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

BOS

Boston Bruins

2-0-0

MIN

Minnesota Wild

1-0-0

Has last change

Saturday, October 3

8:00 PM ET · Grand Casino Arena

The short version

Before the game

Round two in Minnesota

The Wild won the first meeting this season, 4-1 in Minnesota. The Wild have won two in a row. The Bruins are 2-1-0. Minnesota has controlled the play far better over recent games, Boston is playing for the second night in a row, and Minnesota has home ice. Anything short of a win would be a surprise, though Boston can make a game of it if their power play gets going.

The Wild won the first meeting this season, 4-1 in Minnesota. The Wild have won two in a row. The Bruins are 2-1-0. Minnesota has controlled the play far better over recent games, Boston is playing for the second night in a row, and Minnesota has home ice. Boston’s best hope is a power play that gets going, plus a big night in goal.

The Bruins’ power play has a soft target in the Wild’s kill. Both teams like a fast game.

Who to watch

  • Owns themKirill Kaprizov has a point in five straight games against Boston, and 9 points in his last five against them.
  • Old teamMarat Khusnutdinov faces his old team, Minnesota.

  1. The Wild can’t afford to take penalties

    The Wild’s penalty kill is around the middle of the league, and the Bruins’ power play is near the top of the league. Discipline matters more than usual for the Wild tonight.

    The call The Bruins’ power play creates at least their usual 7.7 expected goals per 60.

    Boston 9th for power play (7.7 expected goals per 60) · Minnesota 22nd for penalty kill

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

  2. The Bruins should pile up the shots

    The Bruins shoot a lot, and the Wild are around the middle of the league at keeping shots down. Look for a big shot total.

    The call The Bruins take at least their usual 59.1 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5.

    Boston 10th for shot volume (59.1 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5) · Minnesota 22nd for shot suppression

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

  3. Expect a track meet

    Boston plays some of the league’s fastest games, and so does Minnesota. We think this one runs hotter than either team’s usual.

    The call The game runs at more than 85.2 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, faster than either team’s usual.

    Pace (shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams): Boston 7th (83.5), Minnesota 3rd (85.2)

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

  4. The Wild get in close; the Bruins shoot from distance

    The Wild are near the top of the league for shots from in close, at the close-range end; the Bruins are one of the league’s worst, at the long-range end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Wild take a bigger share of their shots from within 20 feet than the Bruins.

    Shots from in close: Minnesota 6th, Boston 29th

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 2 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 Boston and Minnesota play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Boston BruinsMinnesota WildLeague 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 2 and 1 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 2 games for Boston, 1 for Minnesota. 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

    • Boston: 59.1 shot attempts per 6010th of 32

      Boston: 62.3 shot attempts per 609th of 32

    • Minnesota: 60.3 shot attempts per 607th of 32

      Minnesota: 69.7 shot attempts per 604th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Boston: a 5.9% chance of scoring on the average shot29th of 32

      Boston: a 5.9% chance of scoring on the average shot18th of 32

    • Minnesota: a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot16th of 32

      Minnesota: a 5.6% chance of scoring on the average shot21st of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Boston: 10.3% of chances come from rebounds14th of 32

      Boston: 1.8% of chances come from rebounds26th of 32

    • Minnesota: 10.6% of chances come from rebounds1st of 32

      Minnesota: 8.8% of chances come from rebounds15th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Boston: 7.2% of chances come right after a turnover19th of 32

      Boston: 8.2% of chances come right after a turnover13th of 32

    • Minnesota: 7.5% of chances come right after a turnover9th of 32

      Minnesota: 6.4% of chances come right after a turnover16th of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Boston: 33.0% of shot attempts come from defensemen24th of 32

      Boston: 33.3% of shot attempts come from defensemen15th of 32

    • Minnesota: 30.9% of shot attempts come from defensemen29th of 32

      Minnesota: 22.2% of shot attempts come from defensemen31st of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Boston: 28.8% of shots come from within 20 feet29th of 32

      Boston: 30.5% of shots come from within 20 feet16th of 32

    • Minnesota: 31.7% of shots come from within 20 feet6th of 32

      Minnesota: 30.6% of shots come from within 20 feet14th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Boston: 57.7 shot attempts allowed per 6020th of 32

      Boston: 52.3 shot attempts allowed per 6014th of 32

    • Minnesota: 58.5 shot attempts allowed per 6022nd of 32

      Minnesota: 42.0 shot attempts allowed per 606th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Boston: a 6.2% chance of scoring on the average shot against12th of 32

      Boston: a 5.5% chance of scoring on the average shot against11th of 32

    • Minnesota: a 5.9% chance of scoring on the average shot against1st of 32

      Minnesota: a 3.9% chance of scoring on the average shot against2nd of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Boston: 0.40 defensive breakdowns per 6016th of 32

      Boston: 0.57 defensive breakdowns per 6023rd of 32

    • Minnesota: 0.37 defensive breakdowns per 602nd of 32

      Minnesota: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Boston: +0.23 goals saved above expected per 602nd of 32

      Boston: +1.28 goals saved above expected per 606th of 32

    • Minnesota: +0.17 goals saved above expected per 608th of 32

      Minnesota: +0.60 goals saved above expected per 6013th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Boston: 83.5 shots per 60, both teams combined7th of 32

      Boston: 85.3 shots per 60, both teams combined11th of 32

    • Minnesota: 85.2 shots per 60, both teams combined3rd of 32

      Minnesota: 87.1 shots per 60, both teams combined8th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Boston: forecheck score 100 (100 is league average)13th of 32Boston: 23.1 forecheck plays recorded per 609th of 32

      Boston: forecheck score 93 (100 is league average)17th of 32Boston: 25.4 forecheck plays recorded per 6014th of 32

    • Minnesota: forecheck score 106 (100 is league average)6th of 32Minnesota: 23.5 forecheck plays recorded per 607th of 32

      Minnesota: forecheck score 96 (100 is league average)16th of 32Minnesota: 25.3 forecheck plays recorded per 6015th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Boston: hit score 109 (100 is league average)9th of 32Boston: 29.7 hits recorded per 605th of 32

      Boston: hit score 100 (100 is league average)12th of 32Boston: 36.0 hits recorded per 6010th of 32

    • Minnesota: hit score 104 (100 is league average)13th of 32Minnesota: 27.1 hits recorded per 6013th of 32

      Minnesota: hit score 100 (100 is league average)10th of 32Minnesota: 33.4 hits recorded per 6015th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Boston: 43.9% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six2nd of 32

      Boston: 45.6% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six3rd of 32

    • Minnesota: 42.0% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six19th of 32

      Minnesota: 45.4% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six4th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Boston: 7.7 expected goals per 60 on the power play9th of 32

      Boston: 3.1 expected goals per 60 on the power play27th of 32

    • Minnesota: 7.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play23rd of 32

      Minnesota: 7.7 expected goals per 60 on the power play11th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Boston: 7.9 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded24th of 32

      Boston: 13.6 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded31st of 32

    • Minnesota: 7.9 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded22nd of 32

      Minnesota: 4.7 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded10th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Boston: 0.6 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded31st of 32

      Boston: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded25th of 32

    • Minnesota: 0.6 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded30th of 32

      Minnesota: 0.1 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded19th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Boston: 0.25 more penalties taken than drawn per 6032nd of 32

      Boston: 0.49 more penalties taken than drawn per 6019th of 32

    • Minnesota: 0.23 more penalties drawn than taken per 602nd of 32

      Minnesota: 0.00 more penalties drawn than taken per 6013th 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

Minnesota 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 (2 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.

Boston Bruins

Minnesota Wild

Worth knowing

  • Boston C. McAvoy has been a scratch all season. He is a top-pair defenseman. M. Lohrei has taken his spot beside J. Aspirot.
  • Boston M. Eyssimont has been a scratch all season. He is one of their more valuable skaters.

Who Minnesota is likely to send against whom

Minnesota 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

Boston power play against Minnesota penalty kill

  • Boston power play

    7.7 expected goals per 60 · 9th of 32

  • Minnesota penalty kill

    7.9 expected goals allowed per 60 · 22nd of 32

Boston power play

PP152% of the time

Creates 6.4 expected goals per 60

  • M. LohreiQuarterback
  • D. Pastrnakboth unitsTrigger
  • J. Peterkaboth units
  • M. Geekieboth unitsDistributor
  • P. Zachaboth unitsNet-front

PP248% of the time

Creates 6.4 expected goals per 60

  • H. LindholmQuarterback
  • D. Pastrnakboth unitsTrigger
  • J. Peterkaboth units
  • M. Geekieboth unitsDistributor
  • P. Zachaboth unitsNet-front

 

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

Minnesota 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. Swayman56 starts · 1629 shots, this season and last

+31.2 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.963 829 shots
Medium-danger save %
.895 544 shots
High-danger save %
.762 256 shots
Shots faced per 60
29.1
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.3
Quality starts
73%

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. SwaymanJ. Wallstedt

J. Wallstedt34 starts · 1041 shots, this season and last

+16.1 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.983 519 shots
Medium-danger save %
.888 385 shots
High-danger save %
.737 137 shots
Shots faced per 60
30.4
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.32
Quality starts
74%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Swayman: +31.2 goals saved above expected in 56 starts
    • J. Wallstedt: +16.1 goals saved above expected in 34 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Swayman: 29.1 shots faced per 60
    • J. Wallstedt: 30.4 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Swayman: the average shot he faces has a 7.2% chance of going in
    • J. Wallstedt: the average shot he faces has a 6.7% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Swayman: 0.3 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • J. Wallstedt: 0.32 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Swayman: a typical wait of 68 seconds between shots
    • J. Wallstedt: a typical wait of 67 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Swayman: a quality start 73% of the time
    • J. Wallstedt: a quality start 74% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

J. Swayman2 starts · 57 shots, this season

+2.6 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.938 32 shots
Medium-danger save %
1.000 19 shots
High-danger save %
.833 6 shots
Shots faced per 60
27.9
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.49
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. SwaymanJ. Wallstedt

J. Wallstedt1 start · 20 shots, this season

+0.6 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate

Low-danger save %
.923 13 shots
Medium-danger save %
1.000 6 shots
High-danger save %
1.000 1 shots
Shots faced per 60
20.3
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
100%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Swayman: +2.6 goals saved above expected in 2 starts
    • J. Wallstedt: +0.6 goals saved above expected in 1 start (too few starts to place)
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Swayman: 27.9 shots faced per 60
    • J. Wallstedt: 20.3 shots faced per 60 (too few starts to place)
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Swayman: the average shot he faces has a 6.5% chance of going in
    • J. Wallstedt: the average shot he faces has a 4.5% chance of going in (too few starts to place)
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Swayman: 0.49 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • J. Wallstedt: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60 (too few starts to place)
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Swayman: a typical wait of 47 seconds between shots
    • J. Wallstedt: a typical wait of 88 seconds between shots (too few starts to place)
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Swayman: a quality start 100% of the time
    • J. Wallstedt: a quality start 100% of the time (too few starts to place)

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

J. Wallstedt, 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
BostonMinnesotaLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play57.8%53.8%
  • Power play18.8%23.1%
  • Rebound6.6%4.8%
  • Empty net5.6%7.4%
  • Off a turnover6.3%4.5%
  • Goalie pulled2.1%1.9%
  • Shorthanded1%2.2%
  • Off a faceoff win1.7%2.2%

287 Boston goals and 312 Minnesota goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play42.9%33.3%
  • Power play0%33.3%
  • Rebound0%33.3%
  • Empty net14.3%0%
  • Off a turnover28.6%0%
  • Goalie pulled14.3%0%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

7 Boston goals and 3 Minnesota 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: Boston Bruins · Minnesota Wild