Is this the worst stretch of luck in NHL history?

[maxpower]

Sure, and how do we know they're low-percentage shots?  Because they're not going in.  A wonderful circle of logic.  BTW, how many scoring chances do you think were counted for the 1-0 Boston game on NJ's side?

 

Because they're chucked from outside the circle and no one gets the second opportunities?   They had chances in the game, it's not that it was a constant parade of wrist and pray from the blue line, but they do inflate their own counts and are not getting into the dirty areas of the rink with any regularity.   It was alarming how much they were pushed around after faceoffs and around the net.    Meanwhile, they score their first goal because a forward gets to waltz in front of the net unguarded.

 

As for that game?   You said 15, I said 10ish, meaning more than 10, less than what you said.   The counter probably said 20.   What do I care what the counter has to say?

[sundstrom]

You can shoot a low percentage all day long if you take low percentage shots.    

 

see this is what scares me a little. it's now two out of three years with terrible team shooting percentage. other than really elias, this team has had enough turnover over the last 6 to 8 years that it can't really be a team thing.

[Daniel]

Daniel: Oh please bet with me next year. NJ's on pace for what, 47 points? In a full year, let's call that 82 - I'll take the over.

If you're talking about an 82 game season where Kovalchuk is out for the same proportion of games (roughly 20) I'll take the under and win every time. Of course, neither of us knows whether that happens next year. The same way neither of us knows whether, for instance, Larsson will have a break out year, whether Loktionov continues to improve, whether Henrique gets better or regresses, whether Volchenkov starts playing as well as he did in Ottawa, or how a bunch of other variables work out, and I'm not even bringing the chance for injuries into the equation.

I can admit that this is an imprecise way of looking at things. The end result is probably no better than where the statistics lead you.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Triumph]

Because they're chucked from outside the circle and no one gets the second opportunities?   They had chances in the game, it's not that it was a constant parade of wrist and pray from the blue line, but they do inflate their own counts and are not getting into the dirty areas of the rink with any regularity.   It was alarming how much they were pushed around after faceoffs and around the net.    Meanwhile, they score their first goal because a forward gets to waltz in front of the net unguarded.

 

As for that game?   You said 15, I said 10ish, meaning more than 10, less than what you said.   The counter probably said 20.   What do I care what the counter has to say?

 

Because you don't count.  You go on results only and then backfill.  The counter watches the game again and counts.

[maxpower]

Because you don't count.  You go on results only and then backfill.  The counter watches the game again and counts.

 

The counter may have a different criteria than I do.   SOG counting isn't even 100% accurate and that's alot less subjective than scoring chances.

 

But even looking at the charts from this game, what I would consider a scoring chance would be around 20 to 4.

[maxpower]

This mystifies me even more, BTW.

 

Looking at the charts from the Boston games, those were much closer in the chance department in the chart.   Especially the first one.   Devils had 7 shots inside the slot/around the net.   Probably 15 or so should be counted as chances like you said, (Boston wasn't very far behind, especially around the net) but today's game there's literally a wall of red x's around the net.

Edited April 13, 2013 by maxpower

[leeski]

NJ is a proficient team at putting the puck ON net.
NJ is a terrible team at putting the puck IN the net.

You can cycle, forecheck, outshoot your opponents day in and day out, but if you don't have finishers then you're nothing.

[Muevelos]

NJ is a proficient team at putting the puck ON net.

NJ is a terrible team at putting the puck IN the net.

You can cycle, forecheck, outshoot your opponents day in and day out, but if you don't have finishers then you're nothing.

boom+1

[nessus]

NJ is a proficient team at putting the puck ON net.

NJ is a terrible team at putting the puck IN the net.

You can cycle, forecheck, outshoot your opponents day in and day out, but if you don't have finishers then you're nothing.

If this is true, Reid Boucher may have a bigger impact than I thought.

[adavid]

You can find a team having worse luck right here in North Carolina. The Canes are a mirror of the Devs but worse. What, one win in the last 13? They are piling on the shots on the goal ( 40+ against the Caps), the are not playing bad, not giving up, yet have 2 points or so in the last month to show for it. They were in 1st place in the SE a month ago, now sit in 14th in the East. Their goal-tending has failed them, but they arent scoring either. Sounds familar doesnt it?

[njdevsftw]

We've clearly not been very lucky during this loosing streak.. That said: When you consistently outshoot your opponent, and yet consistently score fewer goals, something other then luck is to blame.

 

This is *not* baseball. If you dump the puck at goal every chance you get, you'll get a high shot count. It doesn't mean you will score alot of goals. If you let Stamkos and Clarkson get the same chances over 100 games, odds are Stamkos will score 2x as many goals. Shots are not shots. The ability of the finisher and quality of the chance needs to be part of the equation. There is a distinct lack of offensive creative ability and finishing skills on this team. We had the same issues last year, but they are now even more evident after we lost Parise and Sykora.

 

Maybe it's time for a rebuild.

[Triumph]

You can find a team having worse luck right here in North Carolina. The Canes are a mirror of the Devs but worse. What, one win in the last 13? They are piling on the shots on the goal ( 40+ against the Caps), the are not playing bad, not giving up, yet have 2 points or so in the last month to show for it. They were in 1st place in the SE a month ago, now sit in 14th in the East. Their goal-tending has failed them, but they arent scoring either. Sounds familar doesnt it?

 

Yeah, they have both Staals, Semin, Skinner, buncha guys who we know have trouble finishing.  I think their problem is not enough top line talent.  Plus they don't get quality chances - sometimes they shoot the puck from the outside.  

[Triumph]

We've clearly not been very lucky during this loosing streak.. That said: When you consistently outshoot your opponent, and yet consistently score fewer goals, something other then luck is to blame.

 

This is *not* baseball. If you dump the puck at goal every chance you get, you'll get a high shot count. It doesn't mean you will score alot of goals. If you let Stamkos and Clarkson get the same chances over 100 games, odds are Stamkos will score 2x as many goals. Shots are not shots. The ability of the finisher and quality of the chance needs to be part of the equation. There is a distinct lack of offensive creative ability and finishing skills on this team. We had the same issues last year, but they are now even more evident after we lost Parise and Sykora.

 

Maybe it's time for a rebuild.

 

I'm sorry but you're from Norway and can't imagine you follow the sport of baseball (who would outside of North America, honestly) - baseball isn't baseball.  Baseball has a giant luck element as well, but that is being ignored.  And if max were a baseball fan and our .500 team lost 9 straight - which certainly happens plenty in baseball - there'd be all sorts of reasons why.  It wouldn't just be 'Oh, they're not scoring in clutch situations, and their defense/pitching is bad/unlucky in clutch situations'.  He'd have all sorts of theories for why.

 

Yeah, Steven Stamkos scores on twice as many shots as David Clarkson, but Steven Stamkos is a once-in-a-generation player.  The guy who used to be Steven Stamkos plays for the Devils and is shooting 5% on his even strength shots and 2.5% on his 5 on 4 power play shots.  Now if you want to blame Kovalchuk being shifted to right wing for the ES number, fine, but he hasn't really been moved on the power play and the puck just isn't going in.  

 

5v4 shooting percentage between 2007-08 and 2011-12/this year for NJ:

 

Patrik Elias:  14.1/6.7

Marek Zidlicky 10.8/4.0

Ilya Kovalchuk 11.4/2.6

Travis Zajac 11.5/6.7

David Clarkson 12.0/12.1

Steve Bernier 11.0/18.2

Adam Henrique 0.0/21.4

 

Our top unit, in theory, is Elias Zidlicky Kovalchuk Zajac Clarkson, all of them are shooting at or below their career rate percentage-wise.  So did they all lose finishing ability?  Is Zach Parise a shooting percentage elevator?  I'm not buying it.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Triumph

[njdevsftw]

True, I don't follow baseball at all. (I watched 'Moneyball' though! )

So basically, you're saying this is all just a streak of bad luck?

[capo]

Sure, they dominate the perimeter and the wall.  Next year when they come back with pretty much the same team and are middle of the pack in the league in scoring goals, it'll be all 'they dominate the front of the net sometimes, but are inconsistent other times'.  What a fvcking crock.

 

sundstrom is right - if you're in Vegas past July 10 and the Devils have re-signed Elias and Clarkson, put some money down on NJ to win the Cup.

They need more than Elias and Clarkson.  They have no scoring depth.  They have depth of servicable players but not scoring.  If they don't get another top line player.  They'll be fighting for a bottom seed again.  You have to put the puck in the net to win.

[mouse]

The explanation for this losing streak is very simple, no Kovalchuk. It has nothing to do with shots on goal, puck posession, puck luck, "driving play" or whatever other sophistry you want to throw out there. Having Kovalchuk qb'ing the power play, especially a minute twenty 5 on 3 dramatically increases your odds of scoring, especially when the guy taking his place is Zidlicky. And you want him at even strength much more than whatever alternative you can think of. Perhaps an easier way to see the point is to look at things from the other team's perspective. Would you like your odds of winning a lot more if you don't have to go against Kovalchuk for 25 minutes of ice time a game? If you've worn a jock strap you know the answer is yes. The Rangers saw this when Nash was hurt. And yes, not having Parise makes the team worse off. How much so is difficult to say. But you get rid of him AND have Kovy out of the lineup, and you have a team that is not nearly as good as it was last year. In fact, you have a team that's pretty dreadful, as we're all witnessing. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

I scored $75 tix in the fire lounge last night, so I was talking to Chico after the game (by the way, 2nd time I've talked to him, and he's one of the nicest guys I've ever met), and he agrees with you. He mentioned luck, but also said the team has a ton of hard working, good guys, but needs more big time scorers who can put it in the net without too much help, and losing Kovy and Parise really hurts.

[mouse]

I'm sorry but you're from Norway and can't imagine you follow the sport of baseball (who would outside of North America, honestly) - baseball isn't baseball.  Baseball has a giant luck element as well, but that is being ignored.  And if max were a baseball fan and our .500 team lost 9 straight - which certainly happens plenty in baseball - there'd be all sorts of reasons why.  It wouldn't just be 'Oh, they're not scoring in clutch situations, and their defense/pitching is bad/unlucky in clutch situations'.  He'd have all sorts of theories for why.

 

Yeah, Steven Stamkos scores on twice as many shots as David Clarkson, but Steven Stamkos is a once-in-a-generation player.  The guy who used to be Steven Stamkos plays for the Devils and is shooting 5% on his even strength shots and 2.5% on his 5 on 4 power play shots.  Now if you want to blame Kovalchuk being shifted to right wing for the ES number, fine, but he hasn't really been moved on the power play and the puck just isn't going in.  

 

5v4 shooting percentage between 2007-08 and 2011-12/this year for NJ:

 

Patrik Elias:  14.1/6.7

Marek Zidlicky 10.8/4.0

Ilya Kovalchuk 11.4/2.6

Travis Zajac 11.5/6.7

David Clarkson 12.0/12.1

Steve Bernier 11.0/18.2

Adam Henrique 0.0/21.4

 

Our top unit, in theory, is Elias Zidlicky Kovalchuk Zajac Clarkson, all of them are shooting at or below their career rate percentage-wise.  So did they all lose finishing ability?  Is Zach Parise a shooting percentage elevator?  I'm not buying it.

 

I think it's both. Some players are unlucky. That will change. On the flip side, guys ARE taking low percentage shots. Last night, most of the shots we took were easy enough to save. Most of our shooters can put the puck on net, and create rebounding chances, but aren't necessarily going to burn the goalie by themselves (Kovy and Elias are the exceptions). If that's the kind of player you have, you absolutely need guys who can bury deflections and rebounds. Parise is one of the best at that. Clarkson is pretty good too, which goes back to the luck argument, since he's not doing sh!t in front of the net right now. Either way, if they want to do something to get better, they need to at least give guys time to crash the net before taking mediocre shots. Too often, especially in the first, last night they took a shot that led to a rebounding chance, but nobody was near the net. Later in the game, when they started to scare Anderson a little more, they had guys crashing (though the Ottawa d did a good job mauling them near the net, partially because they don't have to pay as much attention to any of our shooters aside from Elias).

[maxpower]

Someone needs to take a chill pill, replying to me in posts that aren't even mine.

[leeski]

NJ is 17th in shots on goal per game at 28.4

NJ is 29th in goals per game at 2.29.

 

Look at Carolina, another feeble team:

1st in shots on goal per game at 32.7
17th in goals per game at 2.58

 

Perhaps the most interesting example: Tampa Bay

 

28th in shots on goal per game at 26.6

Tied for 2nd in goals per game at 3.15


The teams that put up the most goals are unsurprising - teams like Pittsburgh, Chicago, Tampa Bay. These are teams which have FINISHING power; multiple players that when the puck hits the stick are dangerous. Ironically the two teams with the highest SOG per game, #1Carolina and #2Ottawa, are among the most unsuccessful in the league.
 

The Devils' problem in my opinion is that they don't have enough finishing players. Endlessly cycling the puck to create high-shot ratio/low-scoring chance opportunities isn't working, especially if the shots are coming from our top 6 which aren't exactly feared around the league. We had better hope that Reid Boucher works out well at an NHL level.

Edited April 13, 2013 by leeski

[iamtheprodigy]

Because I can't explain it at this point, I have never in all my years of watching hockey seen this kind of bad luck. The shots, the scoring chances, the posts, the bad bounces. EVERYTHING we throw at the net doesn't go in, EVERY rush ends up in our net. Every shootout OT game we lose.

 

It's like a 1 in 100000000 bad luck run.

 

We know Brodeur isn't good anymore, maybe he's still hurt so I'll lay off him...but this team is getting chances offensively. They are doing a good job holding pucks in at the point, they cycle well, they get chances, they set up screens, they crash the net, they outchance the opposition by a lot...they get 5 on 3's. Nothing works EVER.

 

We have outshot the opposition 61-29 in the past two games and LOST both in regulation. I have never seen a team allow 18 and then 11 shots on goal and lose both in regulation

 

Take a good look. Because you will never see a better team dumped on by the hockey gods like this. We MASSACRED Ottawa at even strength today

 

Usually I disagree with you on stuff but I am in full agreement with you right now. The Devils are an average to slightly above average team who are having historically bad luck. I don't know if I would believe some of these stats if I didn't see them happen with my own eyes. I keep expecting the luck to finally shift and it just doesn't happen. Another game dominated by the Devils, another regulation loss.

 

I'm not saying the team couldn't be better, but they definitely deserve better than to be 0-9 in the last 9 games. A team this good doesn't play this well and lose every night without an insane amount of bad luck, there's just no questioning it anymore.

[Devils731]

Leeski, does that hold true for last season, which was a full 82 games?  My eyeballing says that teams with more shots tended to score more goals, pretty heavily over the last 3 seasons.  There are a few exceptions here and there, but the teams that shoot the most also tend to be the teams that score the most.

[NJDevs4978]

Tom Gulitti ‏@TGfireandice17m

Patrik Elias on today's PP practice: "It was fine to get out there and just move the puck. We still didn’t score. Not even in practice.”

 

[leeski]

Leeski, does that hold true for last season, which was a full 82 games?  My eyeballing says that teams with more shots tended to score more goals, pretty heavily over the last 3 seasons.  There are a few exceptions here and there, but the teams that shoot the most also tend to be the teams that score the most.

 

There's definitely a correlation between SOG and GPG. Of the top 10 scoring teams in 2011-12, 7 of them were in the top SOG. There were some exceptions like Colorado and St. Louis who put tons of pucks on net but were VERY low on actually scoring. But these two teams have a similar deficit as the Devils: finishing capacity. The top SOG and GPG teams (Pitt, Chicago, San Jose, Boston) were not just putting pucks on net often, they were doing it with top notch firepower at their disposal.

 

I listed NJ's stats this year about SOG and GPG. But I'll write them again below.

 

NJ is 17th in shots on goal per game at 28.4

NJ is 29th in goals per game at 2.29.

 

Now for 2011-12:

 

NJ is 27th in shots on goal per game at 27.5

NJ is 15th in goals per game at 2.63.

 

Notice the difference. Simply invert and minus 2.

Bottom line: Shots DO matter. More shots is better than less shots. But not all shots are created equal. NJ has a deficit in finishing capability.

['7']

Tom Gulitti ‏@TGfireandice17m

Patrik Elias on today's PP practice: "It was fine to get out there and just move the puck. We still didn’t score. Not even in practice.”

 

 

Maybe Terreri was in net. That explains it

[capo]

There's definitely a correlation between SOG and GPG. Of the top 10 scoring teams in 2011-12, 7 of them were in the top SOG. There were some exceptions like Colorado and St. Louis who put tons of pucks on net but were VERY low on actually scoring. But these two teams have a similar deficit as the Devils: finishing capacity. The top SOG and GPG teams (Pitt, Chicago, San Jose, Boston) were not just putting pucks on net often, they were doing it with top notch firepower at their disposal.

 

I listed NJ's stats this year about SOG and GPG. But I'll write them again below.

 

NJ is 17th in shots on goal per game at 28.4

NJ is 29th in goals per game at 2.29.

 

Now for 2011-12:

 

NJ is 27th in shots on goal per game at 27.5

NJ is 15th in goals per game at 2.63.

 

Notice the difference. Simply invert and minus 2.

Bottom line: Shots DO matter. More shots is better than less shots. But not all shots are created equal. NJ has a deficit in finishing capability.

It's still quality vs. quantity.  It's the same reason teams just don't fire the puck non-stop during the pp.  The Devils shot quality is horrendous and that's the bottomline.