Empty net goal scoring is getting out of control

[WeaponOfChoice]

2 words folks

Legalized gambling

Legalized gambling is a bad idea. You can build that casino over my dead body. Blah blah blah

 

[1specter]

Al Iafrate would be really disappointed.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

If it gets out of control there will probably be an asterisk type of situation

 

[Cursed Lemon]

What would Datsyuk do

Bank it off Abdelkader's ass

 

[Coffee]

Bank it off Abdelkader's ass

You know lol

 

[johan f]

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.

Nothing wrong with that. But it skews the scoring stats.

 

[jetsforever]

Not a huge fan of ENGs but nothing to be done really about the strategy shift

 

[AfroThunder396]

This is nothing new, when Pavel Bure scored his 60 goal season 10 of them were into an empty net and no one cried about his numbers being skewed.

This is just a reflection of parity and how close teams in the league are, that teams are keeping the score close until the final minutes and believe they can overcome both 1-goal and 2-goal deficits. Also shows how teams are getting with the times and pulling the goalie early (before 60 seconds) to give themselves more opportunity to score.

 

[CaptBrannigan]

I’ve noticed (or to be fair, just maybe paid attention to more) that the team defending the lead is more likely to have skill players out than defensive forward lines in these situations. Maybe a designated faceoff guy but it’s a lot of first lines facing these empty nets.

Players seem more apt to shoot from a potential icing position too than ever before. I remember that was a cardinal sin when I played structured hockey, icing while going for an empty net. I think the mindset around this has changed too.

Gambling…I admit I put wagers on games ($20-$50 a week depending if I‘m up early in the week and using house money) and while it’s a slow roll, live betting a team who’s up by one with 5 minutes left to win by 1.5 is pretty successful. I honestly don’t think gambling is influencing this part of the game, if anything it frustrates the big betters as it introduces more variability and makes nailing down a spread or over/under number more difficult.

 

[SoundAndFury]

Nothing wrong with that. But it skews the scoring stats.

Same way scoring stats were "skewed" by goalie equipment, the dead puck era, every single rule change, etc. Scoring stats are not the goal. I have to say when somebody is that worried about "stats" it really raises the question of why they care so much about those.

Also can we stop with the ridiculous gambling takes? It's just another goal. It's not like empty netters are some secret sauce making betting companies win. You can account for it just like for any other goal.

Gambling…I admit I put wagers on games ($20-$50 a week depending if I‘m up early in the week and using house money) and while it’s a slow roll, live betting a team who’s up by one with 5 minutes left to win by 1.5 is pretty successful. I honestly don’t think gambling is influencing this part of the game, if anything it frustrates the big betters as it introduces more variability and makes nailing down a spread or over/under number more difficult.

Exactly. It can be advantageous just as much as it can be against you so people who complain about its impact on gambling really are either sore losers or people who don't know first thing about betting to begin with.

 

[Stealth JD]

@alko said it best

What would Hull do?

What would Brett Hull do with that?

Hull famously avoided scoring into empty nets. His career ENG scored was ZERO.

Poor example.

 

[WATTAGE4451]

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.

Chances of scoring goal with 2 minutes left are well less than i think if you dont pull goalie.

Assuming the league avg scoring rate per minute of game- youd have a 9.9% chance scoring in any 2 minute interval- but that doesnt even take into account that that numbers is inflated by powerplays making even strength percentage a little lower. In addition- it also doesnt take into the account that your team needs to score while the opponent can go into a defensive shell while in any random 2 minute interval of a hockey game the opponent is taking offensive chances and you can get counterattack 2-1 or breakways off their mistakes, or be playing against their 3rd kr 4th line- so the true chances of scoring a goal with less than 2 minutes left without pulling goalie is somewhere way below 9.9% and id venture not even 5%

 

[Number8]

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

Really interesting analysis. Well done, OP.

As far as reaction -- like @JoVel I like that it messes with the gambling.

I know it's here to stay, but I dislike being barraged with endless advertising offering me a chance to bet on who makes a left handed, back hand primary assist in the O zone in the 2nd 5th of a period.

"I beat the spread, I beat the spread!!!! Oh shit, another ENG....."

 

[cbcwpg]

Because coaches have realized that losing a game by 2 or 3 goals is no different in the standings than losing that game by 1 goal... so might as well pull the goalie and try to tie it up. Of note: goal differential is #6 on the tiebreaker criteria for determining playoff positioning, so it's effectively meaningless.

Also, not trying to tie the game up could be more damaging to the coach's career then getting scored on because you pulled the goalie.

Anything that screws it up for the gamblers I'm in favor of... more so if it makes them stop gambling to the point that the NHL stops shoving it down my throat ever 30 seconds... I can dream can't I?

 

[NyQuil]

Asterisks! Asterisks for everyone!

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

I don't get how this is a problem. Should they ban pulling the goalie?

 

[Coffee]

Hull famously avoided scoring into empty nets. His career ENG scored was ZERO.

Poor example.

Me and @alko was making making a joke, m8

Asterisks! Asterisks for everyone!

You’re not the bad guy, Nyq, you’re not the bad guy

 

[Anglesmith]

I'm curious whether the percentage of games going to overtime is down this year so far. Seems like it to me.

ENGs typically only happen in regulation wins, so if for some reason more games are being decided in regulation, you'd expect an increase in ENGs.

 

[HaNotsri]

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.

Down 2 goals and on the powerplay it would start making sense at the beginning of the third period.

 

[Stealth JD]

Me and @alko was making making a joke, m8

No worries. It's just interesting that anyone would associate ENG with Brett Hull. There's 2 things Hully famously wouldn't do. Score into empty nets and serve penalties.

Spoiler

The Blues were called for a too many men on the ice penalty and Head Coach Mike Keenan instructed Hull to serve the penalty.
Hull responded by telling Keenan he doesn’t serve penalties. Keenan then told Hull again to go serve the penalty and once again Hull said I don’t serve penalties.
The ref skates over to the bench yelling we need someone to get in the box. Hull’s teammates began saying "just go Hullie!"
Finally Hull hopped over the boards chinstrap unbuttoned, dragging his stick behind him as he took his time and slowly skated to the box.
After the penalty expired Hull stayed in the box for an extra 2-3 seconds while the door was open. He finally came out just as the puck came right in his direction.
Hull would have had an easy breakaway but instead stepped over the puck and slowly skated back to the bench.
In one motion he jumped over the boards and looked right at Keenan and said, “ I told you I don’t serve penalties.”

 

[Coffee]

No worries. It's just interesting that anyone would associate ENG with Brett Hull. There's 2 things Hully famously wouldn't do. Score into empty nets and serve penalties.

Spoiler

The Blues were called for a too many men on the ice penalty and Head Coach Mike Keenan instructed Hull to serve the penalty.
Hull responded by telling Keenan he doesn’t serve penalties. Keenan then told Hull again to go serve the penalty and once again Hull said I don’t serve penalties.
The ref skates over to the bench yelling we need someone to get in the box. Hull’s teammates began saying "just go Hullie!"
Finally Hull hopped over the boards chinstrap unbuttoned, dragging his stick behind him as he took his time and slowly skated to the box.
After the penalty expired Hull stayed in the box for an extra 2-3 seconds while the door was open. He finally came out just as the puck came right in his direction.
Hull would have had an easy breakaway but instead stepped over the puck and slowly skated back to the bench.
In one motion he jumped over the boards and looked right at Keenan and said, “ I told you I don’t serve penalties.”

Can you make a thread dedicated to old stories like this

 

[#37]

Because coaches have realized that losing a game by 2 or 3 goals is no different in the standings than losing that game by 1 goal...

Actually, goal differential is the tie breaker when it comes to determining position in the standings and can be the difference between getting into the playoffs or not.

An interesting stat would be to look at teams who missed the playoffs due to goal differential vs. the number of empty net goals those teams allowed.

 

[Toby91ca]

It does make sense.....there is more parity than there used to be, games are closer, far less blowouts.....you aren't going to pull the goalie if you are down by 4 goals, but in closer games, goalies will be pulled. Not only does the parity make games closer, therefore, more reason to pull the goalie, but parity also makes points so much more important for teams, so they'll pull the goalie for that reason as well.

What does drive me a bit crazy is when I look at a score, 6-3....ok, pretty easy win....but then realize it was 4-3, they just let in to EN'ers. When you are down by 2 goals with 40 seconds to go in the game, why are you still pulling the goalie. I get stranger things happened and perhaps you gotta do it because, who cares if I lose by 2 or 3, I have to try and score.....but those situations bother me because guys are scoring and getting points when really the situation shouldn't be there.

It's not a coincidence that that vast majority of EN point producers are from recent era (Crosby and Ovechkin are #2 and #3). Of the top 43 scorers in terms of EN points ALL-time.....only 4 haven't played in the Crosby/Ovechkin era.