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

MTL

Montréal Canadiens

1-0-0

PIT

Pittsburgh Penguins

1-0-0

Has last change

Saturday, October 3

7:00 PM ET · PPG Paints Arena

The short version

Before the game

Quality over quantity for the Penguins

The Canadiens come in at 1-0-0, the Penguins at 1-0-0. The two have been about even at controlling the play lately and Pittsburgh has home ice. Montréal can still swing it if they get good looks.

The Canadiens come in at 1-0-0, the Penguins at 1-0-0. The two have been about even at controlling the play lately and Pittsburgh has home ice. Montréal’s best way to tip it is getting good looks.

The Penguins make their shots count, and the Canadiens allow dangerous ones.

Who to watch

  • Haunts themChris Kreider has five goals in eight games against Pittsburgh since 2023-24, most of them with the Rangers.
  • Leads the wayAlexandre Carrier leads the Canadiens with two points.

  1. Quality over quantity for the Penguins

    The Penguins make their shots count, and the Canadiens are one of the league’s worst at preventing dangerous shots. Expect the Penguins to get some real chances.

    The call The Penguins’ average shot has at least their usual 6.7% chance of going in.

    Pittsburgh 5th for shot quality (a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Montréal 30th for preventing dangerous shots

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

  2. Special teams lean toward the Penguins

    The Canadiens’ penalty kill is near the bottom of the league, and the Penguins’ power play is near the top of the league. Discipline matters more than usual for the Canadiens tonight.

    The call The Penguins’ power play creates at least their usual 7.6 expected goals per 60.

    Pittsburgh 10th for power play (7.6 expected goals per 60) · Montréal 27th for penalty kill

    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 Montréal and Pittsburgh play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Montréal CanadiensPittsburgh PenguinsLeague 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 Montréal, 1 for Pittsburgh. 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

    • Montréal: 54.7 shot attempts per 6020th of 32

      Montréal: 53.9 shot attempts per 6018th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 62.2 shot attempts per 604th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 75.4 shot attempts per 602nd of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Montréal: a 6.8% chance of scoring on the average shot2nd of 32

      Montréal: a 7.6% chance of scoring on the average shot6th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot5th of 32

      Pittsburgh: a 7.2% chance of scoring on the average shot8th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Montréal: 10.2% of chances come from rebounds18th of 32

      Montréal: 34.0% of chances come from rebounds2nd of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 10.0% of chances come from rebounds26th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 2.0% of chances come from rebounds25th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Montréal: 6.9% of chances come right after a turnover23rd of 32

      Montréal: 16.5% of chances come right after a turnover4th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 7.5% of chances come right after a turnover12th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 5.7% of chances come right after a turnover18th of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Montréal: 33.2% of shot attempts come from defensemen23rd of 32

      Montréal: 27.5% of shot attempts come from defensemen24th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 33.5% of shot attempts come from defensemen21st of 32

      Pittsburgh: 36.5% of shot attempts come from defensemen9th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Montréal: 30.6% of shots come from within 20 feet13th of 32

      Montréal: 32.1% of shots come from within 20 feet12th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 34.0% of shots come from within 20 feet1st of 32

      Pittsburgh: 40.9% of shots come from within 20 feet3rd of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Montréal: 56.4 shot attempts allowed per 6014th of 32

      Montréal: 48.0 shot attempts allowed per 609th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 54.8 shot attempts allowed per 609th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 35.6 shot attempts allowed per 601st of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Montréal: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot against30th of 32

      Montréal: a 6.0% chance of scoring on the average shot against14th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot against19th of 32

      Pittsburgh: a 3.7% chance of scoring on the average shot against1st of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Montréal: 0.39 defensive breakdowns per 6012th of 32

      Montréal: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 0.40 defensive breakdowns per 6014th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Montréal: +0.16 goals saved above expected per 6010th of 32

      Montréal: +0.68 goals saved above expected per 6011th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: +0.06 goals saved above expected per 6024th of 32

      Pittsburgh: +1.48 goals saved above expected per 605th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Montréal: 79.7 shots per 60, both teams combined26th of 32

      Montréal: 76.3 shots per 60, both teams combined20th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 83.5 shots per 60, both teams combined8th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 87.2 shots per 60, both teams combined7th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Montréal: forecheck score 104 (100 is league average)8th of 32Montréal: 24.4 forecheck plays recorded per 605th of 32

      Montréal: forecheck score 113 (100 is league average)9th of 32Montréal: 33.7 forecheck plays recorded per 605th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: forecheck score 93 (100 is league average)23rd of 32Pittsburgh: 20.5 forecheck plays recorded per 6025th of 32

      Pittsburgh: forecheck score 124 (100 is league average)6th of 32Pittsburgh: 30.7 forecheck plays recorded per 608th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Montréal: hit score 105 (100 is league average)11th of 32Montréal: 28.6 hits recorded per 608th of 32

      Montréal: hit score 97 (100 is league average)15th of 32Montréal: 38.4 hits recorded per 607th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: hit score 85 (100 is league average)27th of 32Pittsburgh: 21.9 hits recorded per 6029th of 32

      Pittsburgh: hit score 96 (100 is league average)16th of 32Pittsburgh: 30.6 hits recorded per 6017th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Montréal: 43.4% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six6th of 32

      Montréal: 45.3% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six6th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 43.9% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six1st of 32

      Pittsburgh: 45.3% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six5th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Montréal: 7.5 expected goals per 60 on the power play16th of 32

      Montréal: 5.6 expected goals per 60 on the power play18th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 7.6 expected goals per 60 on the power play10th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 8.5 expected goals per 60 on the power play6th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Montréal: 8.1 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded27th of 32

      Montréal: 6.3 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded13th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 7.0 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded6th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 6.6 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded14th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Montréal: 0.9 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded11th of 32

      Montréal: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded25th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 0.9 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded14th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 3.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded1st of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Montréal: 0.07 more penalties taken than drawn per 6023rd of 32

      Montréal: 1.00 more penalties taken than drawn per 6022nd of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 0.03 more penalties taken than drawn per 6020th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 1.00 more penalties drawn than taken per 606th 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

Pittsburgh 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.

Montréal Canadiens

Pittsburgh Penguins

Who Pittsburgh is likely to send against whom

Pittsburgh 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

Montréal power play against Pittsburgh penalty kill

  • Montréal power play

    7.5 expected goals per 60 · 16th of 32

  • Pittsburgh penalty kill

    7.0 expected goals allowed per 60 · 6th of 32

Montréal power play

PP163% of the time

Creates 6.8 expected goals per 60

  • L. HutsonQuarterback
  • J. SlafkovskýNet-front
  • C. CaufieldTrigger
  • I. Demidov
  • N. SuzukiDistributor

PP237% of the time

Creates 6.7 expected goals per 60

  • N. DobsonQuarterback
  • C. Kreider
  • A. Texier
  • Z. BolducTrigger
  • A. Newhook

 

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

Pittsburgh penalty kill

Starts the kill

Second wave

Spot duty

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

J. Dobes43 starts · 1215 shots, this season and last

+16.1 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.979 616 shots
Medium-danger save %
.872 392 shots
High-danger save %
.729 207 shots
Shots faced per 60
28.2
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.37
Quality starts
65%

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 chancesJ. DobesA. Silovs

A. Silovs37 starts · 1040 shots, this season and last

−2.2 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.963 510 shots
Medium-danger save %
.880 391 shots
High-danger save %
.647 139 shots
Shots faced per 60
27.1
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.39
Quality starts
54%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Dobes: +16.1 goals saved above expected in 43 starts
    • A. Silovs: −2.2 goals saved above expected in 37 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Dobes: 28.2 shots faced per 60
    • A. Silovs: 27.1 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Dobes: the average shot he faces has a 7.3% chance of going in
    • A. Silovs: the average shot he faces has a 7.0% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Dobes: 0.37 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • A. Silovs: 0.39 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Dobes: a typical wait of 67 seconds between shots
    • A. Silovs: a typical wait of 77 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Dobes: a quality start 65% of the time
    • A. Silovs: a quality start 54% of the time

J. Dobes, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

J. Dobes1 start · 28 shots, this season

+0.7 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate

Low-danger save %
.917 12 shots
Medium-danger save %
1.000 12 shots
High-danger save %
.750 4 shots
Shots faced per 60
28.2
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
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 chancesJ. DobesA. Silovs

A. Silovs1 start · 19 shots, this season

+1.5 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate

Low-danger save %
1.000 13 shots
Medium-danger save %
1.000 6 shots
High-danger save %
– 0 shots
Shots faced per 60
19
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
100%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Dobes: +0.7 goals saved above expected in 1 start (too few starts to place)
    • A. Silovs: +1.5 goals saved above expected in 1 start (too few starts to place)
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Dobes: 28.2 shots faced per 60 (too few starts to place)
    • A. Silovs: 19 shots faced per 60 (too few starts to place)
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Dobes: the average shot he faces has a 7.0% chance of going in (too few starts to place)
    • A. Silovs: the average shot he faces has a 4.3% chance of going in (too few starts to place)
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Dobes: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60 (too few starts to place)
    • A. Silovs: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60 (too few starts to place)
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Dobes: a typical wait of 54 seconds between shots (too few starts to place)
    • A. Silovs: a typical wait of 78 seconds between shots (too few starts to place)
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Dobes: a quality start 100% of the time (too few starts to place)
    • A. Silovs: a quality start 100% of the time (too few starts to place)

J. Dobes, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

A. Silovs, 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
MontréalPittsburghLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play57.1%55.8%
  • Power play21.4%19.8%
  • Rebound5.4%5.2%
  • Empty net5.4%5.5%
  • Off a turnover4.5%6.5%
  • Goalie pulled2.7%3.6%
  • Shorthanded1.8%1.6%
  • Off a faceoff win1.8%1.9%

336 Montréal goals and 308 Pittsburgh goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play66.7%57.1%
  • Power play0%28.6%
  • Rebound33.3%0%
  • Empty net0%0%
  • Off a turnover0%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded0%14.3%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

3 Montréal goals and 7 Pittsburgh 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: Montréal Canadiens · Pittsburgh Penguins