Zamboni Gig in Toronto has Perks

David Suits Up

marty
David Suits Up

He had a brush with fame at a lower level four years ago. [www.pensionplanpuppets.com]

I was amused by the fact that he played the second period in blue pants but that by the third he had changed into red pants, to match his teammates.

incredible.

weird that he didn't have a hockeydb page since the article says he played for the laredo bucks (but hockey db doesn't have him on their all-time roster).

so now he has a hockeydb profile that looks like he fell out of the sky into the nhl, which isn't totally untrue and kind of perfect.

ugarte
weird that he didn't have a hockeydb page since the article says he played for the laredo bucks (but hockey db doesn't have him on their all-time roster).

so now he has a hockeydb profile that looks like he fell out of the sky into the nhl, which isn't totally untrue and kind of perfect.

Actually, he fell out of thin ayres. (Well, not so thin.)

ugarte
so now he has a hockeydb profile that looks like he fell out of the sky into the nhl, which isn't totally untrue and kind of perfect.

The Canes were ahead when he came in, why does he get the win?

His Elite Prospects page is great too.

Trotsky
The Canes were ahead when he came in, why does he get the win?

The first goalie went out because he was "shaken up" and the backup was pulled due to injury. Not sure how I'd feel if it was like the last 60 seconds or five minutes, but since he finished half the game, it seems reasonable that he'd get the win.

I have always thought the rule was deterministic: if you're the goalie of record when the final go ahead goal is scored then you're the weiner.

I wasn't arguing he didn't "deserve" it but that there is no "deserve," only a rule.

I find lots of stats that say the goalie on the ice when the game winning goal is scored which in this game would have been goal scored and thats not the Zamboni driver so why did he get the win?

No idea what the rules are, or even if he deserved it, that's what I rely on you guys for, because it logically makes sense either way.

Trotsky
I have always thought the rule was deterministic: if you're the goalie of record when the final go ahead goal is scored then you're the weiner.

I wasn't arguing he didn't "deserve" it but that there is no "deserve," only a rule.

From the most recent NCAA Ice Hockey Statisticians Manual (2013-14):

"In a non-tie game, the game-winning goal (GWG) is the goal for the winning team that is one more than the total number of goals scored by the losing team. If the losing team scores three goals, the fourth goal scored by the winning team is the GWG."

It's not the same as baseball.

That gives a rather perverse incentive. You’re winning 3-1, goalie goes down. You come in the game and your team goes up 4-1. You now have an incentive to let the other team score 2, so that your 4th goal becomes the winning goal. Strange.

upprdeck
I find lots of stats that say the goalie on the ice when the game winning goal is scored which in this game would have been goal scored and thats not the Zamboni driver so why did he get the win?

It's not entirely clear what your sentence is supposed to mean ... but Ayres was on the ice when the GWG was scored. So he gets the win.

adamw

upprdeck
I find lots of stats that say the goalie on the ice when the game winning goal is scored which in this game would have been goal scored and thats not the Zamboni driver so why did he get the win?

It's not entirely clear what your sentence is supposed to mean ... but Ayres was on the ice when the GWG was scored. So he gets the win.

it's because the definition of game winning rbi is different than game winning goal. in baseball, the GWRBI is the RBI that gave your team a lead that it never gave up, so if Rickey hits a leadoff homer, then the A's score 10 more runs and the Mariners score 2 in the bottom of the 9th to make the score 11-2, Rickey gets the GWRBI but the same team scoring order wouldn't be a GWG.

Robb
That gives a rather perverse incentive. You’re winning 3-1, goalie goes down. You come in the game and your team goes up 4-1. You now have an incentive to let the other team score 2, so that your 4th goal becomes the winning goal. Strange.

this is only an incentive to the very dumbest goalie

ACM

Trotsky
I have always thought the rule was deterministic: if you're the goalie of record when the final go ahead goal is scored then you're the weiner.

I wasn't arguing he didn't "deserve" it but that there is no "deserve," only a rule.

From the most recent NCAA Ice Hockey Statisticians Manual (2013-14):

"In a non-tie game, the game-winning goal (GWG) is the goal for the winning team that is one more than the total number of goals scored by the losing team. If the losing team scores three goals, the fourth goal scored by the winning team is the GWG."

It's not the same as baseball.

Another difference is that in baseball, the official scorer is given some freedom to award a win to another reliever if the pitcher who technically qualified for a win was deemed to be ineffective and/or having a very brief outing. It's a rarely used judgement situation, but I've seen it happen. There doesn't seem to be any leeway in awarding a win to a more effective goaltender in hockey.

ACM

Trotsky
I have always thought the rule was deterministic: if you're the goalie of record when the final go ahead goal is scored then you're the weiner.

I wasn't arguing he didn't "deserve" it but that there is no "deserve," only a rule.

From the most recent NCAA Ice Hockey Statisticians Manual (2013-14):

"In a non-tie game, the game-winning goal (GWG) is the goal for the winning team that is one more than the total number of goals scored by the losing team. If the losing team scores three goals, the fourth goal scored by the winning team is the GWG."

It's not the same as baseball.

Thank you. This explains it. I don't like it but it explains it.

ugarte

Robb
That gives a rather perverse incentive. You’re winning 3-1, goalie goes down. You come in the game and your team goes up 4-1. You now have an incentive to let the other team score 2, so that your 4th goal becomes the winning goal. Strange.

this is only an incentive to the very dumbest goalie

Who, I suspect, would not be in the league for very long.

Jim Hyla

ugarte

Robb
That gives a rather perverse incentive. You’re winning 3-1, goalie goes down. You come in the game and your team goes up 4-1. You now have an incentive to let the other team score 2, so that your 4th goal becomes the winning goal. Strange.

this is only an incentive to the very dumbest goalie

Who, I suspect, would not be in the league for very long.

What if this goalie plays in Houston? One might think there would be more tolerance for this kind of cheating.

ugarte

adamw

upprdeck
I find lots of stats that say the goalie on the ice when the game winning goal is scored which in this game would have been goal scored and thats not the Zamboni driver so why did he get the win?

It's not entirely clear what your sentence is supposed to mean ... but Ayres was on the ice when the GWG was scored. So he gets the win.

it's because the definition of game winning rbi is different than game winning goal. in baseball, the GWRBI is the RBI that gave your team a lead that it never gave up, so if Rickey hits a leadoff homer, then the A's score 10 more runs and the Mariners score 2 in the bottom of the 9th to make the score 11-2, Rickey gets the GWRBI but the same team scoring order wouldn't be a GWG.

Yes - this is true. Except that baseball doesn't use that stat anymore, and hasn't for quite a while. But the same philosophy holds true still for the win in baseball.

People have problems with the baseball definition, and people have problems with the hockey definition. Basically, people just like to complain. There are merits to either approach, and neither is optimal. But if you want to make it a totally objective decision, you have to do something. Also "wins" for pitchers/goalies are fairly useless stats.

adamw

ugarte

adamw

upprdeck
I find lots of stats that say the goalie on the ice when the game winning goal is scored which in this game would have been goal scored and thats not the Zamboni driver so why did he get the win?

It's not entirely clear what your sentence is supposed to mean ... but Ayres was on the ice when the GWG was scored. So he gets the win.

it's because the definition of game winning rbi is different than game winning goal. in baseball, the GWRBI is the RBI that gave your team a lead that it never gave up, so if Rickey hits a leadoff homer, then the A's score 10 more runs and the Mariners score 2 in the bottom of the 9th to make the score 11-2, Rickey gets the GWRBI but the same team scoring order wouldn't be a GWG.

Yes - this is true. Except that baseball doesn't use that stat anymore, and hasn't for quite a while. But the same philosophy holds true still for the win in baseball.

People have problems with the baseball definition, and people have problems with the hockey definition. Basically, people just like to complain. There are merits to either approach, and neither is optimal. But if you want to make it a totally objective decision, you have to do something. Also "wins" for pitchers/goalies are fairly useless stats.

none of this is in dispute. the reason there was confusion is because people were applying the baseball rule to hockey. that's all. only greg was getting upset that his preferred method wasn't being used and, well, that's greg and elynah wouldn't be the same without him.

ugarte
that's all. only greg was getting upset that his preferred method wasn't being used

Not this time. There is no issue of distinct moral clarity this time. This time I was just wrong.

Swampy

Jim Hyla

ugarte

Robb
That gives a rather perverse incentive. You’re winning 3-1, goalie goes down. You come in the game and your team goes up 4-1. You now have an incentive to let the other team score 2, so that your 4th goal becomes the winning goal. Strange.

this is only an incentive to the very dumbest goalie

Who, I suspect, would not be in the league for very long.

What if this goalie plays in Houston? One might think there would be more tolerance for this kind of cheating.

Wait a minute! The rule at the Houston Field House is no different than anywhere else.

adamw

upprdeck
I find lots of stats that say the goalie on the ice when the game winning goal is scored which in this game would have been goal scored and thats not the Zamboni driver so why did he get the win?

It's not entirely clear what your sentence is supposed to mean ... but Ayres was on the ice when the GWG was scored. So he gets the win.

From what i saw he was on the ice when it was 4-1? did he come in sooner than that?

Trotsky

ugarte
that's all. only greg was getting upset that his preferred method wasn't being used

Not this time. There is no issue of distinct moral clarity this time. This time I was just wrong.

greg,

Trotsky
... I don't like it but it explains it.

upprdeck

adamw

upprdeck
I find lots of stats that say the goalie on the ice when the game winning goal is scored which in this game would have been goal scored and thats not the Zamboni driver so why did he get the win?

It's not entirely clear what your sentence is supposed to mean ... but Ayres was on the ice when the GWG was scored. So he gets the win.

From what i saw he was on the ice when it was 4-1? did he come in sooner than that?

i took a look at the time on ice for the other goalies and i think he came in at 3-1 but didn't face a shot until 4-1.

Yeah I did the math wrong.. I saw 13:17 and was thinking time left, since he came in after 31 min..

ugarte

Trotsky

ugarte
that's all. only greg was getting upset that his preferred method wasn't being used

Not this time. There is no issue of distinct moral clarity this time. This time I was just wrong.

greg,

Trotsky
... I don't like it but it explains it.

Yes, yes, but the timeline... I could explain further but FFS ugarte find another hobby.

Trotsky

ugarte

Trotsky

ugarte
that's all. only greg was getting upset that his preferred method wasn't being used

Not this time. There is no issue of distinct moral clarity this time. This time I was just wrong.

greg,

Trotsky
... I don't like it but it explains it.

Yes, yes, but the timeline... I could explain further but FFS ugarte find another hobby.

sorry, my resume already says busting balls and i don't want to revise it

ursusminor

Swampy

Jim Hyla

ugarte

Robb
That gives a rather perverse incentive. You’re winning 3-1, goalie goes down. You come in the game and your team goes up 4-1. You now have an incentive to let the other team score 2, so that your 4th goal becomes the winning goal. Strange.

this is only an incentive to the very dumbest goalie

Who, I suspect, would not be in the league for very long.

What if this goalie plays in Houston? One might think there would be more tolerance for this kind of cheating.

Wait a minute! The rule at the Houston Field House is no different than anywhere else.

Are you sure? I've seen their shot totals....

Unfortunately, some of us have relocated to Houston....

drs48
Unfortunately, some of us have relocated to Houston....

Well at least you have barbecue and Gilley’s.