Empty Net Goal Scoring is Getting out of Control

[StumpyTown]

Part of the reason is the parity in the league. I don't know the stats, but would not be surprised to find that there are a lot more one goal games entering into the last few minutes of the third period now than in the past. That, along with teams pulling goalies with 2ish instead of 1 minute, will play into inflated numbers as well.

 

[Ghost of Murph]

A stat as significant as goals scored should not be messed with. Obviously the strategy of pulling the goalie earlier than in the past when down multiple goals is the main reason for more empty net chances in today's NHL. Surprised this strategy took so long for coaches to implement.

There are many factors in different eras as to why more/less goals are scored -- defensive systems, goalie gear, stick composition, strategies, etc are all going to change from time to time. ENGs are up due to a change in strategy. Not a big deal in my book. Just a result of an evolution in the sport, like so many other changes that affected stats over the years.

 

[Romang67]

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.

Edit:
I'll go a step further and say that if your team is allowing excess empty net goals at this point in the season, they do not expect to make the playoffs.

Goal differential is the sixth tie breaker after:

Point percentage
Regulation Wins
Regulation or Overtime Wins
Total Wins
Head-to-head matchups.

 

[Toby91ca]

Goal differential is the sixth tie breaker after:

Point percentage
Regulation Wins
Regulation or Overtime Wins
Total Wins
Head-to-head matchups.

Well....technically it's really the 5th tie-breaker because you only need to go to tie-breaker at the end of the season and by then, point percentage isn't a tie-breaker anymore.

 

[cooldhruv7]

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);

https://forums.hfboards.com/threads...t-totals-for-the-leagues-top-players.2963691/

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).
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]

Seasons​

[/TD]

[TD]

​

[/TD]

[TD]

PPG/Gm​

[/TD]

[TD]

ENG/Gm​

[/TD]

[TD]

6v5G/Gm​

[/TD]

[TD]

ENG % of all G​

[/TD]

[TD]

6v5 % of all G​

[/TD]

[TD]

For & Against ENG​

[/TD]

[TD]

PP % of all G​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

1963 to 1967​

[/TD]

[TD]

O6 sample​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.29​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.06​

[/TD]

[TD]

​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.0%​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.5%*​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.5%​

[/TD]

[TD]

22.2%​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

1967 to 1979​

[/TD]

[TD]

Post O6 Expansion​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.39​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.09​

[/TD]

[TD]

​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.4%​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.7%*​

[/TD]

[TD]

2.1%​

[/TD]

[TD]

21.5%​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

1979 to 1994​

[/TD]

[TD]

Post WHL Expansion​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.89​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.14​

[/TD]

[TD]

​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.9%​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.9%*​

[/TD]

[TD]

2.7%​

[/TD]

[TD]

25.6%​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

1994 to 2014​

[/TD]

[TD]

Post '94 lockout​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.45​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.17​

[/TD]

[TD]

​

[/TD]

[TD]

3.0%​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.5%*​

[/TD]

[TD]

4.5%​

[/TD]

[TD]

26.2%​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

2014 to 2018​

[/TD]

[TD]

surge in EN scoring​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.17​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.26​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.11​

[/TD]

[TD]

4.7%​

[/TD]

[TD]

2.1%​

[/TD]

[TD]

6.7%​

[/TD]

[TD]

21.3%​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

2018 to 2024​

[/TD]

[TD]

subtle increase​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.21​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.33​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.14​

[/TD]

[TD]

5.4%​

[/TD]

[TD]

2.3%​

[/TD]

[TD]

7.6%​

[/TD]

[TD]

19.9%​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

This season​

[/TD]

[TD]

second surge​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.29​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.45​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.24​

[/TD]

[TD]

7.1%​

[/TD]

[TD]

3.8%​

[/TD]

[TD]

10.8%​

[/TD]

[TD]

20.4%​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
* 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.

Is there a way I cam get data for when teams pull? And if they pull down 2 or 3 or don't sometimes

Is there data that exists in that way ?

 

[vipera1960]

Taken to it's natural conclusion and if the scoring ratios remain the same teams will continue to push the boundaries of how early they pull goalies. Whereas before 1 minute was the norm and seeing how 2 minutes has now become the new norm - eventually 3, 4 or even 5+ minutes will become the future norm once it's become 'acceptable'. I think the only solution would be to place a cap or limit on either exactly when teams can pull a goalie or for how long they can. The latter solution would being more idea because the former would curtail situations where team pull a goalie during a delayed penalty, but the latter option would make things more complicated because then the ref would have to watch teams for that and you might also have to have rules in place for when the limit can be reset.


Because that was in a way an anomaly, even if he was gunning for it. But we're getting to the point where you'll soon see 5 or 10 players scoring 10 or more ENG's per year.


Good question. It would take a while to go through the historical numbers but compared to years last season there has been a slight decrease of -6.5% in the number of games going into OT, though the number of ENG's are up far more at +34%. This year 19.5% 36 of 185 games have gone to OT (30 OT wins/loses, 6 SO's) vs last years rate of 20.7%, 272 of 1312 games going to OT(190 OT wins/loses and 82 SO's). For some reason a lot more games are ending in OT than going into shootouts though - the rate for which has dropped by almost 50%!

I think it’s unlikely that teams start pulling the goalie 3+ minutes from the end of the game on a regular basis. The problem is that 2 minutes is already approaching the upper limit for shift length. That means the 6v5 team would have to execute a line change without turning the puck over, and then send out their 2nd best unit. I think if this became a commonly used strategy you would see the rate of successful goalie pulls diminish significantly. That said, there are certainly situations where pulling the goalie makes sense even with 10+ minutes left (ex PP while trailing), and I’m often surprised that coaches aren’t more aggressive when the occur.

 

[Master P]

Kucherov, the generational trend setter.

 

[Strangle]

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.

I think 3 on 3 overtime and no ties artificially inflated goal totals more than ENG

I think it’s unlikely that teams start pulling the goalie 3+ minutes from the end of the game on a regular basis. The problem is that 2 minutes is already approaching the upper limit for shift length. That means the 6v5 team would have to execute a line change without turning the puck over, and then send out their 2nd best unit. I think if this became a commonly used strategy you would see the rate of successful goalie pulls diminish significantly. That said, there are certainly situations where pulling the goalie makes sense even with 10+ minutes left (ex PP while trailing), and I’m often surprised that coaches aren’t more aggressive when the occur.

You could see something crazy like down by 2 and starting at 10mins left everytime the first line goes out the goalie comes off and the goalie goes back in on the fly on the next line change.

And just rinse and repeat

 

[TheStatican]

There is absolutely nothing at stake here with hockey's integrity by pulling the goalie early.

The issue I have is with how contradicting the team-centric and individual-centric views are regarding empty net scoring. Teams treat empty net goals against them as being completely inconsequential, but these goals can and do have significant implications at the individual level - last season’s Art Ross race was in fact influenced by empty-net scoring. This creates an inherent contradiction: empty-net goals are considered meaningless for team strategy, yet paradoxically they can play a crucial role in determining individual awards. What may feel like a minor change in a games outcome has tangible effects on personal achievements, impacting contracts, legacy, and fan perceptions. So yes, I'm leaning towards the idea that there is a integrity issue at play here.

 

[TheStatican]

I think 3 on 3 overtime and no ties artificially inflated goal totals more than ENG

It's provided a boost to be sure but not nearly as much as ENG's. I posted the net results of 3 on 3 OT in the thread I made last year. But here's a condensed chart showing just EN and OT goals since 83-84 when overtime was reinstated by the NHL;

Season	ENG	OTG
1983-84	125	54
1984-85	102	48
1985-86	116	56
1986-87	121	55
1987-88	91	49
1988-89	132	52
1989-90	145	55
1990-91	109	54
1991-92	133	52
1992-93	138	65
1993-94	148	74
1994-95	96	26
1995-96	165	64
1996-97	179	70
1997-98	175	54
1998-99	155	60
1999-00	190	115**
2000-01	208	122
2001-02	201	121
2002-03	185	156
2003-04	189	145
2005-06	187	136
2006-07	205	117
2007-08	213	116
2008-09	226	123
2009-10	203	117
2010-11	227	148
2011-12	236	119
2012-13	138	65
2013-14	221	129
2014-15	284	136
2015-16	351	168***
2016-17	289	190
2017-18	349	193
2018-19	392	184
2019-20	327	164
2020-21	267	130
2021-22	474	186
2022-23	434	207
2023-24	431	190
2024-25*	589*	212*

* projection
** start of 4 on 4 OT
*** start of 3 on 3 OT

 

[jigglysquishy]

An early example of an aggressive goal-pull

In game 1 of the 1967 semi-final, coach Punch Imlach of the Leafs pulled Terry Sawchuk with 8:40 left in the third while down 5-1. Toronto scored a goal with 8 seconds left in the game, but was able to prevent a goal from Chicago for nearly 9 minutes with the goalie pulled.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Well....technically it's really the 5th tie-breaker because you only need to go to tie-breaker at the end of the season and by then, point percentage isn't a tie-breaker anymore.

It was when Covid hit, that’s why it’s there, in case some year there is odd games played, but ya rarely used, but needs to be there.

 

[Golden_Jet]

An early example of an aggressive goal-pull

In game 1 of the 1967 semi-final, coach Punch Imlach of the Leafs pulled Terry Sawchuk with 8:40 left in the third while down 5-1. Toronto scored a goal with 8 seconds left in the game, but was able to prevent a goal from Chicago for nearly 9 minutes with the goalie pulled.

Habs pulled their goalie against the hawks I recall in early seventies about halfway through the third.
They were losing and needed a win or tie, or at least 5 goals scored or something, to make playoffs.
Gave up 5 ENG.

 

[Toby91ca]

It was when Covid hit, that’s why it’s there, in case some year there is odd games played, but ya rarely used, but needs to be there.

No, it's been there long before the COVID year as I have looked at it at the bottom of the website several years ago....but always found it pretty meaningless as it's only to determine how the standings are shown during the year without everyone having played the same number of games. You make a good point on the COVID year.....bit of a one-off though. Anyway, I think what is clear, empty net goals really have no impact at all regarding breaking a tie-breaker. While it's technically possible, it hasn't yet come into play to break a tie-breaker in the history of the league, so I'm not worried about. It's pretty rare to even have to go to any tie-breakers for that matter.

 

[Golden_Jet]

No, it's been there long before the COVID year as I have looked at it at the bottom of the website several years ago....but always found it pretty meaningless as it's only to determine how the standings are shown during the year without everyone having played the same number of games. You make a good point on the COVID year.....bit of a one-off though. Anyway, I think what is clear, empty net goals really have no impact at all regarding breaking a tie-breaker. While it's technically possible, it hasn't yet come into play to break a tie-breaker in the history of the league, so I'm not worried about. It's pretty rare to even have to go to any tie-breakers for that matter.

I know it’s been there long before Covid, I was saying it was used that year, as the first tie breaker.

 

[Sniper99]

Empty Net Goals have been around for how many years and now its getting out of control?

 

[DuklaNation]

Kind of taints some players scoring stats.

 

[JetsFan815]

Why would you care about EN scoring? My guess is that the OP had an unders goal bet on a game and is upset that it got ruined by an EN goal.

 

[Hockey241978]

Why would you care about EN scoring? My guess is that the OP had an unders goal bet on a game and is upset that it got ruined by an EN goal.

No, Its Ovi's getting closer to passing Gretzky's all time goals record & thats 100% the main reason this was brought up!

 

[Strangle]

It's provided a boost to be sure but not nearly as much as ENG's. I posted the net results of 3 on 3 OT in the thread I made last year. But here's a condensed chart showing just EN and OT goals since 83-84 when overtime was reinstated by the NHL;
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Season[/TD]
[TD]ENG[/TD]
[TD]OTG[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1983-84[/TD]
[TD]125[/TD]
[TD]54[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1984-85[/TD]
[TD]102[/TD]
[TD]48[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1985-86[/TD]
[TD]116[/TD]
[TD]56[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1986-87[/TD]
[TD]121[/TD]
[TD]55[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1987-88[/TD]
[TD]91[/TD]
[TD]49[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1988-89[/TD]
[TD]132[/TD]
[TD]52[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1989-90[/TD]
[TD]145[/TD]
[TD]55[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1990-91[/TD]
[TD]109[/TD]
[TD]54[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1991-92[/TD]
[TD]133[/TD]
[TD]52[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1992-93[/TD]
[TD]138[/TD]
[TD]65[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1993-94[/TD]
[TD]148[/TD]
[TD]74[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1994-95[/TD]
[TD]96[/TD]
[TD]26[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1995-96[/TD]
[TD]165[/TD]
[TD]64[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1996-97[/TD]
[TD]179[/TD]
[TD]70[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1997-98[/TD]
[TD]175[/TD]
[TD]54[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1998-99[/TD]
[TD]155[/TD]
[TD]60[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1999-00[/TD]
[TD]190[/TD]
[TD]115**[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2000-01[/TD]
[TD]208[/TD]
[TD]122[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2001-02[/TD]
[TD]201[/TD]
[TD]121[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2002-03[/TD]
[TD]185[/TD]
[TD]156[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2003-04[/TD]
[TD]189[/TD]
[TD]145[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2005-06[/TD]
[TD]187[/TD]
[TD]136[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2006-07[/TD]
[TD]205[/TD]
[TD]117[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2007-08[/TD]
[TD]213[/TD]
[TD]116[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2008-09[/TD]
[TD]226[/TD]
[TD]123[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2009-10[/TD]
[TD]203[/TD]
[TD]117[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2010-11[/TD]
[TD]227[/TD]
[TD]148[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2011-12[/TD]
[TD]236[/TD]
[TD]119[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2012-13[/TD]
[TD]138[/TD]
[TD]65[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2013-14[/TD]
[TD]221[/TD]
[TD]129[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014-15[/TD]
[TD]284[/TD]
[TD]136[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015-16[/TD]
[TD]351[/TD]
[TD]168***[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2016-17[/TD]
[TD]289[/TD]
[TD]190[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2017-18[/TD]
[TD]349[/TD]
[TD]193[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2018-19[/TD]
[TD]392[/TD]
[TD]184[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2019-20[/TD]
[TD]327[/TD]
[TD]164[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2020-21[/TD]
[TD]267[/TD]
[TD]130[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2021-22[/TD]
[TD]474[/TD]
[TD]186[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2022-23[/TD]
[TD]434[/TD]
[TD]207[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2023-24[/TD]
[TD]431[/TD]
[TD]190[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2024-25*[/TD]
[TD]589*[/TD]
[TD]212*[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
* projection
** start of 4 on 4 OT
*** start of 3 on 3 OT

Both of these numbers really must account for quite a bit of the league scoring averages increases.

This needs to be part of every conversation about era adjusted scoring, I think.

You have to pretty much remove 800 goals the 2024-2025 projection to get a fair era adjusted comparison against any other year

 

[TheStatican]

Empty Net Goals have been around for how many years and now its getting out of control?

Did you miss the first post?

Why would you care about EN scoring? My guess is that the OP had an unders goal bet on a game and is upset that it got ruined by an EN goal.

I don't gamble, stupidest way to waste your money, I invest.

No, Its Ovi's getting closer to passing Gretzky's all time goals record & thats 100% the main reason this was brought up!

Right.

Both of these numbers really must account for quite a bit of the league scoring averages increases.

This needs to be part of every conversation about era adjusted scoring, I think.

You have to pretty much remove 800 goals the 2024-2025 projection to get a fair era adjusted comparison against any other year

Exactly, that's one of the main things I wanted to bring attention to with this thread. It should be part of making era related adjustments especially since the top scorers are in fact benefiting more from the scoring boost than the average player.

 

[JianYang]

The Roy Effect.

Roy made it popular but the first coach I saw pull the goalie abnormally early was Roy's former coach, Marc Crawford.

 

[Peltz]

The issue I have is with how contradicting the team-centric and individual-centric views are regarding empty net scoring. Teams treat empty net goals against them as being completely inconsequential, but these goals can and do have significant implications at the individual level - last season’s Art Ross race was in fact influenced by empty-net scoring. This creates an inherent contradiction: empty-net goals are considered meaningless for team strategy, yet paradoxically they can play a crucial role in determining individual awards. What may feel like a minor change in a games outcome has tangible effects on personal achievements, impacting contracts, legacy, and fan perceptions. So yes, I'm leaning towards the idea that there is an integrity issue at play here.

Empty net goals are legitimate goals just like non empty net goals though.