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

NSH

Nashville Predators

1-1-0

TOR

Toronto Maple Leafs

1-2-0

Has last change

Tuesday, October 6

7:00 PM ET · Scotiabank Arena

The short version

Before the game

Shots should fly both ways

The Predators come in at 1-1-0, the Maple Leafs at 1-2-0. Nashville has controlled the play far better over recent games and Toronto has home ice. Toronto can tip it if they pounce on loose pucks.

The Predators come in at 1-1-0, the Maple Leafs at 1-2-0. Nashville has controlled the play far better over recent games and Toronto has home ice. Toronto can still swing it if they pounce on loose pucks.

Both teams like a fast game. The Predators and the Maple Leafs sit at opposite ends for penalty kill.

Who to watch

  • Haunts themAuston Matthews has six goals in six games against Nashville since 2023-24.
  • Leads the wayRoman Josi leads the Predators with two points.

  1. Shots should fly both ways

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

    The call The game runs at more than 84.4 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, faster than either team’s usual.

    Pace (shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams): Nashville 4th (84.4), Toronto 5th (84.4)

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 2 and 3 games this season

  2. The Predators kill penalties far better than the Maple Leafs

    The Predators are around the middle of the league for the penalty kill, at the airtight end; the Maple Leafs are one of the league’s worst, at the leaky end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Predators’ penalty kill allows less per 60 than the Maple Leafs’.

    Penalty kill: Nashville 16th, Toronto 31st

    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 Nashville and Toronto play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Nashville PredatorsToronto Maple LeafsLeague 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 3 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 2 games for Nashville, 3 for Toronto. 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

    • Nashville: 54.5 shot attempts per 6024th of 32

      Nashville: 50.1 shot attempts per 6025th of 32

    • Toronto: 53.3 shot attempts per 6027th of 32

      Toronto: 55.9 shot attempts per 6019th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Nashville: a 5.9% chance of scoring on the average shot30th of 32

      Nashville: a 4.4% chance of scoring on the average shot32nd of 32

    • Toronto: a 6.1% chance of scoring on the average shot25th of 32

      Toronto: a 5.4% chance of scoring on the average shot28th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Nashville: 10.4% of chances come from rebounds10th of 32

      Nashville: 12.1% of chances come from rebounds14th of 32

    • Toronto: 10.1% of chances come from rebounds19th of 32

      Toronto: 4.6% of chances come from rebounds26th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Nashville: 7.2% of chances come right after a turnover18th of 32

      Nashville: 1.7% of chances come right after a turnover26th of 32

    • Toronto: 8.5% of chances come right after a turnover1st of 32

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

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Nashville: 32.0% of shot attempts come from defensemen27th of 32

      Nashville: 28.8% of shot attempts come from defensemen28th of 32

    • Toronto: 32.4% of shot attempts come from defensemen25th of 32

      Toronto: 28.1% of shot attempts come from defensemen29th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

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

      Nashville: 32.8% of shots come from within 20 feet11th of 32

    • Toronto: 31.8% of shots come from within 20 feet4th of 32

      Toronto: 44.0% of shots come from within 20 feet1st of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Nashville: 59.5 shot attempts allowed per 6025th of 32

      Nashville: 66.4 shot attempts allowed per 6029th of 32

    • Toronto: 61.4 shot attempts allowed per 6028th of 32

      Toronto: 55.0 shot attempts allowed per 6017th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

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

      Nashville: a 4.9% chance of scoring on the average shot against2nd of 32

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

      Toronto: a 7.6% chance of scoring on the average shot against30th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Nashville: 0.40 defensive breakdowns per 6017th of 32

      Nashville: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

    • Toronto: 0.43 defensive breakdowns per 6024th of 32

      Toronto: 0.93 defensive breakdowns per 6030th of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Nashville: +0.08 goals saved above expected per 6021st of 32

      Nashville: +0.58 goals saved above expected per 6012th of 32

    • Toronto: +0.03 goals saved above expected per 6030th of 32

      Toronto: +0.98 goals saved above expected per 608th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Nashville: 84.4 shots per 60, both teams combined4th of 32

      Nashville: 88.1 shots per 60, both teams combined6th of 32

    • Toronto: 84.4 shots per 60, both teams combined5th of 32

      Toronto: 83.5 shots per 60, both teams combined11th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Nashville: forecheck score 92 (100 is league average)22nd of 32Nashville: 21.5 forecheck plays recorded per 6022nd of 32

      Nashville: forecheck score 82 (100 is league average)23rd of 32Nashville: 21.7 forecheck plays recorded per 6024th of 32

    • Toronto: forecheck score 90 (100 is league average)24th of 32Toronto: 22.2 forecheck plays recorded per 6018th of 32

      Toronto: forecheck score 80 (100 is league average)25th of 32Toronto: 22.8 forecheck plays recorded per 6021st of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Nashville: hit score 85 (100 is league average)29th of 32Nashville: 22.6 hits recorded per 6028th of 32

      Nashville: hit score 70 (100 is league average)30th of 32Nashville: 21.4 hits recorded per 6028th of 32

    • Toronto: hit score 93 (100 is league average)23rd of 32Toronto: 27.8 hits recorded per 6011th of 32

      Toronto: hit score 82 (100 is league average)24th of 32Toronto: 29.9 hits recorded per 6017th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Nashville: 42.0% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six16th of 32

      Nashville: 41.8% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six19th of 32

    • Toronto: 41.2% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six22nd of 32

      Toronto: 40.9% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six23rd of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Nashville: 7.1 expected goals per 60 on the power play26th of 32

      Nashville: 4.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play28th of 32

    • Toronto: 7.6 expected goals per 60 on the power play12th of 32

      Toronto: 7.5 expected goals per 60 on the power play10th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Nashville: 7.5 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded16th of 32

      Nashville: 9.2 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded26th of 32

    • Toronto: 8.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded31st of 32

      Toronto: 7.6 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded23rd of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Nashville: 0.8 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded24th of 32

      Nashville: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded28th of 32

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

      Toronto: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded27th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Nashville: 0.04 more penalties drawn than taken per 6015th of 32

      Nashville: 1.00 more penalties drawn than taken per 606th of 32

    • Toronto: 0.22 more penalties taken than drawn per 6032nd of 32

      Toronto: 0.33 more penalties drawn than taken per 6012th 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

Toronto 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 3 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.

Nashville Predators

Toronto Maple Leafs

Worth knowing

  • Toronto O. Ekman-Larsson has started killing penalties: on the ice for 37% of the team’s shorthanded time in 3 games, up from 6% last season.

Who Toronto is likely to send against whom

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

Nashville’s lines tonightL1 Marchessault · Colton · BourqueL2 Stamkos · O'Reilly · KerfootL3 Forsberg · Hoglander · WoodL4 Drury · Edstrom · Schaefer

Toronto forward lines against Nashville forward lines

  • L1Roslovic · Matthews · MarchenkoNSH L129%NSH L220%NSH L332%NSH L419%
  • L2Tavares · Nylander · McKennaNSH L122%NSH L225%NSH L321%NSH L432%
  • L3Sissons · Paul · CowanNSH L136%NSH L229%NSH L321%NSH L414%
  • L4Blueger · Duhaime · GroulxNSH L126%NSH L219%NSH L335%NSH L421%

Toronto defense pairs against Nashville forward lines

  • P1Rielly · RaddyshNSH L127%NSH L224%NSH L324%NSH L426%
  • P2Tanev · McCabeNSH L133%NSH L222%NSH L328%NSH L417%
  • P3Ekman-Larsson · StecherNSH L128%NSH L224%NSH L330%NSH L417%

Based on 3 Toronto home games 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

Nashville power play against Toronto penalty kill

  • Nashville power play

    7.1 expected goals per 60 · 26th of 32

  • Toronto penalty kill

    8.4 expected goals allowed per 60 · 31st of 32

Nashville power play

PP167% of the time

Creates 6.3 expected goals per 60

  • R. JosiQuarterback
  • F. Forsberg
  • S. StamkosTrigger
  • M. Wood
  • R. O'ReillyDistributor

PP233% of the time

Creates 6.3 expected goals per 60

  • R. UfkoQuarterback
  • J. MarchessaultTrigger
  • M. Bourque
  • A. Kerfoot
  • R. Colton

 

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

Toronto 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. Saros58 starts · 1760 shots, this season and last

+2.9 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.975 879 shots
Medium-danger save %
.878 598 shots
High-danger save %
.682 283 shots
Shots faced per 60
29.7
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 chancesJ. SarosS. BobrovskyA. Stolarz

S. Bobrovsky51 starts · 1303 shots, this season and last

−17.2 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.969 676 shots
Medium-danger save %
.845 420 shots
High-danger save %
.643 207 shots
Shots faced per 60
25
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.29
Quality starts
55%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Saros: +2.9 goals saved above expected in 58 starts
    • S. Bobrovsky: −17.2 goals saved above expected in 51 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Saros: 29.7 shots faced per 60
    • S. Bobrovsky: 25 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Saros: the average shot he faces has a 7.3% chance of going in
    • S. Bobrovsky: the average shot he faces has a 7.0% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Saros: 0.35 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • S. Bobrovsky: 0.29 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Saros: a typical wait of 70 seconds between shots
    • S. Bobrovsky: a typical wait of 82 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Saros: a quality start 52% of the time
    • S. Bobrovsky: a quality start 55% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

J. Saros2 starts · 60 shots, this season

+1.2 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
1.000 36 shots
Medium-danger save %
.857 21 shots
High-danger save %
.667 3 shots
Shots faced per 60
30.4
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. SarosS. BobrovskyA. Stolarz

S. Bobrovsky2 starts · 53 shots, this season

+1.3 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.962 26 shots
Medium-danger save %
.889 18 shots
High-danger save %
.667 9 shots
Shots faced per 60
27
Defensive breakdowns per 60
1.02
Quality starts
50%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Saros: +1.2 goals saved above expected in 2 starts
    • S. Bobrovsky: +1.3 goals saved above expected in 2 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Saros: 30.4 shots faced per 60
    • S. Bobrovsky: 27 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Saros: the average shot he faces has a 5.4% chance of going in
    • S. Bobrovsky: the average shot he faces has a 9.1% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Saros: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • S. Bobrovsky: 1.02 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Saros: a typical wait of 73 seconds between shots
    • S. Bobrovsky: a typical wait of 57 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Saros: a quality start 100% of the time
    • S. Bobrovsky: a quality start 50% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

S. Bobrovsky, 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
NashvilleTorontoLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play51.4%57.4%
  • Power play22.9%15.9%
  • Rebound6.9%7.8%
  • Empty net6.5%7.4%
  • Off a turnover5.3%6.6%
  • Goalie pulled2.4%1.6%
  • Shorthanded2.9%2.3%
  • Off a faceoff win1.6%1.2%

245 Nashville goals and 258 Toronto goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play33.3%66.7%
  • Power play66.7%33.3%
  • Rebound0%0%
  • Empty net0%0%
  • Off a turnover0%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

3 Nashville goals and 6 Toronto 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: Nashville Predators · Toronto Maple Leafs