Empty-netter as a game-winning goal?

[Arthuros]

Inspired by the WJC game...when was the last time that kinda thing happened?

 

[De Montreal]

It's more frequent one could think

 

[Johnnybegood13]

It actually happens a couple times a year I think.

 

[Falco Lombardi]

Blues had 3-0 lead against New Jersey and the Devils scored 3 times in the final few minutes and an empty net goal when it was 3-2 ended up being the game winner in a 4-3 game earlier this year.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Happens all the time.

 

[CKJohn]

Used to happen a lot more towards the end of the season where 1 point for the tie did wasn't good enough, so the team that needed both points would pull the goalie for the extra skater.

 

[KCC]

Happens all the time.

Examples? A few times a year is not "all the time".

 

[WarriorofTime]

Examples? A few times a year is not "all the time".

I mean it's not going to happen every night or anything but enough times to where it's not really thread worthy imo. I don't specifically track when it occurs because it's not all that unusual.

 

[TopShelfYzerman]

I dont get it, 99% of all empty nets are game winning goals. Only the losing team pulls their goalie, so the winning team gets to shoot on an empty net and scores quite often.

 

[The Lunatic Fridge]

Happens all the time. IE - 3-2 game becomes a 4-2 game and then the losing team gets within 1 again.

I don't think there's exactly a list for this kind of stuff but it's pretty frequent.

 

[The Lunatic Fridge]

I dont get it, 99% of all empty nets are game winning goals. Only the losing team pulls their goalie, so the winning team gets to shoot on an empty net and scores quite often.

What?
Teams pull the goalie when they are down by at least a goal. If the winning team doesn't allow another goal after the empty netter, The empty netter is NOT the game winning goal.

 

[Hire Sather]

more interesting question is has a team ever tied after allowing an EN goal? I can't recall one, I'm sure its happened though.

like, down 3-2. allow EN goal 4-2 and score two miracle goals to tie it.

 

[SharksCyclops]

I dont get it, 99% of all empty nets are game winning goals. Only the losing team pulls their goalie, so the winning team gets to shoot on an empty net and scores quite often.

Wrong, the GWG is the goal that gives you the win. If a team that is up 3-2 scores an EN the score becomes 4-2 and the GWG is still goal #3 and the EN is #4.

The EN would be the GWG if somehow the team down 4-2 scores one more goal to make the final 4-3 in this example.

 

[hossua34]

It happened in March 2003 between the Kings and Blue Jackets. It was before the shootout, and LA needed two points to stay alive in the playoff hunt. So halfway through overtime they pulled their goalie and Andrew Cassels scored on the empty net in overtime (costing LA their one overtime point).

 

[DirtyDangler 91]

Martin Brodeur has an empty net game winner

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Which is why the way GWG is determined is BS. GWG should be the goal scored that puts a team into a lead they never relinquish.

 

[cujoflutie]

Martin Brodeur has an empty net game winner

I was going to post this. Now in this case the other team pulled the goalie on a delayed penalty and scored on their own net.

I can't recall a team ever giving up an empty netter and coming back to tie it (except in the own goal delayed penalty scenario)

 

[Quarter]

Which is why the way GWG is determined is BS. GWG should be the goal scored that puts a team into a lead they never relinquish.

But in a 6-1 win the second goal is all that's needed to win the game.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

But in a 6-1 win the second goal is all that's needed to win the game.

Assuming for argument's sake that the losing team didn't score the first goal of the game (in which case the GWG would be per my suggestion) then in that example it isn't as egregious but it's still not as deserved. What if the game was 6-0 and at some meaningless point in the game the losing team scores their lone goal? I would argue that the first goal of the game is more important because the outcome of the game is much further from being decided. The way it is now, the GWG in your example game is determined by the losing team and how many goals they ultimately score. That's just wrong.

The GWG should mean something. It should come at a time when the game is still in doubt and the goal has significant meaning. It shouldn't change because an ultimately meaningless goal is scored by the losing team.

 

[ES]

Which is why the way GWG is determined is BS. GWG should be the goal scored that puts a team into a lead they never relinquish.

So in this case it's first goal of the game?

http://www.hockey-reference.com/boxscores/201112060CGY.html

Actually the same game where Mike Murphy recieved L without allowing goal.

 

[AvsGuy]

GWG is a stat that should be reserved for a tie-breaking goal. Awarding a GWG for the 2nd goal scored in a 6-1 victory is completely redundant.

 

[Nordique]

I'm not a fan, GWG mean little to me. The first goal of the game is as, if not more significant you can argue.

Hockey/Soccer are low scoring games and every goal is noteworthy regardless of the sequence in occurred in.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Agreed. If a team wins 5-2, with 1 player scoring goals 1, 2, 4 and 5 and some scrub scoring goal no. 3, he has the GWG. It's a useless stat, outside of OT goals

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

So in this case it's first goal of the game?

http://www.hockey-reference.com/boxscores/201112060CGY.html

Actually the same game where Mike Murphy recieved L without allowing goal.

Yes. While that looks like it was an exciting game, the Flames were never tied once they took the lead. I'm sure in a game like this one could argue there was a better turning point in the game, but in the long run the goal that gives you that led you never relinquish is way more important than a random one decided by the losing team's last goal scored.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

In order to get a game winning goal teams have to be tied, so why would a team pull their goalie in a tie game.