Most consecutive games with 30+ shots in NHL History

[SnowblindNYR]

Not sure if this should go here or the history board. Anyway, I saw a graphic that the Rangers have had 30+ shots in 10 consecutive games which surprised me a little (though I knew they were doing well). Does anyone know what the record is for consecutive 30+ shot games?

Click to read more...

 

[hatterson]

I'm not sure of a place to search for streaks, but you may start with teams on this list:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

That would be the most games in a season with 30+ shots. Clearly with 71 games at or above 30 shots you'd assume the 08-09 Wings and 93-94 Bruins would have amassed a decent streak in there although it's possible they went 9 on 1 off for the entire season.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I'm not sure of a place to search for streaks, but you may start with teams on this list:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

That would be the most games in a season with 30+ shots. Clearly with 71 games at or above 30 shots you'd assume the 08-09 Wings and 93-94 Bruins would have amassed a decent streak in there although it's possible they went 9 on 1 off for the entire season.

71 games! That's ridiculous! I didn't think 10 straight games was the record obviously (it was snapped, btw), but 71 games just sounds amazing. Surprised that the 08-09 Wings were better at it than the 07-08 Wings, and that the Bruins didn't make it farther than they did.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

A couple of things stand out, the 07-08 Wings only had 59, 12 fewer than the 08-09 Wings, shocking. The 95-96 juggernaut Wings had only 53. For comparison sake, the Rangers are on pace for 53 this year. I can't believe it was that low.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Too bad the research only goes back to the late 80's. I'd like to see what some of those early 80's Oilers, late 70's Habs and early 70's Bruins accomplished. It appears to me anyway, that shots on goal averages are higher since the 04-05 lockout than at anytime in NHL history? Anyone have any stats on this to verify?

 

[Fred Taylor]

Too bad the research only goes back to the late 80's. I'd like to see what some of those early 80's Oilers, late 70's Habs and early 70's Bruins accomplished. It appears to me anyway, that shots on goal averages are higher since the 04-05 lockout than at anytime in NHL history? Anyone have any stats on this to verify?

I think you're correct. It atleast seems that more than ever now teams are just trying to throw as many shots on goal as they can in hopes for a deflection or a lucky bounce/rebound.

 

[BM67]

Shots per/60 per team including ENG from compiled SOG/SV% numbers.

1952-53 28.40
1953-54 29.55
1954-55 29.52
1955-56 30.01
1956-57 29.87
1957-58 31.05
1958-59 30.39
1959-60 31.51
1960-61 32.28
1961-62 31.68
1962-63 32.00
1963-64 32.85
1964-65 31.23
1965-66 29.28
1966-67 31.86
1967-68 30.39
1968-69 32.14
1969-70 32.66
1970-71 31.88
1971-72 30.98
1972-73 31.10
1973-74 30.31
1974-75 30.80
1975-76 30.60
1976-77 30.02
1977-78 29.29
1978-79 29.39
1979-80 29.39
1980-81 30.51
1981-82 31.11
1982-83 30.56
1983-84 30.27
1984-85 30.20
1985-86 30.73
1986-87 29.64
1987-88 30.08
1988-89 30.01
1989-90 29.89
1990-91 29.41
1991-92 30.10
1992-93 30.66
1993-94 30.00
1994-95 28.99
1995-96 29.87
1996-97 29.39
1997-98 26.93
1998-99 27.47
1999-00 27.57
2000-01 27.33
2001-02 27.20
2002-03 27.91
2003-04 27.59

My H/R split data shows a range of 28.73 to 30.01 SOG/60 without ENG included since 03-04. Here

 

[Sadekuuro]

A couple of things stand out, the 07-08 Wings only had 59, 12 fewer than the 08-09 Wings, shocking. The 95-96 juggernaut Wings had only 53. For comparison sake, the Rangers are on pace for 53 this year. I can't believe it was that low.

The 08-09 Red Wings played a much lazier defensive game [in the regular season] than the 07-08 edition and gave up more goals, which probably necessitated more shots in order to win at a similar clip.

The 95-96 team was the model of efficiency. They didn't need 30 shots every night to beat you.

 

[silkyjohnson50]

The 08-09 Red Wings played a much lazier defensive game [in the regular season] than the 07-08 edition and gave up more goals, which probably necessitated more shots in order to win at a similar clip.

The 95-96 team was the model of efficiency. They didn't need 30 shots every night to beat you.

Yeah, the 07-08 squad gave up a significantly fewer amount of shots and just seemed to control the game more. That team could just put the clamps on opponents and simply keep the puck away from everybody. Best puck possession team from start to finish that I've ever personally seen.

Obviously coming off a Cup and being the heavy favorites again with the addition of Hossa, the 08-09 team probably lost some of their regular season work ethic on the defensive side of the puck and just figured they could simply out-skill and outscore teams, which they pretty much could.

I do wonder if splitting Datsyuk and Zetterberg had any effect on it though. There 07-08 season as a line from a Corsi, shots for/against standpoint was the most dominant season you can find since advanced stats have been recorded, and they often did it against the opposing teams' top line.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The 08-09 Red Wings played a much lazier defensive game [in the regular season] than the 07-08 edition and gave up more goals, which probably necessitated more shots in order to win at a similar clip.

The 95-96 team was the model of efficiency. They didn't need 30 shots every night to beat you.

So doesn't that sort of go against advanced statistics theory? Seems like a lot of people believe that actual shot quantity is what's most important because teams can't really mitigate for shot quality. I've read a few times "there's no evidence to suggest that any defensemen are better than others at preventing top scoring chances against". A poster on the Rangers board showed the team save % with Rangers' D-men and it was quite random (i.e. best D-men didn't necessarily have the best save % with them on the ice). So I would think that this works the other way too, no? It should be random on offense too, since the D-men don't really affect the shot quality against. Or is this an example of stats being misleading and advanced stats proponents taking them too literally?

 

[Sadekuuro]

So doesn't that sort of go against advanced statistics theory? Seems like a lot of people believe that actual shot quantity is what's most important because teams can't really mitigate for shot quality. I've read a few times "there's no evidence to suggest that any defensemen are better than others at preventing top scoring chances against". A poster on the Rangers board showed the team save % with Rangers' D-men and it was quite random (i.e. best D-men didn't necessarily have the best save % with them on the ice). So I would think that this works the other way too, no? It should be random on offense too, since the D-men don't really affect the shot quality against. Or is this an example of stats being misleading and advanced stats proponents taking them too literally?

Admittedly, I hadn't thought a lot about this and was just giving my impressions as a longtime DRW fan. However, I suspect that there is sufficient variation between the playing styles of individual players and individual teams to obviate a consistent relationship. Some defenders will block your shot (and some teams will make that the game plan for the whole team), while others will steer you to an area where your shot still gets on net but is relatively harmless. Some forwards are volume shooters while others only pull the trigger when they have an open cage. Looking at the same player or players over time may well yield more consistent results, but I'm skeptical about more general rules.

For the 95-96 Red Wings specifically, that was the year the Russian Five played together as a unit regularly. That group was more likely to make the extra pass looking for the perfect play than just fling it on net, to put it mildly.

I don't think the best defensemen necessarily will have the best on-ice sv%. Even as certain styles of defense would seem to make it more likely, there's a lot of other variation at play. But I don't think there's much question that defensemen do often directly impact the quality of the chance.

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

But I don't think there's much question that defensemen do often directly impact the quality of the chance.

The correlation for "on-ice minus off-ice" even strength save percentage from one independent sample to another, for individual defensemen, is zero.

 

[Cloned]

For the poster asking about the 80's Oilers:

The 80's Oilers didn't routinely run up a lot of shots. They were actually outshot for a significant amount of their regular season games. Difference being that they generated extremely HQ scoring chances on the shots they did have.