Supposively a debateable arguement

[DaSTeK]

I hear some people say "empty net goal, so they actually won 3-1 huh? good"

when the real score is 4-1

are empty net goals actually goals or are they just points on the scoreboard?

in my opinion they're not the most praised goals but they should be in there as the other team did make a risk and put their goalie on the bench for another skater...


so think about this

is it a goal when the team that pulls THEIR goalie scores a goal?

because its an "even" advantage of 6v6. just one isnt a goalie. so why should a team who scores on this "Even" advantage with the goalie go ungratified?

[boblee]

A goal is a goal. Empty netters still count. But it is a noticably different goal. That is why you will see something like 5-2 (EN) or 5-2 (ENG). The goal still counts for the players stats. Assists are still given. It still goes on the scoreboard. It just isn't counted against a goaltender. That is all.

[DaSTeK]

sorry for not making myself as clear as i would like to be, i do get that. im not that dense.

i mean, is a team who beat a team 4-2 (EN) going to be looked upon as a 3-2 team? i cant really explain it

the TEAM worked pretty much the same for that goal, and yet they have to have this (EN) behind their score? to show that there somehow inferior to someone who beat them 4-2 without an empty net?

[Can't Never Tried]

sorry for not making myself as clear as i would like to be, i do get that. im not that dense.

i mean, is a team who beat a team 4-2 (EN) going to be looked upon as a 3-2 team? i cant really explain it

the TEAM worked pretty much the same for that goal, and yet they have to have this (EN) behind their score? to show that there somehow inferior to someone who beat them 4-2 without an empty net?

Well let's look at it this way then, they had to pull the tender because they were already behind thus giving them a man advantage, and yet still gave up the EN goal.
So it's in a way like giving up a SH goal...kind of.
I really don't think it makes all that much difference, your down 1, so you pull the goalie and you end up down 2.
I don't think it means much except for letting those that read stats see that the losing team was doing all they could to tie it up.
But if you beat a team 4-2 straight up I'd say yeah it means a little more IDK

[WayOutWest]

sorry for not making myself as clear as i would like to be, i do get that. im not that dense.

i mean, is a team who beat a team 4-2 (EN) going to be looked upon as a 3-2 team? i cant really explain it

the TEAM worked pretty much the same for that goal, and yet they have to have this (EN) behind their score? to show that there somehow inferior to someone who beat them 4-2 without an empty net?

Who really analyzes the scores of games, to determine the strength of a team? What you look at is a team's record. That remains the same, either way. Everyone who has been around hockey long enough, is well aware that empty net goals happen all the time. In fact, when I see a 4-2 score, I always think it is JUST as likely that the winning team scored a late empty netter, as it is that they scored 4 with the goalie on the ice. That being said, it truly doesn't matter to me. Apparently, you seem to care quite a bit about it, though. Why?

[DaSTeK]

It is nothing personal, just a matter of curiosity on what others had to say about this. All of you make sense really, thanks for answering my "comment or question" i cant remember.

[watchdog]

if the score ends up 4-2 with eng people put that so others no that it was a 3-2 game.. its a closer game and thats the way people should see it.

[flatontheice]

It is nothing personal, just a matter of curiosity on what others had to say about this. All of you make sense really, thanks for answering my "comment or question" i cant remember.

What ever it is that you are smoking, I want some.

[DaSTeK]

What kind of an insult is that?

I appreciatively graced you all by saying thank you for your opinions, I was just curious to as how important an empty goal is.

It did make sense, really, it did.

[elliott70]

What kind of an insult is that?

I appreciatively graced you all by saying thank you for your opinions, I was just curious to as how important an empty goal is.

It did make sense, really, it did.

The question makes sense.
The indication of an ENG being scored gives the reader more information.

A score of 5 - 2 represents something diefferent than
5 - 2 (2 ENG). The game was (probably) closer than the score indicates.

It gives you a better sense of the game and the abilities of the teams. And, yes, a team that wins 4-2 generally has played better than a team that wins 4-2(eng). And that is why a lot of people like to see the line or box on games.

[buckeyehockey17]

sorry for not making myself as clear as i would like to be, i do get that. im not that dense.

i mean, is a team who beat a team 4-2 (EN) going to be looked upon as a 3-2 team? i cant really explain it

the TEAM worked pretty much the same for that goal, and yet they have to have this (EN) behind their score? to show that there somehow inferior to someone who beat them 4-2 without an empty net?

well i disagree with your statement saying that they work just as hard because they dont always have to a player could win the faceoff back to his defense in his own zone who could just shoot it into the empty net so i would have to say that if a team wins 4-2 with an EN goal i view it as a 3-2 win even tho it goes down as 4-2 in the record book