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

NSH

Nashville Predators

1-1-1

MTL

Montréal Canadiens

1-1-1

Has last change

Thursday, October 8

7:00 PM ET · Centre Bell

The short version

Before the game

Good looks against hopeful ones

The Predators come in at 1-1-1, the Canadiens at 1-1-1. Montréal has had more of the chances over recent games and has home ice. Nashville can still swing it if their power play gets going.

The Predators come in at 1-1-1, the Canadiens at 1-1-1. Montréal has had more of the chances over recent games and has home ice. Nashville’s best way to tip it is a power play that gets going.

The Canadiens and the Predators sit at opposite ends for shot quality.

Who to watch

  • Owns themNick Suzuki has a point in five straight games against Nashville.
  • MissingIvan Demidov has missed the Canadiens’ latest game.
  • Old teamAlexandre Carrier faces his old team, Nashville.

  1. Good looks against hopeful ones

    On shot quality, Montréal is the league’s best and Nashville is near the bottom of the league. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Canadiens’ shots are more dangerous on average than the Predators’.

    Shot quality: Montréal 1st, Nashville 23rd

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

  2. The Canadiens hit; the Predators mostly don’t

    On physicality, Montréal is near the top of the league and Nashville is one of the league’s worst. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Canadiens hit more than the Predators in the close stretches of the game.

    Physicality: Montréal 9th, Nashville 28th

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

Nashville PredatorsMontréal CanadiensLeague 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 3 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 3 games for Nashville, 3 for Montréal. 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: 53.4 shot attempts per 6025th of 32

      Nashville: 49.1 shot attempts per 6027th of 32

    • Montréal: 53.0 shot attempts per 6026th of 32

      Montréal: 50.7 shot attempts per 6025th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Nashville: a 6.1% chance of scoring on the average shot23rd of 32

      Nashville: a 6.1% chance of scoring on the average shot22nd of 32

    • Montréal: a 6.9% chance of scoring on the average shot1st of 32

      Montréal: a 7.3% chance of scoring on the average shot4th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Nashville: 10.4% of chances come from rebounds9th of 32

      Nashville: 15.1% of chances come from rebounds8th of 32

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

      Montréal: 21.0% of chances come from rebounds2nd of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Nashville: 7.3% of chances come right after a turnover17th of 32

      Nashville: 6.6% of chances come right after a turnover20th of 32

    • Montréal: 7.2% of chances come right after a turnover20th of 32

      Montréal: 18.5% of chances come right after a turnover2nd of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Nashville: 32.5% of shot attempts come from defensemen25th of 32

      Nashville: 31.4% of shot attempts come from defensemen24th of 32

    • Montréal: 35.0% of shot attempts come from defensemen16th of 32

      Montréal: 36.6% of shot attempts come from defensemen10th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Nashville: 31.2% of shots come from within 20 feet7th of 32

      Nashville: 33.7% of shots come from within 20 feet9th of 32

    • Montréal: 30.1% of shots come from within 20 feet21st of 32

      Montréal: 27.5% of shots come from within 20 feet24th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

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

      Nashville: 63.7 shot attempts allowed per 6026th of 32

    • Montréal: 57.4 shot attempts allowed per 6019th of 32

      Montréal: 57.7 shot attempts allowed per 6020th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

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

      Nashville: a 5.2% chance of scoring on the average shot against3rd of 32

    • Montréal: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot against29th of 32

      Montréal: a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot against18th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Nashville: 0.40 defensive breakdowns per 6017th of 32

      Nashville: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

    • Montréal: 0.39 defensive breakdowns per 6010th of 32

      Montréal: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

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

      Nashville: +0.13 goals saved above expected per 6014th of 32

    • Montréal: +0.12 goals saved above expected per 6012th of 32

      Montréal: −1.36 goals saved above expected per 6029th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Nashville: 84.3 shots per 60, both teams combined5th of 32

      Nashville: 85.9 shots per 60, both teams combined8th of 32

    • Montréal: 80.0 shots per 60, both teams combined24th of 32

      Montréal: 80.0 shots per 60, both teams combined15th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Nashville: forecheck score 88 (100 is league average)27th of 32Nashville: 21.1 forecheck plays recorded per 6021st of 32

      Nashville: forecheck score 75 (100 is league average)27th of 32Nashville: 20.5 forecheck plays recorded per 6025th of 32

    • Montréal: forecheck score 106 (100 is league average)10th of 32Montréal: 25.2 forecheck plays recorded per 607th of 32

      Montréal: forecheck score 111 (100 is league average)11th of 32Montréal: 29.5 forecheck plays recorded per 607th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Nashville: hit score 85 (100 is league average)28th of 32Nashville: 23.2 hits recorded per 6026th of 32

      Nashville: hit score 73 (100 is league average)29th of 32Nashville: 23.4 hits recorded per 6028th of 32

    • Montréal: hit score 109 (100 is league average)9th of 32Montréal: 29.8 hits recorded per 606th of 32

      Montréal: hit score 110 (100 is league average)10th of 32Montréal: 35.0 hits recorded per 607th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Nashville: 41.4% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six18th of 32

      Nashville: 40.6% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six25th of 32

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

      Montréal: 43.6% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six12th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Nashville: 7.4 expected goals per 60 on the power play15th of 32

      Nashville: 7.8 expected goals per 60 on the power play12th of 32

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

      Montréal: 4.1 expected goals per 60 on the power play31st of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Nashville: 7.6 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded19th of 32

      Nashville: 10.5 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded29th of 32

    • Montréal: 8.0 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded24th of 32

      Montréal: 6.5 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded12th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

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

      Nashville: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded31st of 32

    • Montréal: 0.9 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded14th of 32

      Montréal: 0.8 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded14th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Nashville: 0.01 more penalties drawn than taken per 6017th of 32

      Nashville: 0.00 more penalties drawn than taken per 6014th of 32

    • Montréal: 0.12 more penalties taken than drawn per 6025th of 32

      Montréal: 1.32 more penalties taken than drawn per 6029th 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

Montréal 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 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

Montréal Canadiens

Worth knowing

  • Nashville N. Hague is no longer killing penalties: 4% of the team’s shorthanded time in 3 games, down from 42% last season.
  • Nashville M. Wood has started killing penalties: on the ice for 37% of the team’s shorthanded time in 3 games, up from 0% last season.
  • Montréal A. Xhekaj has started killing penalties: on the ice for 31% of the team’s shorthanded time in 3 games, up from 6% last season.

Who Montréal is likely to send against whom

Each strip shows how one Montréal 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 Forsberg · Hoglander · WoodL2 Marchessault · Colton · BourqueL3 Stamkos · O'Reilly · KerfootL4 Drury · Edstrom · Schaefer

Montréal forward lines against Nashville forward lines

  • L1Kreider · Suzuki · CaufieldNSH L115%NSH L233%NSH L348%NSH L43%
  • L2Anderson · Evans · XhekajNSH L125%NSH L241%NSH L328%NSH L47%
  • L3Danault · Texier · BolducNSH L123%NSH L233%NSH L31%NSH L443%
  • L4Newhook · Slafkovský · DemidovNSH L144%NSH L27%NSH L325%NSH L424%

Montréal defense pairs against Nashville forward lines

  • P1Matheson · DobsonNSH L128%NSH L220%NSH L334%NSH L418%
  • P2Carrier · HutsonNSH L128%NSH L239%NSH L327%NSH L46%
  • P3Struble · XhekajNSH L120%NSH L248%NSH L30%NSH L432%

Based on 1 Montréal 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

Nashville power play against Montréal penalty kill

  • Nashville power play

    7.4 expected goals per 60 · 15th of 32

  • Montréal penalty kill

    8.0 expected goals allowed per 60 · 24th of 32

Nashville power play

PP171% of the time

Creates 8.1 expected goals per 60

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

PP229% of the time

Creates 6.6 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.

Montréal 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. Saros59 starts · 1797 shots, this season and last

+2.2 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.974 898 shots
Medium-danger save %
.877 609 shots
High-danger save %
.683 290 shots
Shots faced per 60
29.8
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.35
Quality starts
51%

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. SarosJ. Dobes

J. Dobes45 starts · 1277 shots, this season and last

+11.5 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.980 649 shots
Medium-danger save %
.861 411 shots
High-danger save %
.724 217 shots
Shots faced per 60
28.4
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.36
Quality starts
62%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Saros: +2.2 goals saved above expected in 59 starts
    • J. Dobes: +11.5 goals saved above expected in 45 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Saros: 29.8 shots faced per 60
    • J. Dobes: 28.4 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
    • J. Dobes: the average shot he faces has a 7.3% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Saros: 0.35 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • J. Dobes: 0.36 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Saros: a typical wait of 71 seconds between shots
    • J. Dobes: a typical wait of 67 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Saros: a quality start 51% of the time
    • J. Dobes: a quality start 62% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

J. Saros3 starts · 97 shots, this season

+0.4 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.982 55 shots
Medium-danger save %
.844 32 shots
High-danger save %
.700 10 shots
Shots faced per 60
31.8
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
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 chancesJ. SarosJ. Dobes

J. Dobes3 starts · 90 shots, this season

−4.0 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.978 45 shots
Medium-danger save %
.774 31 shots
High-danger save %
.643 14 shots
Shots faced per 60
30.7
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
33%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Saros: +0.4 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
    • J. Dobes: −4.0 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Saros: 31.8 shots faced per 60
    • J. Dobes: 30.7 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Saros: the average shot he faces has a 6.2% chance of going in
    • J. Dobes: the average shot he faces has a 7.3% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Saros: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • J. Dobes: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Saros: a typical wait of 75 seconds between shots
    • J. Dobes: a typical wait of 60 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Saros: a quality start 67% of the time
    • J. Dobes: a quality start 33% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

J. Dobes, 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
NashvilleMontréalLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play51.4%56.8%
  • Power play22.9%21.2%
  • Rebound7.2%5.5%
  • Empty net6.4%5.2%
  • Off a turnover5.2%4.3%
  • Goalie pulled2.4%3.5%
  • Shorthanded2.8%1.7%
  • Off a faceoff win1.6%1.7%

249 Nashville goals and 345 Montréal goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play42.9%50%
  • Power play42.9%8.3%
  • Rebound14.3%16.7%
  • Empty net0%0%
  • Off a turnover0%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%25%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

7 Nashville goals and 12 Montréal 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 · Montréal Canadiens