If creating chances isn't the issue, then it's got to be converting chances, right?
I think what we're finding is that all NHL players aren't the same. Why we didn't know this already is beyond me, yet here we are. A grade-A chance generated for Phil DiGiuseppe does not equal a grade-A chance created for Timo Meier. A grade-A chance created for Jordan Staal does not equal a grade-A chance for Joe Pavelski, etc.
For example, let's say we have 20 scoring chances in a game and our opponent has 15. Our 20 chances break down like this: McGinn 4, Wallmark 3, Staal 3, Martinook 2, Aho 2, Teravainen 2, Foegele 1, Faulk 1, DiGuiseppe 1, Svechnikov 1. Our offensive style is set up to create chances for guys who can't score. But of course, all we have is players who can't score. So, it's not the style, it's the players? Yeah, we need better goal scorers. But what we can do is a better job of putting players with better scoring ability (Svechnikov, Teravainen, Ferland when he's healthy) in the positions that are currently occupied by McGinn, Staal, etc., in an effort to convert more chances, but in the end, we have very limited options currently under contract.
Meanwhile, our opponents' break down like this: Meier 3, Hertl 3, Pavelski 2, Burns 2, Karlsson 2, Kane 1, Sorensen 1, Goodrow 1.
Who do you think is going to convert more of their chances?
We've tried to "Moneyball" the system by not paying top $$ for goal-scorers, thinking that guys who possess the puck and generate chances, but who struggle to score, are undervalued. The thinking is that the goals will be a natural result of having several of these players on the same team, dominating possession and shot generation. We're (hopefully) learning that it doesn't work and that shooting percentage is a skill, and not a product of luck.