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

PHI

Philadelphia Flyers

0-1-2

TBL

Tampa Bay Lightning

1-1-0

Has last change

Monday, October 5

7:00 PM ET · Benchmark International Arena

The short version

Before the game

Kucherov’s favourite opponent

The Lightning are 1-1-0. The Flyers haven’t won in three. Tampa Bay has had more of the chances over recent games and has home ice. Philadelphia’s way back in is pouncing on loose pucks.

The Lightning are 1-1-0. The Flyers haven’t won in three. Tampa Bay has had more of the chances over recent games and has home ice. Philadelphia’s best way through is pouncing on loose pucks.

Don’t read much into Vasilevskiy’s record against the Flyers. The Lightning shoot a lot, and the Flyers give up plenty.

Who to watch

  • Owns themNikita Kucherov has a point in eight straight games against Philadelphia, and 18 points in his last eight against them.
  • Leads the wayTravis Sanheim leads the Flyers with two points.

  1. Don’t count on Vasilevskiy to stand on his head again

    Since 2023-24, Vasilevskiy has been a wall against the Flyers, well above his usual. Fans love a pattern like this, but we checked three seasons of them and they predicted nothing. Expect the usual Vasilevskiy.

    The call If Vasilevskiy starts, his save percentage lands closer to his usual .910 than to his .944 against the Flyers.

    7 starts against Philadelphia: .944 save percentage · .910 against everyone else

    Goalie starts since 2023-24 · 7 against Philadelphia, 4,532 shots against everyone else

  2. Expect the Lightning to fire from everywhere

    Philadelphia has been giving up shots all season, and the Lightning rarely pass one up.

    The call The Lightning take at least their usual 60.3 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5.

    Tampa Bay 6th for shot volume (60.3 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5) · Philadelphia 28th for shot suppression

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 2 and 3 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 Philadelphia and Tampa Bay play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Philadelphia FlyersTampa Bay LightningLeague 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 3 and 2 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 3 games for Philadelphia, 2 for Tampa Bay. 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

    • Philadelphia: 45.3 shot attempts per 6032nd of 32

      Philadelphia: 39.0 shot attempts per 6032nd of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 60.3 shot attempts per 606th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 62.3 shot attempts per 605th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Philadelphia: a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot15th of 32

      Philadelphia: a 5.3% chance of scoring on the average shot26th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot7th of 32

      Tampa Bay: a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot18th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Philadelphia: 10.1% of chances come from rebounds23rd of 32

      Philadelphia: 13.3% of chances come from rebounds10th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 10.4% of chances come from rebounds9th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 4.1% of chances come from rebounds28th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Philadelphia: 7.8% of chances come right after a turnover2nd of 32

      Philadelphia: 1.8% of chances come right after a turnover25th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 6.8% of chances come right after a turnover27th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 9.0% of chances come right after a turnover13th of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Philadelphia: 31.9% of shot attempts come from defensemen28th of 32

      Philadelphia: 30.2% of shot attempts come from defensemen25th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 35.8% of shot attempts come from defensemen12th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 37.5% of shot attempts come from defensemen8th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Philadelphia: 31.0% of shots come from within 20 feet9th of 32

      Philadelphia: 24.2% of shots come from within 20 feet28th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 31.8% of shots come from within 20 feet6th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 38.7% of shots come from within 20 feet5th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Philadelphia: 61.2 shot attempts allowed per 6028th of 32

      Philadelphia: 79.4 shot attempts allowed per 6032nd of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 52.9 shot attempts allowed per 606th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 57.4 shot attempts allowed per 6017th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

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

      Philadelphia: a 7.2% chance of scoring on the average shot against29th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: a 6.2% chance of scoring on the average shot against11th of 32

      Tampa Bay: a 5.5% chance of scoring on the average shot against8th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Philadelphia: 0.40 defensive breakdowns per 6012th of 32

      Philadelphia: 0.83 defensive breakdowns per 6029th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 0.42 defensive breakdowns per 6021st of 32

      Tampa Bay: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Philadelphia: +0.10 goals saved above expected per 6017th of 32

      Philadelphia: +0.28 goals saved above expected per 6017th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: +0.19 goals saved above expected per 603rd of 32

      Tampa Bay: −0.01 goals saved above expected per 6020th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Philadelphia: 77.6 shots per 60, both teams combined31st of 32

      Philadelphia: 86.0 shots per 60, both teams combined11th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 81.4 shots per 60, both teams combined20th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 84.7 shots per 60, both teams combined12th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Philadelphia: forecheck score 93 (100 is league average)22nd of 32Philadelphia: 20.4 forecheck plays recorded per 6025th of 32

      Philadelphia: forecheck score 72 (100 is league average)29th of 32Philadelphia: 17.5 forecheck plays recorded per 6030th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: forecheck score 107 (100 is league average)8th of 32Tampa Bay: 24.3 forecheck plays recorded per 608th of 32

      Tampa Bay: forecheck score 130 (100 is league average)5th of 32Tampa Bay: 32.9 forecheck plays recorded per 606th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Philadelphia: hit score 113 (100 is league average)4th of 32Philadelphia: 28.8 hits recorded per 607th of 32

      Philadelphia: hit score 111 (100 is league average)10th of 32Philadelphia: 31.8 hits recorded per 6014th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: hit score 105 (100 is league average)13th of 32Tampa Bay: 28.6 hits recorded per 6010th of 32

      Tampa Bay: hit score 125 (100 is league average)4th of 32Tampa Bay: 39.8 hits recorded per 604th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Philadelphia: 42.9% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six10th of 32

      Philadelphia: 43.4% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six13th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 40.8% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six26th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 41.1% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six22nd of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

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

      Philadelphia: 5.2 expected goals per 60 on the power play22nd of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 7.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play21st of 32

      Tampa Bay: 4.4 expected goals per 60 on the power play27th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Philadelphia: 7.5 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded14th of 32

      Philadelphia: 7.8 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded24th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 7.2 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded9th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 5.5 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded9th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Philadelphia: 0.8 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded22nd of 32

      Philadelphia: 0.2 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded18th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 0.8 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded21st of 32

      Tampa Bay: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded29th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Philadelphia: 0.18 more penalties taken than drawn per 6029th of 32

      Philadelphia: 1.29 more penalties taken than drawn per 6027th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 0.11 more penalties drawn than taken per 607th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 3.50 more penalties drawn than taken per 601st 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

Tampa Bay 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 (3 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.

Philadelphia Flyers

Tampa Bay Lightning

Worth knowing

  • Philadelphia The forward lines keep changing. Even their four most-used trios over the last 3 games cover only 23% of their forwards’ 5-on-5 time, the lowest share in the league (a typical team: 61%). The lines listed lean on their latest games, but expect new combinations tonight.

Who Tampa Bay is likely to send against whom

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

Philadelphia keeps changing their forward lines, so the four named here (from their latest games) may not be the ones they send out tonight.

Philadelphia’s lines tonightL1 Grundstrom · Tippett · ZegrasL2 Couturier · Acciari · BumpL3 Cates · Foerster · MartoneL4 Dvorak · Konecny · Michkov

Tampa Bay forward lines against Philadelphia forward lines

  • L1Guentzel · Cirelli · HagelPHI L139%PHI L215%PHI L313%PHI L433%
  • L2Kucherov · Point · GoncalvesPHI L113%PHI L26%PHI L351%PHI L430%
  • L3Girgensons · Holmberg · MikheyevPHI L111%PHI L266%PHI L316%PHI L47%
  • L4PHI L1–PHI L2–PHI L3–PHI L4–

Tampa Bay defense pairs against Philadelphia forward lines

  • P1Carlson · MoserPHI L126%PHI L27%PHI L332%PHI L435%
  • P2McDonagh · CernakPHI L125%PHI L248%PHI L317%PHI L411%
  • P3Hedman · D'AstousPHI L128%PHI L223%PHI L321%PHI L429%

Based on 1 Tampa Bay 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

Philadelphia power play against Tampa Bay penalty kill

  • Philadelphia power play

    7.5 expected goals per 60 · 16th of 32

  • Tampa Bay penalty kill

    7.2 expected goals allowed per 60 · 9th of 32

Philadelphia power play

PP166% of the time

Creates 6.3 expected goals per 60

  • J. DrysdaleQuarterback
  • M. MichkovNet-front
  • T. ZegrasTrigger
  • T. Konecnyboth unitsDistributor
  • T. Foerster

PP234% of the time

Creates 6.7 expected goals per 60

  • C. YorkQuarterback
  • T. Konecnyboth unitsDistributor
  • O. TippettTrigger
  • A. Bump
  • C. DvorakNet-front

 

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

Tampa Bay 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. Woll40 starts · 1305 shots, this season and last

+3.3 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.980 683 shots
Medium-danger save %
.859 455 shots
High-danger save %
.689 167 shots
Shots faced per 60
33.2
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.28
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. WollD. VladarA. Vasilevskiy

A. Vasilevskiy59 starts · 1530 shots, this season and last

+25.1 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.967 767 shots
Medium-danger save %
.886 527 shots
High-danger save %
.780 236 shots
Shots faced per 60
25.9
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.47
Quality starts
73%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Woll: +3.3 goals saved above expected in 40 starts
    • A. Vasilevskiy: +25.1 goals saved above expected in 59 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Woll: 33.2 shots faced per 60
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 25.9 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Woll: the average shot he faces has a 6.8% chance of going in
    • A. Vasilevskiy: the average shot he faces has a 7.0% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Woll: 0.28 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 0.47 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Woll: a typical wait of 65 seconds between shots
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a typical wait of 75 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Woll: a quality start 65% of the time
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a quality start 73% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

J. Woll2 starts · 84 shots, this season

+3.2 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.976 41 shots
Medium-danger save %
.939 33 shots
High-danger save %
.700 10 shots
Shots faced per 60
40.1
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.48
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. WollD. VladarA. Vasilevskiy

A. Vasilevskiy2 starts · 45 shots, this season

0.0 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.909 22 shots
Medium-danger save %
.923 13 shots
High-danger save %
.800 10 shots
Shots faced per 60
23.3
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
50%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Woll: +3.2 goals saved above expected in 2 starts
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 0.0 goals saved above expected in 2 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Woll: 40.1 shots faced per 60
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 23.3 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Woll: the average shot he faces has a 7.4% chance of going in
    • A. Vasilevskiy: the average shot he faces has a 6.8% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Woll: 0.48 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Woll: a typical wait of 55 seconds between shots
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a typical wait of 89 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Woll: a quality start 100% of the time
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a quality start 50% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

A. Vasilevskiy, 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
PhiladelphiaTampa BayLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play59.1%57%
  • Power play14.8%18%
  • Rebound3.8%7.2%
  • Empty net8.7%7.9%
  • Off a turnover6.4%4.9%
  • Goalie pulled3.4%2%
  • Shorthanded2.7%1.6%
  • Off a faceoff win1.1%1.3%

264 Philadelphia goals and 305 Tampa Bay goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play75%75%
  • Power play0%0%
  • Rebound0%0%
  • Empty net0%25%
  • Off a turnover0%0%
  • Goalie pulled25%0%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

4 Philadelphia goals and 4 Tampa Bay 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: Philadelphia Flyers · Tampa Bay Lightning