What is the purpose of the game winning goal statistic?

[Canadiens1958]

How do you know that?

The other team has scored at least two goals.

 

[Kiekko 67 Turku]

The other team has scored at least two goals.

The example I cited was:
A one goal game in which one team goes up 3-0 and ends up winning 3-2 causes the GWG to go to the 3rd goal for the winning team, which put them up 3-0.

Regardless if the team does not score the third goal they do not win.

If they don't score the third goal, all you know from what I provided is that they're up 2-0 at some point in the game. It seems you're making the erroneous assumptions of
1) if team A doesn't get that 3rd goal, team B still scores their 2 goals
2) if team A gets their 2 goals and team B still gets their 2 goals, team A still can't win the game.

So the truth is you can't know that team A wouldn't have won the game if they didn't get their 3rd goal.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The example I cited was:
A one goal game in which one team goes up 3-0 and ends up winning 3-2 causes the GWG to go to the 3rd goal for the winning team, which put them up 3-0.


If they don't score the third goal, all you know from what I provided is that they're up 2-0 at some point in the game. It seems you're making the erroneous assumptions of
1) if team A doesn't get that 3rd goal, team B still scores their 2 goals
2) if team A gets their 2 goals and team B still gets their 2 goals, team A still can't win the game.

So the truth is you can't know that team A wouldn't have won the game if they didn't get their 3rd goal.

In your fantasy world anything is possible. Enjoy your monologue.

 

[Kiekko 67 Turku]

In your fantasy world anything is possible. Enjoy your monologue.

Help me understand how you arrived at the conclusion that in a 3-2 game - in which the scoring goes 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, 3-1, 3-2 - if the third goal isn't scored, the team that won 3-2 doesn't win.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Because you need a third goal to beat their two...? It's weird that you seem so dead set on stealing a defeat from the jaws of victory here...you're right that it's a fairly lame stat...you're going about it in a way that makes smart people want to defend it...

 

[Kiekko 67 Turku]

Because you need a third goal to beat their two...? It's weird that you seem so dead set on stealing a defeat from the jaws of victory here...you're right that it's a fairly lame stat...you're going about it in a way that makes smart people want to defend it...

There's nothing to indicate the other team would still have scored their two goals if your team doesn't score its third goal. Equally important, if you say that without the third goal you don't win, then to verify that hypothesis, you must apply the same logic to the 1st and 2nd goals.

Original scoring sequence: 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, 3-1, 3-2

• If you remove 3rd goal and leave the remainder the same (as you and Canadiens1958 have done): 1-0, 2-0, 2-1, 2-2
• If you remove 2nd goal and leave the remainder the same: 1-0, 2-0, 2-1, 2-2
• If you remove 1st goal and leave the remainder the same: 1-0, 2-0, 2-1, 2-2

Conclusion: hypothesizing what would have happened had a certain goal not been scored fails to distinguish any single goal from any other single goal.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

We're now walking over a pretty well-trod path.

If you'd like to discuss this further, go back to post #1 and read through pretending that you're starting again from scratch.