The Five Best Teams that were Outshot
It's an accepted truism that teams that get outshot tend to have losing records. This has always been true, but it is even truer today given the parity of the NHL. There are certainly exceptions to the rule - if your team was so good that it always had the lead, it would almost certainly get outshot as it sat back and protected that lead. And if you had the best goaltending in the league, you might not need to dominate the shot count to win games. There have been precious few successful teams like this in history, but here are five of the best:
#5. 1974-75 Los Angeles Kings. This is a bit of a sentimental statistical pick. The Kings averaged 83 points in the seasons before and after this one. But Rogie Vachon and Gary Edwards had dominant 1974-75 seasons behind a middling team and got them to 105 points. For a statistician then, goaltending = +22 points in the standings. Here are the season-long numbers:
| SF/G | GF/G | SPCTF | SA/G | GA/G | SPCTA | ||
| 1974-75 | LAK | 29.3 | 3.4 | 11.5 | 29.7 | 2.3 | 7.8 |
The wheels came off in the playoffs against the Toronto Maple Leafs - in Game 3 of the Best-of-Three opening round series, the Kings were down 2-0 after two periods at home and couldn't come back. The well-known Gord McRae, who would play just 45 more games in goal during his NHL career, held the Kings to a 6.3% shooting percentage in the series.
#4. 1997-99 Buffalo Sabres. If Vachon showed us what a fluke year could do for a team, Dominik Hasek showed us what a dominant goalie could do for his team in his best seasons. Including the playoffs, Hasek played 170 games in two years. Unlike the Kings, the Sabres absolutely hemorrhaged shots on goal, and Hasek kept them in the game:
| SF/G | GF/G | SPCTF | SA/G | GA/G | SPCTA | ||
| 1997-99 | BUF | 26.4 | 2.5 | 9.7 | 30.6 | 2.2 | 7.2 |
The Sabres went 24-12 in the playoffs those two seasons despite being outshot by six shots per game - but Hasek upped his game in the post-season, and unlikely heroes like Dixon Ward, Stu Barnes and Curtis Brown had shooting percentages around 20%.
#3. 1990-2001 Pittsburgh Penguins. Not only were the Pens out-shot during their two first Stanley Cup campaigns, but they were consistently out-shot over a period of 11 years in which they made the playoffs every single season. But the championship seasons are the most surprising:
| PIT | SF/G | GF/G | SPCTF | SA/G | GA/G | SPCTA | |
| 1990-92 | Reg | 31.0 | 4.3 | 13.8 | 32.7 | 3.8 | 11.7 |
| 1990-92 | Ply | 30.3 | 4.0 | 13.1 | 31.4 | 2.8 | 9.0 |
At best, these Penguins teams played their opponents to a draw at even-strength, and then dominated them on the power-play. Mario Lemieux, Mark Recchi, Kevin Stevens, Jaromir Jagr, Joe Mullen, Ron Francis, Rick Tocchet and even Phil Bourque all had shooting percentages in the 15-22% range.
#2. 1978-1984 New York Islanders. The Islanders dynasty was quite the antidote to the Montreal Canadiens dynasty that preceded it, teams that would routinely outshoot their opponents by 700 shots over the course of a season.
| SF/G | GF/G | SPCTF | SA/G | GA/G | SPCTA | ||
| 1978-84 | NYI | 29.7 | 4.2 | 14.3 | 30.6 | 3.0 | 9.9 |
The Islanders are on a slightly higher plain than the early-90s Penguins: thanks to good goaltending and outstanding shooters like Bryan Trottier and Mike Bossy, they outscored their opponents at even-strength and then absolutely dominated them on the power-play. We don't have full playoff shooting stats for this era, but we do know that Billy Smith was even better in the playoffs than he was during the regular season.
#1. 1983-90 Edmonton Oilers. Imagine your team could score at will. That's what the Edmonton Oilers were like. They'd put Wayne Gretzky and Paul Coffey out together and then mix-and-match with Jari Kurri, Glenn Anderson and Mark Messier. And everybody (except Coffey, because he'd take some shots from the point) would shoot over 20%, and the Oilers would be up 6-0 at the end of the first period, and the entire team could relax for the rest of the game, work on some skills, and not get to worked up over the other team outshooting them. Because it didn't really matter if you won 10-1 or 10-3, it was all the same. Later, it would be Messier's team with a different cast of characters, and everything would work out the same way.
| EDM | SF/G | GF/G | SPCTF | SA/G | GA/G | SPCTA | |
| 1983-90 | Reg | 30.4 | 4.8 | 15.8 | 31.3 | 3.7 | 11.9 |
| 1983-90 | Ply | 31.5 | 4.5 | 14.4 | 29.5 | 2.9 | 9.8 |
The Oilers, unlike the other teams I've looked at here, actually turned it up a notch in the playoffs and made sure they weren't outshot. Bearing down like that was helpful - after winning just 64% of their games during the regular season, they won 75% of their playoff games over a seven-year period - despite playing against the best teams in the league in the playoffs.
So yes, it's true - you can get outshot and still legitimately be one of the best teams in the league. All it takes is a dominant Hall-of-Fame goaltender, or two lines full of high-percentage scorers. Otherwise, the future looks cloudy with a chance of regression to the mean.
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Awesome Historical Facts
This is really cool stuff, and I think the real question become what seperates teams like the Islanders and Oilers from the 70s Canadiens and 90s/00s Red Wings, teams that dominated by dominating the shot board. I’m assuming the Canadiens dominated both the shot counts AND the percentages. The Red Wings are different in that they didn’t have offensive talent that was heads and shoulders above the rest of the league, nor goaltending at that level either.
From 1975-79, the Canadiens outshot their opponents 33.6-26.1. Their shooting percentage was 13.2% vs 8.7% for their opponents. They outscored their opponents 2.37:1 overall and 2.37:1 on the power-play. But they were a far more dominant regular season team – 229 wins in 4 years vs 212 in the Oilers best 4.
How about the five worst teams that outshot their opp?
I can sort of understand a team with so much scoring talent that they would tilt the %‘s. Granted the fact that you’d have to combine said scoring talent with other abilities like speed, hockey sense, strength to win battles, etc… we’re talking several generational talents on the same team which isn’t happening right now, not even Pittsburgh nor Detroit I would say.
But what about teams that could hold territorial advantage to such a degree that you would think they were dominant, but they just had zero finish? Or maybe goaltending so bad that it negated every and all advantages brought about by outshooting?
Oh and to add a little point to this whole discussion:
How do players improve from rookies to vets in terms of shooting % vs. taking shots? I know the latter is very much linked to gaining territorial advantage which takes up a big chunk of my idea of “difference-making”. And I know that players DO improve with time in this regard, just do. I’ve not seen anything to say one way or the other whether a player’s finish improves with experience.
Awesome.
And in terms of R O’s query regarding territorially dominant yet mediocre teams, the 06-07 Leafs come to mind as a recent example (although I’m not certain whether they’re exceptional in a historical context).
They were 2nd only to Detroit in terms of EV shot ratio (both with the score tied and in general), yet finished around even in terms of goal differential due to terrible goaltending and terrible penalty killing. They didn’t even make the playoffs.
The numbers didn’t lie, either. Having watched all eight Leafs-Habs game played that season, I can tell you that they were an exceptionally good team at keeping the puck in the other teams end.
Living in the west I don’t get to watch the Leafs as much, but when I have seen them they just strike me as a damn good team on the ice. Their recent game against Vancouver was like watching boys against men, surely the front office sees the disconnect between how the skaters play and how the goals against shake out and have thought about acquiring proven goaltenders… right?
well, they did go after “Tha Monstah”, so they recognized their problem in goal. You don’t trade your draft picks for Phil Kessel if you think you have the worst team in the league.
I don’t know much about players in other leagues in general, that’s more your forte I believe. But the goaltender UFA market this season was replete with guys who’ve already played in the NHL and have put together track records of varying magnitude (Anderson, Biron, Roloson, Khabibulin, etc. etc.). I mean, any one of these options is surely a safer bet than Gustavsson, right? Right???
Sometimes I wonder about NHL GMs.
by R O on Nov 3, 2009 3:41 PM EST up reply actions
Gustavsson was the lowest-cost, highest-ceiling pick (though his cap hit is large). And his save percentage in Sweden was outrageous. But the most desperate teams – Colorado and NYI – got good goaltending for reasonable prices.
I think Ron Wilson actually believed in Toskala a little bit. He’s had the guy as his goalie for years. The rest of us aren’t swayed.
Yeah, as a Sabres fan who went through those years and remember it well, those teams in the late 90’s were TERRIBLE except for Hasek.
They got by on Hasek, hard work, and timely scoring.
At the same time, those Sabres teams also played generally great zone defense and blocked a ton of shots. They were routinely beaten on the shot board but I can’t even imagine how negative their Corsi ratings were. The number of shots that either got blocked or missed every game was enormous.
Imagine how good that team could have been if it had players better than Brian Holzinger, Curtis Brown, Geoff Sanderson, and Steve Heinze leading the attack.
by HarryNeale'sGarden on Nov 4, 2009 10:28 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, at times
Hasek was the closest thing to a one-man team I’ve ever seen. When he left Buffalo, the team went into the dumper. I hope Ryan Miller never has to carry the load as much as Hasek had to do.
by ccthemovieman on Nov 5, 2009 10:57 AM EST up reply actions

by 





















