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

PIT

Pittsburgh Penguins

2-1-0

WSH

Washington Capitals

1-1-0

Has last change

Wednesday, October 7

7:30 PM ET · Capital One Arena

The short version

Before the game

van Riemsdyk returns to Washington

The Penguins come in at 2-1-0, the Capitals at 1-1-0. Pittsburgh has had more of the chances over recent games and Washington has home ice. Washington’s best way to tip it is getting good looks.

The Penguins come in at 2-1-0, the Capitals at 1-1-0. Pittsburgh has had more of the chances over recent games and Washington has home ice. Washington can still swing it if they get good looks.

The Penguins shoot a lot, and the Capitals give up plenty. Both teams like a fast game.

Who to watch

  • Old teamTrevor van Riemsdyk faces Washington for the first time since leaving.
  • Haunts themSidney Crosby has seven goals in ten games against Washington since 2023-24.
  • Owns themPierre-Luc Dubois has a point in five straight games against Pittsburgh.
  • Old teamAnthony Beauvillier faces his old team, Pittsburgh.

  1. Expect the Penguins to fire from everywhere

    The Penguins shoot a lot, and the Capitals are near the bottom of the league at keeping shots down. Look for a big shot total.

    The call The Penguins take at least their usual 60.2 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5.

    Pittsburgh 8th for shot volume (60.2 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5) · Washington 24th for shot suppression

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

  2. The Penguins should get some good looks

    The Penguins make their shots count, and the Capitals are around the middle of the league at preventing dangerous shots. Expect the Penguins to get some real chances.

    The call The Penguins’ average shot has at least their usual 6.7% chance of going in.

    Pittsburgh 7th for shot quality (a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Washington 22nd for preventing dangerous shots

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

  3. Nobody’s sitting back in this one

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

    The call The game runs at more than 84.2 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, faster than either team’s usual.

    Pace (shots per 60 at 5-on-5, both teams): Pittsburgh 6th (84.2), Washington 9th (83.3)

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

  4. Airtight against leaky on the kill

    On the penalty kill, Pittsburgh is near the top of the league and Washington is near the bottom of the league. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Penguins’ penalty kill allows less per 60 than the Capitals’.

    Penalty kill: Pittsburgh 7th, Washington 26th

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 3 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 Pittsburgh and Washington play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Pittsburgh PenguinsWashington CapitalsLeague 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 Pittsburgh, 2 for Washington. 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

    • Pittsburgh: 60.2 shot attempts per 608th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 62.0 shot attempts per 609th of 32

    • Washington: 57.0 shot attempts per 6014th of 32

      Washington: 55.8 shot attempts per 6017th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Pittsburgh: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot7th of 32

      Pittsburgh: a 6.8% chance of scoring on the average shot10th of 32

    • Washington: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot9th of 32

      Washington: a 7.1% chance of scoring on the average shot7th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Pittsburgh: 10.0% of chances come from rebounds27th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 4.4% of chances come from rebounds28th of 32

    • Washington: 10.5% of chances come from rebounds5th of 32

      Washington: 22.7% of chances come from rebounds2nd of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Pittsburgh: 7.4% of chances come right after a turnover15th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 3.0% of chances come right after a turnover25th of 32

    • Washington: 7.2% of chances come right after a turnover21st of 32

      Washington: 0.9% of chances come right after a turnover32nd of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Pittsburgh: 34.9% of shot attempts come from defensemen18th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 38.7% of shot attempts come from defensemen5th of 32

    • Washington: 36.0% of shot attempts come from defensemen10th of 32

      Washington: 38.5% of shot attempts come from defensemen6th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Pittsburgh: 34.2% of shots come from within 20 feet1st of 32

      Pittsburgh: 38.4% of shots come from within 20 feet3rd of 32

    • Washington: 30.8% of shots come from within 20 feet11th of 32

      Washington: 24.1% of shots come from within 20 feet29th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Pittsburgh: 56.3 shot attempts allowed per 6015th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 54.7 shot attempts allowed per 6016th of 32

    • Washington: 59.4 shot attempts allowed per 6024th of 32

      Washington: 64.8 shot attempts allowed per 6028th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Pittsburgh: a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot against23rd of 32

      Pittsburgh: a 6.1% chance of scoring on the average shot against14th of 32

    • Washington: a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot against22nd of 32

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

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Pittsburgh: 0.41 defensive breakdowns per 6019th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 0.83 defensive breakdowns per 6027th of 32

    • Washington: 0.51 defensive breakdowns per 6032nd of 32

      Washington: 0.69 defensive breakdowns per 6024th of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Pittsburgh: +0.06 goals saved above expected per 6024th of 32

      Pittsburgh: −0.07 goals saved above expected per 6020th of 32

    • Washington: +0.18 goals saved above expected per 606th of 32

      Washington: +1.65 goals saved above expected per 601st of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Pittsburgh: 84.2 shots per 60, both teams combined6th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 89.5 shots per 60, both teams combined3rd of 32

    • Washington: 83.3 shots per 60, both teams combined9th of 32

      Washington: 87.9 shots per 60, both teams combined4th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Pittsburgh: forecheck score 80 (100 is league average)32nd of 32Pittsburgh: 18.0 forecheck plays recorded per 6032nd of 32

      Pittsburgh: forecheck score 72 (100 is league average)29th of 32Pittsburgh: 17.4 forecheck plays recorded per 6029th of 32

    • Washington: forecheck score 84 (100 is league average)27th of 32Washington: 19.5 forecheck plays recorded per 6026th of 32

      Washington: forecheck score 66 (100 is league average)32nd of 32Washington: 16.6 forecheck plays recorded per 6032nd of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Pittsburgh: hit score 72 (100 is league average)32nd of 32Pittsburgh: 18.9 hits recorded per 6032nd of 32

      Pittsburgh: hit score 57 (100 is league average)32nd of 32Pittsburgh: 16.7 hits recorded per 6032nd of 32

    • Washington: hit score 99 (100 is league average)17th of 32Washington: 26.6 hits recorded per 6017th of 32

      Washington: hit score 114 (100 is league average)8th of 32Washington: 34.9 hits recorded per 607th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Pittsburgh: 43.6% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six5th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 43.7% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six12th of 32

    • Washington: 42.8% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six12th of 32

      Washington: 45.5% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six3rd of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Pittsburgh: 7.5 expected goals per 60 on the power play14th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 7.2 expected goals per 60 on the power play14th of 32

    • Washington: 7.1 expected goals per 60 on the power play24th of 32

      Washington: 4.0 expected goals per 60 on the power play31st of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Pittsburgh: 6.9 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded7th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 5.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded10th of 32

    • Washington: 8.1 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded26th of 32

      Washington: 9.5 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded25th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Pittsburgh: 1.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded13th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 2.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded2nd of 32

    • Washington: 0.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded26th of 32

      Washington: 0.2 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded22nd of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Pittsburgh: 0.02 more penalties drawn than taken per 6016th of 32

      Pittsburgh: 1.32 more penalties drawn than taken per 603rd of 32

    • Washington: 0.14 more penalties taken than drawn per 6026th of 32

      Washington: 2.50 more penalties taken than drawn per 6032nd 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

Washington 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.

Pittsburgh Penguins

Washington Capitals

Who Washington is likely to send against whom

Washington 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

Pittsburgh power play against Washington penalty kill

  • Pittsburgh power play

    7.5 expected goals per 60 · 14th of 32

  • Washington penalty kill

    8.1 expected goals allowed per 60 · 26th of 32

Pittsburgh power play

PP168% of the time

Creates 7.3 expected goals per 60

  • E. KarlssonQuarterback
  • R. RakellTrigger
  • S. CrosbyDistributor
  • T. Novak
  • E. Chinakhovboth units

PP232% of the time

Creates 7.1 expected goals per 60

  • K. LetangQuarterback
  • E. Chinakhovboth units
  • E. MalkinTrigger
  • H. Lapierre
  • A. Kuzmenko

 

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

Washington 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

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%

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 chancesA. SilovsS. MurashovL. ThompsonC. Lindgren

L. Thompson58 starts · 1620 shots, this season and last

+39.1 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.977 816 shots
Medium-danger save %
.900 548 shots
High-danger save %
.734 256 shots
Shots faced per 60
27.7
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.51
Quality starts
69%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • A. Silovs: −3.8 goals saved above expected in 38 starts
    • L. Thompson: +39.1 goals saved above expected in 58 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • A. Silovs: 27 shots faced per 60
    • L. Thompson: 27.7 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • A. Silovs: the average shot he faces has a 7.0% chance of going in
    • L. Thompson: the average shot he faces has a 7.2% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • A. Silovs: 0.41 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • L. Thompson: 0.51 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • A. Silovs: a typical wait of 77 seconds between shots
    • L. Thompson: a typical wait of 73 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • A. Silovs: a quality start 53% of the time
    • L. Thompson: a quality start 69% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

L. Thompson, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

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%

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 chancesA. SilovsS. MurashovL. ThompsonC. Lindgren

L. Thompson1 start · 33 shots, this season

+1.7 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate

Low-danger save %
1.000 12 shots
Medium-danger save %
.933 15 shots
High-danger save %
.833 6 shots
Shots faced per 60
33.1
Defensive breakdowns per 60
1
Quality starts
100%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • A. Silovs: −0.1 goals saved above expected in 2 starts
    • L. Thompson: +1.7 goals saved above expected in 1 start (too few starts to place)
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • A. Silovs: 21.7 shots faced per 60
    • L. Thompson: 33.1 shots faced per 60 (too few starts to place)
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • A. Silovs: the average shot he faces has a 6.0% chance of going in
    • L. Thompson: the average shot he faces has a 7.1% chance of going in (too few starts to place)
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • A. Silovs: 0.49 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • L. Thompson: 1 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60 (too few starts to place)
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • A. Silovs: a typical wait of 78 seconds between shots
    • L. Thompson: a typical wait of 67 seconds between shots (too few starts to place)
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • A. Silovs: a quality start 50% of the time
    • L. Thompson: a quality start 100% of the time (too few starts to place)

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

L. Thompson, 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
PittsburghWashingtonLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play56.3%55.4%
  • Power play19.9%16.1%
  • Rebound5.1%12%
  • Empty net5.4%9.4%
  • Off a turnover6.3%3%
  • Goalie pulled3.5%1.9%
  • Shorthanded1.6%1.1%
  • Off a faceoff win1.9%1.1%

316 Pittsburgh goals and 267 Washington goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play66.7%66.7%
  • Power play26.7%16.7%
  • Rebound0%16.7%
  • Empty net0%0%
  • Off a turnover0%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded6.7%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

15 Pittsburgh goals and 6 Washington 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: Pittsburgh Penguins · Washington Capitals