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

STL

St. Louis Blues

1-0-0

COL

Colorado Avalanche

1-0-0

Has last change

Saturday, October 3

9:00 PM ET · Ball Arena

The short version

Before the game

Round two in Colorado

The Avalanche won the first meeting this season, 6-1 in Colorado. The Avalanche have won two in a row, the last a 6-1 rout of St. Louis. The Blues are 1-1-0. Colorado has controlled the play far better over recent games, St. Louis is playing for the second night in a row, and Colorado has home ice. Anything short of a win would be a surprise, though St. Louis can make a game of it if their penalty kill holds up.

The Avalanche won the first meeting this season, 6-1 in Colorado. The Avalanche have won two in a row, the last a 6-1 rout of St. Louis. The Blues are 1-1-0. Colorado has controlled the play far better over recent games, St. Louis is playing for the second night in a row, and Colorado has home ice. St. Louis could still pull it off if their penalty kill holds up, but they might need a miracle.

It’s strength against strength: the Blues for chance quality, the Avalanche at preventing dangerous shots. The Avalanche and the Blues sit at opposite ends for shot volume.

Who to watch

  • Haunts themMartin Necas has six goals in ten games against St. Louis since 2023-24.
  • Still outT. Tucker is out indefinitely and hasn’t played yet this season.
  • Still outL. Mailloux is out long term and hasn’t played yet this season.

  1. Something has to give

    The Blues are the league’s best for chance quality, and the Avalanche are one of the league’s best at preventing dangerous shots. We think the Blues still get theirs.

    The call The Blues’ chances are more dangerous than the league average (a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot) against the Avalanche.

    St. Louis 1st for chance quality (a 7.0% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Colorado 3rd for preventing dangerous shots

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

  2. The Avalanche will outshoot the Blues

    The Avalanche are the league’s best for shot volume, at the relentless end; the Blues are near the bottom of the league, at the selective end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Avalanche take more 5-on-5 shot attempts per 60 than the Blues.

    Shot volume: Colorado 1st, St. Louis 23rd

    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 St. Louis and Colorado play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

St. Louis BluesColorado AvalancheLeague 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 St. Louis, 1 for Colorado. 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

    • St. Louis: 53.7 shot attempts per 6023rd of 32

      St. Louis: 60.0 shot attempts per 6010th of 32

    • Colorado: 68.4 shot attempts per 601st of 32

      Colorado: 57.7 shot attempts per 6013th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • St. Louis: a 7.0% chance of scoring on the average shot1st of 32

      St. Louis: a 10.3% chance of scoring on the average shot1st of 32

    • Colorado: a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot8th of 32

      Colorado: an 8.7% chance of scoring on the average shot3rd of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • St. Louis: 9.9% of chances come from rebounds29th of 32

      St. Louis: 29.2% of chances come from rebounds3rd of 32

    • Colorado: 10.5% of chances come from rebounds7th of 32

      Colorado: 7.5% of chances come from rebounds17th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • St. Louis: 7.3% of chances come right after a turnover17th of 32

      St. Louis: 0.0% of chances come right after a turnover31st of 32

    • Colorado: 7.7% of chances come right after a turnover5th of 32

      Colorado: 18.6% of chances come right after a turnover2nd of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • St. Louis: 35.4% of shot attempts come from defensemen14th of 32

      St. Louis: 33.3% of shot attempts come from defensemen15th of 32

    • Colorado: 37.7% of shot attempts come from defensemen3rd of 32

      Colorado: 25.0% of shot attempts come from defensemen29th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • St. Louis: 29.1% of shots come from within 20 feet26th of 32

      St. Louis: 26.3% of shots come from within 20 feet23rd of 32

    • Colorado: 28.0% of shots come from within 20 feet31st of 32

      Colorado: 29.6% of shots come from within 20 feet18th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • St. Louis: 55.5 shot attempts allowed per 6013th of 32

      St. Louis: 51.1 shot attempts allowed per 6012th of 32

    • Colorado: 53.1 shot attempts allowed per 606th of 32

      Colorado: 56.6 shot attempts allowed per 6017th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • St. Louis: a 6.0% chance of scoring on the average shot against6th of 32

      St. Louis: a 5.3% chance of scoring on the average shot against10th of 32

    • Colorado: a 6.0% chance of scoring on the average shot against3rd of 32

      Colorado: a 5.3% chance of scoring on the average shot against9th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • St. Louis: 0.38 defensive breakdowns per 609th of 32

      St. Louis: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

    • Colorado: 0.39 defensive breakdowns per 6011th of 32

      Colorado: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • St. Louis: +0.19 goals saved above expected per 605th of 32

      St. Louis: +2.80 goals saved above expected per 601st of 32

    • Colorado: +0.10 goals saved above expected per 6016th of 32

      Colorado: −1.28 goals saved above expected per 6025th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • St. Louis: 78.0 shots per 60, both teams combined30th of 32

      St. Louis: 67.7 shots per 60, both teams combined25th of 32

    • Colorado: 87.8 shots per 60, both teams combined1st of 32

      Colorado: 80.4 shots per 60, both teams combined16th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • St. Louis: forecheck score 97 (100 is league average)19th of 32St. Louis: 22.0 forecheck plays recorded per 6015th of 32

      St. Louis: forecheck score 74 (100 is league average)28th of 32St. Louis: 19.7 forecheck plays recorded per 6028th of 32

    • Colorado: forecheck score 91 (100 is league average)26th of 32Colorado: 19.7 forecheck plays recorded per 6027th of 32

      Colorado: forecheck score 67 (100 is league average)30th of 32Colorado: 17.4 forecheck plays recorded per 6030th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • St. Louis: hit score 98 (100 is league average)16th of 32St. Louis: 26.4 hits recorded per 6016th of 32

      St. Louis: hit score 83 (100 is league average)21st of 32St. Louis: 28.8 hits recorded per 6020th of 32

    • Colorado: hit score 83 (100 is league average)29th of 32Colorado: 21.7 hits recorded per 6030th of 32

      Colorado: hit score 80 (100 is league average)22nd of 32Colorado: 27.0 hits recorded per 6021st of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • St. Louis: 42.7% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six10th of 32

      St. Louis: 41.3% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six25th of 32

    • Colorado: 38.9% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six32nd of 32

      Colorado: 38.1% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six31st of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • St. Louis: 6.2 expected goals per 60 on the power play31st of 32

      St. Louis: 3.7 expected goals per 60 on the power play25th of 32

    • Colorado: 7.4 expected goals per 60 on the power play19th of 32

      Colorado: 7.9 expected goals per 60 on the power play9th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • St. Louis: 7.6 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded16th of 32

      St. Louis: 7.1 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded16th of 32

    • Colorado: 6.8 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded2nd of 32

      Colorado: 6.8 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded15th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • St. Louis: 0.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded29th of 32

      St. Louis: 0.2 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded18th of 32

    • Colorado: 0.8 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded23rd of 32

      Colorado: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded25th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • St. Louis: 0.02 more penalties taken than drawn per 6018th of 32

      St. Louis: 1.00 more penalties taken than drawn per 6022nd of 32

    • Colorado: 0.12 more penalties drawn than taken per 606th of 32

      Colorado: 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

Colorado 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.

St. Louis Blues

Colorado Avalanche

Worth knowing

  • St. Louis T. Tucker is out indefinitely and has not played this season. He is one of their more valuable skaters. B. Carlo has taken his spot beside C. Fowler.
  • St. Louis L. Mailloux is out long term and has not played this season. He is a top-four defenseman. A. Jiricek has taken his spot beside P. Broberg.

Who Colorado is likely to send against whom

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

St. Louis’s lines tonightL1 Thomas · Holloway · SnuggerudL2 Berggren · Neighbours · DvorskyL3 Buchnevich · McMichael · McTavishL4 Johnston · Toropchenko · Suter

Colorado forward lines against St. Louis forward lines

  • L1Lehkonen · MacKinnon · NecasSTL L146%STL L211%STL L336%STL L47%
  • L2Kadri · Nelson · LandeskogSTL L126%STL L244%STL L315%STL L415%
  • L3Roy · Kelly · SvechkovSTL L131%STL L232%STL L324%STL L413%
  • L4STL L1–STL L2–STL L3–STL L4–

Colorado defense pairs against St. Louis forward lines

  • P1Toews · MakarSTL L156%STL L214%STL L323%STL L48%
  • P2Burns · MansonSTL L14%STL L244%STL L318%STL L433%
  • P3Kulak · MalinskiSTL L124%STL L229%STL L335%STL L411%

Based on 1 Colorado 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

St. Louis power play against Colorado penalty kill

  • St. Louis power play

    6.2 expected goals per 60 · 31st of 32

  • Colorado penalty kill

    6.8 expected goals allowed per 60 · 2nd of 32

St. Louis power play

PP166% of the time

Creates 5.9 expected goals per 60

  • C. FowlerQuarterback
  • D. Holloway
  • M. McTavish
  • J. SnuggerudTrigger
  • R. ThomasDistributor

PP234% of the time

Creates 6.9 expected goals per 60

  • A. JiricekQuarterback
  • C. McMichael
  • P. BuchnevichTrigger
  • D. Dvorsky
  • J. NeighboursDistributor

 

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

Colorado 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

J. Hofer45 starts · 1276 shots, this season and last

+20.9 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.980 697 shots
Medium-danger save %
.875 423 shots
High-danger save %
.699 156 shots
Shots faced per 60
28.5
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.36
Quality starts
62%

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. HoferM. Blackwood

M. Blackwood37 starts · 964 shots, this season and last

+5.7 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.974 499 shots
Medium-danger save %
.874 334 shots
High-danger save %
.702 131 shots
Shots faced per 60
26.1
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.38
Quality starts
68%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Hofer: +20.9 goals saved above expected in 45 starts
    • M. Blackwood: +5.7 goals saved above expected in 37 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Hofer: 28.5 shots faced per 60
    • M. Blackwood: 26.1 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Hofer: the average shot he faces has a 6.8% chance of going in
    • M. Blackwood: the average shot he faces has a 6.7% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Hofer: 0.36 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • M. Blackwood: 0.38 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Hofer: a typical wait of 70 seconds between shots
    • M. Blackwood: a typical wait of 78 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Hofer: a quality start 62% of the time
    • M. Blackwood: a quality start 68% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

M. Blackwood, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

J. Hofer1 start · 25 shots, this season

+2.8 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate

Low-danger save %
1.000 14 shots
Medium-danger save %
1.000 11 shots
High-danger save %
– 0 shots
Shots faced per 60
25
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. HoferM. Blackwood

M. Blackwood1 start · 31 shots, this season

−1.3 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate

Low-danger save %
.867 15 shots
Medium-danger save %
.857 14 shots
High-danger save %
1.000 2 shots
Shots faced per 60
31
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
0%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Hofer: +2.8 goals saved above expected in 1 start (too few starts to place)
    • M. Blackwood: −1.3 goals saved above expected in 1 start (too few starts to place)
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Hofer: 25 shots faced per 60 (too few starts to place)
    • M. Blackwood: 31 shots faced per 60 (too few starts to place)
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Hofer: the average shot he faces has a 6.5% chance of going in (too few starts to place)
    • M. Blackwood: the average shot he faces has a 6.0% chance of going in (too few starts to place)
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Hofer: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60 (too few starts to place)
    • M. Blackwood: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60 (too few starts to place)
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Hofer: a typical wait of 93 seconds between shots (too few starts to place)
    • M. Blackwood: a typical wait of 90 seconds between shots (too few starts to place)
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Hofer: a quality start 100% of the time (too few starts to place)
    • M. Blackwood: a quality start 0% of the time (too few starts to place)

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

M. Blackwood, 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
St. LouisColoradoLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play60.7%56%
  • Power play15.8%15.1%
  • Rebound4.7%9.1%
  • Empty net6.4%8.3%
  • Off a turnover6%5.7%
  • Goalie pulled2.6%2.9%
  • Shorthanded2.1%1.1%
  • Off a faceoff win1.7%1.7%

234 St. Louis goals and 350 Colorado goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play25%37.5%
  • Power play0%50%
  • Rebound25%12.5%
  • Empty net50%0%
  • Off a turnover0%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

4 St. Louis goals and 8 Colorado 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: St. Louis Blues · Colorado Avalanche