Adding an extra attacker in late game situations or not?

bossram

Registered User
Sep 25, 2013
15,324
14,391
Victoria
If I have possession of the puck, I am pulling the goalie with 3-4 minutes left.

How many times have we seen a team wait until the "standard" 1-2 minute mark, but then never get the puck? This results in them not pulling the goalie or only pulling him with like 30 seconds to go.

If you have possession of the puck and it is 3-4 minutes, then I think you pull your goalie right then and there.

Who cares if you lose by 2 rather than 1?

Exactly. I would be in favour of pulling earlier than most people think appropriate.

The expected value of scoring a goal is much higher than conceding a goal when you're losing. You need to score to get something from the game. If you concede with an EN, it doesn't matter. You still lose either way.
 

bossram

Registered User
Sep 25, 2013
15,324
14,391
Victoria
"Negative success rate" is meaningless here. How many of those lost games were going to be lost anyway, even if the goalie was never pulled? Possibly all of them.

Yep. It's kinda dumb if people view conceding an EN goal as a "failure". They were probably losing the game anyway. The outcome is the same.

But they did give themselves a better chance to get points out of the game.
 

Sol

Smile
Jun 30, 2017
22,757
18,367
If I'm down a goal I'll pull him a little under two mins.

If I'm down two goals. 3 min mark.
 

Kairi Zaide

Unforgiven
Aug 11, 2009
104,791
12,222
Quebec City
If it was an efficient way to score goals, it wouldn't be a desperation maneuver.
It's efficient. Teams score at a rate that is ~3-5 times higher than at 5v5, in general when they pull their goalie.

They also concede goal at a greater rate than the increase in scoring rate. Consequently, in general, this means that goal differential rates are far worse than they would be at 5v5; that is why it's a desperation move.
 

kingsholygrail

Almost there.. 38-23-11
Sponsor
Dec 21, 2006
81,018
15,155
Derpifornia
It's efficient. Teams score at a rate that is ~3-5 times higher than at 5v5, in general when they pull their goalie.

They also concede goal at a greater rate than the increase in scoring rate. Consequently, in general, this means that goal differential rates are far worse than they would be at 5v5; that is why it's a desperation move.
It's not efficient if you're conceding goals.
 

Fig

Absolute Horse Shirt
Dec 15, 2014
12,957
8,449
Didn't someone run the stats on pulling the goalie and actually conceded that what Roy was doing made sense, but statistically, Roy could have considered pulling the goalie even earlier? Like you'd get blown out for a few extra games, but statistically you'd possibly win an extra game or two by doing so or something like that? (for games the team was likely to lose anyways)

There's too many of these articles and whatnot, so I'm not too sure of the specific one, but I think it is at least hinted at in this article here (which also references many other articles on the subject).

NHL Coaches Are Pulling Goalies Earlier Than Ever
 

PROGFAN66

Registered User
Feb 10, 2019
423
215
As a Hockey fan I personally love the strategy of 6 on 5 during late game situations. However, I think one of the greatest teams of all time which is the Russian teams of the 1970's did not like the strategy though.
 

bellringer77

Registered User
Nov 14, 2017
821
417
If that was not the case, it would be better to never have the goaltender on, obviously it is a negative rate strategy (or like I said why put that goaltender in your net if you can score more often than the opposition), that is not the question.

Statue quo make you loose the game, you are ready to make the chance of a goal to be scored explode even if it more likely to be against you to be for you in the situation of a must score goal with 2 minute left to the game.

You knew that before looking, you had just quoted my message clearly saying that:
So by minutes that season team that removed their goaltender scored 0.135 goals for versus 0.308 goal against.



It will be rare for the single team you follow, but if you multiply that by 31 it become really common

Did you even look at the stats I posted?
 

bellringer77

Registered User
Nov 14, 2017
821
417
You're not thinking about it the right way. You're considering getting scored on an empty as a failure when it reality not scoring a goal yourself is the failure. Any scenario where you don't tie the game results in a losing game, so whether the other team scores is relevant in only the amount of time it subtracts away from you having the opportunity to score, and at the point of the game is miniscule. That's the whole concept of pulling your goalie.

Basically you shouldn't be comparing the statistics of a team scoring with the goalie pulled vs. being scored on, you should be comparing scoring with a goalie pulled vs. scoring without the goalie pulled.

And with under 3 goals per average, you're averaging less than a goal per period. So you roughly have 5% of scoring, but it doesn't even matter because 5-on-5 your opponent has the same odds scoring on you. So the probability of you scoring in a minute and your opponent not, is roughly 4.75% (0.05 x 0.95), so if scoring with the goalie pulled works 10% that means your odds have more than doubled.

Any counter arguments about being scored on with the empty net are irrelevant because in that 10%, they didn't and you were able to tie it up, and that 10% is much higher than 4.75%. Getting scored on with a empty net just gets lumped into the data of 'not scoring and losing'. And if you think it's damaging to risk getting an EN goal against, than that's just kind of dumb because if it's within the last minute of the game, like we stated, you're only missing out on a <5% chance to score.

Like I said it's about salvaging. It's like selling a broken car for parts or having a yard sale of for stuff you don't use anymore. You're not getting great value, but you were getting basically zero keeping it.

That just doesn’t make sense in a game that hands out loser points. That’s saying well we know we are going to lose so let’s throw the towel in with 2-3 minutes left in the game. That is hogwash
 

bellringer77

Registered User
Nov 14, 2017
821
417
"Negative success rate" is meaningless here. How many of those lost games were going to be lost anyway, even if the goalie was never pulled? Possibly all of them.

What are you talking about? It’s not meaningless at all. If you give up double the amount of goals with a goalie pulled that’s not good. And I’ll counter your argument with that point you made to justify mine. If the game is lost anyway why pull the goalie?
 

Romang67

BitterSwede
Jan 2, 2011
29,604
21,716
Evanston, IL
That just doesn’t make sense in a game that hands out loser points. That’s saying well we know we are going to lose so let’s throw the towel in with 2-3 minutes left in the game. That is hogwash
You don't reach the point of the game where you would be awarded a "loser point" if you don't score a goal within that time frame.

If you play 20 games in a season where you pull the goalie, and you allow a goal in 15 of those games, and score a goal in 5 of those games, for a total of 5 games of reaching the OT, the only way you can do better than that without the goalie pulled is if you scored a goal in 5 of those games without a goalie pulled.

Given how uncommon it is to score a goal 5v5 (the best team in the league usually has < 3 goals scored per 60 minutes of 5v5 play), it's exceedingly unlikely that the team would have scored a goal in 5 of those games had they not pulled the goalie.

What are you talking about? It’s not meaningless at all. If you give up double the amount of goals with a goalie pulled that’s not good. And I’ll counter your argument with that point you made to justify mine. If the game is lost anyway why pull the goalie?
The game is lost in much fewer cases if the goalie is pulled. Because you increase the likelihood that you will score a goal before the game ends.
 

bellringer77

Registered User
Nov 14, 2017
821
417
You don't reach the point of the game where you would be awarded a "loser point" if you don't score a goal within that time frame.

If you play 20 games in a season where you pull the goalie, and you allow a goal in 15 of those games, and score a goal in 5 of those games, for a total of 5 games of reaching the OT, the only way you can do better than that without the goalie pulled is if you scored a goal in 5 of those games without a goalie pulled.

Given how uncommon it is to score a goal 5v5 (the best team in the league usually has < 3 goals scored per 60 minutes of 5v5 play), it's exceedingly unlikely that the team would have scored a goal in 5 of those games had they not pulled the goalie.


The game is lost in much fewer cases if the goalie is pulled. Because you increase the likelihood that you will score a goal before the game ends.

The points you are using are contradicting yourself. The stats show with an empty net you are more likely to let a goal up then score. The stats speak for themselves
 

Romang67

BitterSwede
Jan 2, 2011
29,604
21,716
Evanston, IL
The points you are using are contradicting yourself. The stats show with an empty net you are more likely to let a goal up then score. The stats speak for themselves
No, they aren't. It doesn't matter that you're more likely to give up a goal than you are to score a goal, because giving up a goal when you're chasing a tie in the NHL is just about the same in value as not scoring a goal is.

If you tie the game in 5 of 20 games with the goalie pulled, the only way to perform as well or better without the goalie pulled would be to tie the game in 5 games. It's exceedingly unlikely that you score 5 goals in the ~40 minutes of play time 5v5 you would have over those 5 games. That's assuming that you pull the goalie with 2 minutes to go, which likely is overstating it given the conservative nature of NHL coaches.

You seem to be misunderstanding the objective here. +/- is largely irrelevant in this scenario.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beau Knows

Breakers

Make Mirrored Visors Legal Again
Aug 5, 2014
21,373
19,714
Denver Colorado
I would

Icing is still in play if it is 5v5
maybe i would think differently if they changed the icing rule which doesnt allow players to change.

side note: plus minus being in play during with a pulled goaltender is ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lolonegoal

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
9,410
5,068
Did you even look at the stats I posted?

Yes and it did look very similar to the stats I posted before and again than the message:
So by minutes that season team that removed their goaltender scored 0.135 goals for versus 0.308 goal against.

For sure it is better to play hockey with a goaltender than without in goal scored/goal awarded or it would be a good strategy to just not have a goaltender at all.

It can still be a good strategy to create a situation where the team you face has more than twice the chance to score than you if you have more than tripled the chance than a goal will happen, if the statue quo mean that you are sure to loose.
 

bellringer77

Registered User
Nov 14, 2017
821
417
No, they aren't. It doesn't matter that you're more likely to give up a goal than you are to score a goal, because giving up a goal when you're chasing a tie in the NHL is just about the same in value as not scoring a goal is.

If you tie the game in 5 of 20 games with the goalie pulled, the only way to perform as well or better without the goalie pulled would be to tie the game in 5 games. It's exceedingly unlikely that you score 5 goals in the ~40 minutes of play time 5v5 you would have over those 5 games. That's assuming that you pull the goalie with 2 minutes to go, which likely is overstating it given the conservative nature of NHL coaches.

You seem to be misunderstanding the objective here. +/- is largely irrelevant in this scenario.

The norm is pulling the goalie with two minutes AT least now. What do you mean it’s irrelevant? It’s the whole point of the game is to score more goals then you let up
 

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,131
New Bern, NC
a power play and having an extra guy with no one in net are not comparable

Its comparible in puck possession. You are using 30 shots in 60 mins to say there will be a shot on goal every 2 mins. I am pointing out that the extra man creates more puck possession. Often a lot more puck possession. Suddenly your every 2 mins is much larger. Thats the point
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lolonegoal

bellringer77

Registered User
Nov 14, 2017
821
417
Yes and it did look very similar to the stats I posted before and again than the message:
So by minutes that season team that removed their goaltender scored 0.135 goals for versus 0.308 goal against.

For sure it is better to play hockey with a goaltender than without in goal scored/goal awarded or it would be a good strategy to just not have a goaltender at all.

It can still be a good strategy to create a situation where the team you face has more than twice the chance to score than you if you have more than tripled the chance than a goal will happen, if the statue quo mean that you are sure to loose.

Im not saying it doesn’t have its place. What I’m saying is that it’s overrated and done way too much,way to early, and a good chunk of time without control of the puck and your increasing your chances of losing the game by doing it
 

Lolonegoal

Registered User
Jan 25, 2012
2,323
3,059
The points you are using are contradicting yourself. The stats show with an empty net you are more likely to let a goal up then score. The stats speak for themselves

You're quoting stats, but the conclusions you're drawing from them are based on misconceptions.

It's not efficient if you're conceding goals.

Ok, I'll explain what me and other users have been trying to explain with data.

5v5.png


A team averages 2.32 goals per game 5-on-5.

2.32gpg/60(mins in a game) = 3.75% (chance a team has of scoring in any given minute 5-on-5)

0.0375(scoring per minute prob.) x 0.9625(chance of opposing team not scoring) x 100 = 3.6% (chance of scoring in any given minute 5-on-5 when your opponent doesn't score)

i.e chance of tying the game in a minute without pulling the goaltender.

pullinggoalie.png


The most recent data shows an extra attacks results in a goal resulting in sending the game to OT, or winning 14.5% of the time.

Whether the other team scorers a goal on your empty net is irrelevant with this data, because with this data if they score on your EN you can't tie and that results in a failure of the objective, the same way neither team scoring would, or (100-14.5) 85.5% of the time. A failure in the alternative of not pulling the goalie gives you a 3.6% chance to score 5-on-5 or a 96.4% chance of failure.

Either way you calculate it:

96.4% - 85.5 = 10.9%
or
14.5 - 3.6 = 10.9%


Therefore, pulling the goalie gives a 10.9% higher success rate of achieving your objective. Any numerical observation of goals for vs. goals against while 6-on-5 with the goaltender pulled are completely irrelevant in the analyzation of whether using an extra attacker has a positive opportunity cost.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MadLuke

jaysoneil

Registered User
Feb 22, 2013
2,059
2,005
IL
Possession and momentum play a huge factor in the success of pulling the goalie or not.
 

kingsholygrail

Almost there.. 38-23-11
Sponsor
Dec 21, 2006
81,018
15,155
Derpifornia
You're quoting stats, but the conclusions you're drawing from them are based on misconceptions.



Ok, I'll explain what me and other users have been trying to explain with data.

View attachment 459635

A team averages 2.32 goals per game 5-on-5.

2.32gpg/60(mins in a game) = 3.75% (chance a team has of scoring in any given minute 5-on-5)

0.0375(scoring per minute prob.) x 0.9625(chance of opposing team not scoring) x 100 = 3.6% (chance of scoring in any given minute 5-on-5 when your opponent doesn't score)

i.e chance of tying the game in a minute without pulling the goaltender.

View attachment 459636

The most recent data shows an extra attacks results in a goal resulting in sending the game to OT, or winning 14.5% of the time.

Whether the other team scorers a goal on your empty net is irrelevant with this data, because with this data if they score on your EN you can't tie and that results in a failure of the objective, the same way neither team scoring would, or (100-14.5) 85.5% of the time. A failure in the alternative of not pulling the goalie gives you a 3.6% chance to score 5-on-5 or a 96.4% chance of failure.

Either way you calculate it:

96.4% - 85.5 = 10.9%
or
14.5 - 3.6 = 10.9%


Therefore, pulling the goalie gives a 10.9% higher success rate of achieving your objective. Any numerical observation of goals for vs. goals against while 6-on-5 with the goaltender pulled are completely irrelevant in the analyzation of whether using an extra attacker has a positive opportunity cost.
So why not play with 6 and leave the net open the whole game?
 

Lolonegoal

Registered User
Jan 25, 2012
2,323
3,059
So why not play with 6 and leave the net open the whole game?
Do I really have to explain this? Are you dumb or just a dick?

If the former, it is because it is a completely different scenario than getting an extra attacker at the end of the game, which success rate is based on scoring a goal under any circumstances. There is no detriment of being scored on because the result is losing, which you already were going to if you don't go all-in. And like I said in my post, which you clearly didn't read or are too dense to comprehend, the risk is worth taking when the alternative has such low odds.

Obviously if played throughout an entire game then being scored on with an empty net absolutely effects the end game result. Then the question at hand is completely altered, what is deemed a success and what a failure differs in the two scenarios and needs a different statistical approach, but I think anyone with half a brain knows that a team without a goalie is going to do worse over a 60 minute time span.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->