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

SEA

Seattle Kraken

1-0-0

EDM

Edmonton Oilers

1-0-1

Has last change

Saturday, October 3

7:00 PM ET · Rogers Place

The short version

Before the game

Draisaitl’s favourite opponent

The Kraken come in at 1-0-0, the Oilers at 1-0-1. Edmonton has controlled the play far better over recent games and has home ice. Anything short of a win would be a surprise, though Seattle can make a game of it if they pounce on loose pucks.

The Kraken come in at 1-0-0, the Oilers at 1-0-1. Edmonton has controlled the play far better over recent games and has home ice. Seattle’s best hope is pouncing on loose pucks, plus a big night in goal.

The Oilers’ power play has a soft target in the Kraken’s kill. The Kraken and the Oilers sit at opposite ends for preventing dangerous shots.

Who to watch

  • Owns themLeon Draisaitl has a point in eight straight games against Seattle, and 19 points in his last nine against them.
  • Haunts themBobby McMann has six goals in seven games against Edmonton since 2023-24, most of them with Toronto.

  1. Special teams lean toward the Oilers

    The Oilers’ power play is the league’s best, and the Kraken’s kill is one of the league’s worst. Every trip to the box hurts the Kraken more than most.

    The call The Oilers’ power play creates at least their usual 9.7 expected goals per 60.

    Edmonton 1st for power play (9.7 expected goals per 60) · Seattle 29th for penalty kill

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 2 and 1 games this season

  2. The Oilers can’t afford to cough it up

    The Kraken turn stolen pucks into chances, and the Oilers are one of the league’s worst at avoiding breakdowns. A sloppy pass or two could cost the Oilers.

    The call The Kraken get at least their usual 7.5% of their 5-on-5 chances right after winning the puck.

    Seattle 10th for chances off turnovers (7.5% of their chances come right after winning the puck) · Edmonton 29th for avoiding breakdowns

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 1 and 2 games this season

  3. Sheltered against exposed

    The Kraken are one of the league’s best for preventing dangerous shots, at the sheltered end; the Oilers are one of the league’s worst, at the exposed end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Kraken prevent dangerous shots better than the Oilers do.

    Preventing dangerous shots: Seattle 2nd, Edmonton 31st

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 1 and 2 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 Seattle and Edmonton play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Seattle KrakenEdmonton OilersLeague 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 2 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 1 games for Seattle, 2 for Edmonton. 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

    • Seattle: 54.0 shot attempts per 6022nd of 32

      Seattle: 64.2 shot attempts per 606th of 32

    • Edmonton: 57.5 shot attempts per 6016th of 32

      Edmonton: 59.6 shot attempts per 6012th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Seattle: a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot17th of 32

      Seattle: a 7.7% chance of scoring on the average shot5th of 32

    • Edmonton: a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot10th of 32

      Edmonton: a 5.9% chance of scoring on the average shot19th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Seattle: 10.3% of chances come from rebounds12th of 32

      Seattle: 4.4% of chances come from rebounds21st of 32

    • Edmonton: 9.9% of chances come from rebounds31st of 32

      Edmonton: 10.5% of chances come from rebounds11th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Seattle: 7.5% of chances come right after a turnover10th of 32

      Seattle: 17.9% of chances come right after a turnover3rd of 32

    • Edmonton: 6.9% of chances come right after a turnover24th of 32

      Edmonton: 11.8% of chances come right after a turnover11th of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Seattle: 34.9% of shot attempts come from defensemen17th of 32

      Seattle: 26.7% of shot attempts come from defensemen27th of 32

    • Edmonton: 37.3% of shot attempts come from defensemen4th of 32

      Edmonton: 36.5% of shot attempts come from defensemen10th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Seattle: 29.6% of shots come from within 20 feet25th of 32

      Seattle: 47.2% of shots come from within 20 feet2nd of 32

    • Edmonton: 31.0% of shots come from within 20 feet8th of 32

      Edmonton: 28.2% of shots come from within 20 feet20th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Seattle: 62.1 shot attempts allowed per 6031st of 32

      Seattle: 62.7 shot attempts allowed per 6024th of 32

    • Edmonton: 53.4 shot attempts allowed per 608th of 32

      Edmonton: 44.0 shot attempts allowed per 608th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Seattle: a 6.0% chance of scoring on the average shot against2nd of 32

      Seattle: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot against22nd of 32

    • Edmonton: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot against31st of 32

      Edmonton: a 7.5% chance of scoring on the average shot against27th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Seattle: 0.44 defensive breakdowns per 6028th of 32

      Seattle: 1.24 defensive breakdowns per 6028th of 32

    • Edmonton: 0.45 defensive breakdowns per 6029th of 32

      Edmonton: 0.62 defensive breakdowns per 6024th of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Seattle: +0.08 goals saved above expected per 6020th of 32

      Seattle: +1.49 goals saved above expected per 604th of 32

    • Edmonton: +0.03 goals saved above expected per 6028th of 32

      Edmonton: −3.90 goals saved above expected per 6030th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Seattle: 82.8 shots per 60, both teams combined15th of 32

      Seattle: 91.6 shots per 60, both teams combined2nd of 32

    • Edmonton: 80.5 shots per 60, both teams combined23rd of 32

      Edmonton: 73.4 shots per 60, both teams combined22nd of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Seattle: forecheck score 86 (100 is league average)28th of 32Seattle: 18.8 forecheck plays recorded per 6030th of 32

      Seattle: forecheck score 79 (100 is league average)23rd of 32Seattle: 21.1 forecheck plays recorded per 6023rd of 32

    • Edmonton: forecheck score 101 (100 is league average)11th of 32Edmonton: 23.7 forecheck plays recorded per 606th of 32

      Edmonton: forecheck score 113 (100 is league average)8th of 32Edmonton: 31.4 forecheck plays recorded per 607th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Seattle: hit score 113 (100 is league average)5th of 32Seattle: 28.6 hits recorded per 609th of 32

      Seattle: hit score 191 (100 is league average)2nd of 32Seattle: 62.5 hits recorded per 602nd of 32

    • Edmonton: hit score 100 (100 is league average)15th of 32Edmonton: 27.8 hits recorded per 6010th of 32

      Edmonton: hit score 112 (100 is league average)8th of 32Edmonton: 41.5 hits recorded per 606th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Seattle: 42.4% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six15th of 32

      Seattle: 42.9% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six19th of 32

    • Edmonton: 40.7% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six29th of 32

      Edmonton: 42.4% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six21st of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Seattle: 7.2 expected goals per 60 on the power play27th of 32

      Seattle: 7.5 expected goals per 60 on the power play13th of 32

    • Edmonton: 9.7 expected goals per 60 on the power play1st of 32

      Edmonton: 9.8 expected goals per 60 on the power play5th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Seattle: 8.2 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded29th of 32

      Seattle: 1.9 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded1st of 32

    • Edmonton: 8.0 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded25th of 32

      Edmonton: 3.3 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded6th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Seattle: 0.5 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded32nd of 32

      Seattle: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded25th of 32

    • Edmonton: 1.1 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded2nd of 32

      Edmonton: 2.3 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded2nd of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Seattle: 0.11 more penalties drawn than taken per 608th of 32

      Seattle: 4.00 more penalties drawn than taken per 602nd of 32

    • Edmonton: 0.04 more penalties drawn than taken per 6014th of 32

      Edmonton: 1.97 more penalties drawn than taken per 604th 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

Edmonton 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 2 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.

Seattle Kraken

Edmonton Oilers

Who Edmonton is likely to send against whom

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

Seattle’s lines tonightL1 Winterton · Wright · CattonL2 McCann · Kakko · BeniersL3 Eberle · Stephenson · McMannL4 Gaudreau · Douglas · Melanson

Edmonton forward lines against Seattle forward lines

  • L1Draisaitl · McDavid · PodkolzinSEA L14%SEA L215%SEA L376%SEA L44%
  • L2Joseph · Formenton · MichaelsSEA L147%SEA L22%SEA L321%SEA L430%
  • L3Kapanen · Jones · DachSEA L161%SEA L213%SEA L38%SEA L418%
  • L4Frederic · Howard · SamanskiSEA L133%SEA L24%SEA L38%SEA L455%

Edmonton defense pairs against Seattle forward lines

  • P1Ekholm · BouchardSEA L122%SEA L242%SEA L316%SEA L420%
  • P2Murphy · SheaSEA L131%SEA L213%SEA L340%SEA L416%
  • P3Walman · MukhamadullinSEA L125%SEA L219%SEA L320%SEA L436%

Based on 1 Edmonton 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

Seattle power play against Edmonton penalty kill

  • Seattle power play

    7.2 expected goals per 60 · 27th of 32

  • Edmonton penalty kill

    8.0 expected goals allowed per 60 · 25th of 32

Seattle power play

PP155% of the time

Creates 6.4 expected goals per 60

  • B. MontourQuarterback
  • B. Catton
  • K. KakkoNet-front
  • M. BeniersTrigger
  • S. Wright

PP245% of the time

Creates 7.5 expected goals per 60

  • V. DunnQuarterback
  • J. McCannDistributor
  • J. EberleTrigger
  • B. McMannNet-front
  • C. Stephenson

 

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

Edmonton 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. Daccord45 starts · 1334 shots, this season and last

+1.8 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.968 730 shots
Medium-danger save %
.861 431 shots
High-danger save %
.688 173 shots
Shots faced per 60
29.1
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.41
Quality starts
56%

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. DaccordT. JarryD. Levi

T. Jarry31 starts · 855 shots, this season and last

−6.0 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.961 408 shots
Medium-danger save %
.830 329 shots
High-danger save %
.729 118 shots
Shots faced per 60
28
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.49
Quality starts
45%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Daccord: +1.8 goals saved above expected in 45 starts
    • T. Jarry: −6.0 goals saved above expected in 31 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Daccord: 29.1 shots faced per 60
    • T. Jarry: 28 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Daccord: the average shot he faces has a 6.6% chance of going in
    • T. Jarry: the average shot he faces has a 7.3% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Daccord: 0.41 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • T. Jarry: 0.49 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Daccord: a typical wait of 69 seconds between shots
    • T. Jarry: a typical wait of 69 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Daccord: a quality start 56% of the time
    • T. Jarry: a quality start 45% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

T. Jarry, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

J. Daccord1 start · 25 shots, this season

+1.5 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate

Low-danger save %
.923 13 shots
Medium-danger save %
1.000 8 shots
High-danger save %
1.000 4 shots
Shots faced per 60
25.2
Defensive breakdowns per 60
1.01
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. DaccordT. JarryD. Levi

T. Jarry1 start · 23 shots, this season

−3.7 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate

Low-danger save %
.917 12 shots
Medium-danger save %
.667 6 shots
High-danger save %
.400 5 shots
Shots faced per 60
22.4
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.97
Quality starts
0%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Daccord: +1.5 goals saved above expected in 1 start (too few starts to place)
    • T. Jarry: −3.7 goals saved above expected in 1 start (too few starts to place)
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Daccord: 25.2 shots faced per 60 (too few starts to place)
    • T. Jarry: 22.4 shots faced per 60 (too few starts to place)
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Daccord: the average shot he faces has a 5.9% chance of going in (too few starts to place)
    • T. Jarry: the average shot he faces has a 7.7% chance of going in (too few starts to place)
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Daccord: 1.01 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60 (too few starts to place)
    • T. Jarry: 0.97 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60 (too few starts to place)
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Daccord: a typical wait of 128 seconds between shots (too few starts to place)
    • T. Jarry: a typical wait of 114 seconds between shots (too few starts to place)
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Daccord: a quality start 100% of the time (too few starts to place)
    • T. Jarry: a quality start 0% of the time (too few starts to place)

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

T. Jarry, 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
SeattleEdmontonLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play56.1%53.8%
  • Power play18.7%23.4%
  • Rebound9.6%6%
  • Empty net7.4%5.4%
  • Off a turnover5.7%3.2%
  • Goalie pulled2.2%2.5%
  • Shorthanded0.4%2.2%
  • Off a faceoff win0%3.5%

230 Seattle goals and 316 Edmonton goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play66.7%42.9%
  • Power play16.7%14.3%
  • Rebound16.7%7.1%
  • Empty net0%0%
  • Off a turnover0%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%7.1%
  • Shorthanded0%14.3%
  • Off a faceoff win0%14.3%

6 Seattle goals and 14 Edmonton 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: Seattle Kraken · Edmonton Oilers