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

WPG

Winnipeg Jets

1-0-1

PIT

Pittsburgh Penguins

2-0-0

Has last change

Monday, October 5

7:30 PM ET · PPG Paints Arena

The short version

Before the game

Good looks against hopeful ones

The Penguins have won two in a row. The Jets are 1-0-1. Pittsburgh has had more of the chances over recent games, Winnipeg is playing for the second night in a row, and Pittsburgh has home ice. Winnipeg’s way back in is a penalty kill that holds up.

The Penguins have won two in a row. The Jets are 1-0-1. Pittsburgh has had more of the chances over recent games, Winnipeg is playing for the second night in a row, and Pittsburgh has home ice. Winnipeg can pull it off if their penalty kill holds up.

The Penguins and the Jets sit at opposite ends for shot quality.

Who to watch

  • Haunts themKyle Connor has four goals in six games against Pittsburgh since 2023-24.
  • Leads the wayTommy Novak leads the Penguins with four points.

  1. Good looks against hopeful ones

    The Penguins are one of the league’s best for shot quality, at the dangerous end; the Jets are one of the league’s worst, at the hopeful end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Penguins’ shots are more dangerous on average than the Jets’.

    Shot quality: Pittsburgh 5th, Winnipeg 29th

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

  2. The Penguins get in close; the Jets shoot from distance

    On shots from in close, Pittsburgh is the league’s best and Winnipeg is around the middle of the league. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

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

    Shots from in close: Pittsburgh 1st, Winnipeg 22nd

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

Winnipeg JetsPittsburgh PenguinsLeague 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 2 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 2 games for Winnipeg, 2 for Pittsburgh. 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

    • Winnipeg: 53.7 shot attempts per 6024th of 32

      Winnipeg: 53.7 shot attempts per 6023rd of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 59.3 shot attempts per 608th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 60.5 shot attempts per 607th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

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

      Winnipeg: a 5.1% chance of scoring on the average shot28th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot5th of 32

      Pittsburgh: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot12th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Winnipeg: 10.2% of chances come from rebounds18th of 32

      Winnipeg: 7.1% of chances come from rebounds20th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 10.0% of chances come from rebounds26th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 6.3% of chances come from rebounds23rd of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Winnipeg: 6.8% of chances come right after a turnover29th of 32

      Winnipeg: 7.6% of chances come right after a turnover15th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 7.4% of chances come right after a turnover14th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 3.8% of chances come right after a turnover21st of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Winnipeg: 36.4% of shot attempts come from defensemen6th of 32

      Winnipeg: 35.8% of shot attempts come from defensemen14th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 34.7% of shot attempts come from defensemen18th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 39.5% of shot attempts come from defensemen2nd of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Winnipeg: 30.1% of shots come from within 20 feet22nd of 32

      Winnipeg: 26.9% of shots come from within 20 feet23rd of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 34.1% of shots come from within 20 feet1st of 32

      Pittsburgh: 38.9% of shots come from within 20 feet4th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Winnipeg: 58.5 shot attempts allowed per 6021st of 32

      Winnipeg: 68.7 shot attempts allowed per 6030th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 55.6 shot attempts allowed per 6014th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 50.1 shot attempts allowed per 6012th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Winnipeg: a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot against17th of 32

      Winnipeg: a 6.0% chance of scoring on the average shot against12th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot against24th of 32

      Pittsburgh: a 6.1% chance of scoring on the average shot against15th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Winnipeg: 0.37 defensive breakdowns per 604th of 32

      Winnipeg: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 0.41 defensive breakdowns per 6018th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 0.64 defensive breakdowns per 6023rd of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Winnipeg: +0.14 goals saved above expected per 6011th of 32

      Winnipeg: +0.65 goals saved above expected per 6010th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: +0.05 goals saved above expected per 6023rd of 32

      Pittsburgh: −0.05 goals saved above expected per 6021st of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Winnipeg: 82.3 shots per 60, both teams combined16th of 32

      Winnipeg: 95.4 shots per 60, both teams combined1st of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 83.4 shots per 60, both teams combined9th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 84.5 shots per 60, both teams combined13th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Winnipeg: forecheck score 82 (100 is league average)30th of 32Winnipeg: 18.8 forecheck plays recorded per 6030th of 32

      Winnipeg: forecheck score 73 (100 is league average)28th of 32Winnipeg: 18.5 forecheck plays recorded per 6029th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: forecheck score 84 (100 is league average)29th of 32Pittsburgh: 18.8 forecheck plays recorded per 6029th of 32

      Pittsburgh: forecheck score 81 (100 is league average)22nd of 32Pittsburgh: 20.0 forecheck plays recorded per 6025th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Winnipeg: hit score 93 (100 is league average)24th of 32Winnipeg: 24.8 hits recorded per 6024th of 32

      Winnipeg: hit score 77 (100 is league average)27th of 32Winnipeg: 23.6 hits recorded per 6027th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: hit score 80 (100 is league average)31st of 32Pittsburgh: 20.7 hits recorded per 6030th of 32

      Pittsburgh: hit score 75 (100 is league average)29th of 32Pittsburgh: 22.0 hits recorded per 6028th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Winnipeg: 41.6% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six18th of 32

      Winnipeg: 43.8% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six10th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 43.2% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six9th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 42.7% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six16th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Winnipeg: 7.6 expected goals per 60 on the power play14th of 32

      Winnipeg: 14.4 expected goals per 60 on the power play1st of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 7.7 expected goals per 60 on the power play12th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 8.9 expected goals per 60 on the power play8th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Winnipeg: 7.3 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded11th of 32

      Winnipeg: 7.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded19th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 7.0 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded6th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 5.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded8th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Winnipeg: 1.1 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded3rd of 32

      Winnipeg: 1.1 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded9th of 32

    • Pittsburgh: 1.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded11th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 3.4 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded1st of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Winnipeg: 0.08 more penalties drawn than taken per 609th of 32

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

    • Pittsburgh: 0.00 more penalties drawn than taken per 6017th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 1.48 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

Pittsburgh 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 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.

Winnipeg Jets

Pittsburgh Penguins

Who Pittsburgh is likely to send against whom

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

Winnipeg’s lines tonightL1 Scheifele · Connor · PerfettiL2 Lowry · Barron · LambertL3 Vilardi · Rosen · BjörckL4 Niederreiter · Namestnikov · Iafallo

Pittsburgh forward lines against Winnipeg forward lines

  • L1Crosby · Rakell · RobertsonWPG L145%WPG L231%WPG L312%WPG L412%
  • L2Malkin · Novak · ChinakhovWPG L132%WPG L216%WPG L315%WPG L437%
  • L3Hallander · Dewar · LizotteWPG L137%WPG L224%WPG L326%WPG L412%
  • L4Lapierre · Kuzmenko · KindelWPG L120%WPG L222%WPG L323%WPG L436%

Pittsburgh defense pairs against Winnipeg forward lines

  • P1Girard · KorczakWPG L144%WPG L232%WPG L37%WPG L417%
  • P2Letang · van RiemsdykWPG L136%WPG L216%WPG L314%WPG L434%
  • P3Karlsson · CarlileWPG L117%WPG L215%WPG L344%WPG L424%

Based on 1 Pittsburgh 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

Winnipeg power play against Pittsburgh penalty kill

  • Winnipeg power play

    7.6 expected goals per 60 · 14th of 32

  • Pittsburgh penalty kill

    7.0 expected goals allowed per 60 · 6th of 32

Winnipeg power play

PP169% of the time

Creates 9.8 expected goals per 60

  • J. MorrisseyQuarterback
  • M. Scheifele
  • G. VilardiTrigger
  • K. ConnorDistributor
  • C. PerfettiNet-front

PP231% of the time

Creates 6.8 expected goals per 60

  • N. PionkQuarterback
  • V. NamestnikovTrigger
  • N. NiederreiterNet-front
  • V. Björck
  • I. Rosen

 

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

Pittsburgh 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

S. Skinner50 starts · 1333 shots, this season and last

+12.5 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.974 617 shots
Medium-danger save %
.885 495 shots
High-danger save %
.661 221 shots
Shots faced per 60
26.3
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.35
Quality starts
52%

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 chancesS. SkinnerA. Silovs

A. Silovs38 starts · 1065 shots, this season and last

−3.8 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.963 519 shots
Medium-danger save %
.871 403 shots
High-danger save %
.657 143 shots
Shots faced per 60
27
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.41
Quality starts
53%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • S. Skinner: +12.5 goals saved above expected in 50 starts
    • A. Silovs: −3.8 goals saved above expected in 38 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • S. Skinner: 26.3 shots faced per 60
    • A. Silovs: 27 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • S. Skinner: the average shot he faces has a 7.4% chance of going in
    • A. Silovs: the average shot he faces has a 7.0% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • S. Skinner: 0.35 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • A. Silovs: 0.41 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • S. Skinner: a typical wait of 74 seconds between shots
    • A. Silovs: a typical wait of 77 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • S. Skinner: a quality start 52% of the time
    • A. Silovs: a quality start 53% of the time

S. Skinner, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

S. Skinner2 starts · 66 shots, this season

+1.3 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.970 33 shots
Medium-danger save %
.923 26 shots
High-danger save %
.571 7 shots
Shots faced per 60
32.1
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
50%

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 chancesS. SkinnerA. Silovs

A. Silovs2 starts · 44 shots, this season

−0.1 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
1.000 22 shots
Medium-danger save %
.722 18 shots
High-danger save %
1.000 4 shots
Shots faced per 60
21.7
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.49
Quality starts
50%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • S. Skinner: +1.3 goals saved above expected in 2 starts
    • A. Silovs: −0.1 goals saved above expected in 2 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • S. Skinner: 32.1 shots faced per 60
    • A. Silovs: 21.7 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • S. Skinner: the average shot he faces has a 6.6% chance of going in
    • A. Silovs: the average shot he faces has a 6.0% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • S. Skinner: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • A. Silovs: 0.49 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • S. Skinner: a typical wait of 72 seconds between shots
    • A. Silovs: a typical wait of 78 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • S. Skinner: a quality start 50% of the time
    • A. Silovs: a quality start 50% of the time

S. Skinner, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

A. Silovs, 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
WinnipegPittsburghLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play56.4%56.1%
  • Power play19.7%20.1%
  • Rebound8.1%5.1%
  • Empty net5.6%5.4%
  • Off a turnover3.4%6.4%
  • Goalie pulled2.1%3.5%
  • Shorthanded2.1%1.6%
  • Off a faceoff win2.6%1.9%

234 Winnipeg goals and 314 Pittsburgh goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play33.3%61.5%
  • Power play66.7%30.8%
  • Rebound0%0%
  • Empty net0%0%
  • Off a turnover0%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded0%7.7%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

6 Winnipeg goals and 13 Pittsburgh 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: Winnipeg Jets · Pittsburgh Penguins