Jump to content

Photo

Is this the worst stretch of luck in NHL history?


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

#21 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,511 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:51 PM

Not NJ though, they're clearly destined to shoot 5% until the end of time.  This isn't baseball, after all


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#22 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,052 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:55 PM

This is the same kinda stuff we saw two years ago...they can't shoot 5% forever.  Well maybe not forever but they sure can shoot it long enough to destroy two seasons in three years.  They need more offensive talent, I don't know how many 35-shot 0-1 goal games people have to see before they realize this.


  • 0
"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:
-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00
-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

#23 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:56 PM

Not NJ though, they're clearly destined to shoot 5% until the end of time.  This isn't baseball, after all

 

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


  • 0

#24 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,511 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:00 PM

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

 

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?


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#25 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,052 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:03 PM

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?

 

So when Clarkson takes one of his floating, unscreened wrist shots from just inside the blueline off the boards, that's a high-percentage shot?  They have at least ten of those a game, with Clarkson leading the team in that category.


Edited by NJDevs4978, 12 April 2013 - 11:07 PM.

  • 0
"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:
-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00
-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

#26 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:04 PM

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?


  • 0

#27 sundstrom

sundstrom

    Hall of Famer

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,250 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:05 PM

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.


  • 0

"This team was never the same once we lost Patrik Sundstrom"- Lou Lamoriello


20082719943.png
_________________________________________________________________
“They’re the ones that makes it happen,” Lemaire said. “It’s not us. It’s not me. It’s not the other guy. It’s not the guy before. It’s not the guy after. It’s them. And they have to take care of business.”
-
"I guess I just miss my friend" (#28)


#28 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,618 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:11 PM


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
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#29 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,511 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:13 PM

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.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#30 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:22 PM

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.


  • 0

#31 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:25 PM

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 by maxpower, 12 April 2013 - 11:33 PM.

  • 0

#32 leeski

leeski

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 72 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:30 PM

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.


  • 0

#33 CarterforPresident

CarterforPresident

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,571 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:32 PM

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
  • 0

#34 nessus

nessus

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 842 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 01:52 AM

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.


  • 0

#35 NCDevsFan

NCDevsFan

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,515 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:32 AM

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?
  • 0
It's the whiskey talking.

#36 njdevsftw

njdevsftw

    Senior Devil

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 782 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 07:21 AM

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.


  • 0
Posted Image

#37 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,511 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 07:27 AM

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.  


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#38 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,511 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 08:02 AM

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 by Triumph, 13 April 2013 - 08:16 AM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#39 njdevsftw

njdevsftw

    Senior Devil

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 782 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 11:12 AM

True, I don't follow baseball at all. :P (I watched 'Moneyball' though! :D) So basically, you're saying this is all just a streak of bad luck?
  • 0
Posted Image

#40 capo

capo

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 833 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 11:23 AM

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.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users