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

UTA

Utah Mammoth

1-0-0

CBJ

Columbus Blue Jackets

1-0-0

Has last change

Saturday, October 3

7:00 PM ET · Nationwide Arena

The short version

Before the game

The Blue Jackets’ defense joins the attack; the Mammoth’s stays home

The Mammoth come in at 1-0-0, the Blue Jackets at 1-0-0. Utah has had more of the chances over recent games and Columbus has home ice. For Columbus, the difference could be getting good looks.

The Mammoth come in at 1-0-0, the Blue Jackets at 1-0-0. Utah has had more of the chances over recent games and Columbus has home ice. For Utah, the difference could be piling up shots.

The Blue Jackets and the Mammoth sit at opposite ends for shots from defensemen.

Who to watch

  • Leads the wayClayton Keller leads the Mammoth with two points.
  • Leads the wayCharlie Coyle leads the Blue Jackets with three points.

  1. The Blue Jackets’ defense joins the attack; the Mammoth’s stays home

    On shots from defensemen, Columbus is one of the league’s best and Utah is the league’s worst. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Blue Jackets’ defensemen take a bigger share of the team’s shot attempts than the Mammoth’s.

    Shots from defensemen: Columbus 5th, Utah 32nd

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

  2. The Mammoth get in close; the Blue Jackets shoot from distance

    The Mammoth are near the top of the league for shots from in close, at the close-range end; the Blue Jackets are near the bottom of the league, at the long-range end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Mammoth take a bigger share of their shots from within 20 feet than the Blue Jackets.

    Shots from in close: Utah 7th, Columbus 24th

    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 Utah and Columbus play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Utah MammothColumbus Blue JacketsLeague 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 Utah, 1 for Columbus. 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

    • Utah: 63.1 shot attempts per 603rd of 32

      Utah: 73.5 shot attempts per 603rd of 32

    • Columbus: 55.8 shot attempts per 6017th of 32

      Columbus: 37.1 shot attempts per 6031st of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Utah: a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot9th of 32

      Utah: a 6.8% chance of scoring on the average shot9th of 32

    • Columbus: a 6.2% chance of scoring on the average shot18th of 32

      Columbus: a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot15th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Utah: 10.1% of chances come from rebounds21st of 32

      Utah: 10.2% of chances come from rebounds13th of 32

    • Columbus: 10.1% of chances come from rebounds24th of 32

      Columbus: 0.0% of chances come from rebounds30th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Utah: 7.4% of chances come right after a turnover15th of 32

      Utah: 13.6% of chances come right after a turnover7th of 32

    • Columbus: 7.3% of chances come right after a turnover16th of 32

      Columbus: 2.5% of chances come right after a turnover27th of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Utah: 30.2% of shot attempts come from defensemen32nd of 32

      Utah: 25.4% of shot attempts come from defensemen28th of 32

    • Columbus: 37.2% of shot attempts come from defensemen5th of 32

      Columbus: 37.9% of shot attempts come from defensemen6th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Utah: 31.0% of shots come from within 20 feet7th of 32

      Utah: 34.7% of shots come from within 20 feet11th of 32

    • Columbus: 29.7% of shots come from within 20 feet24th of 32

      Columbus: 22.7% of shots come from within 20 feet28th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Utah: 52.1 shot attempts allowed per 604th of 32

      Utah: 41.8 shot attempts allowed per 605th of 32

    • Columbus: 56.6 shot attempts allowed per 6017th of 32

      Columbus: 48.5 shot attempts allowed per 6010th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Utah: a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot against25th of 32

      Utah: a 4.8% chance of scoring on the average shot against5th of 32

    • Columbus: a 6.2% chance of scoring on the average shot against13th of 32

      Columbus: a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot against21st of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Utah: 0.37 defensive breakdowns per 605th of 32

      Utah: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

    • Columbus: 0.38 defensive breakdowns per 608th of 32

      Columbus: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Utah: +0.13 goals saved above expected per 6012th of 32

      Utah: +1.63 goals saved above expected per 603rd of 32

    • Columbus: +0.17 goals saved above expected per 607th of 32

      Columbus: −0.16 goals saved above expected per 6018th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Utah: 81.6 shots per 60, both teams combined19th of 32

      Utah: 91.4 shots per 60, both teams combined4th of 32

    • Columbus: 83.2 shots per 60, both teams combined9th of 32

      Columbus: 62.4 shots per 60, both teams combined28th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Utah: forecheck score 106 (100 is league average)7th of 32Utah: 23.0 forecheck plays recorded per 6011th of 32

      Utah: forecheck score 140 (100 is league average)3rd of 32Utah: 35.2 forecheck plays recorded per 603rd of 32

    • Columbus: forecheck score 110 (100 is league average)5th of 32Columbus: 23.3 forecheck plays recorded per 608th of 32

      Columbus: forecheck score 110 (100 is league average)11th of 32Columbus: 26.4 forecheck plays recorded per 6013th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Utah: hit score 107 (100 is league average)10th of 32Utah: 27.6 hits recorded per 6012th of 32

      Utah: hit score 151 (100 is league average)5th of 32Utah: 50.8 hits recorded per 605th of 32

    • Columbus: hit score 105 (100 is league average)12th of 32Columbus: 26.0 hits recorded per 6017th of 32

      Columbus: hit score 121 (100 is league average)6th of 32Columbus: 37.7 hits recorded per 609th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Utah: 43.3% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six7th of 32

      Utah: 45.2% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six7th of 32

    • Columbus: 42.7% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six11th of 32

      Columbus: 44.5% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six11th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Utah: 7.4 expected goals per 60 on the power play18th of 32

      Utah: 8.2 expected goals per 60 on the power play8th of 32

    • Columbus: 7.5 expected goals per 60 on the power play14th of 32

      Columbus: 10.7 expected goals per 60 on the power play3rd of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Utah: 7.5 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded15th of 32

      Utah: 2.1 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded3rd of 32

    • Columbus: 8.5 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded32nd of 32

      Columbus: 7.5 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded19th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Utah: 0.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded25th of 32

      Utah: 1.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded5th of 32

    • Columbus: 0.9 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded15th of 32

      Columbus: 0.5 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded13th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Utah: 0.08 more penalties taken than drawn per 6024th of 32

      Utah: 0.00 more penalties drawn than taken per 6013th of 32

    • Columbus: 0.13 more penalties taken than drawn per 6027th of 32

      Columbus: 1.00 more penalties taken than drawn per 6022nd 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

Columbus 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.

Utah Mammoth

Columbus Blue Jackets

Who Columbus is likely to send against whom

Each strip shows how one Columbus group’s 5-on-5 time at home has been split across opponents’ four forward lines. Tonight those lines are Utah’s, named in each box.

Utah’s lines tonightL1 Trocheck · Schmaltz · KellerL2 Lee · Guenther · CooleyL3 Crouse · Hayton · McBainL4 Stenlund · Carcone · But

Columbus forward lines against Utah forward lines

  • L1Coyle · Olivier · SillingerUTA L129%UTA L259%UTA L36%UTA L46%
  • L2Johnson · Knies · FantilliUTA L130%UTA L216%UTA L321%UTA L433%
  • L3Heinen · Garland · LombergUTA L124%UTA L226%UTA L344%UTA L45%
  • L4Monahan · Nichushkin · VoronkovUTA L128%UTA L216%UTA L337%UTA L418%

Columbus defense pairs against Utah forward lines

  • P1Werenski · MateychukUTA L122%UTA L241%UTA L325%UTA L412%
  • P2Soucy · AndraeUTA L135%UTA L220%UTA L326%UTA L419%
  • P3Gudbranson · ChristiansenUTA L141%UTA L21%UTA L327%UTA L431%

Based on 1 Columbus home game this season, so treat it as a habit forming, not a certainty. Faded rows have under ten minutes. With no line matching, each group would face an opposing line about as often as that line is on the ice; a number well above that means the coach is sending that group out against it on purpose.

Special teams

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

Show

Utah power play against Columbus penalty kill

  • Utah power play

    7.4 expected goals per 60 · 18th of 32

  • Columbus penalty kill

    8.5 expected goals allowed per 60 · 32nd of 32

Utah power play

PP160% of the time

Creates 7.4 expected goals per 60

  • M. SergachevQuarterback
  • D. GuentherTrigger
  • C. KellerDistributor
  • L. CooleyNet-front
  • N. SchmaltzNet-front

PP240% of the time

Creates 6.5 expected goals per 60

  • J. MarinoQuarterback
  • V. Trocheck
  • M. CarconeTrigger
  • D. But
  • A. Lee

 

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

Columbus 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

K. Vejmelka63 starts · 1642 shots, this season and last

+13.5 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.968 822 shots
Medium-danger save %
.897 571 shots
High-danger save %
.663 249 shots
Shots faced per 60
26.3
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.24
Quality starts
54%

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 chancesK. VejmelkaJ. Greaves

J. Greaves56 starts · 1565 shots, this season and last

+20.5 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.967 828 shots
Medium-danger save %
.874 508 shots
High-danger save %
.764 229 shots
Shots faced per 60
28.1
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.34
Quality starts
68%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • K. Vejmelka: +13.5 goals saved above expected in 63 starts
    • J. Greaves: +20.5 goals saved above expected in 56 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • K. Vejmelka: 26.3 shots faced per 60
    • J. Greaves: 28.1 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • K. Vejmelka: the average shot he faces has a 7.2% chance of going in
    • J. Greaves: the average shot he faces has a 6.8% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • K. Vejmelka: 0.24 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • J. Greaves: 0.34 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • K. Vejmelka: a typical wait of 73 seconds between shots
    • J. Greaves: a typical wait of 72 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • K. Vejmelka: a quality start 54% of the time
    • J. Greaves: a quality start 68% of the time

K. Vejmelka, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

K. Vejmelka1 start · 15 shots, this season

+1.6 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate

Low-danger save %
1.000 9 shots
Medium-danger save %
1.000 6 shots
High-danger save %
– 0 shots
Shots faced per 60
15
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 chancesK. VejmelkaJ. Greaves

J. Greaves1 start · 26 shots, this season

−0.2 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate

Low-danger save %
1.000 12 shots
Medium-danger save %
.750 12 shots
High-danger save %
1.000 2 shots
Shots faced per 60
26
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
100%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • K. Vejmelka: +1.6 goals saved above expected in 1 start (too few starts to place)
    • J. Greaves: −0.2 goals saved above expected in 1 start (too few starts to place)
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • K. Vejmelka: 15 shots faced per 60 (too few starts to place)
    • J. Greaves: 26 shots faced per 60 (too few starts to place)
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • K. Vejmelka: the average shot he faces has a 5.2% chance of going in (too few starts to place)
    • J. Greaves: the average shot he faces has a 7.1% chance of going in (too few starts to place)
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • K. Vejmelka: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60 (too few starts to place)
    • J. Greaves: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60 (too few starts to place)
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • K. Vejmelka: a typical wait of 171 seconds between shots (too few starts to place)
    • J. Greaves: a typical wait of 74 seconds between shots (too few starts to place)
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • K. Vejmelka: a quality start 100% of the time (too few starts to place)
    • J. Greaves: a quality start 100% of the time (too few starts to place)

K. Vejmelka, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

J. Greaves, 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
UtahColumbusLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play61.6%59.9%
  • Power play17.1%15.9%
  • Rebound5.1%6.7%
  • Empty net6.5%6.7%
  • Off a turnover6.8%4.8%
  • Goalie pulled0.3%1.2%
  • Shorthanded2.1%2%
  • Off a faceoff win0.3%2.8%

292 Utah goals and 252 Columbus goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play66.7%33.3%
  • Power play33.3%33.3%
  • Rebound0%0%
  • Empty net0%16.7%
  • Off a turnover0%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%16.7%

6 Utah goals and 6 Columbus 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: Utah Mammoth · Columbus Blue Jackets