Red Wings

[gjdodger]

I don't feel like going through all the numbers here, but the 2002-03 New Jersey Devils outshot their opponents, like the Wings did last year, in all but about 15 games. There isn't a correlation in the middle of the pack, but the very best teams outshoot their opponents by a considerable margin. The Wings and Sharks last year were 1-2 and 2-1; the Rangers and Devils were also near the top in both. http://devils.nhl.com/team/app?servi...003&gameType=2

[froot loops]

The Devils were a team that won games while being outshot. That was the style of play they used. They were actually at their worst when they were outshooting their opponents. That's my point.

No, dodger showed you the stats, the 2002-2003 Devils outshot their opponents. Just because you choose to ignore stats doesn't mean they aren't there.

[Rocky Bleier]

Yes, but they took shots that had no chance of scoring.

[Newbomb Turk]

STATISICALLY SPEAKING you only score on shots taken......

[chemiclord]

Now there are some stats that I did miss. It enlightens the point you're making somewhat. I still say shots on goal are terribly overrated though. It's not the be all end all, no matter what you claim. Scoring chances are still the better gauge of winning teams.

[chemiclord]

I don't feel like going through all the numbers here, but the 2002-03 New Jersey Devils outshot their opponents, like the Wings did last year, in all but about 15 games. There isn't a correlation in the middle of the pack, but the very best teams outshoot their opponents by a considerable margin. The Wings and Sharks last year were 1-2 and 2-1; the Rangers and Devils were also near the top in both. http://devils.nhl.com/team/app?servi...003&gameType=2

Sure... and all those shots were good for 14th in scoring.

The GAA (which was best in league) was much more important. The shots on goal were not why the Devils won. End of story.

[froot loops]

I bet every team in the league would opt for more shots on goal than less.

[Rocky Bleier]

Scoring chances are a better gauge. That's why I asked if the 47 to 16 differential was a true indicator of their dominance. But I disagree that the Wings' style is to throw a lot of worthless shots on goal. They are known for puck possession, which implies that they don't like to give up the puck.

[chemiclord]

The shots aren't worthless. They are made without the direct intent to score. That doesn't make them "worthless". Those point shots are taken looking for a redirection or a rebound; to make the defense and the goaltender to commit so that they aren't in position to defend the follow up.

Hell, Holmstrom has made his career redirecting shots from the point. You don't think that's the intent? At issue is, for example, when he misses on the redirect and the shot thuds harmlessly into the netminder. It counts as a shot on goal, but at that point it's more of a padding stat than any legitimate scoring chance.

[chemiclord]

What I don't understand is why shots on goal are this "god" stat to some people. It's like an NFL team's yardage. Sure. You want more shots, like you want more yards. But it's not the be all, end all stat geeks make it out to be.

[Rocky Bleier]

well, he was bagging Rod Stewart's sloppies .... so I have no idea what that is about, either.

I'm amazed he was suspended indefinitely for that comment.

[chemiclord]

He was suspended so that the next time Calgary is in town Iglina and Phaneuf don't commit homicide on the ice.

Avery's been pissing off a lot of people unnecessarily, and I think Bettman is trying to tell him enough is enough. I don't see it working. Let the mouthy little shit get destroyed a few times.

[Rocky Bleier]

The shots aren't worthless. They are made without the direct intent to score. That doesn't make them "worthless". Those point shots are taken looking for a redirection or a rebound; to make the defense and the goaltender to commit so that they aren't in position to defend the follow up.

Hell, Holmstrom has made his career redirecting shots from the point. You don't think that's the intent? At issue is, for example, when he misses on the redirect and the shot thuds harmlessly into the netminder. It counts as a shot on goal, but at that point it's more of a padding stat than any legitimate scoring chance.

I think all teams do that. The Wings get more shots because they have the puck so much more than their opponents. Once they get it, the puck tends to stay with them until they get a good scoring chance. That was the influence of the Russian Five and a testament to their skill level.

[chemiclord]

And that's a much better sign of their dominance as well. Their time of possession on average is obscene in some games. There are stretches of two minutes or more where it feels like you're watching a game of keep away from a fat kid on the playground. Hell, in last years Final the best, most talented team in the East flailed helplessly just to get the damn puck at points, much less do anything with it.

[Panoptes]

I bet every team in the league would opt for more shots on goal than less.

I know for a fact it is the achilles heel of the ANA DUCKS.

Too much D, not enough consistent shooters.