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

MIN

Minnesota Wild

2-0-1

TBL

Tampa Bay Lightning

2-1-0

Has last change

Thursday, October 8

7:00 PM ET · Benchmark International Arena

The short version

Before the game

Something has to give

The Lightning have won two in a row. The Wild are 2-0-1. Tampa Bay has had more of the chances over recent games and has home ice. Not by much, though: Minnesota can make it interesting if they pounce on loose pucks.

The Lightning have won two in a row. The Wild are 2-0-1. Tampa Bay has had more of the chances over recent games and has home ice. Minnesota can tip it if they pounce on loose pucks.

It’s strength against strength: the Lightning for chance quality, the Wild at preventing dangerous shots. Don’t read much into Vasilevskiy’s record against the Wild.

Who to watch

  • Owns themNikita Kucherov has a point in six straight games against Minnesota.
  • Old teamZach Bogosian faces his old team, Tampa Bay.

  1. Something has to give

    The Lightning are one of the league’s best for chance quality, and the Wild are near the top of the league at preventing dangerous shots. Our lean: the Lightning’s chance quality wins out.

    The call The Lightning’s chances are more dangerous than the league average (a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot) against the Wild.

    Tampa Bay 5th for chance quality (a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot) · Minnesota 6th for preventing dangerous shots

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

  2. Vasilevskiy’s rough record against the Wild is a coincidence

    Vasilevskiy has been shaky against the Wild since 2023-24, well below his usual. It looks like a pattern, but across three seasons a goalie’s record against one team told us nothing about the next meeting. Expect the usual Vasilevskiy.

    The call If Vasilevskiy starts, his save percentage lands closer to his usual .913 than to his .877 against the Wild.

    6 starts against Minnesota: .877 save percentage · .913 against everyone else

    Goalie starts since 2023-24 · 6 against Minnesota, 4,587 shots against everyone else

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 Minnesota and Tampa Bay play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Minnesota WildTampa Bay LightningLeague 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 Minnesota, 3 for Tampa Bay. 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

    • Minnesota: 56.2 shot attempts per 6016th of 32

      Minnesota: 54.3 shot attempts per 6019th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 63.0 shot attempts per 606th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 67.6 shot attempts per 604th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

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

      Minnesota: a 5.3% chance of scoring on the average shot30th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot5th of 32

      Tampa Bay: a 6.9% chance of scoring on the average shot9th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Minnesota: 10.6% of chances come from rebounds2nd of 32

      Minnesota: 7.8% of chances come from rebounds21st of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 10.4% of chances come from rebounds10th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 4.7% of chances come from rebounds27th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Minnesota: 7.5% of chances come right after a turnover13th of 32

      Minnesota: 5.9% of chances come right after a turnover21st of 32

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

      Tampa Bay: 5.4% of chances come right after a turnover23rd of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Minnesota: 30.6% of shot attempts come from defensemen31st of 32

      Minnesota: 27.3% of shot attempts come from defensemen31st of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 35.7% of shot attempts come from defensemen12th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 36.8% of shot attempts come from defensemen9th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Minnesota: 31.5% of shots come from within 20 feet6th of 32

      Minnesota: 29.5% of shots come from within 20 feet20th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 31.6% of shots come from within 20 feet5th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 35.0% of shots come from within 20 feet7th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Minnesota: 57.3 shot attempts allowed per 6018th of 32

      Minnesota: 48.1 shot attempts allowed per 606th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 51.2 shot attempts allowed per 604th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 48.8 shot attempts allowed per 609th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

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

      Minnesota: a 6.0% chance of scoring on the average shot against13th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: a 6.2% chance of scoring on the average shot against10th of 32

      Tampa Bay: a 5.7% chance of scoring on the average shot against8th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Minnesota: 0.37 defensive breakdowns per 607th of 32

      Minnesota: 0.43 defensive breakdowns per 6018th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 0.41 defensive breakdowns per 6020th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Minnesota: +0.18 goals saved above expected per 605th of 32

      Minnesota: +1.09 goals saved above expected per 604th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: +0.19 goals saved above expected per 604th of 32

      Tampa Bay: +0.22 goals saved above expected per 6013th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Minnesota: 83.5 shots per 60, both teams combined10th of 32

      Minnesota: 75.0 shots per 60, both teams combined22nd of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 81.0 shots per 60, both teams combined21st of 32

      Tampa Bay: 80.8 shots per 60, both teams combined14th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Minnesota: forecheck score 105 (100 is league average)12th of 32Minnesota: 23.7 forecheck plays recorded per 6011th of 32

      Minnesota: forecheck score 99 (100 is league average)17th of 32Minnesota: 24.7 forecheck plays recorded per 6017th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: forecheck score 99 (100 is league average)17th of 32Tampa Bay: 22.7 forecheck plays recorded per 6016th of 32

      Tampa Bay: forecheck score 103 (100 is league average)16th of 32Tampa Bay: 26.0 forecheck plays recorded per 6013th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Minnesota: hit score 99 (100 is league average)17th of 32Minnesota: 26.2 hits recorded per 6019th of 32

      Minnesota: hit score 90 (100 is league average)21st of 32Minnesota: 26.7 hits recorded per 6022nd of 32

    • Tampa Bay: hit score 96 (100 is league average)20th of 32Tampa Bay: 26.5 hits recorded per 6018th of 32

      Tampa Bay: hit score 98 (100 is league average)18th of 32Tampa Bay: 30.5 hits recorded per 6016th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Minnesota: 42.7% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six13th of 32

      Minnesota: 44.6% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six5th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 40.6% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six27th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 40.4% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six26th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Minnesota: 7.2 expected goals per 60 on the power play23rd of 32

      Minnesota: 6.6 expected goals per 60 on the power play18th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 7.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play20th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 5.8 expected goals per 60 on the power play22nd of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Minnesota: 7.8 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded22nd of 32

      Minnesota: 6.0 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded10th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 7.1 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded8th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 5.0 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded7th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Minnesota: 0.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded30th of 32

      Minnesota: 0.8 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded13th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 0.8 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded21st of 32

      Tampa Bay: 0.5 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded19th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Minnesota: 0.24 more penalties drawn than taken per 602nd of 32

      Minnesota: 0.33 more penalties drawn than taken per 6011th of 32

    • Tampa Bay: 0.11 more penalties drawn than taken per 607th of 32

      Tampa Bay: 2.33 more penalties drawn than taken per 601st 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

Tampa Bay 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.

Minnesota Wild

Tampa Bay Lightning

Worth knowing

  • Tampa Bay J. Carlson is no longer killing penalties: 0% of the team’s shorthanded time in 3 games, down from 47% last season.

Who Tampa Bay is likely to send against whom

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

Minnesota’s lines tonightL1 Kaprizov · Yurov · ShabanovL2 Coleman · Eriksson Ek · BoldyL3 Foligno · Foligno · McCarronL4 Hartman · Trenin · Brink

Tampa Bay forward lines against Minnesota forward lines

  • L1Guentzel · Cirelli · HagelMIN L110%MIN L258%MIN L321%MIN L411%
  • L2Kucherov · Point · GoncalvesMIN L114%MIN L218%MIN L315%MIN L453%
  • L3Girgensons · Holmberg · MikheyevMIN L140%MIN L28%MIN L340%MIN L413%
  • L4MIN L1–MIN L2–MIN L3–MIN L4–

Tampa Bay defense pairs against Minnesota forward lines

  • P1Carlson · MoserMIN L18%MIN L234%MIN L320%MIN L437%
  • P2McDonagh · CernakMIN L132%MIN L222%MIN L329%MIN L418%
  • P3D'Astous · CrozierMIN L146%MIN L222%MIN L317%MIN L415%

Based on 2 Tampa Bay 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

Minnesota power play against Tampa Bay penalty kill

  • Minnesota power play

    7.2 expected goals per 60 · 23rd of 32

  • Tampa Bay penalty kill

    7.1 expected goals allowed per 60 · 8th of 32

Minnesota power play

PP178% of the time

Creates 6.7 expected goals per 60

  • Q. HughesQuarterback
  • K. KaprizovTrigger
  • M. BoldyDistributor
  • J. Eriksson EkNet-front
  • M. Shabanov

PP222% of the time

Creates 7.7 expected goals per 60

  • J. SpurgeonQuarterback
  • B. Brink
  • R. HartmanTrigger
  • B. Coleman
  • D. Yurov

 

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

Tampa Bay 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. Wallstedt36 starts · 1096 shots, this season and last

+18.8 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.983 544 shots
Medium-danger save %
.888 403 shots
High-danger save %
.745 149 shots
Shots faced per 60
30.2
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.33
Quality starts
75%

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. WallstedtA. Vasilevskiy

A. Vasilevskiy60 starts · 1545 shots, this season and last

+25.8 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.968 775 shots
Medium-danger save %
.886 534 shots
High-danger save %
.780 236 shots
Shots faced per 60
25.7
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.47
Quality starts
73%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Wallstedt: +18.8 goals saved above expected in 36 starts
    • A. Vasilevskiy: +25.8 goals saved above expected in 60 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Wallstedt: 30.2 shots faced per 60
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 25.7 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Wallstedt: the average shot he faces has a 6.7% chance of going in
    • A. Vasilevskiy: the average shot he faces has a 7.0% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Wallstedt: 0.33 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 0.47 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Wallstedt: a typical wait of 68 seconds between shots
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a typical wait of 76 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Wallstedt: a quality start 75% of the time
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a quality start 73% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

J. Wallstedt3 starts · 75 shots, this season

+3.3 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.974 38 shots
Medium-danger save %
.917 24 shots
High-danger save %
.846 13 shots
Shots faced per 60
24.5
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.33
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. WallstedtA. Vasilevskiy

A. Vasilevskiy3 starts · 60 shots, this season

+0.7 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.933 30 shots
Medium-danger save %
.900 20 shots
High-danger save %
.800 10 shots
Shots faced per 60
20.5
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
67%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Wallstedt: +3.3 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
    • A. Vasilevskiy: +0.7 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Wallstedt: 24.5 shots faced per 60
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 20.5 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Wallstedt: the average shot he faces has a 7.0% chance of going in
    • A. Vasilevskiy: the average shot he faces has a 6.8% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Wallstedt: 0.33 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • A. Vasilevskiy: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Wallstedt: a typical wait of 83 seconds between shots
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a typical wait of 96 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Wallstedt: a quality start 100% of the time
    • A. Vasilevskiy: a quality start 67% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

A. Vasilevskiy, 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
MinnesotaTampa BayLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play53.5%57%
  • Power play23.6%17.8%
  • Rebound4.7%7.1%
  • Empty net7.5%8.1%
  • Off a turnover4.4%4.9%
  • Goalie pulled1.9%1.9%
  • Shorthanded2.2%1.6%
  • Off a faceoff win2.2%1.6%

318 Minnesota goals and 309 Tampa Bay goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play33.3%62.5%
  • Power play44.4%0%
  • Rebound11.1%0%
  • Empty net11.1%25%
  • Off a turnover0%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%12.5%

9 Minnesota goals and 8 Tampa Bay 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: Minnesota Wild · Tampa Bay Lightning