Real data. Everything on this page is computed from actual games.
Spare Line Change
Numbers from
Hits and takeaways
at

WSH

Washington Capitals

1-0-0

TBL

Tampa Bay Lightning

0-1-0

Has last change

Saturday, October 3

7:00 PM ET · Benchmark International Arena

The short version

Before the game

The Capitals give up good looks, and the Lightning take them

The Capitals come in at 1-0-0, the Lightning at 0-1-0. Tampa Bay has had more of the chances over recent games, Washington is playing for the second night in a row, and Tampa Bay has home ice. Washington’s only real way in is getting good looks, and they would need a near-perfect night.

The Capitals come in at 1-0-0, the Lightning at 0-1-0. Tampa Bay has had more of the chances over recent games, Washington is playing for the second night in a row, and Tampa Bay has home ice. Washington could still pull it off if they get good looks, but they might need a miracle.

The Lightning make their shots count, and the Capitals allow dangerous ones. The Lightning and the Capitals sit at opposite ends for forecheck pressure.

Who to watch

  • Haunts themBrandon Hagel has six goals in nine games against Washington since 2023-24.
  • Haunts themAlex Tuch has seven goals in eleven games against Tampa Bay since 2023-24, most of them with Buffalo.

  1. The Capitals give up good looks, and the Lightning take them

    The Capitals have struggled to prevent dangerous shots, and the Lightning don’t waste many.

    The call The Lightning’s average shot has at least their usual 6.5% chance of going in.

    Tampa Bay 7th for shot quality (a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Washington 24th for preventing dangerous shots

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 1 and 1 games this season

  2. The Lightning hound the puck; the Capitals sit back

    On forecheck pressure, Tampa Bay is near the top of the league and Washington is one of the league’s worst. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Lightning put more forecheck pressure on than the Capitals.

    Forecheck pressure: Tampa Bay 9th, Washington 30th

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 1 and 1 games this season

These calls are written by fixed rules from the numbers below, and saved as they stand at puck drop. After the game, each one will be checked against what happened.

Style fingerprints

How Washington and Tampa Bay play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Washington CapitalsTampa Bay LightningLeague averageLikely range

Each scale runs from the league’s lowest team on the left to its highest on the right. Numbers blend last season with the 1 and 1 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 1 games for Washington, 1 for Tampa Bay. Expect these to swing a lot, which is why the likely ranges are so wide.

The biggest differences

Show all 18 traitsHide the full set

Offense

  • Shot volume
    SelectiveRelentless

    • Washington: 58.0 shot attempts per 6015th of 32

      Washington: 59.8 shot attempts per 6011th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 58.9 shot attempts per 6011th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 57.5 shot attempts per 6014th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Washington: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot4th of 32

      Washington: a 9.5% chance of scoring on the average shot2nd of 32

    • Tampa Bay: a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot7th of 32

      Tampa Bay: a 6.0% chance of scoring on the average shot17th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Washington: 10.5% of chances come from rebounds5th of 32

      Washington: 28.0% of chances come from rebounds4th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 10.5% of chances come from rebounds8th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 11.7% of chances come from rebounds8th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Washington: 7.2% of chances come right after a turnover21st of 32

      Washington: 0.1% of chances come right after a turnover30th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 6.8% of chances come right after a turnover25th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 9.1% of chances come right after a turnover12th of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Washington: 35.0% of shot attempts come from defensemen16th of 32

      Washington: 34.2% of shot attempts come from defensemen13th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 35.6% of shot attempts come from defensemen9th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 38.1% of shot attempts come from defensemen5th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Washington: 31.8% of shots come from within 20 feet5th of 32

      Washington: 37.9% of shots come from within 20 feet5th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 32.2% of shots come from within 20 feet3rd of 32

      Tampa Bay: 56.0% of shots come from within 20 feet1st of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Washington: 58.7 shot attempts allowed per 6024th of 32

      Washington: 62.8 shot attempts allowed per 6025th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 53.1 shot attempts allowed per 605th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 63.3 shot attempts allowed per 6026th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Washington: a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot against24th of 32

      Washington: a 5.2% chance of scoring on the average shot against7th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot against15th of 32

      Tampa Bay: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot against23rd of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Washington: 0.50 defensive breakdowns per 6032nd of 32

      Washington: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 0.42 defensive breakdowns per 6023rd of 32

      Tampa Bay: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Washington: +0.26 goals saved above expected per 601st of 32

      Washington: +1.69 goals saved above expected per 602nd of 32

    • Tampa Bay: +0.18 goals saved above expected per 606th of 32

      Tampa Bay: −1.50 goals saved above expected per 6026th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Washington: 82.8 shots per 60, both teams combined13th of 32

      Washington: 84.7 shots per 60, both teams combined13th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 80.8 shots per 60, both teams combined22nd of 32

      Tampa Bay: 77.9 shots per 60, both teams combined18th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Washington: forecheck score 85 (100 is league average)30th of 32Washington: 19.3 forecheck plays recorded per 6028th of 32

      Washington: forecheck score 46 (100 is league average)31st of 32Washington: 12.4 forecheck plays recorded per 6031st of 32

    • Tampa Bay: forecheck score 103 (100 is league average)9th of 32Tampa Bay: 23.0 forecheck plays recorded per 6010th of 32

      Tampa Bay: forecheck score 134 (100 is league average)4th of 32Tampa Bay: 34.2 forecheck plays recorded per 604th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Washington: hit score 98 (100 is league average)17th of 32Washington: 25.8 hits recorded per 6018th of 32

      Washington: hit score 114 (100 is league average)7th of 32Washington: 37.7 hits recorded per 608th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: hit score 118 (100 is league average)4th of 32Tampa Bay: 30.9 hits recorded per 604th of 32

      Tampa Bay: hit score 201 (100 is league average)1st of 32Tampa Bay: 65.1 hits recorded per 601st of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Washington: 42.4% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six13th of 32

      Washington: 46.6% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six2nd of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 41.5% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six21st of 32

      Tampa Bay: 44.3% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six12th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Washington: 7.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play24th of 32

      Washington: 3.8 expected goals per 60 on the power play24th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 7.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play21st of 32

      Tampa Bay: 2.6 expected goals per 60 on the power play30th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Washington: 8.1 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded26th of 32

      Washington: 10.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded27th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 7.3 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded11th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 7.6 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded20th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Washington: 0.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded26th of 32

      Washington: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded22nd of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 0.8 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded21st of 32

      Tampa Bay: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded25th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Washington: 0.12 more penalties taken than drawn per 6026th of 32

      Washington: 4.00 more penalties taken than drawn per 6030th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 0.10 more penalties drawn than taken per 6010th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 6.00 more penalties drawn than taken per 601st of 32

Forecheck pressure and physicality are arena-adjusted scores; switch “Hits and takeaways” to Raw in the settings to see the numbers as recorded. How the arena adjustment works.

Lines and deployment

Tampa Bay is at home, so their coach changes last and chooses who plays against whom.

How good, against the same line or pair on other teamsHow much, low to high (not good or bad)

Lines and pairs are numbered by 5-on-5 ice time together over each team’s last 10 games (1 and 1 so far), with each older game counting half as much as the one after it, so the latest combinations come first. With so few games, each group’s results are pulled toward the average for its line number.

Washington Capitals

Tampa Bay Lightning

Who Tampa Bay is likely to send against whom

Tampa Bay has not played at home yet this season, so there is no matching habit to show.

Special teams

Each power play set against the penalty killers it will face.

Show

Washington power play against Tampa Bay penalty kill

  • Washington power play

    7.3 expected goals per 60 · 24th of 32

  • Tampa Bay penalty kill

    7.3 expected goals allowed per 60 · 11th of 32

Washington power play

PP175% of the time

Creates 6.7 expected goals per 60

  • J. ChychrunQuarterback
  • D. StromeDistributor
  • P. DuboisNet-front
  • A. OvechkinTrigger
  • T. WilsonNet-front

PP225% of the time

Creates 6.7 expected goals per 60

  • C. HutsonQuarterback
  • I. Protas
  • J. Kyrou
  • R. LeonardTrigger
  • A. Tuch

 

Where Washington’s last 140 power-play shots came from. Bigger dots are more dangerous.

Tampa Bay penalty kill

Starts the kill

Second wave

Units and penalty-kill roles use each team’s last 10 games; power-play role tags use this season and last, counting only games with the player’s current team; the map shows the last 140 power-play shots. Point at a power-play name to see his shots on the map.

Goaltending

Is each goalie stopping more than he should, and what is his team asking him to face?

Showagainst

L. Thompson58 starts · 1620 shots, this season and last

+39.1 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.977 816 shots
Medium-danger save %
.900 548 shots
High-danger save %
.734 256 shots
Shots faced per 60
27.7
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.51
Quality starts
69%

Helping, or hung out to dry?

System and goalie both goodGoalie bailing them outGoalie giving back what the system earnsTrouble everywhereTeam allows fewer chances ← → more chancesL. ThompsonA. Vasilevskiy

A. Vasilevskiy58 starts · 1509 shots, this season and last

+23.7 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.968 753 shots
Medium-danger save %
.885 523 shots
High-danger save %
.777 233 shots
Shots faced per 60
26
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.48
Quality starts
72%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • L. Thompson: +39.1 goals saved above expected in 58 starts
    • A. Vasilevskiy: +23.7 goals saved above expected in 58 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • L. Thompson: 27.7 shots faced per 60
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 26 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • L. Thompson: the average shot he faces has a 7.2% chance of going in
    • A. Vasilevskiy: the average shot he faces has a 7.1% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • L. Thompson: 0.51 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 0.48 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • L. Thompson: a typical wait of 73 seconds between shots
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a typical wait of 75 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • L. Thompson: a quality start 69% of the time
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a quality start 72% of the time

L. Thompson, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

A. Vasilevskiy, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

L. Thompson1 start · 33 shots, this season

+1.7 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate

Low-danger save %
1.000 12 shots
Medium-danger save %
.933 15 shots
High-danger save %
.833 6 shots
Shots faced per 60
33.1
Defensive breakdowns per 60
1
Quality starts
100%

Helping, or hung out to dry?

System and goalie both goodGoalie bailing them outGoalie giving back what the system earnsTrouble everywhereTeam allows fewer chances ← → more chancesL. ThompsonA. Vasilevskiy

A. Vasilevskiy1 start · 24 shots, this season

−1.4 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate

Low-danger save %
.875 8 shots
Medium-danger save %
.889 9 shots
High-danger save %
.714 7 shots
Shots faced per 60
25.8
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
0%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • L. Thompson: +1.7 goals saved above expected in 1 start (too few starts to place)
    • A. Vasilevskiy: −1.4 goals saved above expected in 1 start (too few starts to place)
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • L. Thompson: 33.1 shots faced per 60 (too few starts to place)
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 25.8 shots faced per 60 (too few starts to place)
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • L. Thompson: the average shot he faces has a 7.1% chance of going in (too few starts to place)
    • A. Vasilevskiy: the average shot he faces has a 8.1% chance of going in (too few starts to place)
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • L. Thompson: 1 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60 (too few starts to place)
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60 (too few starts to place)
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • L. Thompson: a typical wait of 67 seconds between shots (too few starts to place)
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a typical wait of 84 seconds between shots (too few starts to place)
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • L. Thompson: a quality start 100% of the time (too few starts to place)
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a quality start 0% of the time (too few starts to place)

L. Thompson, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

A. Vasilevskiy, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

The menus list every goalie on each team, busiest this season first; the site does not yet know who will start. Expected-goal models can’t see passes before a shot, so a goalie whose team gives up many cross-ice passes looks worse here than he really is.

Where the goals come from

How each team’s goals are scored, or allowed, against the league average.

Show goals
WashingtonTampa BayLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play55.3%57%
  • Power play16.2%18.2%
  • Rebound12%7.3%
  • Empty net9.4%7.6%
  • Off a turnover3%5%
  • Goalie pulled1.9%2%
  • Shorthanded1.1%1.7%
  • Off a faceoff win1.1%1.3%

266 Washington goals and 302 Tampa Bay goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play60%100%
  • Power play20%0%
  • Rebound20%0%
  • Empty net0%0%
  • Off a turnover0%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

5 Washington goals and 1 Tampa Bay goals scored this season. Each row has its own scale.

These mixes are mostly luck: over three seasons, teams’ goals came from much the same places, and most of the differences here didn’t last. Each team page shows how much luck alone can move each row.

Data notes

Team pages: Washington Capitals · Tampa Bay Lightning