[knicksrulez]

I never really played hockey (shortstop and catcher since a little boy, really can't watch those other sports), anyway was checking some scoreboards of the games I bet on (mostly tails) and saw that many of the late goals were empty netters

Every single time the team puts an extra player to try to score and gets into a deeper hole, there might be like 2 or 3 games that it didn't happen

Am I missing something, what are they trying to accomplish leaving the goal with no protection?

Someone even compared this with an intentional walk, it isn't even close as intentional walks are only made in very specific score and count situations and the main goal is to eliminate a strong batter from the batting order

Would really appreciate if some hockey savy enlighten me on this one

[swordsandtequila]

Late in game, extra man advantage to try and tie it up. Not that complicated.

And to answer your original question: No

[knicksrulez]

Okay, let me use last night as an example, Penguins down by 2, no way they'll get 2 goals in 3 minutes without suffering at least one... Caps score and the game is over

Tuesday, BJ's down by one, try to empty net and Hurricanes score...

Just can see why teams insist on a strategy that works like 5% of the time

If it isn't this the dumbest which is it them?

[bigtymer56]

Okay, let me use last night as an example, Penguins down by 2, no way they'll get 2 goals in 3 minutes without suffering at least one... Caps score and the game is over

Tuesday, BJ's down by one, try to empty net and Hurricanes score...

Just can see why teams insist on a strategy that works like 5% of the time

If it isn't this the dumbest which is it them?

Playing the prevent defense.

[knicksrulez]

I googled that as I had no idea what was it, it is pure stupidity as well

Playing the prevent defense.

[bigtymer56]

Ill give you a baseball comparison:

Your team is down 1 going into the bottom of the ninth. You put in your closer in the top half of the inning to keep the game close and now he's due up to bat in the bottom half of the inning. You going to let him hit in case the game goes to extras? Of course not. At that point you're just gambling hoping you can prolong the game. Same with pulling the goalie.

[swordsandtequila]

Okay, let me use last night as an example, Penguins down by 2, no way they'll get 2 goals in 3 minutes without suffering at least one... Caps score and the game is over

Tuesday, BJ's down by one, try to empty net and Hurricanes score...

Just can see why teams insist on a strategy that works like 5% of the time

If it isn't this the dumbest which is it them?

So the alternative is to stay even strength and hope to score? It's the end of the freaking game, you do everything in your power to tie the game. Are you increasing the risk of giving up a goal? Yes. But guess what, it goes the other way too and it's not as rare as you think. And there has been occasions where teams have come back from 2 down by going to the extra man. It's rare but it happens.

Try being on the puck line (-1.5) and needing that empty net goal to win. See how many times you don't get it.

[knicksrulez]

Okay, I think it is clearer for me now, my only other concern is, the goal-difference plays a factor in the seeding at the end of regular season, unlike baseball in which the tie breaker is determined by home and away winning percentage

Don't really know if this is a factor that matters in final seeding with so many games played, but isn't the ultimate goal to make the post-season, and not just win games? My point is, there's a 95% chance you might lose the game already, so you can leave as it is, or make a risky gamble that will likely harm your tiebreaker factor..

Thanks for the answer guys, really good points

[Chi_archie]

it definately happens more than you think...

“It’s more successful than people think,” says just-retired BU coach Jack Parker, who pulled goalie Kieran Millan with 3˝ minutes to play with his team down, 3-1.
Get Sports Headlines in your inbox:
The Globe's most recent sports headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.

Sign Up

Indeed, mathematical studies indicate that the extra-man gambit works often enough to justify it. Andrew Thomas, who studied data from four NHL seasons during the past decade for an article in the Journal of Quantitative Analysis, found that 30 percent of the goals scored with the cage empty were tallied by the attacking side. And while the league doesn’t keep stats on empty-cage goals, the Elias Sports Bureau reports that 48 extra-attacker goals (with or without the goalie pulled) were scored in the final three minutes during this year’s regular season with another seven in the playoffs.
Graphic: How the Bruins took advantage



If anything, researchers say, coaches should make an inevitable move sooner. “Under any reasonable set of assumptions, hockey coaches wait too long before pulling their goalies,” professors Robert Nydick and Howard Weiss concluded in a paper on the subject. The traditional rule of thumb calls for adding an extra attacker with between 90 seconds and two minutes remaining, with between two and 2:30 if down by two, or earlier if the trailing team is on the power play.

[MickeyMan]

So the alternative is to stay even strength and hope to score? It's the end of the freaking game, you do everything in your power to tie the game. Are you increasing the risk of giving up a goal? Yes. But guess what, it goes the other way too and it's not as rare as you think. And there has been occasions where teams have come back from 2 down by going to the extra man. It's rare but it happens.

Try being on the puck line (-1.5) and needing that empty net goal to win. See how many times you don't get it.

Exactly. It happens way less than you think. I can remember lots of 2 goal games where the goalie was pulled with 3 minutes left and the team didn't even try and score in the empty net they just softly dump it out to keep the clock ticking.

[swordsandtequila]

Okay, I think it is clearer for me now, my only other concern is, the goal-difference plays a factor in the seeding at the end of regular season, unlike baseball in which the tie breaker is determined by home and away winning percentage

Don't really know if this is a factor that matters in final seeding with so many games played, but isn't the ultimate goal to make the post-season, and not just win games? My point is, there's a 95% chance you might lose the game already, so you can leave as it is, or make a risky gamble that will likely harm your tiebreaker factor..

Thanks for the answer guys, really good points

Playoff seeding in the NHL means little in relation to the other major sports. Unlike football for instance, where home field is a big advantage in a one and done, bottom seeds knock out top seeds all the time. It's all about who has the hot goaltender. In the NHL, just get in.

[MinnesotaFats]

No different than a huge shift in baseball, prevent defense in football or fouling in bball.

Hockey is a game of numbers. The more sticks and bodies that can grab a rebound or block out a defender the better chance to score. After all, it doesn't matter if you lose by 1 or 5, however if you get to overtime you get a point. So empty net might be the smartest late game strategy of all sports since that OT point means something.

[sjm5122]

Often I feel like they should pull the goalie sooner. Like with 5 mins left, not 1-2

[jtoler]

it definately happens more than you think...
Indeed, mathematical studies indicate that the extra-man gambit works often enough to justify it. Andrew Thomas, who studied data from four NHL seasons during the past decade for an article in the Journal of Quantitative Analysis, found that 30 percent of the goals scored with the cage empty were tallied by the attacking side. And while the league doesn’t keep stats on empty-cage goals, the Elias Sports Bureau reports that 48 extra-attacker goals (with or without the goalie pulled) were scored in the final three minutes during this year’s regular season with another seven in the playoffs.
Graphic: How the Bruins took advantage

So does that mean that 70% of the goals scored in empty net situations are scored by the "non-attacking" or netted guarded team? Sounds like it, if so then how is this beneficial. Seems the only way this would be beneficial if your team is just clearly cannot score against the other team, the other team is simply much better and has shown to be much better with even sides, and the chances of you scoring with even sides is less than 30%.

[INVEGA MAN]

that's why I like betting the over