Telling statistic

Money quote:

"#2. 2006-10 Toronto Maple Leafs. Since the start of the 2006-07 season, the Leafs are +670 on shots and -103 on goals. It's not likely any one thing has been terrible - they've just been consistently below average in shooting percentage and consistently worse than average at giving up goals. Too many penalties, weak penalty-killing and poor goaltending are all to blame. If there was ever going to be a dynasty of outshooting your opponents but losing to them anyways, this would be it."

Interestingly, the author suggests this situation usually resolves itself with improved goaltending and the addition of a little bit of scoring talent. Monster + Kessel = wins?

about 2 years ago The '67 Sound 17 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Are you trying to tell me...

that if a team scores more goals than they allow, they’ll win more games…?

preposterous.

I have nothing interesting to say.

by blurr1974 on Nov 10, 2009 4:04 PM EST reply actions

You’re right blurr, it makes no logical sense whatsoever! I just blew a couple of brain cells out trying to figure out how that could be possible.

-Graham-

by CanadianMaple09 on Nov 10, 2009 4:08 PM EST up reply actions

LOL

No, he’s saying that no team has outshot their opposition by so much and had such a shitty record.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Nov 10, 2009 4:09 PM EST up reply actions

Interestingly, the author suggests this situation usually resolves itself with improved goaltending and the addition of a little bit of scoring talent.

I have nothing interesting to say.

by blurr1974 on Nov 10, 2009 4:18 PM EST up reply actions

i bet 70% of those shots are from Jason Blake, no wonder the shooting percentage is so low

There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E"

by Matt_Roberts on Nov 10, 2009 4:18 PM EST up reply actions

just kidding of course, but the point about having solid goaltending and a legit sniper to turn things around puts a smile on my face

There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E"

by Matt_Roberts on Nov 10, 2009 4:19 PM EST up reply actions

You’re right, 70% is a bit high. More like 69.4%.

-Graham-

by CanadianMaple09 on Nov 10, 2009 4:20 PM EST up reply actions

Shots on goal can be a misleading stat. If you get out to a 3-0 lead before the half-way point, it’s not that surprising if the final shot totals are 36-28 for the other team, but you still win 5-1.

by general borschevsky on Nov 10, 2009 4:27 PM EST reply actions

But that kind of stuff averages out over time.

I’ve just felt for the past few years that we weren’t a terrible team overall. We were an OK team with poor-to-terrible goaltending. It seemed like we were constantly outshooting the opposition and losing, and this stat showed I wasn’t dreaming in that regard.

The poor shooting percentage of course will take a bit more work to fix, but Kessel’s at least a start.

by The '67 Sound on Nov 10, 2009 4:35 PM EST up reply actions

The poor shooting percentage is bad, but our biggest issue was goaltending. In Toskala/Raycroft, we had two “starting” goaltenders that we were primarily worried about whether we would get NHL or ECHL level goaltending on any given night. Gustavsson gives us a guy who we can at least consider count on winning a few games for us, instead of worrying about him losing them for us.

by Blue and White Expat on Nov 10, 2009 4:43 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed

As is evident from the fact that we perennially are in the top half of the league in scoring (in spite of perenially being picked to finish at the bottom of the league).

This team has not had a trouble scoring goals post-lockout, they’ve had trouble stopping them. And contrary to the widespread perception, pre-Monster that was primarily because of crappy goaltending, not crappy defence. Not that our defence have been world-beaters but they have not been terrible at limiting shots.

by The '67 Sound on Nov 10, 2009 5:03 PM EST up reply actions

Idiots

You guys are all missing the point. If more shots for equates to more goals against then obviously the Leafs need to take fewer shots. It’s science, people.

by Kenjamin on Nov 10, 2009 4:40 PM EST reply actions