge in EN scoring​	1.17​	0.26​	0.11​	4.7%​	2.1%​	6.7%​	21.3%​
2018 to 2024​	subtle increase​	1.21​	0.33​	0.14​	5.4%​	2.3%​	7.6%​	19.9%​
This season​	second surge​	1.29​	0.45​	0.24​	7.1%​	3.8%​	10.8%​	20.4%​

* denotes estimates - 6v5 numbers are not available prior to the 1999-00 season the estimate is based off a rate of 0.5 6v5 goals per ENG. The numbers since 1999-00 are accurate and taken from naturalstattrick

Yearly change in goals per game, all higher scoring situations.
Higher scoring 3v3 OT was introduced in 15-16;
View attachment 926504

Empty net scoring is becoming the new and improved 'power play,' - scoring rates and playing with an empty net are higher than powerplay scoring rates and scoring rates playing against an empty net are 3 times as high! If I did the math right, teams have only played a total of about 2.7% of all regulation game time with a goalie pulled and yet teams have scored 11.1% of their regulation goals in during this time(127 of 1173 -28 OT goals). This shift is leading to a scoring bonanza and part of the reason why scoring rates are currently at their highest level in over 30 years. The question is: should the NHL be concerned about this trend, or is it a positive development for the league?

For the record, I’m not arguing for or against it, the alarming thread title was just to get you 'in the door.' I simply want to highlight this trend and its potential implications when comparing players across different eras.

“I’m Nikita Kucherov and I approve this message.”

 

[Dr Quincy]

Sure, that makes a lot of sense analytically and there’s little doubt pulling the goalie earlier statistically improves a team’s chances of winning. But is it good for the integrity of the sport I wonder?

When the strategy of pulling the goalie first emerged it was clearly meant to be a rarely seen, last-resort gamble rather than a go-to tactic with significant time left. As teams increasingly adopt the approach and analytics push them to pull goalies earlier and earlier - along with potentially other future unorthodox tactics, it could start to feel like an artificial, almost 'gimmicky' aspect of play, much like how many still feel about 3-on-3 overtime and shootouts. Though at least those game time situations while inelegant, were designed to address a legitimate longstanding issue(ties).

If teams routinely pull their goalies earlier it risks detracting from the traditional flow of the game imo. At what point does the game’s authenticity feel compromised just for the sake of 'playing the odds'? Would fans really be fine with situations like Game 5 of the 2023 Finals between Florida and Vegas becoming the norm? Or teams scoring as much as say a quarter of their goals without ever having to beat a goalie?

The integrity of the sport is based on both teams trying their best to win the game, doing whatever they can to do so. Thus, if something increases a chance to win, teams should do it.

 

[Hennessy]

The Roy Effect.

 

[daver]

Sure, that makes a lot of sense analytically and there’s little doubt pulling the goalie earlier statistically improves a team’s chances of winning. But is it good for the integrity of the sport I wonder?

When the strategy of pulling the goalie first emerged it was clearly meant to be a rarely seen, last-resort gamble rather than a go-to tactic with significant time left. As teams increasingly adopt the approach and analytics push them to pull goalies earlier and earlier - along with potentially other future unorthodox tactics, it could start to feel like an artificial, almost 'gimmicky' aspect of play, much like how many still feel about 3-on-3 overtime and shootouts. Though at least those game time situations while inelegant, were designed to address a legitimate longstanding issue(ties).

If teams routinely pull their goalies earlier it risks detracting from the traditional flow of the game imo. At what point does the game’s authenticity feel compromised just for the sake of 'playing the odds'? Would fans really be fine with situations like Game 5 of the 2023 Finals between Florida and Vegas becoming the norm? Or teams scoring as much as say a quarter of their goals without ever having to beat a goalie?

I know your overall point here is that some player's point totals arguably could be artificially inflated such as Nikita "I never met an EN I didn't like" Kucherov.

Do you have a solution to this other than making it illegal to remove the goalie in any circumstance?

 

[DitchMarner]

I'll bet it correlates exactly to how much earlier teams pull goalies these days.

I definitely think so. But it also seems like teams often pull the goalie when down by two or three (sometimes even more) goals nowadays. Was this always the case?

 

[daver]

I definitely think so. But it also seems like teams often pull the goalie when down by two or three (sometimes even more) goals nowadays. Was this always the case?

I wonder if the drop in goalie sv% have pushed the analytics to show it is worthwhile to pull the goalie earlier than ever before, or at least in the last 20 years or so.

 

[Bard Marchand]

I want to see a new big balls meta where trailing teams pull their goalie as soon as possible in the third because it would be absurd.

 

[hatterson]

Teams are pulling goalies earlier and more often.

Pulling a goalie down 2 used to be extremely rare, now it’s surprising not to see it in a game.

The Jets the other day pulled their goalie with like 5 minutes left down by 2 because they realized that losing 6-3 is no different than losing 5-3 so you might as well try.

They scored with the empty net, then put the goalie back in for a couple minutes, then did it again.

 

[Zerotonine]

2 words folks

Legalized gambling

 

[Rec T]

As many others have said, a loss is a loss no matter the score. If you're losing and probably will lose if you just keep playing 5x5, why not pull the goalie and try to hit that statistical sweet spot where you 'do' manage to score/drag the game to OT & at least get one point.

Teams show time & again that it is possible to score a couple of goals within a minute or so (& to be fair, that's odd enough that it makes the highlight reels because it's not a normal thing). If you're going to lose anyway, why not try a hail mary.

/puts on tin foil beanie - if too many eng screw up the gambling lines over & over, 'then' it will become a problem & the NHL will do something to curtail it. Can't mess with the guys paying for a LOT of advertising

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

Good…no great analysis. You already called it out but I definitely wouldn’t call it alarming or disturbing. It’s a fundamental shift in strategy the somewhat got started by Roy in his first coaching stint.

As your analysis shows - it works 33% of the time. That is a great success rate and why coaches do it. If it didn’t work no one would do it.

When comparing stats across eras I don’t think if you are scoring with your net empty causes much difference in comparisons, those are legitimate hockey goals imo. The increase in scoring on an empty net definitely alters comparisons for sure.

One thing to note - scoring is at almost 20 yeare highs in your chart even when removing empty net goals in that time period. (The red parts - if I’m reading it right) So in general that’s good.