Talk:Chris Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Game 5, Stanley Cup Final 2007[edit]

I don't see the point in calling the own-goal cup clinching. I am also not interested in edit warring over it, so I open the field to anyone interested to comment. Thanks!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been explained that in hockey the team that scores one more goal than the opponent wins. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the final score is, 6-2, 10-2, or 20-2. The 3rd goal by Anaheim was the game- and Cup-winning goal, because Ottawa managed to score only two goals themselves. Had Ottawa scored 3 goals, the game-winning goal would've been the 4th goal scored by Anaheim.Jmj713 17:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the NHL even tracks the game-winning stat, which you can see here, for example: http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/stats/bycategory?cat=Offense&conference=NHL&year=season_2006&sort=9

In addition, Moen has officially been credited with the GWG in the June 6th Game 5: http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/players/3239:

Date Opponent Score G A Pts +/- PIM PPG PPA SHG SHA GW GT SOG Pct GW
Jun 6 OTT W 6-2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1.000

Jmj713 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that information (thank-you, by the way), I'm comfortable with it being described as game-winning. Cup-clinching is a bit POV.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Cup-clinching here is synonymous. It was that goal that won the game, and the game won the series, which won the Cup. Jmj713 14:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Synonymous yes, true yes. I don't dispute these facts in the least. However, I think it is not a neutral way of stating the fact, and therefore not appropriate in an encyclopedia article.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 22:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Phillips. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]