I don't know the answer to this, but I suspect it depends on what you mean by "good" and "poor" teams.
We can characterise the outcome of any game as depending on some combination of the relative strengths of the two teams playing, and random factors unrelated to their strengths. Clearly stronger teams will win more games than weaker teams, but all else held equal teams that win are also likely to have been luckier than teams that don't---that is, more of the random factors happened to go their way. One implication of this is that the higher on the ladder a team is, the luckier they are likely to have been over the course of the season to date. As more games are completed, this luck factor should average out, leaving the strength factor to become more prominent in determining ladder position. Nonetheless, irrespective of the time of the season, the teams that are higher on the ladder are likely to have been luckier than the teams that are lower on the ladder. One of the factors that contributes to this "luckiness" is the variability inherent in goalkicking. So, if we define a "good" team as one that has won many games and is high on the ladder, then yes, we should expect them to fare relatively well when considering actual vs. expected scores.
On the other hand, one aspect of a team's strength may be their relative goalkicking accuracy. We know that some players are relatively accurate shots at goal (e.g., Tory Dickson), and others are relatively inaccurate (e.g., Aaron Naughton). If a team happens to have a greater number of accurate goalkickers, then we would expect them to exceed expected accuracy as a result of this, rather than simply due to randomness. This may be part of what makes them a successful team.
On the third hand (pay no attention to the bloke with the bleeding stump standing behind me; he was already like that), there may be a trade-off between having players in a team who are better shots for goal, and having players who excel in other areas. This means that the relative strength gained by having accurate shots on the team may be compensated for by a relative weakness in other areas of the game (e.g., marking ability, running speed, quality of post-goal celebrations). Would you rather players who can kick goals when they get the ball, but have trouble getting it, or players who have the ball on a string but can't hit the side of a barn door? In a competitive environment it would be surprising if there were a dominant option there; though certain game styles may result in relatively different preferences across different teams.
Anyway, that's my rambling two cents.
