{"id":424272,"date":"2026-01-23T21:12:11","date_gmt":"2026-01-23T21:12:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/nhl\/424272\/"},"modified":"2026-01-23T21:12:11","modified_gmt":"2026-01-23T21:12:11","slug":"devils-season-defined-by-odd-trend-the-hockey-writers-new-jersey-devils","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/nhl\/424272\/","title":{"rendered":"Devils’ Season Defined by Odd Trend – The Hockey Writers – New Jersey Devils"},"content":{"rendered":"

It\u2019s no secret that the 2025-26 New Jersey Devils<\/a> have struggled to score goals consistently. Per Natural Stat Trick<\/a>, their 1.94 goals per 60 minutes (GF\/60) at 5v5 ranks dead last in the league\u2026and it\u2019s not even really that close. Every other NHL team scores goals at least 6.2% more often.<\/p>\n

Related: Devils\u2019 Prospect Stock Market: Yegorov, Fondrk & More<\/a><\/p>\n

Through covering the team, I\u2019ve watched all 2,506 minutes and 42 seconds of the Devils\u2019 5v5 time this season. I honestly don\u2019t really feel like they\u2019ve regularly been outplayed, yet the results have been extremely underwhelming. Something just hasn\u2019t added up\u2026<\/p>\n

So naturally, I did what any sane person would do: took out a calculator and got to three straight hours of number crunching. <\/p>\n

This Devils Trend Makes Little Sense<\/p>\n

Quickly: before getting into it, it should be reasonable to expect a team to (mostly) win the games where they out-chance the opponent and lose the ones where they get out-chanced. Of course, that won\u2019t always be the case, but it should be a general theme. Right!?!?<\/p>\n

In the Devils\u2019 losses \u2014 games they\u2019re 0-22-2 in \u2014 their cumulative scoring chance differential is plus-25. That\u2019s right: in losses. If just five of those were victories, they could be staring at a 31-17-2 record \u2014 fourth in the Eastern Conference instead of 11th (and just two points behind the first-place Carolina Hurricanes).<\/p>\n

But it gets even weirder. In wins \u2014 games they\u2019re 26-0-0 in \u2014 their scoring chance differential is a whopping minus-51. They\u2019ve often had fewer chances than the opposition in games where they walked away with two whole points. <\/p>\n

So, why are they seemingly winning games where they get out chanced\u2026yet losing games where they have more chances? Let\u2019s break it down.<\/p>\n

Finishing is Major Issue<\/p>\n

Natural Stat Trick\u2019s statistic called \u201cgoals above\/below expected\u201d gives us a better look at how finishing impacts a team. For the season, the Devils have scored 81 goals on 107.61 expected goals at 5v5. That means if they finished at a league-average rate, they should have scored ~26-27 more goals this season based on the chances they created. That figure \u2014 26.61 goals below expected \u2014 is the worst in the league by a fairly wide margin. The Vancouver Canucks are second-worst at 20.60.<\/p>\n

Of course, this is backed up by the much simpler stat of shooting percentage, where the Devils\u2019 81 5v5 goals on 1,157 shots comes out to exactly 7% \u2014 the worst in the NHL. 12 teams are over 10%, which doesn\u2019t seem like a big difference, but that would be an extra 28 goals this season; pretty in-line with what the advanced numbers say.<\/p>\n

\"JesperJesper Bratt, New Jersey Devils (Jess Starr<\/a>\/The Hockey Writers)<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s go deeper into their 5v5 production by wins and losses. In their 26 wins, the Devils have scored 57 goals on 565 shots (10.1%). That all came on 50.21 expected goals \u2014 a total of plus-6.79 above expected. Positive finishing!<\/p>\n

Now get ready for this. That means in 24 losses, they\u2019ve scored 24 goals on 592 shots (4.1%) \u2014 a mind-boggling 33.40 below expected. On average, that\u2019s 1.40 goals lost per game due to finishing struggles. Just think about how many more points they could have had by scoring an extra goal (or two) per game.<\/p>\n

This all led me to question: is there something inherently different about the process in wins, compared to losses, that has an impact on finishing? <\/p>\n

I started by looking at just shots on goal (SOG); the Devils averaged 24.66 SOG in losses, but 21.73 SOG in wins. Hmmm, interesting. Is there a difference in the quality of those shots?<\/p>\n

In wins, the Devils have 230 total high danger (HD) scoring chances \u2014 8.8 per game. Of those, 135 have been on net (58.7%) and 29 have found the back of the net (21.4 shooting %).<\/p>\n

In losses, they have 229 HD chances \u2014 9.5 per game, once again more than wins. Here\u2019s the kicker. Of those, 146 have been on net (63.7%) \u2014 actually a much higher percentage than wins \u2014 but just 10 have found the back of the net (6.8 shooting %).<\/p>\n

This means that in losses, just 4.3% of their HD chances have turned into goals. That all confirms what we see with the eye test: it\u2019s not like they\u2019re missing the net entirely. Instead, they\u2019re constantly putting Grade-A chances into the chest or pads of the netminder, making their lives ridiculously easy. <\/p>\n

While the Devils absolutely need to add a finisher, they\u2019re way too talented to be this bad in the shooting department. There\u2019s certainly a confidence issue at play; head coach Sheldon Keefe said as much after a recent loss<\/a>: \u201cWhen you\u2019re not feeling it, instead of the puck kind of going post and in, you end up kind of overthinking it and hitting the goalie in the chest.\u201d<\/p>\n

But it does seem like the process plays a role, too. Based on these numbers, it would appear that trying to pick a spot works better than making sure everything is on net. This is potentially confirmed by maybe the most eye-popping stat amongst all of this\u2026When the Devils are outshooting their opponents, they\u2019re 11-16-2. When they get out-shot, they\u2019re 13-4-0. Woah.<\/p>\n

Power Play Has Done No Favors<\/p>\n

Of course, all of this is at 5v5. What about the power play? They haven\u2019t done any favors either, with 25 goals on 34.63 expected goals \u2014 minus-9.63 below expected. Their 20.3% success rate is 16th in the NHL.<\/p>\n

Compare that to last season, where their power play finished at roughly an average rate \u2014 61 goals on 61.94 expected goals \u2014 which placed them third in the NHL (28.2%). If their man advantage finished like they did last season, which is still slightly below average, they\u2019d be third instead of 16th in the league, at 27.6%.<\/p>\n

Between 5v5 and the power play, that\u2019s 36.24 goals below expected. Average finishing would\u2019ve moved their goal differential from minus-20 (27th in NHL) to plus-16 (7th in NHL). That\u2019s the difference between a playoff lock\/cup contender versus a playoff hopeful (the Devils have just a 19.8% chance to make the playoffs, per Moneypuck<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The icing on the cake is that despite what some believe, their goaltending has been a net positive. They\u2019ve allowed 110 goals on 113.21 expected goals (plus-3.21 goals saved above expected), and their team save percentage of .894% is 15th in the NHL. The narrative used to be that league average goaltending would make the Devils a cup contender. Now, prime Martin Brodeur<\/a> might not even make up for their finishing woes.<\/p>\n

The good thing is that the Devils are still in it. They currently sit just five points back of the New York Islanders for third place in the Metropolitan Division, and there are still 32 games to go. But while the best time to add a finisher was a month or two ago, the next best time is now.<\/p>\n

\"SUBSCRIBE<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

\t\t