To those pointing out that scoring chances are a flawed stat, I'd agree, but the results are essentially the same if you use expected goals.
How many shots are we generating and conceding? (shot attempts per 60 minutes)
CF/60: 63.63 (2nd)
CA/60: 56.33 (14th)
We direct a ton of pucks towards the other team's net, while allowing a league-average amount of shots against.
How dangerous are our shots for and against? (expected goals per shot attempt)
xGF/CF: 0.0401 (24th)
xGA/CA: 0.0398 (8th)
On average, the shots we take are
slightly more dangerous than the shots we allow, but in both directions they aren't very dangerous.
How often is the puck actually going in? (goals per expected goal)
GF/xGF: 0.890 (27th)
GA/xGA: 0.981 (14th)
On average, our shots aren't going in as often as they "should" be. The other team's shots are going in about as often as they should be.
So overall:
- Offensively: we generate a ton of shot attempts in the other team's zone. However, our shots aren't very dangerous overall, and even accounting for that, we're scoring fewer goals that we should be.
- Defensively: we allow a pretty average amount of zone time, but we do a good job limiting the quality of the shots against, and our goaltending has been overall league-average
Now, that totally ignores our special teams, which are a whole other mess. But 5-on-5, we've already got a positive goal differential (+2) despite struggling to finish the chances we get. If our goals/xgoal ratio normalized to 1 (which would still only rank 18th), we'd have a 5-on-5 differential of +9 which would rank 3rd league-wide.