Zamboni Gig in Toronto has Perks

[ugarte]

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.

[ugarte]

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

[RichH]

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.

[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.

[Jim Hyla]

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.

[Swampy]

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.

[adamw]

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.

[ugarte]

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.

[Trotsky]

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.

[ursusminor]

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. :-D

[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?

[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,

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

[ugarte]

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.

[upprdeck]

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

[Trotsky]

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,

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

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