Spare Line Change
Numbers from
Hits and takeaways
at

UTA

Utah Mammoth

3-1-0

BOS

Boston Bruins

2-2-0

Has last change

Thursday, October 8

7:00 PM ET · TD Garden

The short version

Before the game

Peeke returns to Boston

The Mammoth come in at 3-1-0, the Bruins at 2-2-0. Utah has controlled the play far better over recent games and Boston has home ice. Boston’s best way through is getting good looks.

The Mammoth come in at 3-1-0, the Bruins at 2-2-0. Utah has controlled the play far better over recent games and Boston has home ice. Boston can make it interesting if they get good looks.

The Mammoth’s power play has a soft target in the Bruins’ kill. The Bruins and the Mammoth sit at opposite ends for preventing dangerous shots.

Who to watch

  • Old teamAndrew Peeke faces Boston for the first time since leaving.
  • Old teamJJ Peterka faces Utah for the first time since leaving.
  • Hot streakClayton Keller has a point in every game this season.
  • Hot streakNick Schmaltz has a point in every game this season.

  1. The Bruins can’t afford to take penalties

    The Bruins’ penalty kill is one of the league’s worst, and the Mammoth’s power play is one of the league’s best. Discipline matters more than usual for the Bruins tonight.

    The call The Mammoth’s power play creates at least their usual 8.4 expected goals per 60.

    Utah 5th for power play (8.4 expected goals per 60) · Boston 28th for penalty kill

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 4 and 4 games this season

  2. Sheltered against exposed

    The Bruins are near the top of the league for preventing dangerous shots, at the sheltered end; the Mammoth are one of the league’s worst, at the exposed end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Bruins prevent dangerous shots better than the Mammoth do.

    Preventing dangerous shots: Boston 6th, Utah 30th

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 4 and 4 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 Utah and Boston play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Utah MammothBoston BruinsLeague 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 4 and 4 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 4 games for Utah, 4 for Boston. 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

    • Utah: 65.1 shot attempts per 603rd of 32

      Utah: 69.4 shot attempts per 603rd of 32

    • Boston: 54.7 shot attempts per 6021st of 32

      Boston: 52.2 shot attempts per 6023rd of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Utah: a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot12th of 32

      Utah: a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot19th of 32

    • Boston: a 6.2% chance of scoring on the average shot20th of 32

      Boston: a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot16th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Utah: 10.1% of chances come from rebounds22nd of 32

      Utah: 8.1% of chances come from rebounds20th of 32

    • Boston: 10.3% of chances come from rebounds15th of 32

      Boston: 1.6% of chances come from rebounds32nd of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Utah: 7.6% of chances come right after a turnover13th of 32

      Utah: 9.6% of chances come right after a turnover11th of 32

    • Boston: 7.3% of chances come right after a turnover20th of 32

      Boston: 5.7% of chances come right after a turnover21st of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Utah: 34.6% of shot attempts come from defensemen18th of 32

      Utah: 39.8% of shot attempts come from defensemen4th of 32

    • Boston: 32.0% of shot attempts come from defensemen26th of 32

      Boston: 30.6% of shot attempts come from defensemen28th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Utah: 31.2% of shots come from within 20 feet8th of 32

      Utah: 32.9% of shots come from within 20 feet11th of 32

    • Boston: 29.0% of shots come from within 20 feet26th of 32

      Boston: 30.4% of shots come from within 20 feet17th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Utah: 51.9 shot attempts allowed per 605th of 32

      Utah: 48.8 shot attempts allowed per 608th of 32

    • Boston: 57.1 shot attempts allowed per 6016th of 32

      Boston: 53.0 shot attempts allowed per 6013th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Utah: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot against30th of 32

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

    • Boston: a 6.0% chance of scoring on the average shot against6th of 32

      Boston: a 5.3% chance of scoring on the average shot against5th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Utah: 0.36 defensive breakdowns per 603rd of 32

      Utah: 0.31 defensive breakdowns per 6012th of 32

    • Boston: 0.41 defensive breakdowns per 6017th of 32

      Boston: 0.59 defensive breakdowns per 6021st of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Utah: +0.15 goals saved above expected per 6010th of 32

      Utah: +0.91 goals saved above expected per 605th of 32

    • Boston: +0.20 goals saved above expected per 606th of 32

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

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Utah: 81.0 shots per 60, both teams combined20th of 32

      Utah: 81.5 shots per 60, both teams combined13th of 32

    • Boston: 82.3 shots per 60, both teams combined15th of 32

      Boston: 78.4 shots per 60, both teams combined17th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Utah: forecheck score 119 (100 is league average)3rd of 32Utah: 26.3 forecheck plays recorded per 605th of 32

      Utah: forecheck score 138 (100 is league average)2nd of 32Utah: 33.1 forecheck plays recorded per 603rd of 32

    • Boston: forecheck score 93 (100 is league average)19th of 32Boston: 22.0 forecheck plays recorded per 6019th of 32

      Boston: forecheck score 83 (100 is league average)23rd of 32Boston: 21.9 forecheck plays recorded per 6021st of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Utah: hit score 111 (100 is league average)7th of 32Utah: 28.0 hits recorded per 6010th of 32

      Utah: hit score 124 (100 is league average)6th of 32Utah: 34.2 hits recorded per 609th of 32

    • Boston: hit score 107 (100 is league average)11th of 32Boston: 29.2 hits recorded per 607th of 32

      Boston: hit score 103 (100 is league average)16th of 32Boston: 31.8 hits recorded per 6013th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Utah: 44.5% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six1st of 32

      Utah: 46.0% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six1st of 32

    • Boston: 43.7% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six4th of 32

      Boston: 44.4% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six6th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Utah: 8.4 expected goals per 60 on the power play5th of 32

      Utah: 13.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play1st of 32

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

      Boston: 5.0 expected goals per 60 on the power play26th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Utah: 7.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded13th of 32

      Utah: 4.7 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded6th of 32

    • Boston: 8.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded28th of 32

      Boston: 15.1 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded32nd of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

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

      Utah: 0.9 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded13th of 32

    • Boston: 0.6 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded31st of 32

      Boston: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded32nd of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Utah: 0.06 more penalties taken than drawn per 6021st of 32

      Utah: 0.25 more penalties drawn than taken per 6012th of 32

    • Boston: 0.21 more penalties taken than drawn per 6031st of 32

      Boston: 0.25 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

Boston 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 (4 and 4 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.

Utah Mammoth

Boston Bruins

Who Boston is likely to send against whom

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

Utah’s lines tonightL1 Trocheck · Schmaltz · KellerL2 Lee · Guenther · CooleyL3 Crouse · Hayton · McBainL4 Stenlund · Carcone · But

Boston forward lines against Utah forward lines

  • L1Zacha · Geekie · MittelstadtUTA L141%UTA L224%UTA L330%UTA L45%
  • L2Lindholm · Pastrnak · PeterkaUTA L138%UTA L224%UTA L334%UTA L44%
  • L3Khusnutdinov · Minten · HagensUTA L129%UTA L244%UTA L322%UTA L45%
  • L4Kuraly · Jeannot · KastelicUTA L130%UTA L213%UTA L331%UTA L426%

Boston defense pairs against Utah forward lines

  • P1Clifton · ZadorovUTA L128%UTA L224%UTA L338%UTA L49%
  • P2Lindholm · BorgenUTA L135%UTA L228%UTA L325%UTA L413%
  • P3Lohrei · BrunetUTA L147%UTA L229%UTA L318%UTA L46%

Based on 2 Boston 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

Utah power play against Boston penalty kill

  • Utah power play

    8.4 expected goals per 60 · 5th of 32

  • Boston penalty kill

    8.4 expected goals allowed per 60 · 28th of 32

Utah power play

PP167% of the time

Creates 8.9 expected goals per 60

  • M. SergachevQuarterback
  • D. Guentherboth unitsTrigger
  • N. Schmaltzboth unitsNet-front
  • L. Cooleyboth unitsNet-front
  • C. Kellerboth unitsDistributor

PP233% of the time

Creates 9.4 expected goals per 60

  • J. MarinoQuarterback
  • D. Guentherboth unitsTrigger
  • N. Schmaltzboth unitsNet-front
  • L. Cooleyboth unitsNet-front
  • C. Kellerboth unitsDistributor

 

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

Boston 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

Projected startersK. Vejmelka likely · J. Swayman likely

K. Vejmelka65 starts · 1696 shots, this season and last

+13.3 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.967 860 shots
Medium-danger save %
.895 580 shots
High-danger save %
.664 256 shots
Shots faced per 60
26.3
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.23
Quality starts
54%

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 chancesK. VejmelkaS. CossaJ. SwaymanM. DiPietro

J. Swayman57 starts · 1653 shots, this season and last

+29.4 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.969 838 shots
Medium-danger save %
.897 543 shots
High-danger save %
.739 272 shots
Shots faced per 60
29
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.35
Quality starts
72%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • K. Vejmelka: +13.3 goals saved above expected in 65 starts
    • J. Swayman: +29.4 goals saved above expected in 57 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • K. Vejmelka: 26.3 shots faced per 60
    • J. Swayman: 29 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • K. Vejmelka: the average shot he faces has a 7.2% chance of going in
    • J. Swayman: the average shot he faces has a 7.1% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • K. Vejmelka: 0.23 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • J. Swayman: 0.35 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • K. Vejmelka: a typical wait of 74 seconds between shots
    • J. Swayman: a typical wait of 68 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • K. Vejmelka: a quality start 54% of the time
    • J. Swayman: a quality start 72% of the time

K. Vejmelka, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

K. Vejmelka3 starts · 69 shots, this season

+1.8 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.971 34 shots
Medium-danger save %
.870 23 shots
High-danger save %
.833 12 shots
Shots faced per 60
23.2
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.34
Quality starts
67%

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 chancesK. VejmelkaS. CossaJ. SwaymanM. DiPietro

J. Swayman3 starts · 81 shots, this season

+1.0 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.956 45 shots
Medium-danger save %
.957 23 shots
High-danger save %
.692 13 shots
Shots faced per 60
26.6
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.66
Quality starts
67%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • K. Vejmelka: +1.8 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
    • J. Swayman: +1.0 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • K. Vejmelka: 23.2 shots faced per 60
    • J. Swayman: 26.6 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • K. Vejmelka: the average shot he faces has a 7.2% chance of going in
    • J. Swayman: the average shot he faces has a 6.5% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • K. Vejmelka: 0.34 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • J. Swayman: 0.66 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • K. Vejmelka: a typical wait of 116 seconds between shots
    • J. Swayman: a typical wait of 66 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • K. Vejmelka: a quality start 67% of the time
    • J. Swayman: a quality start 67% of the time

K. Vejmelka, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

J. Swayman, 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 and open on the one we expect to start: NHL.com’s projected starter once its game-day preview is up (right about 9 times in 10 this season), otherwise our own guess from who has started lately and whether it is the second night of a back-to-back (right about 7 times in 10 in past seasons). 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
UtahBostonLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play61.1%57.8%
  • Power play18.5%18.7%
  • Rebound5%6.6%
  • Empty net6.3%5.5%
  • Off a turnover6.6%6.6%
  • Goalie pulled0.3%2.1%
  • Shorthanded2%1%
  • Off a faceoff win0.3%1.7%

303 Utah goals and 289 Boston goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play52.9%44.4%
  • Power play47.1%0%
  • Rebound0%0%
  • Empty net0%11.1%
  • Off a turnover0%33.3%
  • Goalie pulled0%11.1%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

17 Utah goals and 9 Boston 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: Utah Mammoth · Boston Bruins